Religion and First Amendment

[BobG]

Hi All,

Since I am going to comment and ask a question on the first amendment, I am quoting it herein:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In accordance with this and what I read today, the federal government cannot stipulate any practice of religion; however, this does not pertain to the states and I have read, and I hope erroneously, that some states actually sponsor a religion.

Could someone please address exactly how far the states have gone and can go with regard to religion?

It does seem to me that a religion backed by a state may be constitutional in that the constitution does not forbid it! This may also pertain to other rights mentioned in this amendment such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. Of course, carried to an extreme, this interpretation would allow a governor to forbid any negative talk against him!!!

Thank you,

Bob

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by BobG

Hi All,

Since I am going to comment and ask a question on the first amendment, I am quoting it herein:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In accordance with this and what I read today, the federal government cannot stipulate any practice of religion; however, this does not pertain to the states and I have read, and I hope erroneously, that some states actually sponsor a religion.

This was true until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Some States may indeed still have an official religion on the books, but that law is inoperable and unenforceable. For example, the Texas constitution requires that all state officials "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" or they can be barred from holding office. I believe Maryland has a similar clause. The SCOTUS has specifically struck down clauses like this as unconstitutional, but the act of ruling a law unconstitutional does not remove it from the books or edit the text of the law.

Quote:

Could someone please address exactly how far the states have gone and can go with regard to religion?

Exactly as far as the Fed, unless they choose voluntarily to put greater protections in.

[cwalner]

Also, my understanding (as limited as it is) is that it was the intentions of the framers that the states be allowed to have a state-sponsored religion. What they were concerned about was the federal government overriding the state's choice for state religion.

As Drkitten already pointed out this was until the ratifiaction of the 14th ammendment.

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by drkitten

This was true until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Its incorporation was not into the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but into the Due Process Clause: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by BobG

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how being prohibited from passing law respecting an establishment of religion would prevent them from supporting or sponsoring a religion, as long as they don't pass any laws about it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how being prohibited from passing law respecting an establishment of religion would prevent them from supporting or sponsoring a religion, as long as they don't pass any laws about it.

None of our levels of government is prohibited from supporting or sponsoring "religion". That's why you have military chaplains, and a number of other mostly innocuous entaglements. The problem is when a political entity supports or sponsors a single religion or worse a single denomination or sect of a religion over all others they start treading in establishment territory.

[The Fallen Serpent]

There was debate among the founders on the power of the Federal versus State governments. Some intended that Federal restrictions apply on downwards and others strongly opposed it. As stated earlier much of the Federal rights were not applied as limitations against State powers until much later under various laws, especially those enacted after the Civil War and as part of the Civil Rights movement. A number of States' rights to limit Free Speech in a more restrictive way than the Federal Government were not resolved until the 1980s.

The debate still continues as to what exactly constitutes "establishing" a religion over others. There are still arguements about certain symbols or texts being "culturally" not just "religiously" relevent. Generally speaking as long as local laws allow the expression of all religions and non-religion in equal measure it does not run afoul of current interpetations.

[PirateDaveZOMG]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou2.htm

One good example, State vouchers for religious based private schools and all that. Mind you, that's just a starting point, research further if you wish to know more. I had thought there was a SWIFT on it as well, but maybe I was mistaken, as I can't seem to find it...

[Hux]

Would I be right in thinking, certain states can have their own religion, as long as it is Christian?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Hux

Would I be right in thinking, certain states can have their own religion, as long as it is Christian?

No. The last state to have an official religion was Massachusetts in 1833 and the only state with a de facto state religion is Mormonism in Utah.

[Hux]

Aren't Mormons christians?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Hux

Aren't Mormons christians?

Technically they're an offshoot and generally considered a separate religion. I'll also reiterate that I said Mormonism is the de facto religion in Utah, not the de jurre.

[Hux]

Well lets put it another way. Mormons beleive in the resurrection of Jesus do they not? They think hes coming back? That makes them Christians. If it quacks etc.

Had they been an offshoot of Islam, would they have been afforded de facto status anywhere, in an ostensibly Christian nation? Supposing any state could have an official religion - it would have to be Christian would it not?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Hux

Well lets put it another way. Mormons beleive in the resurrection of Jesus do they not? They think hes coming back? That makes them Christians. If it quacks etc.

For versions of ducks with fur and mammary glands, sure.

Originally Posted by Hux

Had they been an offshoot of Islam, would they have been afforded de facto status anywhere, in an ostensibly Christian nation? Supposing any state could have an official religion - it would have to be Christian would it not?

Since your hypothetical means nothing in light of the 14th amendment, I'll give it the response it warrents...

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Hux

\
Had they been an offshoot of Islam, would they have been afforded de facto status anywhere, in an ostensibly Christian nation? Supposing any state could have an official religion - it would have to be Christian would it not?

If a state could have an official religion, it would not have to be Christian. Why would it? I mean, realistically, it would be a Christian religion, just for demographic reasons, other than maybe Hawaii (I'm counting Mormonism as a form of Christianity). But there's no legal or constitutional reason why it would have to be Christian, no.

I mean, it's a pretty weird hypothetical, though. "If my car were a bicycle, it would have to be a 12-speed, right?"

[linusrichard]

Fun fact: the Establishment Clause does not apply to federally recognized Indian Tribes. Meaning if a tribe wants a state religion, they can have it. (The Indian Civil Rights Act has a free exercise clause, so tribes cannot prevent their citizens from free exercise of religion.)

[The Fallen Serpent]

Which brings up a question. The semi-sovereign Indian Tribes can have state religions but cannot deny religious freedom. How about other places under the US such as American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the like? Do they have similar exceptions to the establishment clause or are only the Indian Tribes allowed this?

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

Which brings up a question. The semi-sovereign Indian Tribes can have state religions but cannot deny religious freedom. How about other places under the US such as American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the like? Do they have similar exceptions to the establishment clause or are only the Indian Tribes allowed this?

My understanding (and I may be wrong about some or all of this) is that, as territories, American Samoa and Puerto Rico have as the root of their government the US Federal Government. That is, they are self-governing to some extent, but their powers of self-government are delegated from the federal government. As such, the US Constitution would apply to the same extent. That is, if the federal government does not itself possess the power to create a state religion, then it cannot delegate the power to create a state religion to the governments of its territories.

States and Indian Tribes are different, as their powers (some of them, anyway) are not delegated, but inherent. The reason states can't create a state religion is not because the US can't, but because the Constitution forbids it. But Indian Tribes are not subject to the US Constitution - they are preconstitutional sovereigns, fully self-governing except where the US government has limited that sovereignty, usually by statute. So there's the difference.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Technically they're an offshoot and generally considered a separate religion. I'll also reiterate that I said Mormonism is the de facto religion in Utah, not the de jurre.

By whom are they considered a separate religion? Themselves? Somebody else?

My own take is "yet another sect of Christianity" but if that isn't right, I am all ears. I read a book about "cults" that was a Protestant tract on how a lot of other sects weren't "real" christians, but rather "cults," when I was researching Berians. (This was due to an EO complaint in the Navy, don't ask ... )

DR

[The Fallen Serpent]

It really comes down to how one determines what a Christian is. I would hazard an assumption that most non-Christians define it by anyone who worships or reveres Jesus Christ as a primary figure in their religious practices. Or anyone who calls their group Christian. Some groups define it by a complete books worth of rules. Some of the arguements I have heard against Mormonism being considered Christian (always by another Christian faction) are:

Joseph Smith is too central in the faith. - This arguement always feels like a cop out to me. I have never heard claims that Joseph Smith was divine and above Jesus. He appears to be represented in the faith as more of Prophet figure to me.

Polygamy- I am not kidding, I have heard this claim.

The Mormons wanted to form a nation away from the US. - As in the US is God's Chosen Country so wanting to leave is an obvious sign of non-Christian leanings.

They do not follow these very specific sets of rules. - Specific holidays, modes of dress, construction of the priesthood, ect ect. Usually used against every other form of Christianity too.

Joseph Smith obviously made the whole thing up. - This one always makes me laugh. Not that I disagree with the assertion that Mormomism is likely made up.

Isms- Racisms, Sexisms, ect ect

Only Protestants/Catholics and their subsects are Christians. - Depending on if it is a Protestant denomination or a Catholic making the statement.

Hmm, this is probably a good topic for another thread though.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Hmm, so looking up actual US codes it seems the Establishment Clause is applied on a case by case basis. It might be out there but I have yet to find a law or principle that a US controlled territory must obey the Bill of Rights. However it appears most US controlled territories specifically have all laws extended (as in Puerto Rico and the incorporated inorganic territories such as US waters, uninhabited islands,) or specifically mentioned with a limited Bill of Rights (like with Guam.)

[Hux]

Quote:

But there's no legal or constitutional reason why it would have to be Christian, no.

Well lets go at it from a different perspective. Can you envisage any way in which a religion could become a state religion other than Christian? After all, a considerable amount of your countrymen insist you are a Christian nation?

I dont get the reference to the monotreme mammal. Either Mormons beleive in Christ or they dont. if they do they are Christians.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Hux

Well lets go at it from a different perspective. Can you envisage any way in which a religion could become a state religion other than Christian? After all, a considerable amount of your countrymen insist you are a Christian nation?

Did you see where I said:

Quote:

I mean, realistically, it would be a Christian religion, just for demographic reasons, other than maybe Hawaii (I'm counting Mormonism as a form of Christianity).

Does that answer your question? If not, the answer to your question is no.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

By whom are they considered a separate religion? Themselves? Somebody else?

Both, in part.

Obviously, opinions will differ. But a key theological sticking point seems to be Joseph Smith's First Vision, where he was explicitly told that all other creeds were wrong and corrupt -- and by extension explicitly rejected all other types of Christianity.

It doesn't take much to get from that to the idea that Mormons are a religion unto themselves.

Quote:

18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me,

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Both, in part.

Obviously, opinions will differ. But a key theological sticking point seems to be Joseph Smith's First Vision, where he was explicitly told that all other creeds were wrong and corrupt -- and by extension explicitly rejected all other types of Christianity.

It doesn't take much to get from that to the idea that Mormons are a religion unto themselves.

But still, a Christian religion unto themselves, right?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Hux

Well lets put it another way. Mormons beleive in the resurrection of Jesus do they not? They think hes coming back? That makes them Christians. If it quacks etc.

Had they been an offshoot of Islam, would they have been afforded de facto status anywhere, in an ostensibly Christian nation? Supposing any state could have an official religion - it would have to be Christian would it not?

Islam is an offshoot of Christianity the same way Mormonism is. If you're going to count Mormons as Christian because they believe Jesus existed and expect him to return, you could count Muslims as Christian too.

(Although, Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet of God, not the son of God, and that he ascended directly to heaven without being crucified and resurrected, so it depends on where you want to draw the line.)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

By whom are they considered a separate religion? Themselves? Somebody else?

My own take is "yet another sect of Christianity" but if that isn't right, I am all ears. I read a book about "cults" that was a Protestant tract on how a lot of other sects weren't "real" christians, but rather "cults," when I was researching Berians. (This was due to an EO complaint in the Navy, don't ask ... )

By most Nicean Creed sects/denominations from what I've seen. They put them in the same category with Jehovah's Witnesses.

(side note about your cult/Navy EO situation, have you ever seen the full list of VA headstone inscriptions that are allowed? I'd never even heard of some of them until I checked it out after my dad died.)

Originally Posted by linusrichard

But still, a Christian religion unto themselves, right?

Bookend this with my reply to DR - They consider themselves to be regular old Christians and no more different a denomination than Greek Orthodox or Methodism.

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Islam is an offshoot of Christianity the same way Mormonism is. If you're going to count Mormons as Christian because they believe Jesus existed and expect him to return, you could count Muslims as Christian too.

(Although, Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet of God, not the son of God, and that he ascended directly to heaven without being crucified and resurrected, so it depends on where you want to draw the line.)

Recently I've come to think that Islam is more an offshoot of Judaism with a smattering of Christianity tossed into the odd sura. If you look at the emphasis there's a lot more on OT patriarchs than there is on Jesus.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Islam is an offshoot of Christianity the same way Mormonism is. If you're going to count Mormons as Christian because they believe Jesus existed and expect him to return, you could count Muslims as Christian too.

(Although, Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet of God, not the son of God, and that he ascended directly to heaven without being crucified and resurrected, so it depends on where you want to draw the line.)

You could go further back and say we are all Jews. But the implications for anti-Jewish propaganda is hilarious.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Islam is an offshoot of Christianity the same way Mormonism is. If you're going to count Mormons as Christian because they believe Jesus existed and expect him to return, you could count Muslims as Christian too.

(Although, Muslims do believe Jesus was a prophet of God, not the son of God, and that he ascended directly to heaven without being crucified and resurrected, so it depends on where you want to draw the line.)

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/

Quote:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (TPJS, p. 121).

I am sorry I should have been more specific. Christians think Jesus died and was resurrected. So do Mormons. That makes them Christian (whether it is unpalatable or not) Whereas, Muslims do not believe He died and was resurrected, has no divinity and the Islamic Hell is full of Christians who think otherwise.

Hardly the same thing.