Separation of Church and State

Status
Not open for further replies.

TaurusCIA

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
317
Location
NC
1st Amendment

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

It seems to me that the "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution. Why is it often sighted to support "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which IS in the Constitution? The current trend appears to be to remove any public expression that SOMEONE might perceive supports a particular religion. What does any of that have to do with Congress making laws establishing or prohibiting religion?

The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

hmmm...Nature's God, Creator?

I would also propose that the theory of evolution is as much an expression of faith as any major religion. It is just a different belief in man's origin and purpose. Since macro evolution remains unproven it requires faith to accept it as true. Why does it get special status just because someone decided to call it science.

Sometimes I just wonder why?
 
I never understood the application of "separation" outside of the context of the federal government promoting, or suppressing a religion.
 
There is a really good magazine called Whistleblower that is sponsored by www.worldnetdaily.com. It features one issue a month and has several articles that disect it. THey recently did an issue on "The Myth of Church and State Separation." This was a great issue and sells for 7.50 at their site. I got it and it is well worth the money. There is nothing in the constitution that describes a wall of separation between the church and the state. It was actually taken out of a letter from Jefferson. The intent was to protect religion from the state, but has been warped and twisted by liberals into the exact opposite.
 
This is were the Words "Separation of Church and State" come from.

"Wall of Separation" between Church and State
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 any involvement in religion.

SCOTUS quite often makes stupid interpretations.

The 1st Amendment is clear, and yet City, State, and Federal Governments all pass laws against the free expression of religion on a regular basis.
 
Here's an excellent write-up about the Establishment Clause by J. Clifford Wallace, Chief Judge Emeritus of the 9th Circuit Court: http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2001/2/wal15.pdf

The article is entitled "The Framer's Establishment Clause: How High the Wall." It goes into great detail about precedents in the late 1700's, and concludes that the current "separation of church and state" doctrine is completely different from what was practiced by the Framers.

Amazingly, some of the states actually had official state churches, which was then OK under the understanding of the 1st Amendment. (That was pretty much done away with by the "incorporation" interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.)
 
What’s the big deal??

It really is a big deal but not because of churches and states.

I heard a discussion on C-Span between the atheist who is appearing before te SCOTUS to get “under God†removed from the pledge of allegiance and someone ( I don’t know who) who was arguing against this. The atheist’s argument was his daughter was being forcibly indoctrinated in a “religionâ€. He felt this violated his rights as a parent to raise his daughter as he chooses. He contented that any reference to God should be removed from any part of gov.

Personally I find it hard to believe that “God†can be construed as a “religionâ€. I do think that there should be a separation between church and state in that the state should not run the church and the church should not run the state. Churches should not make laws or collect taxes etc.

The most interesting argument was from the non-atheist who posed “if we are not “endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights†then where do they come from?â€

The atheist said they come from “the peopleâ€.

This goes to the very core of the founding principles of our country. That our rights come from a power higher than man. The Bill of Rights enumerates some of our rights. It does not grant or give them to us. If our rights are privileges granted us by “the people†then “the people†(you can read ultra left wing Marxist if you want) can take then away.

When you hear anti RKBA arguments that the 2A when it says “people†means the “state†where does that leave any of your rights? Up for grabs.
 
If people wish to believe in imaginary beings, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It is only when they take the tax dollars stolen from me at gunpoint to pay for their beliefs that I get rankled.
 
Speaking strictly as a lifelong atheist: the leftist extremists are using the First Amendment as a hammer to strike blows against Christianity. I believe they've singled out Christianity partly because it's the dominant belief in the United States, partly because most Christian sects draw distinctions between good and evil and uphold the principle of individual responsibility.

The people who are perverting the First Amendment are likewise doing everything possible to eviscerate the Second. That's no mere coincidence.
 
Official state church isn't the half of it. The Church collected the taxes and imposed severe fines. They banned other religions.

Here's a little Virginia history leading up to Mr. Jefferson's Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom. For instance, read the entries for 1632 and 1662 - and then go ahead and read all of them. John


From www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/princip.html


1619--Act of the Assembly (colonial legislature). "All ministers shall duely read divine service and exercise their ministerial function according to the Ecclesiastical lawes and orders of the churche of Englande."

1624--Act of the Assembly. Anyone missing one Sunday service was fined one pound of tobacco; one month, fifty pounds. No one was allowed to sell crops until the minister had received his portion, and it had to come from the "first and best tobacco and corn."

1628--Proclamation of the Governor. Colonists were forbidden "to marry without lycence or asking in church."

1632--Act of the Assembly. All ministers were required to maintain complete uniformity to the teachings and constitution of the Church of England, and ministers were to receive from each family the twentieth calf, kid, and pig.

1642--Act of the Assembly. "All nonconformists upon notice of them shall be compelled to depart the collony with all conveniencie." "No ministers shall be admitted to officiate in this country, but such as shall produce to the governor a testimonial that he hath received his ordination from some bishop in England, and shall then subscribe, to be conformable to the orders and constitutions of the church of England, and the laws there established." The tithe tax, for ministers salaries, of ten pounds of tobacco and one bushel of corn was applied to "all youths of sixteen years of age as upwards, as also for all negro women at the age of sixteen years."

1660--Act of the Assembly. The captain of any ship bringing Quakers into the colony was fined 100 pounds, and all Quakers who did enter were to be expelled.

1661--Act of the Assembly. All parishes were required to furnish glebes, houses, and stock for ministers.

1662--Act of the Assembly. Ministers were required to prove that they were ordained by an English bishop, and all others were prohibited from teaching or preaching, publicly or privately.

Responsibility for administering church matters was given to vestrymen elected by the people of the parish. The vestries determined the amount of taxes (and tax rates) necessary for the minister's salary, other church expenses, and relief of the poor. Obviously, religion in colonial Virginia was established by law; and, because taxation was also a significant matter of law, vestrymen were usually wealthy politicians and often members of the House of Burgesses. In his 1910 book Separation of Church and State in Virginia --from which the historical information in this essay is taken, H. J. Eckenrode says: "The union of church and state put the church under a political control. ... The church was thoroughly subordinated to the state" (p. 14).

1727--Act of the Assembly. Ministerial salaries were set at 16,000 pounds of tobacco, each parish was required to provide 200 acres of land on which a parsonage was to be built, and vestrymen were authorized to levy taxes on the people of the parish to pay for the minister's house.

1754--Order of the Council. Clerymen were forbidden to hold the office of Justice of the Peace--a source of additional income.

1755 and 1758--Acts of the Assembly. Laws were passed "to enable the inhabitants of this colony to discharge their tobacco debts [to the clergy] in money" (rather than in the best of tobacco which could normally be sold for even more money). The Anglican clergy appealed to the Bishop of London whose influence prompted the King to veto the action of the Assembly. The general reaction in Virginia added to a growing resentment of both the clergy (as a tax burden) and the king (as a threat to home rule).

1763--A clergyman sued (The Parsons’ Cause) his vestry for lost income because of the Assembly's vetoed acts. Patrick Henry defended the vestrymen and argued that the king was guilty of tyranny in overturning a just law passed by English freemen. A jury composed of Virginians, including some Irish Presbyterians, awarded one penny in damages.

1771--A convention of Anglican clergymen resolved to petition the King of England for a Bishop to be appointed in Virginia. An increasingly anticlerical attitude, combined with a growing nationalism and an ever increasing number of dissenters, prompted even one Anglican to say, "I profess myself a sincere son of the established church, but I can embrace her Doctrines without approving of her Hierarchy, which I know to be a Relick of the Papal Incroachments." The state and the Anglicans were legally united in the colony, and the church was financially dependent on the state--vestrymen and legislators wanted to maintain control of both.

1776--The Declaration of Independence declared civil freedom from the laws of England and its King, and on December 9, 1776, the legislature of Virginia suspended payment of taxes for support of the Anglican clergy. This was a major first step toward total disestablishment of the Anglicans in Virginia, but the controversy was not over; many laws respecting religion continued to exist.

June 2, 1779--Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Religious Freedom" was introduced; it objected to establishment of religion by law or by required tax support for religion: "The impious presumptions of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world." Petitions for and against Jefferson’s bill were drafted.
 
Speaking strictly as a lifelong atheist

Thanks for your perspective and insight.

I believe in a God as my creator but I don't believe everyone has to agree with me. I believe that everyone is free to choose what they believe is their origin and purpose.

Even when I didn't believe in God I still understood the role of Judeo-Christian beliefs in relation to our history as a country.

Religious influence shapes all countries.

Buddhism - China
Hinduism - India
Islam - middle eastern countries
etc.

It seems that certain people want to actively erase any public reference to our historical religious influences even though these are evident in our historical documents.

Revisionist History??
 
TaurusCIA,

It seems that certain people want to actively erase any public reference to our historical religious influences even though these are evident in our historical documents.

Revisionist History??

In order to adhere to all beliefs of the founding fathers, do you believe in the aether, that blacks are only a fraction of a human being, and in the curative properties of bleeding? :scrutiny:

"Erasing" and "not subscribing to" are two completely different animals.
 
It seems to me that the "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution. Why is it often sighted to support "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which IS in the Constitution?
Because, it is only cited as prohibited in instances when the practice of religion BY NECESSITY infringes on other people's constitutional right to NOT PRACTICE religion... and only in places supported by federal funds wherin the public must be there.

To wit, a kid has to go to school and the feds pay part of the tab for public school. If those schools sponsor prayers or references to prayers DURING SCHOOL HOURS, they are inflicting religion on kids whether they choose to have it or not. The SC has ruled public schools may have all the religous clubs they want on school property after hours, since (by definition) attendance is only for those who choose to be there.

It is so simple an idiot could undertstand it: fed money can not be used to subsidize the practice of religion in public establishments where the public attending does not have the option to "not participate".... and the reason is even simpler: the constitutional guarantee to practice any religion you want includes the guarantee to NOT practice an established religion if you want.
 
I believe they've singled out Christianity partly because it's the dominant belief in the United States, partly because most Christian sects draw distinctions between good and evil and uphold the principle of individual responsibility.
Well, I consider myself to be an actual Christian (which is to say, someone who follows the teachings of Christ as written, not as interpreted by others) and I am sick of millions of dollars being wasted litigating something so stupid.

Not saying "under God" in the pledge won't turn the country into atheists.... of course, seeing a bunch of lying adulterers like Next Gingrich passing themselves off as holier-than-thou Christians will go a long way in that direction, but not parroting two words at the start of a school day isn't going to change a thing (since nobody attaches any meaning to it, they just spout it.) It's about "Christians" whining about not being able to do whatever they want in public schools. Period.

As to why the Christian right are targeted in this country? Well, I don't think they are but I do think they are some of the most intolerant, arrogant, bigoted, narrow minded fools I've ever seen. One county down south just passed a law banning gays in their county then quickly had to recind it because it was illegal. The "good Christians" are always going off about how the gays are ruining the country even though the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages is about 60%. They say the country is ruined because their kids can't say prayers in school... really? I say a few hundred prayers a day, I just don't say them out loud. last time I checked, God hears them either way.... it's just that when you say them silently you don't get the chance to look holy or get in somebody's face with your religion. Personally, I wish they would use a differnet name from "Christain" because what they believe and what they do is a disgrace to Christ's teachings, and gives real Christians a bad name.
 
Who's holding the gun?

Who is holding the gun to make you pay taxes?

Don't buy from Wal-mart and you don't need to pay. Don't work and taxes will not be with held.

Just set around and claim a disability and you can get paided to set on you butt!

Having a copy of the ten commandments in a government building is not forcing it down your throat. It is abiding by what the MAJORITY of people believe.
 
It is so simple an idiot could undertstand it: fed money can not be used to subsidize the practice of religion in public establishments where the public attending does not have the option to "not participate".... and the reason is even simpler: the constitutional guarantee to practice any religion you want includes the guarantee to NOT practice an established religion if you want.

Exactly. That is why we the people should not be sending in our tax money to the feds in order that they return portions of it back to us with strings attached as to how to run our schools and teach our children. :mad:
 
Who is holding the gun to make you pay taxes?
The government is, of course. If you don't pay, they'll send representives to extract the money they think you owe. If you resist, you'll get to enjoy the pleasures of federal prison. Resist too much, and well...

Having a copy of the ten commandments in a government building is not forcing it down your throat.
I'm generally more offended by the existence of the government building than the existince of the copy of the Ten Commandments. But the question still remains - who owns that government building?

- Chris
 
Isn't it odd how the narrow constructionists often become broad constructionists while the broad constructionists become narrow constructionists when switching topics from the 1st to the 2nd Amts?
 
TaurusCIA:
It seems to me that the "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution.

It seems to me that the phrase "separation of powers" is not found in the Constitution either. That phrase describes a situation built into the Constitution.

It is the same with the phrase "separation of church and state." That phrase describes the effect of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Ammendment taken together.

By the way, Jefferson did not create the phrase. He borrowed it from Rodger Williams, the first Baptist in the Colonies and the man who founded the State of Rhode Island. Jefferson knew full well that the use of the phrase to describe the intent of the framers would be understood by and find favor with the Danbury Baptists, (who would have recognized it as a reference to Williams's language) since Baptists were among the most ardent supporters of such separation, having suffered greatly at the hands of the established Churches in most of the States.

The fact that the First Ammendment did not apply to the individual States at the time is irrelevant now, since the passage of the 14th Ammendment, which guaranteed the protections of the Constitution to all citizens equally, regardless of State of residence. This means that one's freedom of religion may not be abridged by having to support any Church or religion that any particular state might decide to establish as the "official" one.
 
It is only when they take the tax dollars stolen from me at gunpoint to pay for their beliefs that I get rankled.

Oh, you mean like at practically every govt. school out there where they force feed socialism down all the kid's throats?

The people who are perverting the First Amendment are likewise doing everything possible to eviscerate the Second. That's no mere coincidence.

Absolute loyalty to the state would be shattered if someone has loyalty to a higher power.

Absolute obedience to the state would be threatened if someone has guns.

No, it is no mere coincidence that this is occuring.

To wit, a kid has to go to school and the feds pay part of the tab for public school

There's the rub. While we're talking about Constitutionality and all, can you please show me where in Article I sec. 8 of the US Constitution the Feds have any business in education. The solution is very simple, you have the Feds stop paying for "education" and it becomes a non-issue. I'd also like to know why you think it's just that a child be forced to attend a govt indoctrination center?
 
Glock Glockler,

Oh, you mean like at practically every govt. school out there where they force feed socialism down all the kid's throats?

This would be ass-u-me-ing that I think Government Indoctrination Cam... er, Public Schools are any less repugnant. ;)




_________________
What part of 'leave me the hell alone' do you not understand?
 
I hear you, Bountyhunter... we have our disgrace of a "christian Democrats' " party who are every bit as much bigoted, narrow-minded, hypocritical and holier-than-holy-smoke and yes, they abuse the very word.

OTOH, a leading character of theirs, long-time cabinet member, a stout, bearded guy, has served as a gay icon for "bear-lovers" all of his career... :D :scrutiny: :uhoh: :p which I must say is dang hilarious...
 
It is abiding by what the MAJORITY of people believe.

This attitude is why I am glad - no matter what they teach in school - that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, created by people who purposefully did not create a democracy for this very reason. The purpose of the constititon and the bill of rights is to make sure that the MINORITY do not have to abide by what the MAJORITY believe. Men have rights that can not be taken away (unalienable ) no matter who wants to do so or how great their number (To paraphrase Ayn Rand). I wouldn't think it would be necessary to remind anyone here that if a majority is all that is needed to make something right we are all in a lot of trouble.
 
Church/IRS Secret deal?

nytimes.com article

Court Case Poses Challenge to Scientology Tax Break
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: March 24, 2004


LOS ANGELES, March 21 - A trial is to begin here on Wednesday morning to determine whether a Jewish couple can deduct the cost of religious education for their five children, a tax benefit they say the federal government has granted to members of just one religion, the Church of Scientology.

The potential ramifications are huge, for a ruling in favor of the couple could affect the millions of Americans who send their children to religious schools of all types. At stake is whether people of all religions can deduct the cost of religious education as a charitable gift, as Scientologists are allowed to do under an officially secret 1993 agreement with the Internal Revenue Service.

That agreement came despite a 1989 Supreme Court ruling denying tax deductions for money paid in fees set by the Church of Scientology for its "auditing" and "training" services. The Supreme Court decision said the money did not qualify for the charitable gift deduction because it involved a fixed price and was akin to a fee for a service.

The couple, Michael and Marla Sklar of Los Angeles, originally took the I.R.S. to court after being denied $2,080 in 1993 deductions for religious education for their children. They lost that case, in which Mr. Sklar, a tax accountant, represented himself at trial. The couple appealed, and three judges on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against them two years ago. But one judge also took the unusual step of suggesting further litigation that would better define the issues.

The judges in the original Sklar case said "it appears to be true" that Scientology - founded by L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer, in the 1950's - received preferential tax treatment in violation of the First Amendment.

"Why is Scientology training different from all other religious training?" Judge Barry D. Silverman wrote in his opinion, adding that the question would not be answered just then because the court was not faced with the question of whether "members of the Church of Scientology have become the I.R.S.'s chosen people." Judge Silverman then recommended litigation to address whether the government is improperly favoring one religion.

"If the I.R.S. does in fact give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology - allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and disallowed to everybody else - then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy," Judge Silverman wrote.

In this second trial, also against the I.R.S. and involving $3,209 of taxes for 1995, the Sklars are represented by Jeffrey I. Zuckerman of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in Washington, who is serving pro bono.
The chief tax lawyer for the Church of Scientology, Monique E. Yingling, said the Sklar lawsuit was baseless. She said that until the 1993 agreement, Scientologists were discriminated against by not being allowed to take charitable deductions.

"Scientologists now are being treated the same as everyone else, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus," she said, her list of religions continuing.
"Auditing and training are both Scientology religious services," Ms. Yingling said, that members "participate in to advance in Scientology."

Mr. Sklar, though, said he saw no difference between the services that Scientologists cite for their deductions and the religious training his children receive at two Hebrew schools in Los Angeles.

On their tax returns, the Sklars claimed charitable deductions equal to the portion of the Hebrew school tuition that covers the cost of religious education. He said that were he a Scientologist, it was clear he could deduct these sums.

When the Sklars tried to take the deduction, the I.R.S. sent them letters laying out the terms for Scientologists to take such deductions. The I.R.S. then denied the deductions because the Sklars did not provide receipts from the Church of Scientology.

Other than the Sklars, the only known legal challenge to the I.R.S. agreement with the Scientologists was made by the nonprofit publisher of Tax Notes magazine. It tried unsuccessfully to get a judge to make the agreement public. (Copies of what seem to be the agreement were leaked several years ago.)

"The reason I got started on this course of action was I felt that there was a precedent being set that is extremely dangerous," Mr. Sklar said. "If the government is allowed to do this unchallenged, it means you have a state-favored religion, and that has never fared well for the Jews."

Mr. Sklar said that after he pressed his claim for a charitable deduction, the I.R.S. audited him and eight clients. "I think the I.R.S. was harassing me because before I had maybe one audit in two years," he said.

A subpoena for the secret agreement with the Scientologists has been quashed at the request of the Church of Scientology and the I.R.S. A fight over access to that agreement is likely to be a crucial issue on appeal, which seems certain regardless of how the trial judge rules.

Mr. Sklar said that after more than a decade of tax breaks for Scientologists, he believed that the only proper course for the courts was to allow people of all faiths to take charitable deductions for the costs of religious education and training.

But Judge Silverman, who had urged litigation to settle the issue, took a different approach in his opinion two years ago.

"The remedy," he wrote, "is not to require the I.R.S. to let others claim the improper deduction."

How many secret IRS/organization agreements are there?
:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top