Mark replied to dmb:
... Let me assert that there is no explicit discussion of the separation of
church and state in that amendment. Such a thing would not have been
considered at that time since the colonies were governed in highly religious
manners. What the amendment states is that the government will not establish a
theocracy like they have in Iran (for example). This is an important
distinction. ... So, the idea of separation of church and state is far from
well established, although it may be in your mind. And yes, the interpretation
is always open, something which you would want to prevent for those who hold
opposing views to yours.
dmb says:
Are we talking about the meaning of concepts and principles or just the
existence of a particular phrase? I mean, you can't really believe that the
issue hinges on whether or not the exact phrase appears in the document. That
would be ridiculous. The fact is - and I'm talking about historical and legal
facts here - the separation of church and state is explicitly stated in the
document. Like I already said, the first part of the first amendment is known
as the "separation clause". And it is simply a fact that this principle has
been well established in subsequent court cases, about as well established as
any part of the law. It also is simply untrue that such a thing couldn't have
been considered in colonial times. They were not only considered, they were
debated at length and written into our highest law. Yes, of course there are
different interpretations. That's how the system works. But your
"interpretation" does not comport with the facts of law or history.
>From Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:
"It is true that the literal phrase 'separation of church and state' does not
appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The
First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the
Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared
that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of
separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger
Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary
period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father
of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he 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 and state." In an
earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly
guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution
of the United States."
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State
and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and
state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some
convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly
and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is
generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial'
is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who
would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that
phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these
terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America
would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles."
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of
church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First
Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.
Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's
"wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it
as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political
constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are
simply wrong.
As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as
an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before
sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney
general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing
useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become
rooted among their political tenets."
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative
religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty.
Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear
up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter
represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the
First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many
times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's
observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the
scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v.
Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of
Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to
erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent
times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court
system who oppose separation of church and state."
Mark also said to dmb:
So I am not religious but I do have a problem grasping what you are proposing.
When you are supporting the laughing of law students, you are also supporting
profound indoctrination into a religious perspective. I know that you probably
do not see it that way, but that is because of your extreme faith. Your
concept of protecting intellectual evolution is only putting blinkers on such
evolution. It can only evolve in the way you want it too, you are creating all
sorts of static filters. Is intellectual evolution really that fragile?
Perhaps you do not give it the credit it deserves. Perhaps you think we can
control it, Heavens to Betsy!
dmb says:
Supporting their laughter is supporting profound indoctrination? Defending
intellectual evolution and religious freedom puts blinkers and static filters
on evolution? Dude, that doesn't even make sense. You're not being reasonable
in the least. O'Donnell's ignorance has made her a laughing stock and rightly
so. You are defending a complete airhead with profoundly bad reasoning. Defense
of the principle of separation is indoctrination into an extreme faith?
Obviously, that's exactly what it is NOT. Is this one of those childish games
where you simply reverse the meaning of everything I say or are you sincerely
that bad at thinking?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
