Need a little help

[Some Friggin Guy]

I am going to be having a debate regarding church/state seperation in the near future. I am well aware of the fact that there is ample evidence of it being the law, but I want to have as much as possible.

I am going to be doing some of my own research, of course, but I thought that, owing to the vast collection of knowledge on this board, I could get some help here, the poor shlub wouldn't have a chance.

Anyone think they want to help?

[Yahzi]

Could you be more specific? Are you merely going to be arguing that C/S separation is the law? Because that's like, crazy.

Or are you going to be arguing that it should be the law? It seems far more likely your argument will be not about what the current situation is, but what it should be (regardless of what it happens to be at the moment).

Those are two rather different approaches...

[Some Friggin Guy]

The person I am debating is under the assumption that amendment 1 is designed to keep the federal government from interceding in the state's right to establish a religion, whereas I believe it is more the statement that no government within the united states is permitted to endorse one religion over another.

The amendement itself is vague, however, I do know that there is ample proof out there that the premise is to seperate church and state.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's an excellent resource for your topic: Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/)

[arcticpenguin]

Here's what you need; the fourteenth amendment: http://www.au.org/whythereligiousrightiswrong/chapter1.htm


* The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment: Astute readers will note that the First Amendment begins with the word “Congress.” As originally written, the First Amendment was a limitation on Congress—the federal government—only. This is no longer the case. After the Civil War, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision designed to make it impossible for the Southern states to force African Americans back into a state of slavery. One of the ways the Fourteenth Amendment accomplishes this is by binding the entire Bill of Rights on the states—a process known as “incorporation.”

Although passed in the post-Civil War period, the Fourteenth Amendment was more or less ignored by a succession of ultra-conservative Supreme Courts in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. The high court simply refused to acknowledge what Congress had done. Finally, after the turn of the century, the legal tide began to change. The Supreme Court began to acknowledge the incorporation doctrine. In a church-state case from 1940, Cantwell v. Connecticut, the high court ended all doubt and firmly embraced incorporation, declaring that states must abide by the entire Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the incorporation doctrine meant that people with civil liberties cases who had formerly been limited to state courts could now seek redress in the federal court system. And they did so. Thus, there was a dramatic spike in church-state cases and other types of civil liberties disputes in the federal courts after 1940.

[ceo_esq]

I would suggest that you go to the library and check out Daniel Dreisbach's Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (NYU Press, 2002).

If you have questions concerning specific aspects of constitutional jurisprudence in this area, I'd be happy to offer my legal views as time permits.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to check out that book. I've already been to AU, but thanks.

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Why is there very little information about the fourteenth amendment unless you look specifically for it? I had completely forgotten about that, and couldn't find anything about it till you brought it up and I looked specifically for it.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
What I'm trying to figure out is this: Why is there very little information about the fourteenth amendment unless you look specifically for it?I think one probable reason is that the so-called "incorporation doctrine" is a somewhat murky and confusing legal concept not very well understood even by many lawyers. The question of the proper relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights remains controversial among legal scholars.