How to win a "separation of church and state" debate

[Knightskye]

Progressives argue that the separation of church and state comes from Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists. So, they're arguing the intent of the founding fathers.

One of their favorite defenses is the "general welfare" clause. However, as Madison wrote:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

So if Christine O'Donnell, or whoever else, argues the case that the First Amendment doesn't provide for a separation of church and state, then progressives are wrong, because the general welfare clause does not provide for powers not enumerated in the Constitution!

:D

[1000-points-of-fright]

Last night Bill Maher was discussing O'Donnell and her 1st amendment fiasco. He actually said that she is correct in that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution but there is enough other supporting documentation from the framers to know what they really meant. Of course, all his guests were progressives so nobody called him out on it.

I guess now whenever he makes fun of original intent or strict constructionists we can just play back that video clip.

[Brian4Liberty]

How to win a "separation of church and state" debate

Depends on what side you are on. For better or worse, take it to the Supreme Court (the place where it really matters), and there is little question as to who will win.

[Aratus]

you talk tommy jefferson?
you mention the lutheran
pastor in the pulpit and if
he took his robe off in the hall
after he wore his boots & spurs
into the pulpit? when he put
on his uny~form, in full, i.e his
coat, as he quoted an E~book...

[Knightskye]

you talk tommy jefferson?
you mention the lutheran
pastor in the pulpit and if
he took his robe off in the hall
after he wore his boots & spurs
into the pulpit? when he put
on his uny~form, in full, i.e his
coat, as he quoted an E~book...

Is that a poem?

[reillym]

Any state sponsored religion would be violating US law.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

End of argument.

Freaking christian fascists we have here.

[Yieu]

Any state sponsored religion would be violating US law.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

End of argument.

Freaking christian fascists we have here.

I am not sure why anyone here would be against the separation of religion and the State. There is more liberty with the separation than without, and we are all about liberty.

I quote my previous post on the matter:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2941301&postcount=20


It seems like some of the people who are alarmist about Sharia law coming to America might also the same people that don't want there to be any separation between religion and the State. This seems like hypocrisy.

If you don't want separation between religion and the State (at any level; Federal, State, local, etc.), then you have to be willing to accept religious laws/virtues/sins/instructions being entered as public law that are not of your own religion, and you also have to be willing to accept religions you may disagree with becoming Federal/State/city/district official religions (paying homage to the "off with his head" Church of England), potentially with penalties for not following the "official" religion or its laws. This includes having to be willing to accept Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, etc., because if there is no separation between religion and State, that does not mean that only Christianity can take advantage of State enhanced powers, it means that any religion can, including those you do not agree with.

There are many ways you could take the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and State", and I do not think that it is meant to be taken to mean that public officials cannot be religious or practice any religion they like openly. That is fine for them to do, there is nothing against that, and it would be nice to see more religious diversity in Congress and State Congresses to help strengthen religious freedom and guard against government favoritism of religion.

There are other facets to the subject I am not touching on here. But it can be dangerous if we allow the State to legislate favors or punishments for some religions over others (including non-religion), because it gives some groups more privileges and special favor than others, creating an "accepted" and privileged caste (those that follow the State religion), and an unprivileged caste (those that follow any other religion, or those without religion). This would be unjust, and potentially oppressive. This would be theocratic tyranny.

A better option would be to allow freedom of religion to the maximum extent (rather than the alternative: government monopoly on and regulation of religion, otherwise known as no separation of religion and State), and we all know that freedom is inversely proportional to government involvement. Are some here actually arguing that we need more government involvement in people's personal religious lives, by legislating unjust laws that favor a locally predominant religion while repressing all other locally less popular religions, in an effort to make all non-State enhanced religions appear to be less legitimate to further promote the State sanctioned religion? It is unfair, unjust, and misleading to have the State promote one religion over another, because even if it is only words coming from a public official, if those words are used in an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of locally less popular religions in order to further promote a State sanctioned religion, then those words are actively oppressive.

[Vessol]

Religion has been both the ally and the enemy of the State in various histories. I see no reason why it would ever be good if it was an ally.

Churches should remain private institutions of like minded individuals. The State, I would prefer not to exist.

[Au-H2O]

Any state sponsored religion would be violating US law.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

End of argument.

Freaking christian fascists we have here.
(emphasis mine)

So everything that applies to the U.S. Congress also applies to the individual states? Fail. I don't see a place for state sponsored religion, but your argument doesn't hold water.

[1000-points-of-fright]

(emphasis mine)

So everything that applies to the U.S. Congress also applies to the individual states? Fail. I don't see a place for state sponsored religion, but your argument doesn't hold water.

Incorporation Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

[Au-H2O]

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/24/kevin-gutzman-freedom-vs-the-courts/

[1000-points-of-fright]

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/24/kevin-gutzman-freedom-vs-the-courts/

Was this a rebuttal to my link on incorporation? I never made value judgment on incorporation. I merely answered your question "So everything that applies to the U.S. Congress also applies to the individual states?"

[Au-H2O]

Was this a rebuttal to my link on incorporation? I never made value judgment on incorporation. I merely answered your question "So everything that applies to the U.S. Congress also applies to the individual states?"

Ok, truce then.

[AxisMundi]

Progressives argue that the separation of church and state comes from Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists. So, they're arguing the intent of the founding fathers.

One of their favorite defenses is the "general welfare" clause. However, as Madison wrote:


So if Christine O'Donnell, or whoever else, argues the case that the First Amendment doesn't provide for a separation of church and state, then progressives are wrong, because the general welfare clause does not provide for powers not enumerated in the Constitution!

:D

Jefferson's phrase is merely a convenient term coined to explain the concept of the Establishment Clause to the legal laymen of the Danbury Baptist Assoc.

The Establishment Clause is quite clear and succinct in it's wording and purpose, when one applies 18th century language to the Amendment.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary was the very first comprehensive legal definitional source for American legal jargon. It was a work that began in the 1820's. Definition number 4 for "establish" reads thusly...

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And considering that the same definitional source lists "religion" as, in part...

"Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men."...

We can see that legislation such as that used to replace our Founder crafted National Motto, that changed Rev Bellamy's Pledge into a prayer (both in the 1950's), that places the Ten Commandments on court houses, and religious holiday decorations on public property are all illegal.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

[Brian4Liberty]

Religion has been both the ally and the enemy of the State in various histories. I see no reason why it would ever be good if it was an ally.

Churches should remain private institutions of like minded individuals. The State, I would prefer not to exist.

The Church is a form of government. Separation of church and state is a separation of powers. We need a strict separation of business (mercantilism, corporatism, etc.) and state now.

[Sola_Fide]

Any state sponsored religion would be violating US law.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

End of argument.

Freaking christian fascists we have here.

Wow. You need to take a Constitution class. Come back when you understand the establishment clause.

[xd9fan]

real sep of church and state
means gays can not have marriage.
who created Marriage? The state or the church?....thinkin it was the church......so now who is redifining one of My religous sacraments in front of my face? the state is.

The state can use the word union
but the word and title Marriage is the church's

tell me again about church and state???

[Sola_Fide]

The Church is a form of government. Separation of church and state is a separation of powers. We need a strict separation of business (mercantilism, corporatism, etc.) and state now.

You're exactly right. We need a wall of seperation between business and State. Although I would go further...

We have to understand that church government is VOLUNTARY government of VOLUNTARY association, which makes it moral.

State compulsion is not voluntary and therefore wrong.


I have never understood why some "libertarians" here would be against church government since it is THE model of voluntary government in America right now. It blows me away.

[AxisMundi]

real sep of church and state
means gays can not have marriage.
who created Marriage? The state or the church?....thinkin it was the church......so now who is redifining one of My religous sacraments in front of my face? the state is.

The state can use the word union
but the word and title Marriage is the church's

tell me again about church and state???

Firstly, the concept of marriage is far older than your church, or your religion. They can claim title to it all they want, but they don't own squat.

Secondly, if marriage was a "church" function, than my wife of twenty plus years and I are not "married" since we conducted our wedding ceremony before a Justice, and no mention of god was made.

Thirdly, By your definition, then tens of millions of Atheists and non-Christian religious are not currently married.

Lastly, there are over a thousand benefits, rights, and privileges supplied to a married couple through the government, and also protected by g'ment as well.

Marriage is a Civil Right, not a religious right.

Having your wedding ceremony to partake of that Civil Right is a religious right, however.

[AxisMundi]

Wow. You need to take a Constitution class. Come back when you understand the establishment clause.

What do you think it means?

[raistlinkishtar]

There is no constitutional reason why, at the state or local levels, people should be prevented from completely integrating Christianity into their government.

At the federal level, control of religion isn't something the constitution grants and erroring on the side of less power to the federal level is, historically, a wise thing. If the founders granted congress control of Christianity, no doubt they would seek to destroy it at every opportunity.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Settlers getting away from State-Church setting up State-Church in their new residences. Ironic? Yes, indeed. Who wouldn't want the wonderful world of State and Church once again? All those wonderful things they did for society ::rollseyes::

[PaulineDisciple]

If what you mean by separation of church and state is that you cannot let your personal beliefs influence your political positions, then you are deluded since this is impossible. But if what you mean by separation of church and state is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (understood to mean the establishment of any particular Christian denomination at the time and only applied on the federal level, states had established Christian denominations at the time) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then lets talk about this aspect of our constitution.

Each word is important to understand what would constitute a violation of these clauses.

1st, it must be an act of congress and does not apply to individuals expressing their religion that so happens to be a government official.

2nd, this act must be a law establishing a particular religion (understood as the establishment of a particular Christian denomination at the time) as the official religion that all states must submit to.

3rd, neither can congress pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as it didn’t violate the distinctly Christian laws that our country had deemed were based on the general equity of God’s law. Hence it was accepted that the many laws that were distinctly Christian in nature were allowed to stand and many of these kinds of laws are still on the books although they are rarely enforced. Otherwise, a Satan worshipper should be able to freely exercise his belief that he could kidnap people to be used as a human sacrifice for his worship service. I use an extreme example so you can easily get my point.

To turn this around and demand that public officials cannot have the freedom to post the ten commandments somewhere turns the first amendment on its head and should be considered absurd.

I like to use the example that if this applied to each public officials practice, he would have every right to insist that you are vesting him with the power of congress and since congress can declare war, he could unilaterally declare war on you and end the argument right away.

[Angel]

I think most people are very familiar with Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause. For those, such as Sharron Angle, to claim that Jefferson was taken out of context, they are either being disingenuous, or they simply have not taken the time to read more than one or two of Jefferson's writings. For example:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823

There should be no doubt as to what side of the argument he fell on. He wouldn't exactly be a fan of Angle.

But let's put Jefferson aside and visit the opinions of the person given most credit to the origination of the First Amendment and The Establishment Clause, James Madison:

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."

James Madison, letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered"

James Madison

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

James Madison, letter to his friend Robert Walsh, circa 1830's

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."

James Madison, letter to "Reverend Adams, circa 1832

[AxisMundi]

There is no constitutional reason why, at the state or local levels, people should be prevented from completely integrating Christianity into their government.

At the federal level, control of religion isn't something the constitution grants and erroring on the side of less power to the federal level is, historically, a wise thing. If the founders granted congress control of Christianity, no doubt they would seek to destroy it at every opportunity.

There is every Constitutional reason why religion has no place in any level of government. It is the first sentence of the First Amendment, as well as Article VI, paragraph 3.

From the earliest American legal dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary...

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Besides the supremacy of the US Constitution, as found in Articles 9 and Ten, as well as the 14th Amendment, each State has, within it's own constitution, an Establishment Clause as well.

There is also every rational reason to keep religion and government separated. That is simple religious freedom and equality, not only for non-Christians, but for different Christian denominations as well.

[AxisMundi]

If what you mean by separation of church and state is that you cannot let your personal beliefs influence your political positions, then you are deluded since this is impossible. But if what you mean by separation of church and state is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (understood to mean the establishment of any particular Christian denomination at the time and only applied on the federal level, states had established Christian denominations at the time) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then lets talk about this aspect of our constitution.

Each word is important to understand what would constitute a violation of these clauses.

1st, it must be an act of congress and does not apply to individuals expressing their religion that so happens to be a government official.

2nd, this act must be a law establishing a particular religion (understood as the establishment of a particular Christian denomination at the time) as the official religion that all states must submit to.

3rd, neither can congress pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as it didn’t violate the distinctly Christian laws that our country had deemed were based on the general equity of God’s law. Hence it was accepted that the many laws that were distinctly Christian in nature were allowed to stand and many of these kinds of laws are still on the books although they are rarely enforced. Otherwise, a Satan worshipper should be able to freely exercise his belief that he could kidnap people to be used as a human sacrifice for his worship service. I use an extreme example so you can easily get my point.

To turn this around and demand that public officials cannot have the freedom to post the ten commandments somewhere turns the first amendment on its head and should be considered absurd.

I like to use the example that if this applied to each public officials practice, he would have every right to insist that you are vesting him with the power of congress and since congress can declare war, he could unilaterally declare war on you and end the argument right away.

Firstly, only Connecticut had an officially established religion after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and that only because they used their Colonial Charter as their Constitution until their first Constitutional Convention in 1813, at which time said establishment was eliminated.

Secondly, you are correct. Our BoR strove to preserve the balance between an individual's religious freedoms and rights while in office, while preserving the secular (ie religiously neutral) nature of our government, at all levels.

However, it was not intended to keep only one denomination of Christianity from gaining power and domination over the government, but all religion as well. From Bouvier's entry for "religion"...

"Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men."

Lastly, our laws are not based on "Christian principles". This is a blatant lie forwarded by those who support theodemocracy, and by those who thinks it merely "sounds good".

Our common law system was based on English Common Law, a system developed by the pre-Christian Saxons, and, according to Jefferson in a personal letter to a confidant, little effected by Christianity in the few centuries between the development of that religion in England and the founding of our Nation.

[romeno182]

is this the ayatollah forum or the liberty forum.. liberty only began after the separation of church and state..before it didnt exist. monotheistic religions are fascist in their nature when will u understand that?