What is Sadder: Coon's or the Audience's Ignorance?

[boxcar]

This vid is absolutely amazing. And the mainstream media accuse O'Donnell of ignorance. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Gotta listen to the audio and exchange and the ridiculing laugh of the students at this college. I'm not sure who is Dumb and who is Dumber. Coons or the students!?

Of course, O'Donnell had it right. The "separation of church and state" doctrine is NOT in the First Amendment. The only thing that is in this amendment the prohibition of the establishment of a state-mandated theocracy!

And then you libs wonder why we conservatives want the Feds out of the education system. We're funding this kind of mass ignorance with our tax dollars!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

vqYUvDjLPcwY"]qYUvDjLPcwY[/YT]

[DJofSD]

I know what radio program you've been listening too....good job!

[Hank]

This vid is absolutely amazing. And the mainstream media accuse O'Donnell of ignorance. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Gotta listen to the audio and exchange and the ridiculing laugh of the students at this college. I'm not sure who is Dumb and who is Dumber. Coons or the students!?

Of course, O'Donnell had it right. The "separation of church and state" doctrine is NOT in the First Amendment. The only thing that is in this amendment the prohibition of the establishment of a state-mandated theocracy!

And then you libs wonder why we conservatives want the Feds out of the education system. We're funding this kind of mass ignorance with our tax dollars!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

vqYUvDjLPcwY"]qYUvDjLPcwY[/YT]


Wow.The presise term "seperation of church and state" though not in the first amendment,was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptiste group refering to the first amendment.Because the first amendment provides the underpinning for a separation of church and state.

[boxcar]

Wow.The presise term "seperation of church and state" though not in the first amendment,was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptiste group refering to the first amendment.Because the first amendment provides the underpinning for a separation of church and state.

Yeah, "WOW". :rolleyes: The irrefutable fact is that the doctrine of "separation of church and state" WILL NOT BE FOUND IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. This doctrine was created by an activist SC in the late 40s. Therefore, O'Donnell's incredulous reaction to Coons' statement that this doctrine is in the First Amendment is entirely justifiable. Both he and the students in the audience unwittingly revealed their ignorance of history.

And Jefferson's use of this phrase was in the context of the First Amendment -- which had to do with keeping GOVERNMENT out of RELIGION, not religion out of government. Big difference! Keeping government out of religion is precisely what the amendment is about.

Boxcar

[Tom]

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

Unfortunately, the second part of that has been grossly ignored over the years, by courts that just plain got it wrong. To me,e the words are very clear, very precise and very specific. "Seperation" is not mentioned and whatever Jefferson wrote in a letter, it is the Constitution that everyone signed. Remember all those signing papers that Bush used and everyone hollered about?

[Greyfox]

I have no dog in this fight.

I saw their debate replay last Saturday afternoon on CNN.
O'Donnell clearly stood head and shoulders above Coons.
Will she win? Doubtful.
But very refreshing to listen to, if not to watch.
She ran rings around him. Unfortuately she likely won't win.

[mostpost]

This vid is absolutely amazing. And the mainstream media accuse O'Donnell of ignorance. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Gotta listen to the audio and exchange and the ridiculing laugh of the students at this college. I'm not sure who is Dumb and who is Dumber. Coons or the students!?

Of course, O'Donnell had it right. The "separation of church and state" doctrine is NOT in the First Amendment. The only thing that is in this amendment the prohibition of the establishment of a state-mandated theocracy!

And then you libs wonder why we conservatives want the Feds out of the education system. We're funding this kind of mass ignorance with our tax dollars!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

vqYUvDjLPcwY"]qYUvDjLPcwY[/YT]
Accusing Christine O'Donnell of ignorance is insulting ignorance.

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.
How much clearer can it be? Congress is the state. The first clause says the state (Congress) can not establish a national religion. It does not matter if member of congress is a Methodist, Congress can not pass laws favoring Methodism to the detriment of other religions. Nor can Congress pass laws banning a religious group such as Muslims. Congress can not prohibit the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church from spewing their hatred.
If that is not seperation of Church and state, then I don't know what is.
Everything does not have to be stated in exact words to mean something.
When you say "red" you could mean the red of a fire engine or the burgundy of a wine or the sea at sunset. The way to know what "red" you are talking about is by the context.

[mostpost]

I know what radio program you've been listening too....good job!
Is the Twilight Zone still on the air?

[mostpost]

Yeah, "WOW". :rolleyes: The irrefutable fact is that the doctrine of "separation of church and state" WILL NOT BE FOUND IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. This doctrine was created by an activist SC in the late 40s. Therefore, O'Donnell's incredulous reaction to Coons' statement that this doctrine is in the First Amendment is entirely justifiable. Both he and the students in the audience unwittingly revealed their ignorance of history.

And Jefferson's use of this phrase was in the context of the First Amendment -- which had to do with keeping GOVERNMENT out of RELIGION, not religion out of government. Big difference! Keeping government out of religion is precisely what the amendment is about.

Boxcar
If you don't keep religion out of government, you can't keep government out of religion. Keeping government out of religion means the government can't tell us which religion to belong to. Keeping religion out of government means the same thing because once a religion gains control of the government, the government will tell you to belong to that religion.

[redshift1]

This vid is absolutely amazing. And the mainstream media accuse O'Donnell of ignorance. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Gotta listen to the audio and exchange and the ridiculing laugh of the students at this college. I'm not sure who is Dumb and who is Dumber. Coons or the students!?

Of course, O'Donnell had it right. The "separation of church and state" doctrine is NOT in the First Amendment. The only thing that is in this amendment the prohibition of the establishment of a state-mandated theocracy!

And then you libs wonder why we conservatives want the Feds out of the education system. We're funding this kind of mass ignorance with our tax dollars!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

vqYUvDjLPcwY"]qYUvDjLPcwY[/YT]

I think you're seeing things.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-gets-coons-for-constitutional-law-101/

[JustRalph]

Accusing Christine O'Donnell of ignorance is insulting ignorance.


How much clearer can it be? Congress is the state. The first clause says the state (Congress) can not establish a national religion. It does not matter if member of congress is a Methodist, Congress can not pass laws favoring Methodism to the detriment of other religions. Nor can Congress pass laws banning a religious group such as Muslims. Congress can not prohibit the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church from spewing their hatred.
If that is not seperation of Church and state, then I don't know what is.
Everything does not have to be stated in exact words to mean something.
When you say "red" you could mean the red of a fire engine or the burgundy of a wine or the sea at sunset. The way to know what "red" you are talking about is by the context.

Same old argument. It does not provide for a separation of church and state. You are taking what you want to away from the text. Old Argument. she is making her side and the side of many, including many Constitutional Lawyers.

In fact if you want to infer something from the text, why not infer the role of Religion in the lives of the writers of the First Amendment and then try to meld that in with your inference and comprehension of the words of the first amendment. I find it very hard to do that based on the role of Religion in the lives of the founders.

You are a parrot of the highest order. Start working on the Andy Griffith tune and clean up your cage............

[hcap]

Considering that at the time there were many European kings and monarchs professing to rule with a "divine mandate", and that there were official religions established by those countries--,i.e. the Church of England-- the American colonies had good reason to be wary of religious oligarchicies.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

..The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.

"Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn 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..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion."

[hcap]

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

James Madison on Separation of Church and State....

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States

Direct references to separation:

* The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

* Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

* Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822). tween 1809-1817.

[hcap]

Ok,tea baggers/rethugs/cons have had issues with separation of church and state for decades. They write books about it. So O'Donnel regurgitating the same is not surprising. This is..

Coons: The government shall make no establishment of religion.

O'Donnell: [dubiously] That's in the First Amendment?

[lsbets]

Ok,tea baggers/rethugs/cons have had issues with separation of church and state for decades. They write books about it. So O'Donnel regurgitating the same is not surprising. This is..

Coons: The government shall make no establishment of religion.

O'Donnell: [dubiously] That's in the First Amendment?

I think O'Donnell is an idiot and an embarrassment. But, it is pretty clear that she was referring to Coons incorrect assertion that the first amendment says "seperation of church and state". Despite all of the foolish things this batshit crazy chick has said, she is correct that nowhere in the first amendment are those words used.

[serp]

Jefferson and Madison were the roots of the first amendment and they used the terms "separation of church and state" and "freedom of (and from) religion" to describe it. They used those words when upholding it and when giving speeches to garner support for it. There was opposition but no confusion when it was accepted in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

So you can argue that the exact words aren't there but if you argue that it has a different meaning then you are simply arguing what you want to be true instead of what is true.

[DJofSD]

So you can argue that the exact words aren't there but if you argue that it has a different meaning then you are simply arguing what you want to be true instead of what is true.

Sounds like what a lot of people do on both sides of the issue.

[highnote]

I think that the law is not always black and white. I think we all know that the intent of the First Amendment is to keep religion out of government and government out of religion, but I also think we know that religion and government have a way of trying to finagle their way into each other.

There are religious people in congress and their religious views shape legislation.

I think what the Founding Fathers wanted to make clear was that the philosopy of no religion could impose itself on government or be imposed on the citizens of the country. Instead, we have and have had many people with different religious beliefs running the government. The beliefs of those government workers find their way into the legislation.

In our public schools the students should not be taught that the beliefs of one religion are the only truth. That is what Sunday school and private religious schools are for. But that does not mean that a public school can not teach the students about the religious views of Puritans or Martin Luther or Joan of Arc as history and the effect those views have on various populations.

[boxcar]

Accusing Christine O'Donnell of ignorance is insulting ignorance.


How much clearer can it be? Congress is the state. The first clause says the state (Congress) can not establish a national religion. It does not matter if member of congress is a Methodist, Congress can not pass laws favoring Methodism to the detriment of other religions. Nor can Congress pass laws banning a religious group such as Muslims. Congress can not prohibit the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church from spewing their hatred.
If that is not seperation of Church and state, then I don't know what is.
Everything does not have to be stated in exact words to mean something.
When you say "red" you could mean the red of a fire engine or the burgundy of a wine or the sea at sunset. The way to know what "red" you are talking about is by the context.

The things you mention do NOT constitute the doctrine of separation. All they do is protect the rights of religious people. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights ,they severely limit the rights (POWER) of government. The separation doctrine whereby God is kept out of virtually the entire public square, out of public policy, out of classrooms, etc., etc. is not found in the amendment. This came later (around '47 or '48 I believe) as a result of a SC decision. In fact, save for Jefferson, the whole concept of "separation of church and state" did not come into vogue until after the SC decision -- and for very good reason, I might add. The second amendment itself was written to keep only the STATE out of religion, NOT religion out of the state -- therefore NO SEPARATION. :bang: :bang: Keeping religion out of the state was a foreign concept until the SC decision.

The best way to understand Jefferson's "wall of separation" is that the state did not have the authority to climb over the wall or even have keys to the gate to cross over; however, The People did have this authority.

You're just as ignorant as Coons and the dumbed down students!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I think that the law is not always black and white. I think we all know that the intent of the First Amendment is to keep religion out of government and government out of religion, but I also think we know that religion and government have a way of trying to finagle their way into each other.

You'd make a great activist judge. Are you saying the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were incapable of expressing themselves? The surely didn't have any problem explicitly expressing their thoughts about keeping the state out of religion, did they?

Also, are you saying that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the federal government's rights? Or does the Bill protect the People's rights?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I think O'Donnell is an idiot and an embarrassment. But, it is pretty clear that she was referring to Coons incorrect assertion that the first amendment says "seperation of church and state". Despite all of the foolish things this batshit crazy chick has said, she is correct that nowhere in the first amendment are those words used.
At approximately 4:40 of the video Boxcar posted Coons quotes directly from the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment... O'Donnel interupts him to say, "That's in the first amandment?" She is clearly referring to the words and not the concept.
Perhaps you can point me to the place where Coons says that the specific words "Seperation of church and state" are in the Constitution. The concept is there; the words are not.

[highnote]

The things you mention do NOT constitute the doctrine of separation. All they do is protect the rights of religious people. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights ,they severely limit the rights (POWER) of government.

I would add the Bill of Rights also protects the rights of non-religious people.

I would also add that the Bill of Rights tries to grant just enough power to the government. Not too much, not too little. Of course, what the limits of power of the government should be, probably will be debated until the end of time.

[mostpost]

The things you mention do NOT constitute the doctrine of separation. All they do is protect the rights of religious people. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights ,they severely limit the rights (POWER) of government. The separation doctrine whereby God is kept out of virtually the entire public square, out of public policy, out of classrooms, etc., etc. is not found in the amendment. This came later (around '47 or '48 I believe) as a result of a SC decision. In fact, save for Jefferson, the whole concept of "separation of church and state" did not come into vogue until after the SC decision -- and for very good reason, I might add. The second amendment itself was written to keep only the STATE out of religion, NOT religion out of the state -- therefore NO SEPARATION. :bang: :bang: Keeping religion out of the state was a foreign concept until the SC decision.

The best way to understand Jefferson's "wall of separation" is that the state did not have the authority to climb over the wall or even have keys to the gate to cross over; however, The People did have this authority.

You're just as ignorant as Coons and the dumbed down students!

Boxcar
As has been so ably pointed out by Hcap, the framers were concerned that a religious influence in government would lead to the religious wars that were so prevalent on the European continent in that era. They were also concerned that future leaders would assert that God had chosen them to lead. Therefore, whatever they did was justified.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what many of our Tea Party candidates are claiming.

[boxcar]

If you don't keep religion out of government, you can't keep government out of religion. Keeping government out of religion means the government can't tell us which religion to belong to. Keeping religion out of government means the same thing because once a religion gains control of the government, the government will tell you to belong to that religion.

No it doesn't! Read the second amendment, i.e. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT OF.... The text does not say that elected religious representatives of The People shall not influence public policy or write legislation based on their peculiar world views. The central crux to these words is that the state is expressly prohibited from mandating a national religion. Period. End of story. And this makes perfectly good sense, given the historic background of the Founders. They fled a church-state country!

And keeping religion in government doesn't mean any one religion necessarily gains ascendancy. Very unlikely; for even with Christendom, two denominations or sects will rarely agree on major issues. Heck...there are religious people -- professing Christians, yet! -- who are pro-abortionists. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You'd make a great activist judge. Are you saying the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were incapable of expressing themselves? The surely didn't have any problem explicitly expressing their thoughts about keeping the state out of religion, did they?

Also, are you saying that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the federal government's rights? Or does the Bill protect the People's rights?

Boxcar
The framers were intelligent enough to understand that the world two hundred and twenty years removed from 1787 would be very different from the world they inhabited. They created a framework and left it to the future to augment that framework.

[boxcar]

Jefferson and Madison were the roots of the first amendment and they used the terms "separation of church and state" and "freedom of (and from) religion" to describe it. They used those words when upholding it and when giving speeches to garner support for it. There was opposition but no confusion when it was accepted in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

So you can argue that the exact words aren't there but if you argue that it has a different meaning then you are simply arguing what you want to be true instead of what is true.

Too bad those alleged speeches weren't included in the amendment to give their words the force of law. For your info, the Law of the Land does not consist of any extra-Constitutional writings or speeches or secret oaths. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The framers were intelligent enough to understand that the world two hundred and twenty years removed from 1787 would be very different from the world they inhabited. They created a framework and left it to the future to augment that framework.

Which the SC did, but text of the amendment does not! Since the FF made it abundantly and crystal clear that there shall be no state-mandated national religion, then I find it impossible to believe that they could not have expressed the other side of the coin as well.

Plus, I'll ask you the same question I posed to John: Was the intention behind the Bill of Rights to protect The People Rights or to protect the U.S. Government's rights?

And I find your argument a wee bit disingenuous because the majority of libs believe the Constitution has seen better days -- that is has outlived its usefulness -- that it's a "living, breathing document" that needs to freely evolve. Most libs think the FFs were actually pretty short sighted.

Boxcar

[highnote]

O'Donnell says she thinks it is up to the local school board to decide whether or not to teach creationism in public schools. If the community wants to teach creationism then the public school should teach it.

I don't say her belief is wrong, but I do say that it would be wrong to enact her belief.

If this was the case then a national program like "No Child Left Behind" would not have to be followed by local districts. A school district could set their own standards of education regardless of what the State decides the standards should be.

What if Dearborn, Michigan, a community with a large Muslim population, were to decide that all students only have to learn to read the Koran?

What if a rural Ohio town with only Amish decides that only their version of Christianity should be taught and science, math, etc., where not important?

You know, come to think of it. Maybe it's a good idea. If you don't like the education in that community then you can move somewhere else.

[boxcar]

Ok,tea baggers/rethugs/cons have had issues with separation of church and state for decades. They write books about it. So O'Donnel regurgitating the same is not surprising. This is..

Coons: The government shall make no establishment of religion.

O'Donnell: [dubiously] That's in the First Amendment?

Coons did not say that. Coons said that the doctrine of "separation of church and state" was in the Constitution. It certainly is not.

Part A of the amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a theocracy -- from mandating a state-controlled religion. Part B protects the People's rights of religious expression -- guarantees religious freedom.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

O'Donnell says she thinks it is up to the local school board to decide whether or not to teach creationism in public schools. If the community wants to teach creationism then the public school should teach it.

I don't say her belief is wrong, but I do say that it would be wrong to enact her belief.

If this was the case then a national program like "No Child Left Behind" would not have to be followed by local districts. A school district could set their own standards of education regardless of what the State decides the standards should be.

Oh, horrors of horrors of horrors! We cannot have that. We can't have local people deciding what they want in THEIR community. We all know that none of us are capable of thinking for ourselves. None of us are capable of making decisions for ourselves. None of us knows what is best for ourselves. Let us bow before the altar of Nanny State and implore her and beg her and beseech her to legislate for every area in our life, so that we all become her dutiful bondservants. Our first duty in life should be slavish obedience to the State. Our purpose for existence is to serve the Almighty State and to perform the State's will, not ours.

Good post, SJ. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

An excerpt from an excellent commentary on the Separation doctrine:

The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

The differences between the two walls are suggested by Jefferson's record as a public official in both Virginia and the nation, which shows that he initiated practices and implemented policies inconsistent with Justice Black's and the modern Supreme Court's "high and impregnable" wall of separation. Even among the metaphor's proponents, this has generated much debate concerning the proper dimensions of the wall. Whereas Jefferson's wall expressly separated the institutions of church and state, the Court's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government.

Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

Boxcar

[serp]

Too bad those alleged speeches weren't included in the amendment to give their words the force of law. For your info, the Law of the Land does not consist of any extra-Constitutional writings or speeches or secret oaths. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I'm not sure where you are getting secret oaths from.. Perhaps to detract from your misunderstanding of how the judicial system works. Intention of the law is of great importance when determining rulings. What the founders of the laws have to say about it during it's infancy is important.

There is no syntactical loophole here for you to abuse.

[highnote]

You'd make a great activist judge. Are you saying the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were incapable of expressing themselves? The surely didn't have any problem explicitly expressing their thoughts about keeping the state out of religion, did they?

Also, are you saying that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the federal government's rights? Or does the Bill protect the People's rights?

Boxcar


I'm only joining in the debate. You can interpret my comments however you want. I know that I do not know enough about the Constitution, Law, Religion etc to be considered an expert, but I enjoy discussing them.

[highnote]

You did not quote my entire post. Did you stop reading when you got to the first thing you disagreed with?

I also wrote: "You know, come to think of it. Maybe it's a good idea. If you don't like the education in that community then you can move somewhere else."

I take it you don't like "No Child Left Behind"?



Oh, horrors of horrors of horrors! We cannot have that. We can't have local people deciding what they want in THEIR community. We all know that none of us are capable of thinking for ourselves. None of us are capable of making decisions for ourselves. None of us knows what is best for ourselves. Let us bow before the altar of Nanny State and implore her and beg her and beseech her to legislate for every area in our life, so that we all become her dutiful bondservants. Our first duty in life should be slavish obedience to the State. Our purpose for existence is to serve the Almighty State and to perform the State's will, not ours.

Good post, SJ. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I'm not sure where you are getting secret oaths from.. Perhaps to detract from your misunderstanding of how the judicial system works. Intention of the law is of great importance when determining rulings. What the founders of the laws have to say about it during it's infancy is important.

There is no syntactical loophole here for you to abuse.

Then the SC invented the intent. Read what I posted by Heritage. Jefferson's only intent was to protect The People from an abusive Federal Government. This it entirely consistent with the thrust of the amendment which is to guarantee THE PEOPLE'S right to practice their religion and worship God as they see fit. In order for that to occur, it was imperative to write the "establishment" clause, which was designed to keep the Feds out of The People's various expressions of religious observances. The establishment clause is in fact a negative expression of THE PEOPLE'S rights. (BO certainly recognized this about the Bill of Rights, which is why he thinks it is "fundamentally flawed"!) The establishment clause prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S intrusion into the "church" -- into the religious faith of The People. This prohibition guaranteed the People's freedom of expression and observance.

Jefferson never intended for the Federal Government to intrude into matters that rightfully belonged to the sovereign, individual states. He did not intend to ban religion from all civil polity. How could he have been when he was in favor of the states funding churches!? Or states declaring holidays of religious observances, etc.? :bang: :bang: Again, read the following very carefully if you're really interested in the true intent, rather than the one fabricated by an activist Supreme Court:

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

President Jefferson had been under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving, and he said he wanted to explain his policy on this delicate matter. He told Attorney General Levi Lincoln that his response to the Danbury Baptists "furnishes an occasion too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors [Presidents Washington and Adams] did." The President was eager to address this topic because his Federalist foes had demanded religious proclamations and then smeared him as an enemy of religion when he declined to issue them.

Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

How can Jefferson's public record on religious proclamations in Virginia be reconciled with the stance he took as President of the United States? The answer, I believe, is found in the principle of federalism. Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because "no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

These two statements were, in essence, Jefferson's own commentary on the Danbury letter, insofar as they grappled with identical issues. Thus, as a matter of federalism, he thought it inappropriate for the nation's chief executive to proclaim days for religious observance; however, he acknowledged the authority of state officials to issue religious proclamations. In short, Jefferson's "wall" was erected between the federal and state governments on matters pertaining to religion.

Boxcar

[highnote]

It may be true that gov intrusion into the Church is prohibited by the Bill of Rights, but surely Church intrusion into the government would also be prohibited.

The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, but it also protects citizens from having a religion forced upon them.

So it seems to work both ways, even if it doesn't use this exact language.

In fact, when I read the First Amendment phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" it isn't clear to me what is meant by "respecting an establishment of religion".

Does it mean, "Congress will not make a law that establishes a religion"?

The way I read it in today's English is that Congress will not make a law that respects the establishment of religion. Does that mean they can make a law that disrespects religion? If I use my modern English interpretation, it sounds like it allows Congress to create a law that is disrespectful of religion.

So it is necessary to understand the differences in the way words might have been used 225 years ago.







Then the SC invented the intent. Read what I posted by Heritage. Jefferson's only intent was to protect The People from an abusive Federal Government. This it entirely consistent with the thrust of the amendment which is to guarantee THE PEOPLE'S right to practice their religion and worship God as they see fit. In order for that to occur, it was imperative to write the "establishment" clause, which was designed to keep the Feds out of The People's various expressions of religious observances. The establishment clause is in fact a negative expression of THE PEOPLE'S rights. (BO certainly recognized this about the Bill of Rights, which is why he thinks it is "fundamentally flawed"!) The establishment clause prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S intrusion into the "church" -- into the religious faith of The People. This prohibition guaranteed the People's freedom of expression and observance.

Jefferson never intended for the Federal Government to intrude into matters that rightfully belonged to the sovereign, individual states. He did not intend to ban religion from all civil polity. How could he have been when he was in favor of the states funding churches!? Or states declaring holidays of religious observances, etc.? :bang: :bang: Again, read the following very carefully if you're really interested in the true intent, rather than the one fabricated by an activist Supreme Court:

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

President Jefferson had been under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving, and he said he wanted to explain his policy on this delicate matter. He told Attorney General Levi Lincoln that his response to the Danbury Baptists "furnishes an occasion too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors [Presidents Washington and Adams] did." The President was eager to address this topic because his Federalist foes had demanded religious proclamations and then smeared him as an enemy of religion when he declined to issue them.

Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

How can Jefferson's public record on religious proclamations in Virginia be reconciled with the stance he took as President of the United States? The answer, I believe, is found in the principle of federalism. Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because "no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

These two statements were, in essence, Jefferson's own commentary on the Danbury letter, insofar as they grappled with identical issues. Thus, as a matter of federalism, he thought it inappropriate for the nation's chief executive to proclaim days for religious observance; however, he acknowledged the authority of state officials to issue religious proclamations. In short, Jefferson's "wall" was erected between the federal and state governments on matters pertaining to religion.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

It may be true that gov intrusion into the Church is prohibited by the Bill of Rights, but surely Church intrusion into the government would also be prohibited.

The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, but it also protects citizens from having a religion forced upon them.

Soo....we're finally in agreement? :bang: :bang: Have I not been saying this? You contrast the concepts with your "but" -- but there shouldn't be one. :)

In order to protect the free practice or observance of religion, it would be necessary to also protect the practitioners (i.e. THE PEOPLE) from having the Federal Government force a religion upon the populace, hence the ESTABLISHMENT clause. These two concepts are NOT contradictory. They are not mutually opposed to one another.

But...the Bill of Rights is not a Declaration of Government's Rights. It's a NEGATIVE declaration of The People's Rights. The U.S. Government has no right to ban religion or prayers, etc. from the public square. By so doing, the
Government has infringed on The People's Rights -- which the First Amendment is supposed to protect. The First Amendment was not written to protect the Government from The People -- religious or otherwise!


In fact, when I read the First Amendment phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" it isn't clear to me what is meant by "respecting an establishment of religion".

Does it mean, "Congress will not make a law that establishes a religion"?

The way I read it in today's English is that Congress will not make a law that respects the establishment of religion. Does that mean they can make a law that disrespects religion? If I use my modern English interpretation, it sounds like it allows Congress to create a law that is disrespectful of religion.

So it is necessary to understand the differences in the way words might have been used 225 years ago.

Context is everything. The People cannot have their religious rights guaranteed apart from also being guaranteed that the Government will not establish a state-sanctioned religion. The framers did not want another Church of ENGLAND scenario from which they fled! What in the world is so difficult to understand about this? :bang: The framers did not want The Church of America, for example, which could only happen if the government, under the force of law, established a national religion! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[highnote]

Soo....we're finally in agreement? :bang: :bang:

I'm glad you finally came around to my way of seeing things. :D


The First Amendment was not written to protect the Government from The People -- religious or otherwise!

That makes sense. In fact, I believe I have read that Thomas Jefferson thought the citizens should stage a revolution every so often. Ultimately, power is in the hands of the citizens.




Context is everything. The People cannot have their religious rights guaranteed apart from also being guaranteed that the Government will not establish a state-sanctioned religion. The framers did not want another Church of ENGLAND scenario from which they fled! What in the world is so difficult to understand about this? :bang:

Nothing. It's what we have been taught since elementary school.

The framers did not want The Church of America,

The National Cathedral is a good start, though. ;)

[mostpost]

Too bad those alleged speeches weren't included in the amendment to give their words the force of law. For your info, the Law of the Land does not consist of any extra-Constitutional writings or speeches or secret oaths. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
You are wrong again. Courts frequently use contemporary accounts to determine the intent of Congress. And the courts have used historical documents and writings to interpret how the framers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. I will say it again; the Constitution is a framework on which we hang our laws. It does not enumerate every circumstance or address every situation. The framers thought we would be intelligent enough to adapt to changing circumstances. Apparently they were wrong. :bang:

[DJofSD]

Ya, if the FF were smart they would have established the postal service right away. Idiots.

[boxcar]

You are wrong again. Courts frequently use contemporary accounts to determine the intent of Congress. And the courts have used historical documents and writings to interpret how the framers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. I will say it again; the Constitution is a framework on which we hang our laws. It does not enumerate every circumstance or address every situation. The framers thought we would be intelligent enough to adapt to changing circumstances. Apparently they were wrong. :bang:

COURTS have done that....but re-read my statement again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Constitution is more than a mere framework, in which in any court can nilly-willy interpret anyway it please. The Constitution is THE LAW of The LAND! It's not merely the framework for all subsequent SC decisions or congressional statutes.

The ultra megabytes of irony about the court's interpretation of Jefferson's phrase is that he wrote to that Baptist church to assuage their fears (due to the lies of his political opponents) that he was not truly opposed to the establishment of a church-state and, therefore, sympathetic to the people's earnest desire for the free practice of religion according to the dictates of their conscience. Talk about irony!

Boxcar