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.
The text of the first amendment is: "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."
I am troubled by our interpretation of the first two clauses of this amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I interpret this as a restriction of congress to pass any laws that affect in any manner the ability of a religion to establish itself or to restrict it's activities. It seems clear to me that the authors of this text wish to prevent the congress from controlling religion or barring religions from this country.
We seem to have twisted this into an imperative to ban religion in public and to force it behind closed doors out of sight. What part of this text indicates that congress can pass a law that prohibits spending money for a purpose affiliated with a religion? I can certainly see how it prohibits congress from passing a law that instructs spending on such a purpose. That is clear from the Congress shall pass no law respecting part. It might be debatable as to what purposes are related to the establishment, but I will err on the side of caution and define any religiously affiliated action to fall under this umbrella for purposes of this conversation. So, if congress can pass no law, how can it legally make any legislation in respect to this area?
Perhaps a loophole is legislation that dedicates funding for specific purposes. Then those funds could not be diverted for any purpose and thus protected from accidentally benefiting a religious organization. I can go along with that.
In the case of general funding that does not restrict it's application, why can we believe that the local or state governments that are not part of congress, and thus not bound by this amendment, should be selectively restricted as to how they use those funds?
In case you could not tell, I do not agree with the current implementation of the first amendment in our society. I believe it has been grossly taken out of context and applied where it does not belong. I do believe that church and state are intertwined as both are significant aspects of the human condition. I believe that the authors of the constitution did not agree with the established religious organizations of the time and wanted to keep the power of government out of the religious development in the US. I do not think they intended to stifle the religious environment or they would not have tried to handcuff congress in this respect. I think they would have been much more direct in their instruction to bar congress from aiding any establishment of religion rather than preventing the free exercise thereof.
Take a look at the words in this amendment and tell me why you think they should be applied in the manner they are today. Do not allow your arguments to be sidetracked onto the existance of God or the validity of religious organizations. The amendment did not distinguish among them, so I do not feel this discussion should include those views either. I want to understand why these words can be taken to support our present view of a separation between church and state.
No, just from public (city/state/Federal) property as that endorses a particular religion to do.
Which verbiage in the first amendment provides the ability to legislate against endorsement? Also, since the amendment is specifically addressed to congress, how do the city and state properties become covered by it?
Jefferson tried to originally clarify or strengthen this principle, that is admittedly vague in the Constitution. Historians point to this letter he wrote as the focal point that sets the precedent for this principle.
I also think the obvious question to ask in reference to this topic as well is, are you referring to Christianity specifically in your argument? Or would you have no issue with people hanging up Jewish,Muslim, Buddhist, Wikken artifacts in Public and pushing their religious agendas where they see fit? If you were to allow one, I would think you would have to allow them all. I'm not sure that would be helpful to society.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,352 posts, read 54,520,826 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
I do believe that church and state are intertwined as both are significant aspects of the human condition.
Do you also take "church and state are intertwined" to include religions that are practiced in temples, mosques, etc.? If so, who gets to choose which takes precedence in a govermental sense? If your statements not inclusive of all religions, why not?
I think the current interpretation works just fine.
Last edited by burdell; 10-18-2007 at 11:28 AM..
Reason: Spelling
Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
* 57510 responses
14% Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
86% No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
86% to keep , In God We Trust" on U.S. currency?
14% against
That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why is the world catering to this 14% and isn't it time we fight back with everything we got?
Do you also take "church and state are intertwined" to include religions that are practiced in temples, mosques, etc.? If so, who gets to choose which takes precedence in a giverbmental sense? If your statements not inclusive of all religions, why not?
I think the current interpretation works just fine.
Except that it has spread exponentially to include eliminating, among other things, the word "Christmas" from our public schools, indicating that the current interpretation by politically-corrrect bureaucrats and a semi-pathological judiciary has begun to border on linguistic and philosophical fascism and cultural suicide, and foreshadows the ultimate demise of common sense.
Also, since the amendment is specifically addressed to congress, how do the city and state properties become covered by it?
Because the Constitution covers the rights of every citizen. It is because of the Bill of Rights that it is just as wrong for a local or state government to support on particular religion as it is for the Federal government.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,352 posts, read 54,520,826 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Except that it has spread exponentially to include eliminating, among other things, the word "Christmas" from our public schools, indicating that the current interpretation by politically-corrrect bureaucrats and a semi-pathological judiciary has begun to border on linguistic and philosophical fascism and cultural suicide, and foreshadows the ultimate demise of common sense.
Other than that, everything is hunky-dory.
I don't think a lot of this is as much religious as it's PC BS.
And attempting to legislate common sense probably ranks right up there with herding cats as an exercise in futility.
Which verbiage in the first amendment provides the ability to legislate against endorsement? Also, since the amendment is specifically addressed to congress, how do the city and state properties become covered by it?
When you use state money to propagate a particular religion, you endorse that religion and 'establish' it as an official religion. Moreover, the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. If we took the Constitution literally, 'equal protection of law' would have outlawed racial and sex discrimination 100 years earlier.
See your local constitutional law scholar.
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.
Basic Constitutional Law Interpretation
