10 Commandments are SO offensive!

[MissileMan]

MissileMan


What would it take for you to stop whining?? Seriously you act as though if you see something religious on anything other than hidden from your view your head will explode.
How far is the left going to take this crusade????

My objection to a Christian symbol at a courthouse stems only from the belief that the courts should be totally impartial to everyone. A Ten Commandments statue at the legislature wouldn't be a problem, in my opinion, because there is no expectation for the legislature to be neutral.

The examples posted were very offensive to a lot of people yet all of those people are forced to fund it, please tell me if that's not a form of tierney then what is?? Why is it only religious items are looked down upon by many Liberals yet obvious attempts at being vulgar are applauded and funded??

I found most of those things offensive as well, however, they weren't being used as a center piece in the foyer of a courthouse. Part of the price of funding legitimate art is having to also fund the crapola.

And if someone were to put up the ten commandments on their lawn how long do you think it would be before the ACLU dredges up some ass hole to go to court and say they find the monument offensive and the home owner winds up being sued to take it down???

Ummm, forever. Unless it were some kind of safety hazard, as in an obstruction to the view of oncoming traffic, then noone could tell you to take it down.

 

[Bonnie]

MissileMan

My objection to a Christian symbol at a courthouse stems only from the belief that the courts should be totally impartial to everyone. A Ten Commandments statue at the legislature wouldn't be a problem, in my opinion, because there is no expectation for the legislature to be neutral.

If that's the case then why are some of our secular laws based on some of the commandments?? If the commandments were good enough to have laws established similar to them or shudder even based upon them then why are they not good enough to be displayed in courts?
Really does nullify your reasoning.

As Hobbit pointed out we are essentially left with 2 commandments that have no real bearing on law.

 

[Eightball]

The very Author of the commandments says that man has had a rebellious nature from the beginning......typified by Sinatra's hit, "I'll Do It My Way".

So the big "scrap" against the commandments or any Judeau/Christian particulars in a public place will naturally meet with antagonism. It's a spiritual battle, although the antagonists would whole heartedly deny this in most cases.

There are so many mephorical examples, and parables in the bible, about man versus his Creator, and how man just doesn't want to obey.........period, end of sentence.

Israel would drift away from venerating their creator and all heck happened to them......until they were clammering and screaming for Him to help them again. It was like a constant, "Sine" wave, the story of Israel's good times and bad times. When they became amoral.......they became a weak nation, and the had the Phillistines hammering and making incursions into their borders. When they quit venerating false gods, and themselves, they became a strong nation again.

I see many parallels between ancient Isael's history, and what the U.S. is currently undergoing. We are becoming a country that is very dumbed-down, and not looking to our past history to see where we have lost our compass bearings....ie. morality, religious faith of our founders, etc. We have become amoral, pragmatists, and have become worshippers at the alter of knowledge, while totally throwing out "wisdom" as the center piece of all decision making.

Empathy for people in general is good, but it can also be very dumb when there isn't any common sense, to know when/understand that your enemy sees you as a big sucker, and know's you have lost your common sense to realize who your true foes are and have gradually lost the ability to defend yourself.

Constitutional reconstructionists are rampant in the U.S., as every law of our found fathers is "open game" to be questioned, and amended. Their mantra is easy to identify, as their main code word for the U.S. Constitution is, "Living, Breathing document".

Just remember if you can when this trend of internal "rot" started to negatively change the U.S.. The mantra was, "Question Authority". I doesn't sound bad does it.....but the reconstructionists, and amoral educators, and politicians mean to question every founding principle that insures liberty, freedom of religious expression/persecution/speech, etc.. and repackage covertly in a way that looks like the original, but is just a raunchy pig, dressed up in an Bald Eagle costume.

That's my opinion.........bring it on!

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan


If that's the case then why are some of our secular laws based on some of the commandments?? If the commandments were good enough to have laws established similar to them or shudder even based upon them then why are they not good enough to be displayed in courts?
Really does nullify your reasoning.

As Hobbit pointed out we are essentially left with 2 commandments that have no real bearing on law.

Murder and theft are are prohibited by all civilized societies, even those that don't practice Christianity! Can you imagine that? Two-thirds of the planet came up with rules against killing and stealing without a Bible. How can that be?

Actually, what Hobbit pointed out was that the majority of the commandments only apply if you are Christian.

 

[Annie]

Murder and theft are are prohibited by all civilized societies, even those that don't practice Christianity! Can you imagine that? Two-thirds of the planet came up with rules against killing and stealing without a Bible. How can that be?

Actually, what Hobbit pointed out was that the majority of the commandments only apply if you are Christian.

Nah, they also apply to Jews and probably the Koran has some version of them, plus a whole lot more.

 

[theim]

Murder and theft are are prohibited by all civilized societies, even those that don't practice Christianity! Can you imagine that? Two-thirds of the planet came up with rules against killing and stealing without a Bible. How can that be?

Actually, what Hobbit pointed out was that the majority of the commandments only apply if you are Christian.

The point is that close to or over 90% of Americans worship God. Has anyone ever actually, physically, pushed your face so hard into a Bible that its imprint is still present? Has anyone actually threatened to burn you at the steak? Have you ever seen protests demanding that the Book of Leviticus be made a Constitutional Ammendment? I doubt any of these have happened to you. The worst seems to be that you have....laid eyes on Christian symbols...in a 90% Christian country. Gee, imagine that.

Well what can you do? Personally, I would suggest ignoring them. Just kidding! Of course that's not an option. I guess the only thing for you to do would be to move to Canada or Europe.

 

[Gunny]

Bonnie and Dillo. I am personally religious. To call Merlin a liberal is kind of nonsensical. He may be a secularist, which I am not, though I'm against the current trend on the Right to call any that don't fall in line with their terminology/calls for reform some sort of name.

I call myself a libertarian, most would call me a neo-con. Yet here, I think I'm close to being considered a liberal. Why? Because I thought taking Shaivo to the federal level was wrong. I think that ID may be off base as far as science classes go, but am open to the arguements, which have to go further than "evolution has holes..."

Merlin, while outspoken on the 'religion take' is far from a liberal. My concern is that the tone of this board may very well be the tone of the Republican mainstream. Guess what? If that is the case, the Left loses their Dean nuts and the Right loses in all liklihood a whole lot more.

You make a damned-good point, and one reason I don't get involved in too many of these threads.

Secularism is the belief that the government should not be controlled by religion. I have absolutely NO problem with that.

Misidentifying anti-religious zealots as "secular" is a major wrong to those of us who ARE secular, AND Christian. I have no problem reconciling one with the other.

The base problem here is you have a whole lot of "I-Me" types who are inconvenienced by things like morals and rules. They're just trying to tidy things up and make it look like their self-centered, immoral/amoral behavior is justified. The Ten Commandments are quite the thorn in their sides.

It isn't that Christians are trying to force anything on anyone. It's that those who feel the urge to be offended by any-and-everything that in any way doesn't suit them want to destroy what is ALREADY THERE, and in most cases, has been for a long, long time.

To them all I can say is" Go remodel your house. It'll keep you busy and actually pay off in the end. Leave the politics to the adults.

 

[MissileMan]

The point is that close to or over 90% of Americans worship God. Has anyone ever actually, physically, pushed your face so hard into a Bible that its imprint is still present? Has anyone actually threatened to burn you at the steak? Have you ever seen protests demanding that the Book of Leviticus be made a Constitutional Ammendment? I doubt any of these have happened to you. The worst seems to be that you have....laid eyes on Christian symbols...in a 90% Christian country. Gee, imagine that.

Well what can you do? Personally, I would suggest ignoring them. Just kidding! Of course that's not an option. I guess the only thing for you to do would be to move to Canada or Europe.

You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that I am for removing all religious symbols from public view. There have been numerous posts where I have called attempts to remove a cross from a state seal, removing the word "God" from the pledge, etc, overboard. All I'm saying is Judeo-Christian religious displays in the judiciary are inappropriate because the judiciary should be completely neutral and impartial and hold everyone to the same standard, a constitutional one.

As for your invitation to leave the country, Go Fuck Yourself! I earned my right to live here.

 

[Bonnie]

Murder and theft are are prohibited by all civilized societies, even those that don't practice Christianity! Can you imagine that? Two-thirds of the planet came up with rules against killing and stealing without a Bible. How can that be?

Actually, what Hobbit pointed out was that the majority of the commandments only apply if you are Christian.

And quite easily ignored if your not a Christian.

 

[Bonnie]

You make a damned-good point, and one reason I don't get involved in too many of these threads.

Secularism is the belief that the government should not be controlled by religion. I have absolutely NO problem with that.

Misidentifying anti-religious zealots as "secular" is a major wrong to those of us who ARE secular, AND Christian. I have no problem reconciling one with the other.

The base problem here is you have a whole lot of "I-Me" types who are inconvenienced by things like morals and rules. They're just trying to tidy things up and make it look like their self-centered, immoral/amoral behavior is justified. The Ten Commandments are quite the thorn in their sides.

It isn't that Christians are trying to force anything on anyone. It's that those who feel the urge to be offended by any-and-everything that in any way doesn't suit them want to destroy what is ALREADY THERE, and in most cases, has been for a long, long time.

To them all I can say is" Go remodel your house. It'll keep you busy and actually pay off in the end. Leave the politics to the adults.

Bravo Gunny!!

 

[dilloduck]

Bravo Gunny!!

Secularism has many different definitions one of which is replacing religion and God with human rationalization and science. Many secularists abuse the constitution in effort to completely do away with religion using "separation of church and state" as a smoke screen. Don't be duped!

 

[Merlin]

Everyone is probably getting sick of seeing this by now, but just this one more time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In my life time I have never heard of Congress trying to make any kind of law respecting an establishment of a religion. Nor have I ever read anywhere that they ever have. The way this amendment reads, we, as a society, have the Constitutional right to have "ANY" religious symbols we so desire anywhere we want on public property. It also gives me the right to pray in school or anywhere else I so desire without having some A**hole like the ACLU telling me it offends them. Well, they have the right to tell me, but they don't have a leg to stand on to have it removed. I challenge anyone to show me in the Constitution where there is a separation of church and state. There is none!!!!!!!!! Just because some liberal judge said it is in 1947 doesn't make is so.

 

[theim]

You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that I am for removing all religious symbols from public view. There have been numerous posts where I have called attempts to remove a cross from a state seal, removing the word "God" from the pledge, etc, overboard. All I'm saying is Judeo-Christian religious displays in the judiciary are inappropriate because the judiciary should be completely neutral and impartial and hold everyone to the same standard, a constitutional one.

As for your invitation to leave the country, Go Fuck Yourself! I earned my right to live here.

Ah, Go Fuck Yourself. The pinnacle of liberal discussion.

 

[dilloduck]

I would say that there was a big difference between religous displays in a court house and offensive displays in a museum. I can choose to go to a museum, or not, depending on what I think of the exhibit but if I'm arrested, or I want to sue someone, I have no choice but to go into a courthouse.

Personally, if I wanted to make the case for keeping the 10 Commandments in the courthouse, I would go with "although supportive of all major religions, the US is a predominantly Christian country founded by Christians and if you don't like it, tough" argument because I think that list by Coulter isn't terribly relevant to the argument at hand.

Guess they better not hang a Monet to decorate a courthouse or the government will be accused of sponsoring Impressionsim.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Guess they better not hang a Monet to decorate a courthouse or the government will be accused of sponsoring Impressionsim.

Let me know when Impressionism becomes a religion.

 

[MissileMan]

Ah, Go Fuck Yourself. The pinnacle of liberal discussion.

Your selective reading skill is impressive. The "Go Fuck Yourself" was this conservative's response to an asshole's invitation to leave the country that I served for nearly half my life.

 

[Gunny]

Secularism has many different definitions one of which is replacing religion and God with human rationalization and science. Many secularists abuse the constitution in effort to completely do away with religion using "separation of church and state" as a smoke screen. Don't be duped!

I'm using the most commonly accepted definition. Your definition fits in with dishonest anti-religious zealots, IMO.

I don't want a theocracy presiding over this country. However, I do not believe the Constitution precludes religion in government. It precludes religion controlling government.

Most if not all of the "religious icons" the ACLU-type fanatics rant about possess as much or more historical significance than religious. They just have to have something to whine about or be offended by.

All I can say is self-righteous assholes offend ME. When can we start getting rid of them?

 

[Eightball]

Everyone is probably getting sick of seeing this by now, but just this one more time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In my life time I have never heard of Congress trying to make any kind of law respecting an establishment of a religion. Nor have I ever read anywhere that they ever have. The way this amendment reads, we, as a society, have the Constitutional right to have "ANY" religious symbols we so desire anywhere we want on public property. It also gives me the right to pray in school or anywhere else I so desire without having some A**hole like the ACLU telling me it offends them. Well, they have the right to tell me, but they don't have a leg to stand on to have it removed. I challenge anyone to show me in the Constitution where there is a separation of church and state. There is none!!!!!!!!! Just because some liberal judge said it is in 1947 doesn't make is so.

Merlin:

You hit it "dead on"!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Everyone is probably getting sick of seeing this by now, but just this one more time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In my life time I have never heard of Congress trying to make any kind of law respecting an establishment of a religion. Nor have I ever read anywhere that they ever have. The way this amendment reads, we, as a society, have the Constitutional right to have "ANY" religious symbols we so desire anywhere we want on public property. It also gives me the right to pray in school or anywhere else I so desire without having some A**hole like the ACLU telling me it offends them. Well, they have the right to tell me, but they don't have a leg to stand on to have it removed. I challenge anyone to show me in the Constitution where there is a separation of church and state. There is none!!!!!!!!! Just because some liberal judge said it is in 1947 doesn't make is so.

Exactly. Just another example of judicial activism as Justice Black essentially moved "the wall of separation" from between the church and national government to place it between the church and both state and national government. Incremental liberalism.

"Black's wall differs from Jefferson's wall," says Dreisbach. "Jefferson's wall explicitly separated the institutions of church and state, while Black's wall separates religion and all civil government. Moreover, Jefferson's wall separated church and the national government only."

"In his book, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002), Daniel L. Dreisbach carefully explores the history of the metaphor, its controversial uses and competing interpretations. The book also focuses on a 1947 Supreme Court decision that Dreisbach contends resulted in today's courts using the phrase to essentially remove from America's public square anything that vaguely resembles "religion."

When asked to comment on the book's "bottom line" and the ramifications of Justice Black's 1947 interpretation of the wall, Dreisbach responded thus:

"The wall metaphor mischievously redefines constitutional principles in at least two important ways:

"First, the phrase emphasizes separation between church and state -- unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion.

Second, a wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil government and religion -- unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on the civil government only (specifically on Congress). Therefore, the wall unavoidably restricts religion's ability to influence public life, thus dangerously exceeding the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

"Today, the wall is used to separate religion from public life," continues Dreisbach, "thereby promoting a religion that is essentially private and a state that is strictly secular.

"The 'high and impregnable wall' constructed by the modern Supreme Court inhibits religion's ability to inform the public ethic, deprives religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their spiritual values, and infringes the right of religious communities and institutions to extend their ministries into the public square. The wall has been used to silence the religious voice in the public marketplace of ideas and to segregate people of faith behind a restrictive barrier."

http://www.vfcmi.org/ChurchState.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1218043.html

 

[Bonnie]

Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)



United States Supreme Court



WALLACE V. JAFFREE



472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)



Nos. 83-812, 83-929.



Argued Dec. 4, 1984.



Decided June 4, 1985.



* * * * *

[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]

* * * * *


Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.

Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:



"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."



This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."

During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:



"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)



On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:



"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.



The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:



"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.



On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:



"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.



The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."

Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.

Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.

Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.

Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.

The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:



"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).



The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.



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



The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.

On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.

The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.

None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.

more

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm