Separation of church and state

If we want to find out about Madison, why not look at what he said instead of what Story said?Now in his so-called "Detached Memoranda" he wrote that "separation between Religion & Govt" is "strongly guarded" in the Constitution. And he wrote that bit of the Constitution. Don't you think he knew what it meant?You will see, if you follow the link, that he goes on to condemn, as violations of this principle:(a) "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts";(b) The office of the Congressional Chaplain, which he describes as "a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles";(c) The provision of chaplains to the Army and Navy --- which is further than I would go.And again, in a letter to Robert Walsh: There's your separation of Church and State, then, in so many words. No-one said they were.But unless you're going to pretend that only atheists favor the separation of church and state, this is hardly relevant. Try telling that to James Madison and watch him spin in his grave. What he said doesn't bear on the constitutional issue, does it? It is one thing to wish America to be a Christian nation --- presumably all Christians wish this --- and quite another to wish to violate the separation of Church and State.Let's have a look at some quotes from Presidents that are relevant.James Madison we have already covered.Here's that much-quoted passage from Thomas Jefferson on the "wall of separation": Here's Andrew Jackson declining to call for a national day of prayer: Here's James K. Polk's diary: Here's Ulysses S. Grant addressing Congress: Here's James Garfield accepting the Presidential nomination: Here's Teddy Roosevelt: I have confined myself to quotations prior to 1947, a date that you seem to find important, so I won't bother you with Presidents such as Kennedy and Johnson and Carter. Again, I would point out that James Madison thought they were separated by the passage of the Bill of Rights, which was antecedent to 1947. Unless you listen to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but what would they know about it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since you brought him up ...It is true that Story wrote what you attribute to him. I am not so sure that it bears the interpretation that you wish to place on it. If you look at your own link, just after where you break off you quotation, he continues: It seems clear that he is saying that the US has such a government, and that this is the thing that is "as yet new in the history of the world". This is confirmed three paragraphs down, where he writes: Furthermore, in the previous chapter of his Commentaries, where he discusses religious tests, he wrote: So not only is he less authoritative than Madison, but also he doesn't seem to think what you think he thinks.

You have not explained where 1947 comes into it.Let me refer you to the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Reynolds v. United States. As you will see from the link, they quote from Jefferson's address to the Danbury Baptists: They conclude from this: That was in 1878, marc. 69 years before whatever it is you're talking about, the Supreme Court was using Jefferson's formula about the "wall of separation between church and State" to decide what the First Amendment meant. FDR wouldn't even be born until four years later.

People often talk as though they revere the Founding Father in the wrong way.They revere them like they were prophets from God, who ought to have the last word on any subject.But they ought to be admired like we admire great scientists or inventors --- like Darwin or Edison --- because they had the first word, because they had the insight and daring to conceive and do something new --- something which of course in the very nature of such projects subsequent thinkers have improved on.I mention Darwin not just to bait marc9000, but because it occurred to me as I was writing this that people with this sort of authoritarian mindset find it very hard to conceive that this is, in fact, how the rest of us admire great thinkers of the past --- as the greatest minds of their day introducing innovations and insights that still retain some value; not as prophets staggering down from Mount Sinai under the weight of eternal commandments written in stone.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And if your remark about 1947 was intended as a reference to Everson v. Ewing, then let me point out that when the court referred to the "wall of separation between church and state" they then immediately cited the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States as their precedent.How could you think that the notion of "separation of church and state" is a case of an "activist Court" making a new interpretation of the Constitution when they were relying on a precedent so old that it was set eight years before the birth of the guy who wrote the majority opinion?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is nothing new. In 1811 James Madison vetoed a bill which would have grated public land to a Baptist church --- at which point a group of Baptists wrote to congratulate him. As he justly remarked:

Perhaps you could expand on the distinction.Consider Madison's veto discussed in post #18. Which was that?How about Madison's opposition to the office of Congressional Chaplain?Myself, I think that the two are inextricable. None of which, as I have pointed out, are germane to the issue.Yes, all of the Founders had some religion or other, and the large majority of them were Christian. This does not allow us to deduce that they were against the separation of Church and State. Hold on a minute. I've given you links and quotes showing that Madison and Jackson thought that for the executive to proclaim national days of prayer would be unconstitutional. George W. Bush had no such qualms. So which way has the process really evolved?Another instance I came across in reading up on this: originally the US Mail delivered seven days a week, with the explicit rationale that to stop services on Sunday would be to show favor to mainstream Christians over Seventh Day Adventists and Jews! You can read about this here. (Note that: "The report and resolution were concurred in by the Senate.")Nor did the Founding Fathers put "In God We Trust" on their currency, or have a department of Faith-Based Initiatives. Here, by the way, is Madison using his veto to squash a "faith-based initiative". It was not proposed that any public funds should be allocated to the church for charitable purposes, merely that it should be given a public seal of approval --- in words only --- endorsing it as a charitable institution. That was too much for James Madison.Yes, times have changed, but in many ways this has involved a softening of the hard separationist line taken by the founders. If you're going to argue that the Constitution is Biblically based, then I for one should like to see a little more argument than just calling the opposite view wrong. Especially since, if you'll forgive my saying so, you've been wrong about quite a lot of things already on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I came across an interesting letter from Thomas Jefferson:

Yeah? Spot the odd one out. Note that the first two quotations do not include the words "except King George III". You don't need a "Christian doctrine" to tell you not to trust any one person with unrestrained power. I could tell you that. Nor to tell you that men are selfish. Did any of the authors of the Federalist Papers need to appeal to the Bible as authority for this rather obvious point?You might as well say that astronomy is "Biblically based" because the Bible mentions the existence of the Sun and the Moon.No, what you need a Christian doctrine for is to tell you that the king is the "supreme authority", that you should submit yourself to him "for the Lord's sake" and that "he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you don't understand why people have bothered to reply to you, let me explain. It's because you've been wrong about such a wonderful variety of things. The funny thing is that you probably believe what you're saying."Combination of atheism and state" ...* giggles * Your paranoia amuses me.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the religious-right sense that some people have had the temerity to disagree with him.

It seemed more in the nature of a snide remark than an argument of substance. However, if you think it should be addressed, let me direct your attention to a few more facts about the same document.The same article of the constitution also grants them "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess [...] any religion, and to conduct religious worship".Should we abolish freedom of conscience and the right to worship because that's in the USSR's constitution?Article 50 guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations".I guess we should get rid of freedom of speech too, that's sooo communist.How about the right to privacy? That's article 56.Freedom of association? Article 51.The right to vote is article 96, the secrecy of the ballot being guaranteed by article 99.The problem with the USSR (apart from the whole communism thing) was not that their constitution guaranteed to Soviet citizens the same important rights and liberties that Americans enjoy, but that their government did not in fact live up to this constitution.Just because they paid empty lip-service to the ideals of Madison and Jefferson does not mean that those ideals were wrong. It means they were hypocrites who didn't live up to those ideals.And if we were to make the Establishment Clause no more than words on a bit of paper, we'd be guilty of the same thing.

And presumably when those notorious communist/atheists Madison and Jefferson wrote about "separation of church and state" they'd been playing with their time machine again.

You seem to have missed my point. You claim that the Russians got the notion of separation of Church and State from the court in Everson. But where did Madison and Jefferson get it? They couldn't peek forward in time to see what Justice Black was going to say. They would if they had access to the Everson ruling, because the court in Everson was quoting Jefferson: Anyone who knew what the court said about separation of Church and State also knew exactly what Jefferson said about separation of Church and State, because the court was quoting Jefferson. So Jefferson's words can't ever be more "obscure" than what the court said. What "big change"? As I have shown in a previous post, when the court in Everson quoted Jefferson they were citing the Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States, in 1878. Here's what the Supreme Court had to say back then:First they quote Jefferson: And then they conclude: So, where's the "big change" in Everson (1947) that wasn't there in Reynolds (1878)? You've no idea of Everson's actual legal significance at all, have you? You suspect a lot of odd things. I'd like to see some headlines.I wonder what the headline would be. The phrase: "Supreme Court Rules That The State Of New Jersey Can Reimburse Parents For The Transport Costs Of Sending Their Children To Private Sectarian Schools" lacks the snap and pizazz that one usually associates with journalism.Nor do I see why the "liberal media" would trumpet it. Even assuming that back then liberals were passionately in favor of religious schooling, it's not the most stunning of victories. David Barton has been so consistently wrong that I wouldn't take him as an authority for what day of the week it is.But even assuming he's right, I'd say "so what"? The exact phrase "separation of Church and State" wasn't used? This is meant to prove something?The word "evolution" appears nowhere in the first edition of the Origin of Species. So what was Darwin writing about? Finally, one last thing you're wrong about. In order to blame the separation clause in the USSR constitution on the Everson decision, you've had to cite the 1977 constitution, thirty years after Everson.But the thing is, it also appears in the 1936 constitution, eleven years before Everson. So unless the Communists had developed time travel, this had nothing to do with EversonHere's the 1977 version: And here's the 1936 version: Clearly the 1977 version is based on the 1936 version, which was not based on Everson because that wouldn't happen for another eleven years.

If you have been reading this thread, you know perfectly well that you are lying, that separation of church and state was first "etched in a court decision" in 1878, in Reynolds v. United States, and that the court in Everson merely cited Reynolds for this opinion as a principle of constitutional law that had been laid down sixty-nine years before Everson (and, incidentally, eight years before Hugo Black was even born). You'd also know this if you'd read the decision in Everson that you keep whining about.If you have not been reading this thread, then I commend it to your attention. You could learn such a lot from it, such as facts. I know the last one. Black got "his idea" from the Supreme Court's ruling in Reynolds. We know that because he cited it. We know that Black got the notion of separation of church and state from Jefferson via the Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds, and that the court in Reynolds got it direct from Jefferson. And we know that the USSR didn't get it from Everson 'cos of the Communists not having a time machine.I'm glad I could sort that out for you. If there's any other aspect of the bleeding obvious you're having trouble grasping, I'm here for you. And for the USA. Hooray! And yet back in the real world, the free exercise of religion is not noticeably destroyed. This is because in the real world the principle of separation of church and state is used to separate the church and state.Edited by Dr Adequate, : Changed 1879 to 1878.