Church State ignorance in the Senate...

[the_ignored]

This is a post from one of our favorite sites:

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=1535237#post1535237


Anyway, the person quoted Senator Zell Miller saying:
"Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution
expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten
people if that?s not so. And I?ll bet you most of them will say
?Well,
sure.? And some will point out, ?it?s in the First Amendment.?

?Wrong! Read it! It says, ?Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.?
Where is the word ?separate?? Where are the words ?church? or ?state.?

?They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the
Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the
amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to
prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it
was Anglican or Catholic or some other.

?I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David
Barton. It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who
drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and
values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate
from it.
Here's the article the RR goof quoted from:
http://miller.senate.gov/press/2004/02-12-04decency.html



(You know it's bad when they start referencing David Barton!)

[Zero]

Is there anything in the Constitution about speed limits?!? NO!!! The founding fathers didn't include speed limits in the Constitution, so they are invalid!!!;)

In 1789 black people were slaves, women couldn't vote, you could beat your children bloody, and burning witches seemed like a good idea under the right circumstances.

[Iconoclast]

From Zell Miller's article
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Where is the word "separate"? Where are the words "church" or "state."

The "separation of church and state" is merely condensed version of the original clause. The three words Miller claims are missing certainly aren't there -- I read it three times just to make sure -- but to hazard a wild guess:

- "Church" means any religious organisation
- "State" means the US government
- "Separate" means the church and the state must act independently of each other, that the state may not interfere in matters of the church and the church may not put a goddamn 4 ton rock with the freaking ten commandments engraved into it in the foyer of a government building.

Also, Senator Miller goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton:

From Zell Miller's article
It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that "judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty." Bound down! That is exactly what is needed to be done. There was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in 1962.

Perhaps someone who has an intimate knowledge of Hamilton might care to comment on this........ Is anybody like that around?

[Zero]

It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who
drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and
values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate
from it. That's funny...the phrase "basic Biblical principles" appears nowhere in the Constitution. If that was their intent, why was it not included?:D

[Iconoclast]

Zero, I think everybody's seen your damn guitar by now, would it be too much to ask for you to get rid of it?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Zero, I think everybody's seen your damn guitar by now, would it be too much to ask for you to get rid of it? Yes.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Zero
Yes.
That's fine, everyone has a right to be annoying here, otherwise I'd have been kicked out years ago.

And... *plonk*

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Zero, I think everybody's seen your damn guitar by now, would it be too much to ask for you to get rid of it?

I agree. It's a nice guitar. Great guitar. I love guitars. I don't want to have to look at them every time you post. I can ignore long sigs (like Headscratcher's, the worst sig on the boards) but you can't ignore a picture. Give us all a break, Zero. At least change the picture regularly.

[crimresearch]

Zero:

Until everyone on this board uses their real names, real photos, posts their home addresses, and runs all of their posts by you for approval...

Tell them to kiss your ass, and keep the guitar...if they give you any s**t, refer them to me...

Judge Roy Moore :D

[Zero]

Can we get back on topic now?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Yes..............we may

Iconoclast had it about right but,

"- "Church" means any religious organisation
- "State" means the US government"

Actually "State" means any form of government entity at any level, be it your local library or city hall or police force, or state Supreme Court ( Thanks Ex-Judge Moore ) or post office...well you get the idea.

[pgwenthold]

Personally, I prefer the wording of the first amendment over the "separation of church and state" anyway.

It's pretty clear. Congress shall pass NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion...

NO LAW. Not even "a law that everyone agrees with." None. No law at all.

Thus, it doesn't matter if 99% of Americans want a law mandating prayer in public schools, you can't do it.

[toddjh]

When I get into discussions about "separation of church and state" with fundies, I've had good luck bypassing the first amendment completely, and directing their attention to the applicable state constitution. Most of them contain much more specific language about religious freedom. For instance, mine (Illinois) says:

No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

That's a lot easier to work with than "Congress shall make no law."

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Personally, I prefer the wording of the first amendment over the "separation of church and state" anyway.

It's pretty clear. Congress shall pass NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion...

NO LAW. Not even "a law that everyone agrees with." None. No law at all.

Thus, it doesn't matter if 99% of Americans want a law mandating prayer in public schools, you can't do it.

What if a state legislature wanted to mandate prayer in school, though? It does say "no law," but it also says "Congress."

As much as I like keeping religion the hell away from government, I have to disagree with the way the first amendment has been interpreted over the years. It seems pretty clear that the intention was to defer matters to state governments, not regulate them at the federal level.

Jeremy

[Zero]

I think most state Constitutions are rather strict on church-state issues. I also think that the courts are correct to interpret the US Constitution the way they generally do.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh


What if a state legislature wanted to mandate prayer in school, though? It does say "no law," but it also says "Congress."

As much as I like keeping religion the hell away from government, I have to disagree with the way the first amendment has been interpreted over the years. It seems pretty clear that the intention was to defer matters to state governments, not regulate them at the federal level.

Jeremy

Well, when the question is about the senate, then there isn't much of a question at all. ;) Thus, when my local congressman was campaigning in support of a law to require the 10 commandments be displayed in congress, it was real easy for me to say, basically, "What part of "No law" do you not understand?" (I even showed that the process respected the establishment of a preferred religion, for good measure, but never used "separation of church and state")

But in terms of the rest, the 14th amendment is what is usually used to apply the 1st amendment restrictions to even the most local level. You bring up the 14th amendment, and most people are going to be lost because they don't know anything about it.

Or you could just go to the state constutions...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But in terms of the rest, the 14th amendment is what is usually used to apply the 1st amendment restrictions to even the most local level. You bring up the 14th amendment, and most people are going to be lost because they don't know anything about it.

Yes, but again, the phrasing of the first amendment is problematic. It doesn't say, "The right to freedom of religion shall be preserved" or something like that, it specifically mentions Congress. How does the 14th amendment apply to a restriction that mentions only the federal legislative branch?

When considering these kinds of issues, the phrasing is very important. For things like the right to bear arms, or the right to due process, or the right against self-incrimination, the Constitution is not shy of laying down absolutes. But when it comes to the first amendment, they very deliberately used subtle language. I think that's significant.

Jeremy

[waitew]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

The "separation of church and state" is merely condensed version of the original clause. The three words Miller claims are missing certainly aren't there -- I read it three times just to make sure -- but to hazard a wild guess:

- "Church" means any religious organisation
- "State" means the US government
- "Separate" means the church and the state must act independently of each other, that the state may not interfere in matters of the church and the church may not put a goddamn 4 ton rock with the freaking ten commandments engraved into it in the foyer of a government building.



Yes,BUT can the state put a 4 ton rock with the ten commandments written on it ,if they so choose,in the foyer of a government building?I think they can.That's as it should be!!If you don't like it..laugh at it as you walk by..or shut up..there are more people who approve than who disapprove.Isn't that what democracy is all about?..the majority wins!!right?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by waitew
Yes,BUT can the state put a 4 ton rock with the ten commandments written on it ,if they so choose,in the foyer of a government building?I think they can.That's as it should be!!If you don't like it..laugh at it as you walk by..or shut up..there are more people who approve than who disapprove.Isn't that what democracy is all about?..the majority wins!!right?

Umm...yeah, you should read the Constitution and understand why we have checks and balances.

Or, ask yourself what happens if the majority wants slavery reinstated. Or thinks that all Jews should be sent to camps...should the majority win then? The courts and the limits placed on government by the Constitution are very clearly designed to protect people's freedom -- not only from government itself, but especially from the tyranny of the majority.

That's one reason why a lot of judges are appointed, not elected. You don't want the last line of defense for the individual to be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Jeremy