[Winona Online Democracy]
An excellent review of the history of separation (or not) of church and state. I, however, remember that the GI bill allowed aid to students of religious based colleges. I don't remember much controversy. The aid went directly to the students, but the colleges were quick to accommodate the returning GI's from WWII. It was also available for me as a veteran of the Korean Conflict, but I had completed my education before joining the Marine Corps. That part of history is probably a precedent for trying to funnel aid to private schools through vouchers to the parents of students. ----- Original Message ----- From: Roy Nasstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [Winona] Faith-Based > > [Winona Online Democracy] > > >Topic: Faith - Separation of Church and State > > In response to messages from Phil Carlson, Thomas Gort, Andrew Thompson, > Duane Peterson > > Jefferson's reference to the "wall in separation" in his letter of 1802 to > the Danbury [Connecticut] Baptist Association has served, as Thomas Gort > has pointed out, as a reference in various court decisions and, I might > add, even more in statements of public policy. > > Recognition of the wall has not consistent. Currently, as in the past, > religious leaders, politicians, and citizens in general interpret it in > ways most conducive to their own ideologies. Participants in on-line > democracy reflect these differences of opinion. > > Many people did not detect the "division" between church and state. > "Church" meant Christianity (until the latter part of the century, > Protestant Christianity). In 1789, a Massachusetts law required > participation by the clergy in public school supervision and teacher > certification. In 1844, in Vidal v. Girard's Executors, the Supreme Court > stated that Christianity was part of the "common law of the land." Horace > Mann, more responsible than anyone else for the extension of the public > school throughout the United States, stated in 1848 that "the Bible is the > acknowledged expositor of ChristianitySThis Bible is in our Common schools > by Common consent." Sometime around the end of the 19th Century or > beginning of the 20th Century, if my memory serves me, Justice David Brewer > of the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the case Church of the Holy Trinity > v. United States that the United States was a "Christian nation." > > On the other hand, many people did accept separation. The1796 treaty with > Tripoli stated, "Government of the United States of America is not in any > sense, founded on the Christian religionS." (But in 1805, just 3 years > after Jefferson's letter and during his presidency, these words were > eliminated, possibly indicating conflicting views and political realities.) > In 1840, the governor of New York recommended the establishment of public > schools for immigrant children in which teachers speaking their language > and "professing in the same faith" could instruct them. In 1875, President > Grant advocated the elimination of religious and sectarian influences in > the schools. He even proposed a constitutional amendment, never adopted, of > course, to assure separation of religion and schooling. He called for a > good common school education, "unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or > atheistical dogmas....Leave the matter of religion to the altar, the church > and private school, supported entirely by private contributions." > > From the 1840s the large cities began to face the political realities of > Roman Catholic immigration. Catholics differed from Protestants in > interpreting Christianity and in choice of Bibles. Although religion in the > form of holiday celebrations and even prayers remained in most public > schools, the political climate dictated limitations in large cities and > other places in which the population represented various beliefs > (generally, however, under the rubric of Christianity, with some attention > to Judaism; other theological beliefs were off the compass). In areas with > homogeneously religious populations, including most rural areas, the > doctrine of separation often received little attention. In such areas, it > still does receive little attention, laws or no laws. By the beginning of > the 21st Century, however, the prevailing view of political and religious > leaders in the United States was not to allow any one religion or group of > religions to set any agendas that would require non-believers in these > religions to follow them or alter their lives significantly because of them. > > Today, the doctrine shows a degree of consistency in defining policies of > diversity in schools and employment, but both courts and political leaders > appear to favor involving government more in more in religion in general. > Courts have followed a basic criterion, mentioned previously by other > online participants, I believe, but the criterion itself has been > interpreted in various ways. For example, aid to religious institutions in > higher education can be far more extensive than aid to private K-12 > education. More and more aid is given to sectarian schools on the basis of > "student benefit," but such aid does help the schools themselves. Bush's > initiative of assistance to faith based social service organizations is the > latest indication of a very indulgent view of the separation doctrine > > What about governmental policy in the future? I agree with Thomas Gort's > statement that the separation metaphor may soon vanish or that least some > bricks may be taken out of the wall. I suspect that we will see a > continuance of attention to guarding and extending policies of respecting > religious diversity in certain conditions, notably schooling and > employment, but at the same time we will see bricks removed in the wallwhen > widespread public and religious support for such removal exists. Churches > may have more points of entry than they have had previously in certain > areas of policy, although these points may create new areas of restriction. > > Roy Nasstrom > > > > > > >In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following to the Danbury Baptist > >Association: > > > >"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between > >man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his > >worship; that the legislative powers of the 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. 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 man > >to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in > >opposition to his social duties." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Jefferson's letter, of course, is not legal authority, but court's have > >used it, together with Jefferson's and Madison's support for religious > >freedoms in Virginia to suggest that strict neutrality was the Framers' > >goal for the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court cited Jefferson's > >letter in 1947. > > > > > > > >"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at > >least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a > >church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, > >or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a > >person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force > >him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be > >punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, > >for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or > >small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, > >whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or > >practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly > >or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or > >groups and vice versa. 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.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, > >98 U.S. at page 164." Everson v. Board of education of Ewing Tp., 330 > >U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). > > > > > > Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent (minority opinion) in Wallace v. > >Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), criticizes Everson, and > >subsequent decisions, for a faulty historical premise. He argues that it > >doesn't matter how many prior decisions have affirmed the neutrality > >analysis; if the analysis itself is faulty, then judicial intertia should > >not prevent it from being discarded. With the increasing number of 5-4 > >rulings on establishment clause cases, it is possible that the Supreme > >Court could soon issue a decision that does away with the separation > >metaphor, or at least starts to take bricks out of the wall. Tom Gort > >Winona, Minnesota [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Roy R. Nasstrom, Ph.D., Professor, EL, WSU > > > --------------- > This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy > Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe > All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name. > Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list. > Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------- This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name. Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list. Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
