Separation of Church and State?

[Glimmer Twins]

What does the term separation of church and state actually mean...

What does the Constitution's total exemption of religion from the cognizance of the U. S. Government mean?

 

[Steerpike]

What does the Constitution's total exemption of religion from the cognizance of the U. S. Government mean?

There is no such total exemption.

In fact, the religion portion of the 1st amendment contains two clauses, the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

What kills me is that the left has much more respect for separation of church and state than it does for the concept of freedom of religion.

I thought they were the same thing.

Separation of church and state is NOT an admonition that politicians must be agnostic/atheist/non-religious, nor is it a directive meant to eliminate all reference to religion from our politics.

I thought it was a figure of speech for separation of religion from civil jurisdiction.

Separation of church and state does NOT mean if one is a moral person, or a religious person, then your politics must not reflect your morality or your religion.

I agree. It means separation of religion from civil jurisdiction.

All it means is that the state cannot dictate to us which religion we MUST be.

I thought it meant that religion was totally excluded from the cognizance and jurisdiction of civil government.

People still get to talk about their religion, they still get to go to church and espouse religious ideals...even if they run for a political office. It is not a violation of "separation of church and state" if they say they are against abortion for religious reasons.

True.

It is not a violation of "separation of church and state" if they allow prayer in public schools...

Probably true. However, any form of civil authority over prayer - such as a public school teacher suggesting, recommending or inviting students to pray - is a violation.

It's only a violation of "church and state" separation if they pass laws which punish people for their religious beliefs, period, if those beliefs aren't such that they, by and of themselves, don't trample upon the rights of others.

The mere hint of civil authority over religion is enough to injure the rights of conscience.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which policies do you expect Rev Wright's beliefs have corrupted?

All of them, every last one.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

There is no such total exemption.

Show us where the Constitution grants the government power over religion?

In fact, the religion portion of the 1st amendment contains two clauses, the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.

James Wilson of Pennsylvania, in response to the allegation that there was no security for the right of conscience, asserted, "I ask the honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is idle to prepare the means of defense." Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion" and added that only powers "constitutionally given" could be exercised. Madison said, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion" Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina maintained: "as to the subject of religion...(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an usurpation." Wilson, Randolph, Madison, and Spaight had attended the Constitutional Convention. Their remarks show that the government was granted no power whatsoever over religion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What does the Constitution's total exemption of religion from the cognizance of the U. S. Government mean?

There is no exemption, neither in the words or the meaning of the words. There is no separation of Church and State EXCEPT that the Federal Government and now through the 14th amendment the State Governments can NOT create a STATE Church. Any religious person is free to run, be elected and exercise his or her office using RELIGION as their guide. Any Government Building, such as, for example, the Supreme Court and other buildings are free to display religious symbols as long as the STATE does not endorse a single religion. The idea that one can not pray at a public gathering is ignorant and NOT covered at all by the Constitution.

 

[Gunny]

no conjecture. one...why do you THINK they endorsed mccain? because they love him? nope... because he gave/promised them something.

two... why else is the man who called the rabid religious right "agents of intolerance" suddenly looking heavenward when he talks longingly about the unborn?

Answer to two... see one.

Sorry, mccain wouldn't get my vote if there was NO ONE running against him.

They endorsed McCain because he wasn't a Democrat. He has neither given nor promised anything. Pure partisan fearmongering.

 

[jillian]

He has neither given nor promised anything

And your evidence of that is?

My evidence is that he changed his position on a matter of policy that matters to me.

 

[Steerpike]

Show us where the Constitution grants the government power over religion?

Who said they were granted power over religion? You should learn to read my posts more effectively. I said there was no total exemption from the "cognizance" of government, which is the word you used.

The Constitution guarantees in the Bill of Rights that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The government certainly needs to be "cognizant" of religion in order to avoid overstepping its limitations.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

There is no exemption, neither in the words or the meaning of the words. There is no separation of Church and State EXCEPT that the Federal Government and now through the 14th amendment the State Governments can NOT create a STATE Church.

The fourth common law rule construction requires rejection of the the "no national religion" interpretation on grounds that it's effects and consequences are absurd.

Any religious person is free to run, be elected and exercise his or her office using RELIGION as their guide.

You just said the only protection we have is from a national religion. Thus, the Constitution does not protect the right of a religious person to run, be elected and exercise his or her office using religion as their guide.

Any Government Building, such as, for example, the Supreme Court and other buildings are free to display religious symbols as long as the STATE does not endorse a single religion. The idea that one can not pray at a public gathering is ignorant and NOT covered at all by the Constitution.

Again, you just said the only protection we have is from a national religion. Therefore, none of that is protected.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

"...religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction"
​

I said there was no total exemption from the "cognizance" of government, which is the word you used.

James Madison would tell you that you're wrong:

To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote by authorized means improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor in like manner the advancement of science and the diffusion of information as the best aliment to true liberty; to carry on the benevolent plans which have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness of savage life to a participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state--as far as sentiments and intentions such as these can aid the fulfillment of my duty, they will be a resource which can not fail me.

--First Inaugural Address of James Madison​

 

[Steerpike]

James Madison would tell you that you're wrong:

​

No, he wouldn't. He would tell you that your idea that the government can't be cognizant of religion in any way, shape, or form was ridiculous. He would also tell you that it only applied to the Federal government, since some state governments were very much involved in religion at the time and that was fine until the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine.

You're also wrong in the other thread about the 2nd Amendment. You should educate yourself on the Constitution prior to espousing on it (or spamming the forums with cut and pastes, which is basically all you've done).​

 

[Glimmer Twins]

The Constitution guarantees in the Bill of Rights that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Even before the Bill of Rights was adopted, the lawmakers declared that the Constitution separated the jurisdiction of the government from religion.

James Wilson of Pennsylvania, in response to the allegation at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convent that there was no security for the right of conscience, asserted, "I ask the honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is idle to prepare the means of defense."

Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared at the Virginia Convention that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion" and added that only powers "constitutionally given" could be exercised. James Madison, at the same convention, said, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion"

Richard Dobbs Spaight, during the debates in North Carolina maintained: "as to the subject of religion...(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an usurpation."

Wilson, Randolph, Madison, and Spaight had attended the Constitutional Convention as elected delegates. Their remarks show that if was well understood that the government was granted no power whatsoever over religion.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

No, he wouldn't. He would tell you that your idea that the government can't be cognizant of religion in any way, shape, or form was ridiculous.

More of Madison on non cognizance:

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments​

We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2 Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.​

 

[jillian]

Glimmer, you need to link anything you post. I think you need a few more posts before you can do it yourself, but be aware for future reference.

This, I believe, is your link:

http://www.thebirthoffreedom.com/ja...nd-remonstrance-against-religious-assessments

 

[Steerpike]

Do you know what the word "cognizance" means, Glimmer?

 

[Ravi]

Do you know what the word "cognizance" means, Glimmer?

I believe he or she has no cognizance of cognizance.

 

[Steerpike]

I believe he or she has no cognizance of cognizance.

No doubt. Cognizance means "to be aware of" or "to have knowledge of." Glimmer's cognizance argument is absurd on its face.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

"...the question referred to them does not come within the cognizance of Congress...''
​

Do you know what the word "cognizance" means, Glimmer?

It's ambiguous. In other words, it has more than one meaning.

In the context of Madison's M & R, it means "recognition, or jurisdiction; the assumption of jurisdiction in a legal dispute."

Here is an example of the "non cognizance" principle being applied to a real life 1830's dispute regarding a religious issue.

March 4-5, 1830

Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post-offices and Post-Roads, to whom had been referred memorials from inhabitants of various parts of the United States, praying for a repeal of so much of the post-office law as authorizes the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday, and to whom had also been referred memorials from other inhabitants of various parts of the United States, remonstrating against such an appeal, made the following report:

That the memorialists regard the first day of the week as a day set apart by the Creator for religious exercises, and consider the transportation of the mail and the opening of the post offices on that day the violation of a religious duty, and call for a suppression of the practice. Others, by counter memorials, are known to entertain a different sentiment, believing that no one day of the week is holier than another. Others, holding the universality and immutability of the Jewish decalogue, believe in the sanctity of the seventh day of the week as a day of religious devotion; and, by their memorial now before the committee, they also request that it may be set apart for religious purposes. Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion; and it has been regarded as the proper business of government to protect all, and determine for none. But the attempt is now made to bring about a greater uniformity, at least in practice; and, as argument has failed, the government has been called upon to interpose its authority to settle the controversy.

Congress acts under a constitution of delegated and limited powers. The Committee look in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains is one that prohibits a religious test; and another which declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Committee here rest the argument, upon the ground that the question referred to them does not come within the cognizance of Congress...

Source of Information:

"21st Congress, 1st Session, House Report on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the House of representatives, March 4-5, 1830," American State Papers, Class VII, pp 229. American State Papers Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 244-268.​

 

[Steerpike]

It's ambiguous. In other words, it has more than one meaning.

In the context of Madison's M & R, it means "recognition, or jurisdiction; the assumption of jurisdiction in a legal dispute."

Of course the government assumes jurisdiction over legal issue affecting religion all the time, which is why we have a large body of case law on, for example, the establishment clause.