Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[PoliticalChic]

But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is

We have a professed Christian in the White House now...you're not making any sense unless you’re trying to tell me that it's Constitutionally correct for Perry to espouse one religion over another.

Perry did no such thing.

Rick Perry "Before we get into Buddha and all the others, I get a little confused there," he continued. "But the fact is that we live in a pluralistic world but our faith is real personal. And my Christian faith teaches that the way is through Jesus Christ." The Escapist : Forums : The News Room : E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell


His espousal is personal, and carries no requirement that anyone else have the same perspective.

To prove how slanderous your post is, I challenge you to produce any law proposed by the governor that demands, for any reason, Christianity for others.

 

[Patrick2]

The meaning of the religious free expression clause is crystal clear except to the unschooled. It prohibits the establishment of an official church - eg the Church of England in the UK. It certainly was never intended to mean a cleansing of every slight indication that religion exists from public settings. In the early days of the republic, church services were held in the capitol building on sundays - why would they, the adopters of the constitution, do that if they subscribed to anything like the current anti-religion interpretation??

 

[Nic_Driver]

But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is

We have a professed Christian in the White House now...you're not making any sense unless you’re trying to tell me that it's Constitutionally correct for Perry to espouse one religion over another.

Perry did no such thing.

Rick Perry "Before we get into Buddha and all the others, I get a little confused there," he continued. "But the fact is that we live in a pluralistic world but our faith is real personal. And my Christian faith teaches that the way is through Jesus Christ." The Escapist : Forums : The News Room : E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell


His espousal is personal, and carries no requirement that anyone else have the same perspective.

To prove how slanderous your post is, I challenge you to produce any law proposed by the governor that demands, for any reason, Christianity for others.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

unless you’re trying to tell me that it's Constitutionally correct for Perry to espouse one religion over another

So then the answer would have been, "No, I'm no trying to tell you that"...

Deep breaths, it'll all be ok...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution....

I'm sure that was given more than a second-thought, though.....​

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God.

It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

 

[bodecea]

The meaning of the religious free expression clause is crystal clear except to the unschooled. It prohibits the establishment of an official church - eg the Church of England in the UK. It certainly was never intended to mean a cleansing of every slight indication that religion exists from public settings. In the early days of the republic, church services were held in the capitol building on sundays - why would they, the adopters of the constitution, do that if they subscribed to anything like the current anti-religion interpretation??

So, you would have no problem with our tax $$ going to hold buddhist ceremonise in the Capital building....or Hindu...or Jewish...or Muslim.

 

[CryingKoala]

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

Dishonest argument to say the least, the concept predates the Constitution and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. The three colonies which did not have an established religion (PA, RI, NY) are the ones which pushed for that section of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Wrong. It religion contaminating government was EXACTLY what he was talking about. When religion contaminates government, free exercise of religion is compromised. Jefferson had little to no respect for those who tried to mix political aspirations with espoused piety.

You are probably relying heavily on David Barton and Wallbuilders for your info. Be warned. They engage in terrible scholarship and make stuff up frequently.

It certainly was never intended to mean a cleansing of every slight indication that religion exists from public settings.

Actually it means to embrace all religions as opposed to a specific faith. Inclusiveness is considered the guiding principle. As long as it doesn't encourage sectarianism, it will be OK. Perry's involvement with that prayer group 2 weeks ago was blatantly discriminatory and sectarian in nature. So it was not comparable to the National Prayer days the WH has.

 

[Patrick2]

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

Dishonest argument to say the least, the concept predates the Constitution and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. The three colonies which did not have an established religion (PA, RI, NY) are the ones which pushed for that section of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Do you realize you are giving support to the idea that the first amendment merely prohibited established religions? Hard to tell whiuch side you're on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

Dishonest argument to say the least, the concept predates the Constitution and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. The three colonies which did not have an established religion (PA, RI, NY) are the ones which pushed for that section of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Wrong. It religion contaminating government was EXACTLY what he was talking about. When religion contaminates government, free exercise of religion is compromised. Jefferson had little to no respect for those who tried to mix political aspirations with espoused piety.

You are probably relying heavily on David Barton and Wallbuilders for your info. Be warned. They engage in terrible scholarship and make stuff up frequently.

Actually, no.

1. A thorough study of the French Revolution, will show that the execration of religion is part and parcel of all Leftist philosophies and movements.
It is what has contributed to your misjudgement.

2. Here is an excellent exposition...you might peruse it, although, frankly, I believe it is too late for you to change your miseducation:

The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
Published on June 23, 2006 by Daniel Dreisbach First Principles Series Report #6


The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


And, welcome to the board.

 

[Nic_Driver]

As long as precedent has been set, and it has, it is the law of the land. A Christian Taliban is still illegal in the US, thank God, and the rest is unimportant.

Keep your religion out of my government, just as the SCOTUS has ruled.

 

[Google]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That is separation of church and state? Using that one sentence leftists have attempted to scrub all public displays of faith.

Anyone with a high school education can read that sentence and understand that it is a restriction on the power of Congress, not on the people's right to publicly display their faith.

Liberals are Christian bigots who would never say half the things they say to a Jew or Muslim. They are ignorant, hateful hypocrites, period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

 

[Caroljo]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.

It says "the right to bear arms"....that covers it!

 

[PoliticalChic]

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

Dishonest argument to say the least, the concept predates the Constitution and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. The three colonies which did not have an established religion (PA, RI, NY) are the ones which pushed for that section of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Wrong. It religion contaminating government was EXACTLY what he was talking about. When religion contaminates government, free exercise of religion is compromised. Jefferson had little to no respect for those who tried to mix political aspirations with espoused piety.

You are probably relying heavily on David Barton and Wallbuilders for your info. Be warned. They engage in terrible scholarship and make stuff up frequently.

It certainly was never intended to mean a cleansing of every slight indication that religion exists from public settings.

Actually it means to embrace all religions as opposed to a specific faith. Inclusiveness is considered the guiding principle. As long as it doesn't encourage sectarianism, it will be OK. Perry's involvement with that prayer group 2 weeks ago was blatantly discriminatory and sectarian in nature. So it was not comparable to the National Prayer days the WH has.

"Dishonest argument to say the least, ..."

The clearest indication of one's lack of both education and civility is the leap to ad hominem statements, such as the above.

It is also the clearest indication as to which side of the aisle one habituates.

No, my intemperate friend, you are mistaken in every aspect of your post.

Here is the tutorial you so clearly require:

1. In the colony of Virginia, preaching was illegal without a state license. Baptists were regularly arrested and fined. Quakers were outlawed, as were Catholics.
Freedom of religion was restricted by government statute.

a. Maryland became a land of exile for a variety of Christian groups since Virginia enforced conformity to the Church of England.

b. Presbyterian preachers moved into Virginia and became a challenge to Anglican dominance, and grew vindictive toward the dissenting competitors. By the early 1760’s, there was a reluctant acceptance- but it turned on the Baptists.

2. Massachusetts and Connecticut established the Congregationalist (Puritan) church by law, whereas many of the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies made the Anglican Church their official denomination.

a. In Puritan New England, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics were unwelcome….Rhode Island became a haven for outcasts and refugees fleeing Puritan justice.

b. ‘Rhode Islandism’ became synonymous with religious disorder. John Adam’s diary, December 29, 1765.

3. By the time of the Civil War, Baptists, along with Methodists, would be two of the largest Protestant denominations in America.

4. By any estimation, most of the early colonies did not embrace religious freedom! Madison and Jefferson were two of the Enlightenment liberals who rallied to the cause of the persecuted Baptists, and with evangelicals and others, supported disestablishment. This means that they wished to allow any religions denominations....not only state-sanctioned religion.


a. In 1771, a writer calling himself ‘Timoleon,’ in Purdie & Dixon’s Virginia Gazette, argued that dissenters should have protection under English law, and he argued that multiple denominations made Virginia society healthier: “Liberty of conscience is the sacred property of every man.” To take it away makes one a tyrant.

5. In early 1776, as the colonies began to organize independent government, they began to think of statements of basic liberties, and Madison helped craft the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became the impetus for shedding the establishment of a faith, and the tradition of persecution.

a. George Mason has proposed that the Declaration provide full toleration for dissenters, but Madison would settle for nothing less than “free exercise of religion” for all.

b. At this time most of Virginia’s leaders still wanted an Anglican [to be called the Episcopal Church after independence] establishment along with the free exercise of religion. P.53, "God of Liberty," by Thomas S. Kidd
c. Jefferson explained that “at the time of the revolution, most had become dissenters from the established church but still had to pay contributions to support the pastors of the minority.” “Thomas Jefferson Autobiography,” Ford (ed.), p. 52.

6. The movement or religious liberty would succeed in American because evangelicals, rationalists, and deists fought for it together.

a. Although Madison was a fervent Anglican during the early years of the Revolution, he drifted toward deism or Unitarianism later in life. Jefferson was very skeptical about the Bible and traditional doctrines such as that of the Trinity.

Covered more fully in Kidd's "God of Liberty," chapter two.


In summary, pre-Constitution, the religion that one was allowed was largely based on where one lived.
Madison and Jefferson worked mightily to support dissenters, those who wished to follow religions other than locally established. But neither found religion to be other than a benefit to the nation.

And neither would remove religion from the public discourse.


Wise up.
Grow up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]"
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Everson has been used as a cudgel to beat religion out of the public marketplace.

Context is especially important as
a) the words of the Constitution are clear.
and
b) The words of Hugo Black in Everson should not be viewed without the following:

2. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state. "Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish." Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


It is important to remember that judges are merely men who are charged with applying the Constitution.
Sadly, since the Progressive era began, law schools have produced judges who have taken a view of themselves as being above the Constitution.They often impose their own views, without connection to the Constitution.

3. Chief Justice William Rehnquist speaks to this issue:

"[The Progressive idea]...…. seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

We have a professed Christian in the White House now...you're not making any sense unless you’re trying to tell me that it's Constitutionally correct for Perry to espouse one religion over another.

Perry did no such thing.

Rick Perry "Before we get into Buddha and all the others, I get a little confused there," he continued. "But the fact is that we live in a pluralistic world but our faith is real personal. And my Christian faith teaches that the way is through Jesus Christ." The Escapist : Forums : The News Room : E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell


His espousal is personal, and carries no requirement that anyone else have the same perspective.

To prove how slanderous your post is, I challenge you to produce any law proposed by the governor that demands, for any reason, Christianity for others.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

unless you’re trying to tell me that it's Constitutionally correct for Perry to espouse one religion over another

So then the answer would have been, "No, I'm no trying to tell you that"...

Deep breaths, it'll all be ok...

Perhaps you should learn to write:

"No, I'm no trying to tell you that"...


And, based on reading what you post, I don't believe that I'll be taking pointers from you on how to post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, but "arms" does. And a pistol is a way one arms themselves.

Ah, thank you. So you're saying that different words can be used to say essentially the same thing, so,

separation of church and state can be in the Constitution without the explicit phrase 'separation of church and state' being there.

That's my point.

ta da!!

No, what I'm saying is there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and only a liberal idiot would surmise that it did.

The First Amendment's widely misunderstood Establishment Clause simply means that the state will not set up any official state religion, nor will it prohibit any person from freely exercising the religious dictates of his or her own conscience. However, this restriction on the Government's intrusion into the private religious convictions of its citizenry does NOT mean that all aspects of religion should be kept completely out of the affairs of the State.

President John Quincy Adams, the son of the great statesman from Massachusetts who did so much to inspire the Declaration of Independence, stated the truth succinctly on July 4, 1821: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

How many Americans today even remember that it was the Great Awakening and the fiery sermons of the Patriot Pastors that sparked the American Revolution, or that the rallying cry of the Colonial rebels was "No King but Jesus"? No, sadly, most Americans today have been spoon-fed a poison porridge of revisionist lies that claim George Washington and Company were all rationalistic Desists seeking to advance the secular ideals of the French Enlightenment. (For more truthful information, see David Barton's website, http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/.)

Fifty years later, the Liberal icon Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court: "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion." (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952)

Still, many Americans mistakenly believe the phrase "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution. It doesn't. Why are so many Americans so misinformed? Because three generations of secular humanist educators and atheistic ACLU ideologues have parroted this big lie so often that the dumbed-down, indoctrinated masses have finally begun to believe it, simply because nobody ever bothered to explain the true meaning of the First Amendment.

Liberals always claim to believe in the Constitution, even if they wrongly interpret it. But what we're dealing with here is not a difference of opinion on some debatable topic, but rather a willful ignorance (real or professed) of long-settled historical facts.

This blatant distortion of our nation's history is a slap in the face of American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this widespread anti-Christian disinformation campaign. The public schools should be teaching our children the truth, not just what they want kids to believe. Those of us who know the truth need to hold the Liberals accountable for their insidious lies.

Separation of church and state: myth and reality

If there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution why has the Supreme Court repeatedly acted as though there is?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]"
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Everson has been used as a cudgel to beat religion out of the public marketplace.

Context is especially important as
a) the words of the Constitution are clear.
and
b) The words of Hugo Black in Everson should not be viewed without the following:

2. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state. "Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish." Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


It is important to remember that judges are merely men who are charged with applying the Constitution.
Sadly, since the Progressive era began, law schools have produced judges who have taken a view of themselves as being above the Constitution.They often impose their own views, without connection to the Constitution.

3. Chief Justice William Rehnquist speaks to this issue:

"[The Progressive idea]...…. seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

So how about it?

I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it.

Whenever you find the case law that backs up your position, please feel free to post it here.

We’ll wait…

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is more rightwing mythology from Conservatopia, the fantasy land where conservatives live (in their heads).

 

[initforme]

If american is a "christian country" then we surely do not live up to those ideals as wealth is something that is not to be a goal in the bible. America is the land of hypocrites according to the bible I read.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Incorrect.

It is found here:



Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]"
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Everson has been used as a cudgel to beat religion out of the public marketplace.

Context is especially important as
a) the words of the Constitution are clear.
and
b) The words of Hugo Black in Everson should not be viewed without the following:

2. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state. "Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish." Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


It is important to remember that judges are merely men who are charged with applying the Constitution.
Sadly, since the Progressive era began, law schools have produced judges who have taken a view of themselves as being above the Constitution.They often impose their own views, without connection to the Constitution.

3. Chief Justice William Rehnquist speaks to this issue:

"[The Progressive idea]...…. seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

So how about it?

I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it.

Whenever you find the case law that backs up your position, please feel free to post it here.

We’ll wait…

"We"?
You have a tapeworm?


The crux of the issue is here: "Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means,..."

To the extent that the language of the Constitution is unclear, this is true.
Now...I suspect that this may be beyond your ability, but if it is not, would you consider the followiing choices and choose the one with which you most agree:

a) I believe that, outside of the amendment process, the specific words and language of the Constitution should direct this nation.

b) I believe that the Constitution was fitting for its time, but the world changes and so wise judges should state what the law should be, and their decisions used as precedent, as co-equal to the words in the Constitution...even, at times, contrary to those words.


Upon careful consideration, I think you will see the point...and, I suspect, be able to predict which each of us would choose.

Please defend your choice.