Religion and the Establishment Clause

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman


June 3, 1811



I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.
 
Last edited:
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

it doesn't work if it doesn't go both ways.

you are free to express your religious views in public and in your church and in your home.

you are not free to have your views perpetuated by the state... whether in government, in schools or in laws.

and, frankly, i don't want my son indoctrinated by your views. i have my own.

and THAT is the point of the first amendment. and the point of the constitution, which the christian majority seems to forget: to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Last edited:
You need to keep reading instead of stopping at the point you that justifies your bigotry.

What if the government favored Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, or *gasp* Islam? You wouldn't be so quick to defend your retarded misinterpretation of the First Amendment then, would you? That's the entire point of it you stupid ****, to make sure NO religion is in the government, so all people can be represented equally.

I would not give a flying fuck what religion the people in the government favored because, unlike you, I am not a close minded bigot. The right to practice any religion, including Satanism, is guaranteed under the Constitution, even if it offends me. I have freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

That is the entire point of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment, and you desire to change it to promote your ideology actually makes you no different that the people who want to force everyone to go to their church.

How does it feel to be a jackbooted totalitarian? Do you get a thrill out of standing on people's throats?
You really are a fucking idiot. How do you get bigotry and totalitarianism from this:

Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.

Come back when your meds have kicked in.
 
the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both


The father of our constitution on the subject.

GAME over righties


QUIT lying about it
 
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.

We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.


So, let's say the government leevies a tax on all citizens and uses that money exclusively for the Islamic faith, to build Mosque's and the pay salaries to Imans.

You are not being forced to worship, so it doesn't violate the First Amendment right?


The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.

We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

What makes you think you're allowed to force religion on others? What of those who WANT freedom from religion? Aren't ALL citizens to be protected by the Establishment clause? You're turning the whole concept on its head.


Actually there is no right to Freedom FROM religion, the freedom is from government imposed religion (Clause 1) and the freedom from government intrusion into the expression of your own religion (Clause 2).


That does not mean that you have a right to have the government ensure you will not be exposed to religion in public (private property, TV, Radio, News, Magaizines) generated by private individuals. Using TV as an example, they have a right to Freedom of Religious Exercise and Speech, as such they can purchase time on the Cable network and run with the show. You can change the channel and not watch, but you cannot use the government to shut them down simply because they are religious.



>>>>
 
Government certainly can do this ... ancient Rome is one example that this is possible. It's just unconstitutional for it to happen in this country--thanks to the provisions in the 1st Amendment that prohibit the government from making law respecting the establishment of religion.

My freedom of religion means freedom from your religion.

There is literally NO SUCH THING as freedom of religion that doesn't include freedom from religion.

No it does not, and only a bigot would try to argue it does.
No. Only a bigot--most particularly bigots cut from Abrahamic rock chucking cloth--would insist that it is otherwise.

If you have freedom from religion that means I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard because it hurts your inferior mind to be reminded that other people have faith in things that are bigger than themselves. Since that is obviously not the case, I am not the one that is wrong.
 
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

it doesn't work if it doesn't go both ways.

you are free to express your religious views in public and in your church and in your home.

you are not free to have your views perpetuated by the state... whether in government, in schools or in laws.

and, frankly, i don't want my son indoctrinated by your views. i have my own.

and THAT is the point of the first amendment. and the point of the constitution, which the christian majority seems to forget: to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.

Not all of them forget that. In fact, most of them do not, and fight just as hard as you do to keep it out. Then we have the fringe idiots that object to people practicing their religion publicly, which should be just as offensive to you as the people who want to make religion a part of the government are to me.
 
If as a Chrisitan you want to keep the govt out of your church then you have to accept that you can not inject your religion into that same govt.

I agree. Now if you could get the Seven Mountains Mandate folks to agree that's another thing.
 
What if the government favored Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, or *gasp* Islam? You wouldn't be so quick to defend your retarded misinterpretation of the First Amendment then, would you? That's the entire point of it you stupid ****, to make sure NO religion is in the government, so all people can be represented equally.

I would not give a flying fuck what religion the people in the government favored because, unlike you, I am not a close minded bigot. The right to practice any religion, including Satanism, is guaranteed under the Constitution, even if it offends me. I have freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

That is the entire point of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment, and you desire to change it to promote your ideology actually makes you no different that the people who want to force everyone to go to their church.

How does it feel to be a jackbooted totalitarian? Do you get a thrill out of standing on people's throats?
You really are a fucking idiot. How do you get bigotry and totalitarianism from this:

Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.
Come back when your meds have kicked in.

I do not get it from that, I get it from this.

The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.

We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

You need to read the First Amendment again:

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.

Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.

Since Mad Scientist's entire post was saying what you said in the last paragraph the only portion of his post you could possibly have disagreed with was his pointing out you do not have freedom from religion. That makes you a bigot, or an idiot that has problem with comprehending English.
 
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.

We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

What makes you think you're allowed to force religion on others? What of those who WANT freedom from religion? Aren't ALL citizens to be protected by the Establishment clause? You're turning the whole concept on its head.

Freedom OF religion means that while you are free not to have a religion, you are not free to tell someone in public that they can't say grace before they eat their meal.
 
Since Mad Scientist's entire post was saying what you said in the last paragraph the only portion of his post you could possibly have disagreed with was his pointing out you do not have freedom from religion. That makes you a bigot, or an idiot that has problem with comprehending English.

Jesus fucking Christ, you moron. Pay attention, because I'm only going to demonstrate this once.

The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
As I demonstrated to him, this sentence is factually incorrect. The First Amendment says nothing about the government "making a religion", it says that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". He is also incredibly fucking wrong when he mentions Rome, because the land was settled by people who knew the cruelty imposed on the English people by the crown, and the Church of England. Did you honestly miss that part? Because it was the first sentence of my two sentence response following the quoted First Amendment.

Now let's check out the next part:

We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

To which I replied:

You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.
What does the Constitution say about that?

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.

Which means they can't pass religious legislature, or pass law that favors any religion. I also fully acknowledged the Free Exercise Clause when I said
...You can practice your beliefs...

So no, you're clearly the idiot. Now fuck off.
 
Since Mad Scientist's entire post was saying what you said in the last paragraph the only portion of his post you could possibly have disagreed with was his pointing out you do not have freedom from religion. That makes you a bigot, or an idiot that has problem with comprehending English.

Jesus fucking Christ, you moron. Pay attention, because I'm only going to demonstrate this once.

The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
As I demonstrated to him, this sentence is factually incorrect. The First Amendment says nothing about the government "making a religion", it says that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". He is also incredibly fucking wrong when he mentions Rome, because the land was settled by people who knew the cruelty imposed on the English people by the crown, and the Church of England. Did you honestly miss that part? Because it was the first sentence of my two sentence response following the quoted First Amendment.

Now let's check out the next part:



To which I replied:


What does the Constitution say about that?

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.
Which means they can't pass religious legislature, or pass law that favors any religion. I also fully acknowledged the Free Exercise Clause when I said
...You can practice your beliefs...
So no, you're clearly the idiot. Now fuck off.

Am I supposed to be impressed by your attempt to parse your way out of the corner you painted yourself into? How is Mad wrong to mention Rome when the people who settled here were also aware of the Holy Roman Empire which was predicated on the belief that the church had the power to control the secular world? There were times in history when the Pope not only told kings what to do, but he actually determined who would sit on the throne of different countries, and ordered wars. Just because you are ignorant about history does not mean the Founders were.

In other words, Mad was correct, and actually agreed with what you now claim you meant.

:lol:
 
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

Avatar, I see there being a couple impetus for the establishment clause. Firstly, it's pretty obvious that the founders did not want to have a national religion in the sense of the Church of England. It is also reasonable to presume that the founders were concerned with the issue that created the Church of England in the first place: that external religious influence, say from the Pope or from the King of England, might be barred from having an impact on domestic politics.

Just about everything permissible under the boundaries of our democratic process is fair play. But even granted that, working for religious interests to have an influence on politics does draw a disconnect for me vis-a-vis my value of the separation implied by the establishment clause. It at least makes it one-sided.… only a government obligation.
 
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

it doesn't work if it doesn't go both ways.

you are free to express your religious views in public and in your church and in your home.

you are not free to have your views perpetuated by the state... whether in government, in schools or in laws.

and, frankly, i don't want my son indoctrinated by your views. i have my own.

and THAT is the point of the first amendment. and the point of the constitution, which the christian majority seems to forget: to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority.
What then when the badge of a religion is distilled away from the objective, the political objective, that the religion has? Let's take the abortion issue. This is chiefly a religious concern. Chiefly, the focus on the issue is driven by religious organizations. The government is entirely free to react according to the democratic process, as there's no religious badge on the concern altogether.

To this effect, religions use a sort of cloaking to press their agendas. Look at the "evolution" of the creationism debate. The intelligent design concept, by and large, is a cloaked creationist agenda.
 
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

You seem to only see a danger in government getting involved in religion. There's also the concern over religion being involved in government. When so many churches have similar interests, the "marketplace of ideas" is limited and can present a danger to those who disagree.

In Iran maybe.....not here.

Quit living in the past.
 

Forum List

Back
Top