Separation of church and state

Concerning history, Barton references just about everything he says. Because he’s conservative and liberals don’t like him, it’s not surprising that his personal opinions are used to try to discredit every thing he does. When someone like Victor Stenger, author of How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist puts fourth his opinions, a great distinction is drawn between his personal opinions and facts involved with his scientific work. Why the double standard? In Message 13 you claimed complete ignorance of Everson. With statements like this from that message;

quote:

---

You have not explained where 1947 comes into it.......That was in 1878, marc. 69 years before whatever it is you're talking about,

---

Were you genuinely ignorant about Everson, or were you dishonestly playing games? (I suspect it was the latter) If it was the former, and you know that little about the subject, what are you participating in this thread for? Have you learned anything about Everson from this thread?

In Message 143, you said this;

quote:

---

And I will note that secular states seem to have a much better hold on liberty than those where religion is given a major role in government.

---

You weren’t referring to the 50 US states? When I’m facing a gang, and one of them plays completely clueless and dumb about Everson, as Dr Adequate did in Message 13 (as I described above) it’s just a little characteristic of mine to apply that cluelessness to the entire gang, if no one corrects him or distances themselves from him, all the while piling on and parroting other things he says. If you ever faced a gang in a debate, I’m sure you would understand. I’m sure they did. I’m sure that if Jefferson and Madison, possibly joined by Benjamin Franklin, would have had their way, the words separation of church and state would have been somewhere in the Constitution. But they weren’t the only founders! John Jay, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, Samuel Adams, Joseph Story, John Witherspoon, Noah Webster, and several dozen others probably would have voted it out. It was one example. Why is it that when I put up one example, it’s automatically assumed that’s the best I have, or a total of all I have? If I’d have put up many more, would you have dismissed it all as a rant?

Do you not understand that many of us actually read the posts in the thread and so know what was said in that message?No where in that message does Dr A say or imply he was unaware of Emerson. What that message addressed was your misrepresentation that "A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US."He was pointing out that Reynolds in 1878 affirmed the concept of separation of church and state.While we are pointing out your misrepresentations, I feel it's necessary to point out that FDR did not "pack the Supreme Court". In fact the "Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937" never even made it through the voting process and died in committee.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I was referring to many court cases since Everson, which refer to things like passive displays of the ten commandments in schools or courthouses, or private Bible reading in schools with privately owned Bibles. Free exercises of religion, struck down by the courts as a threat of establishment. How about Humanism? From Humanist Manifesto 2;

quote:

---

Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.

---

Should this replace displays of the Ten Commandments? It seems strange that you would be interested in a con-law course. So you can’t comprehend how people can learn from history? I’m glad the US founders could — they took into consideration many things from the distant past, things that they didn’t personally experience, in determining how a government would work in a well ordered and free society.

quote:

---

In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during his free time, or even to open his Bible at school (Gierke v. Blotzer, 1989). It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books that deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school (Roberts v. Madigan, 1990).

---

http://www.foxlakechurch.org/...20community%20church_036.htmIs it governmental support to allow a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school? I wonder if it’s the same for a copy of Humanist Manifesto 2? In Stone v Graham, 1980, the Kentucky legislature believed it beneficial to expose students to the historical code which had formed the basis of civil laws in the western world for over two thousand years. Making students aware of historical fact is not an establishment of religion. The courts, the atheists, the liberals, the scientific community, proponents of separation of church and state! Thaaaat’s right, the courts are always right, the courts are never to be questioned, they’re almost to the same level as the scientific community. Dr A has explained a lot of things that I suspect are going on in todays educational system, and this is the first time you’ve been back since his Message 130 One of my reasons for starting this thread was because of your claim that separation of church and state made up half of your con-law course. What I would like to know is if his claims in message 130, that Everson was nothing more than a follow up of Reynolds from 1878, is what you were taught in the course you took. If you were taught that Reynolds was more of a landmark for separation than was Everson. The conservative historians that I’ve read, David Barton, Mark Levin, Daniel Dreisbach, all make a beeline for Everson when referring to the legal origins of separation of church and state. Dreisback puts it into words this way;

quote:

---

The phrase "wall of separation" entered the lexicon of American law in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1878 ruling in Reynolds v. United States, although most scholars agree that the wall metaphor played no role in the Court's reasoning. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, who authored the opinion, was drawn to another clause in Jefferson's text. The Reynolds Court, in short, was drawn to the passage, not to advance a strict separation between church and state, but to support the proposition that the legitimate powers of civil government could reach men's actions only and not their opinions.

​

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court "rediscovered" the metaphor and elevated it to constitutional doctrine.

---

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/DreisbachChurch.phpI believe that’s actual history, that Everson, and Everson alone, elevated separation of church and state to what it is today. Is that how it was presented to you in the con-law course that you took? It doesn’t really make much difference, and it was my mistake that I implied that it was. What makes it all so confusing is the way one justice writes the majority opinion about the decision that was directly about that case, and also throws in his personal declarations about something tangential, with seemingly little or no direct input from the other justices, like Hugo Black did in Everson with his application of the religion clauses of the First Amendment to state and local governments. Their original intent was to be a check on the federal government only.

Please read Message 13 for the first time. Look for his words "whatever that is" as he was responding to my clear reference to Everson.

Check his Message 143, didn’t it look to you like he was referring the 50 states?Start the thread — I’d like to see a discussion about it — I don’t claim to know everything about it. But I love the claim that themost liberal/secular states in the union are the ones with the lowest divorce rates. Maybe that’s because there are fewer marriages and more cohabitation in the most liberal/secular states!

quote:

---

You weren’t referring to the 50 US states?

---

No, and I can't think of any reason why I would. All of the states of the U.S ARE secular by law. So what basis of comparison would there be ?

quote:

---

When I’m facing a gang, and one of them plays completely clueless and dumb about Everson, as Dr Adequate did in Message 13 (as I described above) it’s just a little characteristic of mine to apply that cluelessness to the entire gang, if no one corrects him or distances themselves from him, all the while piling on and parroting other things he says. If you ever faced a gang in a debate, I’m sure you would understand.

---

So he DIDN'T say that Everson was insignificant, he just didn't recognise it from your description. He didn't make a mistake, and thus he was in no need of correction.

quote:

---

I’m sure they did. I’m sure that if Jefferson and Madison, possibly joined by Benjamin Franklin, would have had their way, the words separation of church and state would have been somewhere in the Constitution. But they weren’t the only founders! John Jay, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, Samuel Adams, Joseph Story, John Witherspoon, Noah Webster, and several dozen others probably would have voted it out.

---

This is mere speculation on your part. However, given that the architects of the First Amendment held that interpretation it cannot be said to be illegitimate, and thus the Supreme Court - which has the authority to interpret the Constitution - can quite reasonably interpret it as they have.

quote:

---

It was one example. Why is it that when I put up one example, it’s automatically assumed that’s the best I have, or a total of all I have? If I’d have put up many more, would you have dismissed it all as a rant?

---

No, it was NOT an example. You claimed that the U.S. government held campaigns against religion. The personal actions of one single teacher hardly constitute a full-blown government campaign, the more so since you don't even know that what he taught was truly against religion. Maybe the fact that you are desperately grasping at straws doesn't PROVE that you don't have real evidence to support your assertion. But I don't think that any reasonable person would think that at all likely.

I have. And I also read it in context and did not simply quotemine.He is talking about your factually incorrect assertions which he quoted in his response.I will try to reinforce what he said.When you claim "A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US." you are wrong at least two way.FDR did not pack the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not affirm separation of church and state for the first time in 1947.You are simply wrong and continue to post falsehoods.It's time for you to learn how to learn.Edited by jar, : forgot to include the date

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You seem to think that the founders had simplistic views about religion and government. It is a very complex relationship and most of the founders understood this.You should do you own research not rely on fundie sites.Noah Webster.

quote:

---

Webster was well know for his religious and political conservatism, which makes him one of the most frequently quoted authors in religious right literature. Especially toward the end of his life, Webster's writings betray a deep sympathy for the "Christian nation" ideal. Understandably, however, most accomodationist literature is silent on Webster's views during what we have designated as the founding period in America (1776-1800); during these years Webster was anything but an accomodationist. On the contrary, during these years he was a passionate defender of separation of church and state.

​

As a young man Webster was a radical federalist that believed in a strong central government, the elimination of class distinctions, and the disestablishment of religion. His early writings are adamant on these subjects. In 1783, for example, Webster wrote a series of articles for the Freeman Chronicle, a popular political journal. In the November 3, 1783 edition of the Chronical Webster denounced religious establishment in no uncertain terms:

​

quote:

---

The very idea of a system of religious principles and a mode of worship, prescribed and established by human authority, is totally repugnant to the spirit of christianity. Every establishment is only a milder term for tyranny....It is an insult to humanity, a solemn mockery of all justice and common sense, to assume that right of entailing our opinion and formalities of devotion upon posterity, or to exclude them from the protection or emoluments of government for a non-conformity dictated by conscience.

---

---

SourceSamuel Adams
Can you provide evidence on his stand on the issue? He seems to have been quite supportive of the of the first 10 amendments. Since you readily admit that Madison would have been a supporter of separation, don't you think Adams and others would have had pushed back more and fight the language to show a desire for no separation?

quote:

---

I hope Congress, before they adjourn, will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best-the most judicious disinterested FedFederalistsho wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States and their respective Citizens many of them, if not all are anxiously expecting them--They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private and personal Rights of the Citizens depend. Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly, and gradually into a Consolidated Government over all the States, which, altho it may be wished for by some, was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without amendmts. I am fully persuaded that the People of the United States being in different Climates--of different Education and Manners, and possest of different Habits & Feelings under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism.

​

Source: Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry, August 22, 1789, Beinecke Library, Yale University.

---

Remember this is also the guy that thought theaters were a a detriment to society and tried to get them banned in Boston. He is a truly complex man and not a paragon of freedom.Joseph Story
Again do your own research do not rely on fundie sites. You want to claim he was a founder? Since he was born in 1779 he doesn't qualify for inclusion in this line of argument of yours.John Jay

quote:

---

The two men who were most responsible for having the Continental Congress open with a prayer were Samuel Adams and Thomas Cushing. Both men were from Massachusetts, a state which produced a number of politicians who were eager to play a constant role in the battles of religious freedom. Sometimes this role was positive for religious freedom, and sometimes, these men from Massachusetts as well as other New England states specifically resisted separation of church and state. Massachusetts was the last state to officially end the establishment of religion by prohibiting it in its constitution and laws which did not occur until 1833. In the writings of John Adams we are told that it was actually Cushing who made one of the initial motions for prayer in the Continental Congress. That John Jay and John Rutledge were opposed to this motion because of the religious diversity that existed among the members of Congress. That they felt that there could be no one prayer that would satisfy all present.

---

SourceShall I continue? Can you show any evidence for what you claim? Also, remember the writings and views of a single founding father do not overthrow the results that are the Constitution. If so many founders wanted an active church role in the government, why si there NOTHING in the constitution about religion other than the first amendment? Don't go with the "Sundays" argument. I don't feel like destroying it again.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I cannot conceive of how you could think he was talking about the 50 states.his original Do you know of any of the United States that are not secular? There is no way US states could fit into this comment.State : a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

People are entitled to freely exercise their religions, governments are not. If you can't understand this simple difference, I'm wasting my time.I couldn't find an actual opinion for Gierke v. Blotzer, but I did find the opinion in Roberts v. Madison, 921 F. 2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990). (BTW, when I asked for a citation, it was that curious looking string of numbers and letters after the name of the case that I was talking about.)Here is an excerpt from the Roberts opinion:

quote:

---

Frequently, the book Mr. Roberts [a class room teacher] chose to read silently [during a silent reading classroom period] was the Bible, which he kept on his desk throughout the school day. Mr. Roberts never read from the Bible aloud nor overtly proselytized about his faith to his students. Mr. Roberts also displayed a poster in his classroom that read, "You have only to open your eyes to see the hand of God." The trial court found that, in context, Mr. Roberts' Bible reading, the poster, and the presence of two Christian books in Mr. Roberts' classroom library created the appearance that Mr. Roberts was seeking to advance his religious views.

---

Your source lied to you about what the case said. It was not merely that he had a copy of the bible, but the overall context. In addition, while one school administrator did remove a bible from the school library, a bible was returned to the library with assurances that it would not be removed again. Given the misrepresentations about the Roberts case, I'm not particularly inclined to believe what your source said about Gierke unless I can read the opinion myself. No. I could argue that that is not a religious belief, but it is obviously an attack on religions generally. Government has no more legitimate purpose in attacking religion than it does supporting it. Actually, I said it was my Con Law III course. You may find this hard to believe, but we never ranked landmark cases to see which of them was most landmark. I hope my merely describing the endeavor would illustrate the ludicrousness of the suggestion.Everson was more than simply a follow up of Reynolds, but since Dr. A never said it was merely a follow up, that fact doesn't help you much. What Everson did that Reynolds did not was extend the doctrine of separation of church and state to the state level. Reynolds applied only to the federal government. If you think this makes it more of a landmark case, go right ahead. That won't change the fact that the Supreme Court originally announced the doctrine in Reynolds and that Everson used Reynolds as precedent. Of course they do. As I mentioned earlier up thread, this makes a convenient target for neocon assholes (If you don't like adult language, sonny, head to a discussion board moderated that way. There are big people talking here.) who want to try to make it look like separation of church and state is some subversive agenda promoted by "courts, the atheists, the liberals, the scientific community." No, there have been dozens of Supreme Court cases after Everson that firmly established separation of church and state as the law of the land.Here's a question for you. Why in the world are you all het up about the idea of government being able to promote religion?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

marc9000 responds to me:

quote:

---

Check his Message 143, didn’t it look to you like he was referring the 50 states?

---

Check my Message 180. Didn't it look to you like I was referring to the 50 States? Is there a country of "Massachusetts" that I am unaware of?But if you want to get into questions of countries, then it applies there, too. "Liberal," "secular" countries such as the Scandanavian countries have much better outcomes than here in the US.On all measures, the more "liberal," the more "secular" the society, the better the outcome. If you truly care about the people, why are you seeking to deny them proven methods to improve their lot?

quote:

---

Start the thread

---

This isn't my topic. It's yours. If you want to continue this, then you start it. Otherwise, we'll leave it here and return back to the original thread about how the idea of the separation of church and state is part and parcel of the Constitution and that your claims that it never entered American jurisprudence until 1947 is false.

quote:

---

Maybe that’s because there are fewer marriages and more cohabitation in the most liberal/secular states!

---

Incorrect. Marriage is just as common throughout liberal/secular societies as it is around conservative/theistic ones. The timing through which marriage is finally entered into is different, but marriage is still common.This is part of the problem with such dogmatic, conservative, theistic societies: They force people into relationships before they are ready, resulting in inappropriate relationships that are doomed to failure. Instead, we should acknowledge that marriage is too important to be forced upon people but rather should be something that people come to on their own without coercion.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

And his references are sometimes bogus, as we have seen. His ... "personal opinions"?Back in the real world, the fact that he is a bad scholar is used to discredit his scholarship. This is, of course, not true. Neither. As you did not name Everson, nor did you describe it accurately, I was not then sure what you were being wrong about --- just as if you described a bright pink animal with a big nose and big flapping ears I would not know for certain that you were lying about an elephant.Although as can be seen from my subsequent posts (such as the one I made forty-nine minutes later) I guessed that you were probably lying about Everson, I did not like to be definitive on the subject. You might, for example, have tried to describe Reynolds but been wrong about the date. To correct your incorrect statements about Everson ... amongst other things. Yes: that some conservative Christians have bizarre delusions about it.Now, would you like to stop whining about me and resume whining about the Constitution?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are, of course, not telling the truth. I made no such claim, as anyone can see by reading post 130.

I don't see how I've given you that impression - it seems to me that you have it completely backwards. Supporters of separation of church and state imply that the founders had simplistic views of religion, particularly those who constantly claim Deism as the overwhelming religion of the founders. Deism is very simple, compared to Christianity. No I don’t, because the word separation doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. Looks like they pushed back well enough. That is from a webpage from a "separation" website, the same one that you've referred to. On this list, his name appears 28th. (I referenced this in my Message 20. I’m the only one on this thread using a variety of sources, from both sides of the issue. Their views weren't so simplistic that they believed religion to be present only when it is directly mentioned. You didn't destroy anything. Despite your best effort, the words "Sundays excepted" are still right there in the constitution, and the word "separation" is still nowhere to be found there.