bradfromearth wrote:One of the things that die hard conservatives don't think about when considering how they will vote is the clear agenda of the constitution to divide the Church and the State. Also in the domain of gun conversations it might be worth a mention that the separation of the church and the state was the FIRST amendment.
So my apologies for lashing out too quickly and thanks again for the informative links.
Brad
Brad, apology more than accepted. I admire intellectual honesty, even if I don't agree with all of your conclusions. That being said "separation of church and state" is not so clearly defined as some constitutional interpretations would imply. The phrase itself comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801.
Here is a very good explanation of the issue at the time:
Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction - his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available
here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted."
Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the
Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph was been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the
Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The exact wording of the 1st Amendment reads:
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 think the biggest confusion that people have about it is that they forget that this references
Congress. So, if a local town council wants to put up a nativity scene at Christmas, or menorahs during Chanukah, that is
not the same thing as Congress mandating that Christianity or Judaism is the official national religion, and the U.S. Constitutional rights of local Bahai, or Muslims, or Zoroastrians are not being abridged by the town council, and the town council's right to do whatever it wants in that regard is protected by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, if a member of some other faith wanted to pursue the matter based on whatever their
state's constitution says, that might be a different matter - but from the standpoint of the 1st Amendment, it is a loser.
The second bit of confusion is the phrase following "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which reads "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So many of the law suits brought against religious people on 1st Amendment grounds are actually attempts to force government to "prohibit the free exercise" of that particular religious expression. In my opinion, it is exactly this kind of parsing in which an advocate for a cause will support
part of an amendment (free speech, for instance) while working to suppress another part of the amendment (Congress shall make no law... ...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]).
Consequently, the only way to take the Constitution is in its wholeness,
exactly as it is written. No "penumbras." No "emanations." Just what it
says. In for a penny, in for a pound; even if that means we have to surrender some previously cherished beliefs. And if we don't like what it says, then the founding fathers, in their wisdom, included within the document the mechanism by which it may be amended in the future.
At least that is how I see it, and in fact, that is the best argument we have for the protection of ALL of our RKBA under the 2nd Amendment when dealing with someone who is an "anti": "Don't like what the Constitution says? Then
change it. If you can't get the votes to change it, then grow up and
live with it."
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
