A different look at the First Amendment and Religion

[Deornwulf]

(I apologize in advance to any who read this posting a different board. I keep thinking that people there might be willing to do more than discuss the evils of the Bush Administration and badmouth America but nobody was interested in discussing this.)

One of the biggest Constitutional questions that must be settled soon is what is exactly meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Many here would immediately argue that it means a separation of church and state but as that phrase does not appear in the Constitution, it does not provide an easy answer.

The crux of the matter is defining what was meant by the Framers with each of the following: Congress shall make no law, respecting, establishment of religion.

Congress shall make no law - Was it the intention to allow the States to make laws establishing religion? Many of them did have such laws at the time. Maryland was established as a Catholic state while others were very Protestant in their legal dealings. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments would reinforce this idea but the it has been argued that the Fourteenth trumps both the States and Individual rights given in Nine and Ten in respect to religion.

Another issue is what actions of Congress or the State are law and which are not. If Congress passes a resolution suggestion to America to have a National Day of Prayer, it is obviously NOT a law but some would argue that such an action violates the Separation of Church and State. How?

Respecting From a legal standpoint, what exactly does this word mean? The word itself is defined by Webster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=respect
It can also be used as a preposition or transitive verb. The transitive verb definition states is 1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with. If definition b was the intent, one gets an entirely different reading. It is obvious that a great deal depends on how this key word is defined.

Establishment of religion - Once again, the crux of the matter is how these words are defined AND interpreted. What exactly qualifies for establishing a religion? If Congress authorizes tax dollars to be paid to a religious organization for services, has that organization been established? Was the phrase "establishment of religion" specifically refering to Congress establishing a State Religion like the Church of England AND forbidding others to practice any other religion?

Which brings me to my new thoughts on the matter. If this was specifically directed towards preventing the actions taken in England in regards to religion, would Congress or the State actually be following the intent if they were to support many religions? Would allowing religious displays of more than one religion counter the "establishment of religion" if the intent was refering to only one religion? Simply put, would a public school be in compliance with the First Amendment if they offered religious courses in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism since not a single religion was receiving preference thus not respecting the establishment of religion?

Perhaps the answer is for us to write a new Constitutional Amendment specifically defining how we are going to interpret what is meant by the First Amendment regarding religion.

 

[Huckleburry]

The church and state debate can not only consider the constitution. Its definition must also consider the corpus of decisions that have already formed a position on this matter. Precedent plays a huge role in our legal system and Supreme Court decisions are defacto laws. This is to say that the opinions of the court further refine what is said in the constitution, while reversing one decision is rare but not on heard of; reversing a batch of decisions is unheard of and inappropriate.
Many folks have chosen to interpret the constitution in such a way as to argue that no separation of church and state exists in the constitution. To bolster their argument they often cite the religiosity of the founders. However, such a position does not hold water when the attitudes of the founders are examined. The founders above all else were concerned with the success of the country. To that end they viewed institutions that fractioned society as unhealthy to our democracy. The founders were not even in favor of political parties because they felt they generated too much friction within the society. If they took such a view on political parties then certainly they would not be in favor of any mixing of religion and politics. After all what is more divisive then issues of religion? The court has adopted the same view and has consistently ruled in favor of wide separation. When one reads the writings of our founders there can be little doubt that our founders were in favor a highly secular government. This is not to say that governors can not be religious men they can not however be religious governors. Decisions of governance should not be influenced by religious persuasion. This is the essence of separation between church and state. Constructionists tend to agree with such a strict reading of the constitution, even though it at times can be obnoxious i.e. removing the Ten Commandments from a public edifice.

As for the school debate, religion classes are offered in public schools, teaching about religion is not the same as teaching religion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The church and state debate can not only consider the constitution. Its definition must also consider the corpus of decisions that have already formed a position on this matter. Precedent plays a huge role in our legal system and Supreme Court decisions are defacto laws. This is to say that the opinions of the court further refine what is said in the constitution, while reversing one decision is rare but not on heard of; reversing a batch of decisions is unheard of and inappropriate.
Many folks have chosen to interpret the constitution in such a way as to argue that no separation of church and state exists in the constitution. To bolster their argument they often cite the religiosity of the founders. However, such a position does not hold water when the attitudes of the founders are examined. The founders above all else were concerned with the success of the country. To that end they viewed institutions that fractioned society as unhealthy to our democracy. The founders were not even in favor of political parties because they felt they generated too much friction within the society. If they took such a view on political parties then certainly they would not be in favor of any mixing of religion and politics. After all what is more divisive then issues of religion? The court has adopted the same view and has consistently ruled in favor of wide separation. When one reads the writings of our founders there can be little doubt that our founders were in favor a highly secular government. This is not to say that governors can not be religious men they can not however be religious governors. Decisions of governance should not be influenced by religious persuasion. This is the essence of separation between church and state. Constructionists tend to agree with such a strict reading of the constitution, even though it at times can be obnoxious i.e. removing the Ten Commandments from a public edifice.

As for the school debate, religion classes are offered in public schools, teaching about religion is not the same as teaching religion.

You are wrongminded on this issue as well. Just because the leftist organization the ACLU has gotten a lot of misguided thinking inculcated in a couple decisions, doesn't mean we can't undo their idiocy. Your constipated jabbering to the contrary is insufficiently convincing. No one here wants a theocracy. BUT you are not granted the right to repress innocuous christian diplays because some hypersensitive paranoid may be offended by them. Aren't you tired of being kicked in the nuts?

 

[Huckleburry]

Hey right wing,
you should try to argue against me rather than call me names.

 

[manu1959]

huckelberry,

question .... if you take the separation of church and state arguments to their logical conclusion ... where do you end up?

 

[KarlMarx]

The church and state debate can not only consider the constitution. Its definition must also consider the corpus of decisions that have already formed a position on this matter. Precedent plays a huge role in our legal system and Supreme Court decisions are defacto laws. This is to say that the opinions of the court further refine what is said in the constitution, while reversing one decision is rare but not on heard of; reversing a batch of decisions is unheard of and inappropriate.
Many folks have chosen to interpret the constitution in such a way as to argue that no separation of church and state exists in the constitution. To bolster their argument they often cite the religiosity of the founders. However, such a position does not hold water when the attitudes of the founders are examined. The founders above all else were concerned with the success of the country. To that end they viewed institutions that fractioned society as unhealthy to our democracy. The founders were not even in favor of political parties because they felt they generated too much friction within the society. If they took such a view on political parties then certainly they would not be in favor of any mixing of religion and politics. After all what is more divisive then issues of religion? The court has adopted the same view and has consistently ruled in favor of wide separation. When one reads the writings of our founders there can be little doubt that our founders were in favor a highly secular government. This is not to say that governors can not be religious men they can not however be religious governors. Decisions of governance should not be influenced by religious persuasion. This is the essence of separation between church and state. Constructionists tend to agree with such a strict reading of the constitution, even though it at times can be obnoxious i.e. removing the Ten Commandments from a public edifice.

As for the school debate, religion classes are offered in public schools, teaching about religion is not the same as teaching religion.

But... everyone ignores that second part of the First Amendment clause "or an law prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

So, from where I stand, the ACLU is helping to violate the First Amendment by getting courts to stop the free exercise of religion!

"Separation of church and state" and the free exercise of religion are mutually exclusive ideas (at least the way "separation" seems to be defined by the ACLU which is no crosses on city seals).......

But now I wonder if stars count as religious symbols? Well, then we can't have the flag flying at public buildings!

Or brightly colored flags? Go past a Buddhist temple and see what I mean!

Or wheels - sometimes used by Hindus to represent karma and reincarnation. That means, all government vehicles must have their round tires replaces with square ones!

How about trees? After all animists have been known to worship trees. No trees on public land. That means.... we'll have to cut down all those trees on public land..... send a team of lumber jacks to Yosemite, the Grand Canyon and Sequoia National Park and start cutting down those trees!

Oh, how about those pesky railroad crossing signs? Those are crosses too. Well? Hey, if someone gets killed at a railroad crossing at least they'll get killed in a value neutral setting!

Yet again, how about stone circles? Public buildings cannot have circular arrangement of stones --- after all, Druids might be about!

Oh .... and any depiction of the sun! That's right, I forgot, the sun is sometimes represented as a religious symbol.... From now on the National Weather Service will have to say "a bright day" instead of "a sunny day"!

Oh... and I forgot the moon! Especially crescent shaped moons. Which means no hot cross buns or crescent wrenches may be brought into schools or public buildings.

Wait.... wait... how about any public school that has the name "devil" in its team's name? That's Satanism.... out with that.

Now I have a thought..... Nirvana, which is nothingness, is a belief of Buddhists, Hindus and Jains. Well ... we can't have blank sheets of paper or blank walls or blank anything anywhere public. After all, we don't want to be pushing reincarnation and thoughts of Nirvana..

And hey.... if you sneeze in a public building.... no one can say "Bless you" perhaps the more value neutral "SHUT UP!!!!!!" can be used instead.

OH .... now I have another thought, the letters "X" and "T" ... those are crosses, out they go!!! So cities like Phoenix will have to change its name to "Phoeni". Furthermore, the letters "X" and "T" should not be used on any stationery or any sign in or on a public agency or in any name of any public agency. That means that the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Transportation, Health and Human Services, the Justice Department and just about every government agency will have to drop those pesky X's and T's from their names. The Space Shuttle should also be renamed.

Crap! And cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, St. Paul, San Diego, St. Augustine.. they'll all have to change their names.

Oh no.... I just had another thought MOUNTAINS with religious names! Mount St. Helens is on public land.... We'll just have to change its name to "Helen".

EXIT signs! My God man! X and T is all those EXIT signs in all those public buildings! We can't have that! Take them all down and replace them with EI signs.... "In case of fire go to the nearest marked EI sign"

OK, I'm being my usual obnoxious self (part of my charm!). But the point I'm trying to make is if you really want to apply the separation argument to the max and across the board, you'd be banning everything symbolic from public life. Since religions make heavy use of symbols to convey ideas.

 

[Bullypulpit]

huckelberry,

question .... if you take the separation of church and state arguments to their logical conclusion ... where do you end up?

You end up with folks practicing the religion of their choice and not bothering others in the middle of dinner with annoying folks wanting to "...Bring Jesus into your life." Fine...Jesus can come in, but y'all are gonna have to stay outside.

 

[dilloduck]

You end up with folks practicing the religion of their choice and not bothering others in the middle of dinner with annoying folks wanting to "...Bring Jesus into your life." Fine...Jesus can come in, but y'all are gonna have to stay outside.

Bully---I swear I'm gonna find that preacher who held ya under too long when you were baptized !!

 

[Hobbit]

The church and state debate can not only consider the constitution. Its definition must also consider the corpus of decisions that have already formed a position on this matter. Precedent plays a huge role in our legal system and Supreme Court decisions are defacto laws. This is to say that the opinions of the court further refine what is said in the constitution, while reversing one decision is rare but not on heard of; reversing a batch of decisions is unheard of and inappropriate.
Many folks have chosen to interpret the constitution in such a way as to argue that no separation of church and state exists in the constitution. To bolster their argument they often cite the religiosity of the founders. However, such a position does not hold water when the attitudes of the founders are examined. The founders above all else were concerned with the success of the country. To that end they viewed institutions that fractioned society as unhealthy to our democracy. The founders were not even in favor of political parties because they felt they generated too much friction within the society. If they took such a view on political parties then certainly they would not be in favor of any mixing of religion and politics. After all what is more divisive then issues of religion? The court has adopted the same view and has consistently ruled in favor of wide separation. When one reads the writings of our founders there can be little doubt that our founders were in favor a highly secular government. This is not to say that governors can not be religious men they can not however be religious governors. Decisions of governance should not be influenced by religious persuasion. This is the essence of separation between church and state. Constructionists tend to agree with such a strict reading of the constitution, even though it at times can be obnoxious i.e. removing the Ten Commandments from a public edifice.

As for the school debate, religion classes are offered in public schools, teaching about religion is not the same as teaching religion.

The ruling passed down in Roe vs. Wade went contrary to all precedent, and until recently, judicial precedent was in favor of allowing religious symbols on public property. The door swings both ways, you know.

Oh, and bully, if you truly want seperation of church and state, let's make sure evolution is not taught in schools, as that inhibits my free practice of Christianity and is offensive to me. It also endorses the religion of atheism (And dangit, lack of a god doesn't make it any less a religion. Atheism is based on faith, just like any other religion).

 

[Deornwulf]

The point I am trying to make is that if religion is put in the proper perspective, it can be an integral part of American life without taking away anybody's rights.

I would be all for my city council putting up displays for any of the Holy Days of any of the major religions represented in my community. Why not have the schools make it a point to honor Ramadan if there are Muslim students attending to make the Christian and Jewish students aware of Islam, along with honoring Christmas and Easter, Yom Kippur, Chanukah, and Rosh Hashanah?

People like to argue that it is not the place of the government to spend tax dollars supporting a religion. The whole argument is bullsnot! I don't consider money spent to put up decorations anything more than helping society become more culturally aware.

 

[MissileMan]

The ruling passed down in Roe vs. Wade went contrary to all precedent, and until recently, judicial precedent was in favor of allowing religious symbols on public property. The door swings both ways, you know.

Oh, and bully, if you truly want seperation of church and state, let's make sure evolution is not taught in schools, as that inhibits my free practice of Christianity and is offensive to me. It also endorses the religion of atheism (And dangit, lack of a god doesn't make it any less a religion. Atheism is based on faith, just like any other religion).

Look in the "What is Secularism" thread in the General Chat forum. You'll find conclusive arguments that atheism is NOT a religion. And just because the theory of evolution doesn't reference the bible, or espouse creationism, it does not make it an atheistic theory. By your reasoning, everything not from the bible, like math and grammar must be banned for being atheistic also.

 

[Hobbit]

Look in the "What is Secularism" thread in the General Chat forum. You'll find conclusive arguments that atheism is NOT a religion. And just because the theory of evolution doesn't reference the bible, or espouse creationism, it does not make it an atheistic theory. By your reasoning, everything not from the bible, like math and grammar must be banned for being atheistic also.

Now who's stretching? Evolution contradicts the Bible, unlike most other things taught in schools. It is just as much an atheistic idea as many of the supressed Christmas symbols are Christian ideas.

Oh, and as for atheism not being a religion, let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word "religion" from Webster's dictionary.

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Let's see, atheism is a system of beliefs revolving around a belief in the non-existance of a higher power. This belief system includes the allowance of any behavior that is not harmful to others, that life was a random accident, and that there is nothing supernatural. There is no solid proof that these claims are true, just bits of vague evidence that don't stand up to the test of criticism. This means that people believe in the non-existance of God based on faith. No matter how many of them claim to believe it out of 'logic' or that 'the evidence points to that,' you could make equally strong arguments for the existance of God, meaning that their belief is based on faith.

Atheism is a religion, and deserves as much scrutiny as any other.

 

[theim]

I'm just gonna sum up my veiw here.

Just let Christmas, the word, the trees, the cards made in Art class, back into the public schools. It's CHRISTMAS from cryn' out loud. And if Little Timmy gets so horribly offended by that, have him get professional help. Now. Because let me tell you, there are alot more offensive things than Christmas Trees out beyond grade school, and if the mere sight of one causes such trauma in a child, he must get some medication of therapy of some kind. Because at this rate he will have a nervous breakdown at 23.

 

[MissileMan]

Now who's stretching? Evolution contradicts the Bible, unlike most other things taught in schools. It is just as much an atheistic idea as many of the supressed Christmas symbols are Christian ideas.

There are other religions that contradict the bible...are you calling them atheistic also?

Oh, and as for atheism not being a religion, let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word "religion" from Webster's dictionary.



Let's see, atheism is a system of beliefs revolving around a belief in the non-existance of a higher power. This belief system includes the allowance of any behavior that is not harmful to others, that life was a random accident, and that there is nothing supernatural. There is no solid proof that these claims are true, just bits of vague evidence that don't stand up to the test of criticism. This means that people believe in the non-existance of God based on faith. No matter how many of them claim to believe it out of 'logic' or that 'the evidence points to that,' you could make equally strong arguments for the existance of God, meaning that their belief is based on faith.

Atheism is a religion, and deserves as much scrutiny as any other.

You keep calling atheism a system of beliefs when in fact it is the exact opposite. It is simply the disbelief in God. No more, no less. It's not based on faith, but the absence of faith.

And I'll ask you the same question I posed in the other thread. Are you going to argue that Republican is a religion? It matches your misused definition better than atheism does. According to the definition you want to use, anything can be a religion. Do you really want to trivialize Christianity by giving it the same status as sports fanatacism or the pursuit of the perfect donut?

You want to call atheism a religion, why not use the same definition you would apply to Christianity? If you do, then you realize that atheism is NOT a religion.

 

[nakedemperor]

Now who's stretching? Evolution contradicts the Bible, unlike most other things taught in schools. It is just as much an atheistic idea as many of the supressed Christmas symbols are Christian ideas.

Oh, and as for atheism not being a religion, let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word "religion" from Webster's dictionary.



Let's see, atheism is a system of beliefs revolving around a belief in the non-existance of a higher power. This belief system includes the allowance of any behavior that is not harmful to others, that life was a random accident, and that there is nothing supernatural. There is no solid proof that these claims are true, just bits of vague evidence that don't stand up to the test of criticism. This means that people believe in the non-existance of God based on faith. No matter how many of them claim to believe it out of 'logic' or that 'the evidence points to that,' you could make equally strong arguments for the existance of God, meaning that their belief is based on faith.

Atheism is a religion, and deserves as much scrutiny as any other.

Religion is extraordinarily hard to define. Your defition is loose and could encompass just "belief systems" as Nazism (a system of beliefs adhered to with ardor). Your defintion is lax and your stringent adherence to that definition is intellectually dishonest-- atheism is not a religion.

 

[Deornwulf]

Could we possibly drift this thread back on topic?

 

[MissileMan]

Could we possibly drift this thread back on topic?

The issue of whether atheism is a religion needs to be settled before proceeding. There are those arguing that the first amendment is being violated in public schools because evolution touts atheism. (both of those conclusions are absolutely false btw)

 

[dilloduck]

The issue of whether atheism is a religion needs to be settled before proceeding. There are those arguing that the first amendment is being violated in public schools because evolution touts atheism. (both of those conclusions are absolutely false btw)

The meaning of "freedom of religion" is what really needs to be defined. Makes everything else moot.

 

[Huckleburry]

I have recently begun watching fox news (I thought it was appropriate to hear the neoconn point of view) and last night on the O'Reilly factor I saw something that made me sick. A public high school has decided to mention the theory of intelligent design, just mention it, at the end of the two class period lesson on evolution. Of course one of the separation groups bit and has decided to challenge the lesson. O'reilly pulled the typical yell at the opponent and put words into his mouth to make him self look smart tactic and then the show was over. SHAME ON BOTH SIDES

First, the right should be ashamed that it would dare degrade the theory of intelligent design so that they may attain some marginal political gain. This debate shows intense ignorance. First the theory of intelligent design explains evolution, it does not replace it. Second the theory of intelligent design is one of philosophy, or religion not of biology, it seeks to explain seemingly random but incredibly beautiful natural occurrences, but it can not be proven scientifically (we can not prove the existence of God through lab experiments, or species comparisons) and lastly the theory of intelligent design is one of the most potent reasons for belief, why cheapen it by mentioning it in passing? This is not a case of the religious right wanting to present an alternative theory, by their own admission they were not doing that, but rather a tawdry attempt to use something complex and beautiful to further a political end which the majority of America does not want.


Now for the left...How could you be so fucking stupid? This was clearly a right wing tactic to discredit your organization and portray the left as a bunch or irrational reactionaries. Importantly because they "only mention it" they do not have to defend their actions, they can just yell and scream like O'Rielly and all the blame will be put on you. Now you are left defending intelligent design. Let the right run for awhile, let them fuck up public schools and continue to dumb down our education and when the public backlash comes, when people realize that our public education is a joke then the blame can fall on one group, that’s how party shifts work.

Now for the separation of church and state.
The little story above demonstrates why a strict separation is important to both the church and the state.
Religion is filled with questions which require a great deal more than a couple of lesson plans, moreover their discussion often requires a certain degree of faith that is not shared by everybody. Deeper discussion of faith and religion often require a unified belief or a solid understanding of philosophy and an intense amount of discussion. In a class of 30 kids that is not likely to happen. So why cheapen it? Why insist your faith be an integral part of public education at the expense of other things (and yes it does come at an expense) such as political education. Try this little experiment, go to a local high school and ask them to outline the powers of the three branches of government, or ask them who wrote the constitution and what it was meant to do? I think you will be sorely disappointed in their performance. Yet the Christian right wants to engage in deeper topics of faith and religion? You can not be serious; the health of democracy requires a population that understands the political system. That can identify and analyze political issues this is the primary goal of public schools to produce citizens that are capable of participating in the greater political apparatus. The role of the church is to educate people in other areas. To provide deeper discussions of faith, morality, and worth. By arguing against separation the church is shirking its responsibility to the people. By insisting that religion be taught and practiced in school the church is ignoring its fiduciary responsibility to the American people. The religious right should spend more time tending to its own house and should leave political education to the state. The founders saw the dangers of a married church and state, they recognized that such a marriage would produce a lazy and inauthentic church and an over zealous and overbearing state.
Well look around, as the line between separation is being grayed both are happening. We have seen the biggest growth in government power and size since FDR and we have seen the relaxation of the church (Child molestation any one). Separation was borne out of the correct belief that church and state could not function as a strong and happy couple, to that end their separation was meant to ensure the health of each.
Merry Christmas, and may the holiday season smile on all your family, friends, and lovers.
HUCK

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey huck, you're wrong on this too.

There is no strict separation of church and state. That is nowhere in the constitution. It's an invented notion.

No one is espousing a theocracy. The constitution says congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of religion. Theocracy is out.

Isn't the goal to teach the many theories of human existence or is it just to teach evolution. To not even mention the other side of the debate is derelicton of duty.

The right dumbing down? The left wants to do away with grades and all because "it harms kids self esteem". That's dumbing down.