Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
The short story is that Congress cannot declare any one religion to be the national religion, or the preferred religion or one given special favor or treatment.
Unfortunately, that is not sufficient. Fortunately, the writers of the Constitution and its Amendments were very keen thinkers.
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..
The short story here is that this clause prevents an "end around."
The reason the first clause is insufficient, is that while Congress cannot declare a national religion or preferred religion, it could out-law or ban religions. That religion or religious sect which is not out-lawed or banned would then become the de facto national religion or preferred religion. The second clause prevents that from happening.
Putting it altogether....
Congress cannot make Jehovah's Witnesses the official religion of the US, nor can it make christianity the preferred religion of the US, because of the 1st clause.
However, Congress could simply outlaw or ban all other religions to the point where the only religion that was not outlawed or banned was Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise, Congress cannot ban Hinduism or Islam, or Zorastrianism or any other religion leaving christianity to be the de facto religion.
Clearly, if Congress wanted religions interfering with the State, they would not have addressed the issue, and they certainly would not have addressed it in that manner.
You'll note that there is no cabinet position as Secretary of Religion, just as there is no federal agency or ombudsman for religion.
There's something else as well. In Europe, as well as in the Colonies, the Churches performed many functions related to Vital Statistics that the State now performs. For example, it was the Churches and not the State that recorded births, baptisms, marriages, divorces and deaths.
It was the Churches and the christian version of Shari'ah Law that granted divorces, because the State had no authority, and it was the christian version of Shari'ah Law that collected tithes from people and if they failed to pay, the christian version of Shari'ah Law would issue a writ and seize your money and property as payment for the tithes.
In some States, the Churches had to notify the municipal or local authorities as a matter of courtesy, but in other States, like France, Spain, the Italian City-States, Poland, the majority of the German stem-duchies and such, the Church acted on its own and even imprisoned people in Church prisons for non-payment of tithes or other "offenses" violating the christian version of Shari'ah Law.
It wasn't until the French Revolution that it changed. The US was about 10 years ahead of the rest of Europe in kicking the Churches out of the business of the State. From 1789 to 1795 you see the States taking over the role of the Church in recording Vital Statistics. For the Churches, Vital Statistics was big business since you had to pay the Churches to get married, pay the Churches to record the births of your children, pay the Churches for their baptisms, pay the Churches for deaths and pay the Churches for divorce (assuming you could get a divorce under the christian version of Shari'ah Law -- of course if you were wealthy that would be no problem as you'd just bribe a Church official).
The US could have allowed Churches to continue collecting (and charging) for Vital Statistics, but it didn't, because it didn't want religion involved in the affairs of State.
I would say its a reasonable inference from the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
If the government can neither establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. In what area can church and state combined and not be separate.
The whole point of the "spirit" of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state, as it's so often phrased, was that the STATE shall not impose a Religion on it's people - hence "freedom of religion". The whole spirit was to keep the state out of religion NOT religion out of the state.
If you can't mix water with oil, how do you propose mixing oil with water?
The whole point of the "spirit" of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state, as it's so often phrased, was that the STATE shall not impose a Religion on it's people - hence "freedom of religion". The whole spirit was to keep the state out of religion NOT religion out of the state.
So religion can work its way into the state according to you.
If you let religion work its way in to the state and the manner in which you govern...how long until the religion of the majority is forced onto the minority in some way?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
The short story is that Congress cannot declare any one religion to be the national religion, or the preferred religion or one given special favor or treatment.
Unfortunately, that is not sufficient. Fortunately, the writers of the Constitution and its Amendments were very keen thinkers.
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..
The short story here is that this clause prevents an "end around."
The reason the first clause is insufficient, is that while Congress cannot declare a national religion or preferred religion, it could out-law or ban religions. That religion or religious sect which is not out-lawed or banned would then become the de facto national religion or preferred religion. The second clause prevents that from happening.
Putting it altogether....
Congress cannot make Jehovah's Witnesses the official religion of the US, nor can it make christianity the preferred religion of the US, because of the 1st clause.
However, Congress could simply outlaw or ban all other religions to the point where the only religion that was not outlawed or banned was Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise, Congress cannot ban Hinduism or Islam, or Zorastrianism or any other religion leaving christianity to be the de facto religion.
Clearly, if Congress wanted religions interfering with the State, they would not have addressed the issue, and they certainly would not have addressed it in that manner.
You'll note that there is no cabinet position as Secretary of Religion, just as there is no federal agency or ombudsman for religion.
There's something else as well. In Europe, as well as in the Colonies, the Churches performed many functions related to Vital Statistics that the State now performs. For example, it was the Churches and not the State that recorded births, baptisms, marriages, divorces and deaths.
It was the Churches and the christian version of Shari'ah Law that granted divorces, because the State had no authority, and it was the christian version of Shari'ah Law that collected tithes from people and if they failed to pay, the christian version of Shari'ah Law would issue a writ and seize your money and property as payment for the tithes.
In some States, the Churches had to notify the municipal or local authorities as a matter of courtesy, but in other States, like France, Spain, the Italian City-States, Poland, the majority of the German stem-duchies and such, the Church acted on its own and even imprisoned people in Church prisons for non-payment of tithes or other "offenses" violating the christian version of Shari'ah Law.
It wasn't until the French Revolution that it changed. The US was about 10 years ahead of the rest of Europe in kicking the Churches out of the business of the State. From 1789 to 1795 you see the States taking over the role of the Church in recording Vital Statistics. For the Churches, Vital Statistics was big business since you had to pay the Churches to get married, pay the Churches to record the births of your children, pay the Churches for their baptisms, pay the Churches for deaths and pay the Churches for divorce (assuming you could get a divorce under the christian version of Shari'ah Law -- of course if you were wealthy that would be no problem as you'd just bribe a Church official).
The US could have allowed Churches to continue collecting (and charging) for Vital Statistics, but it didn't, because it didn't want religion involved in the affairs of State.
I got a little sleepy in the middle ...
Did you find the "phrase"?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
The short story is that Congress cannot declare any one religion to be the national religion, or the preferred religion or one given special favor or treatment.
Unfortunately, that is not sufficient. Fortunately, the writers of the Constitution and its Amendments were very keen thinkers.
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..
The short story here is that this clause prevents an "end around."
The reason the first clause is insufficient, is that while Congress cannot declare a national religion or preferred religion, it could out-law or ban religions. That religion or religious sect which is not out-lawed or banned would then become the de facto national religion or preferred religion. The second clause prevents that from happening.
Putting it altogether....
Congress cannot make Jehovah's Witnesses the official religion of the US, nor can it make christianity the preferred religion of the US, because of the 1st clause.
However, Congress could simply outlaw or ban all other religions to the point where the only religion that was not outlawed or banned was Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise, Congress cannot ban Hinduism or Islam, or Zorastrianism or any other religion leaving christianity to be the de facto religion.
Clearly, if Congress wanted religions interfering with the State, they would not have addressed the issue, and they certainly would not have addressed it in that manner.
You'll note that there is no cabinet position as Secretary of Religion, just as there is no federal agency or ombudsman for religion.
There's something else as well. In Europe, as well as in the Colonies, the Churches performed many functions related to Vital Statistics that the State now performs. For example, it was the Churches and not the State that recorded births, baptisms, marriages, divorces and deaths.
It was the Churches and the christian version of Shari'ah Law that granted divorces, because the State had no authority, and it was the christian version of Shari'ah Law that collected tithes from people and if they failed to pay, the christian version of Shari'ah Law would issue a writ and seize your money and property as payment for the tithes.
In some States, the Churches had to notify the municipal or local authorities as a matter of courtesy, but in other States, like France, Spain, the Italian City-States, Poland, the majority of the German stem-duchies and such, the Church acted on its own and even imprisoned people in Church prisons for non-payment of tithes or other "offenses" violating the christian version of Shari'ah Law.
It wasn't until the French Revolution that it changed. The US was about 10 years ahead of the rest of Europe in kicking the Churches out of the business of the State. From 1789 to 1795 you see the States taking over the role of the Church in recording Vital Statistics. For the Churches, Vital Statistics was big business since you had to pay the Churches to get married, pay the Churches to record the births of your children, pay the Churches for their baptisms, pay the Churches for deaths and pay the Churches for divorce (assuming you could get a divorce under the christian version of Shari'ah Law -- of course if you were wealthy that would be no problem as you'd just bribe a Church official).
The US could have allowed Churches to continue collecting (and charging) for Vital Statistics, but it didn't, because it didn't want religion involved in the affairs of State.
So religion can work its way into the state according to you.
If you let religion work its way in to the state and the manner in which you govern...how long until the religion of the majority is forced onto the minority in some way?
I'm guessing not long....
It is now that I pray to Jesus ...
Lord , please show the people who post here that I wanted them to read the constitution , not take over the world in your name. Thank you for all I have .
Amen
I would not joke about Jesus , sometimes I joke but not this time.
I see it when they wink at each other and give the secret handshake Are you telling me that Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, Beck etc don't think the Constitution is divinely inspired and equivalent to the bible .... where have I been
Sarah Palin can’t seem to distinguish between the bible and the American Constitution.
Appearing recently on Bill O’Reilly’s TV show, Palin advised that what we need to do in this country is -
Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.
Someone really wise, once said:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
His name - James Madison
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you telling me that Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, Beck etc don't think the Constitution is divinely inspired and equivalent to the bible .... where have I been
