Separation of church and state

Not so much. If "Sundays excepted" was such an important part of the Consitution and showed how Christian the Consitution is, why is it just used in the part about Presidential Veto. You would think that if it was being touted as the Christian day of rest it would get a little bit more play than just a mention in relation to Presidential vetoes.Here is some research.

quote:

---

One thing that seems certain is that the "Sundays excepted" clause was subordinate in the minds of the framers to the more important issue of how many days the President would have to veto bills before they automatically became law. On August 6, 1787 the Constitutional Convention approved language that gave the President the right to veto legislation passed by Congress, subject to Congressional override. This language gave the President seven days to exercise his veto power from the time a bill reached his desk:

​

quote:

---

Article VI, Sect. 13. Every bill, which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States for his revision: if, upon such revision, he approve of it, he shall signify his approbation by signing it: But if, upon such revision, it shall appear to him improper for being passed into a law, he shall return it, together with his objections against it, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider the bill. But if after such reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall, notwithstanding the objections of the President, agree to pass it, it shall together with his objections, be sent to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of the other House also, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the persons voting for or against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not he returned by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall be a law, unless the legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law.

---

​

For whatever reason, the seven day limit did not sit well with the Convention. Nine days later, on August 15, the Convention revisited the issue and amended the proposed Constitution as follows:

​

"Ten days (Sundays excepted)" instead of "seven" were allowed the President for returning with his objections, N. H. [New Hampshire] & Mass [Massachusetts] only voting agst it.

​

The "Sundays excepted" clause, in other words, appears to have been part of a larger effort to give the President additional time to veto Congressional legislation.
The records of the Convention shed no additional light on the "Sundays excepted" clause. No debate on the August 15 amendment is recorded. We do not know who proposed the ten day limit, or whether the same person who proposed the limit also proposed the "Sundays excepted" clause. We do not know why the delegates representing New Hampshire and Massachusetts objected to the amendment. Nor, for that matter, do we know who proposed the original seven day limit or why seven days was first chosen. All we know is that the "Sundays excepted" clause was passed along with language that gave the President three more working days to veto legislation. As we suggest below, the intent of the language was apparently to increase the power of the President in relation to Congress. Nothing suggests that Sunday was excepted for religious or spiritual reasons. If delegates to the Convention had justified the clause on religious grounds their comments most likely would have ended up in the record; after all, such reasoning would have been unique to a Convention that otherwise took great pains to eliminate all evidence of religion from the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Does the clause "recognize" a Sabbath or legislate a day of rest?

​

Contrary to the argument of some accommodationists, the "Sundays excepted" clause is inexplicable as an attempt to recognize a Sabbath or establish a day of rest. Most states had Sunday laws at the time of the Constitution, and these laws were quite clear about (1) equating Sunday with the Sabbath, and (2) prohibiting non-essential activities on Sunday. The "Sundays excepted" clause does neither of these things. The text of the clause excepts "Sunday," not the "Sabbath;" it does not reference the Sabbath in any way or take any position on what day the Sabbath should be kept. Similarly, the "Sundays excepted" clause applies only to the President, and does nothing but exempt Sunday from the 10 days he has to veto legislation before they become law. It does not prohibit him from vetoing legislation or performing any other duty of his office on Sunday. The clause is completely unlike the Sabbath laws in the states; it falls utterly short of establishing a Sabbath.

​

The framers were intimately familiar with state practices regarding Sundays; if they wanted to pay homage to the Sabbath they would have copied state Sunday law on the federal level, made provisions for shutting down portions of the federal government on Sundays, or explained the "Sundays excepted" clause in religious terms. The Convention did none of these things. Instead, the founders chose language that would distance the Constitution from both the practices of the states and the constitutions of those European countries with church/state unions. This approach would be expected if the founders wanted to ensure that the Constitution would not be read as an endorsement of any one religion or religion in particular.

---

SourceCare to try again?

---

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

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.

I'm just going to say this one more time. The opinions of "Elitist university administrators" have absolutely nothing to do with the law, even if you throw in a gratuitous and ungrammatical capitalization. Nor do those of writers in humanist magazines. If you can't make your point without quoting them, obviously you can't find much actual law to support your ideas.I explained to you how Stone and County of Allegheny have nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause and you switch to Thanksgiving Day proclamations. Is that an implicit concession that you were wrong about them? If so, at least have the integrity to admit it. Well, after 21 posts you finally said something accurate. There is absolutely a tension between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. It makes the analysis very difficult.You cite McCollum v. Board of Education in support of your claim that voluntary religious activities are unconstitutional. Wrong again. McCollum was an Establishment Clause case, which you'd know if you actually read it. From the opinion:

quote:

---

Here not only are the State's tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.

---

You want more proof? You ever heard of the Federal Equal Access Act? It states in part:

quote:

---

It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.

---

52 U.S.C. 4071If a secondary school makes its facilities generally available for extracurricular group activities, it must allow religious groups to use those facilities on the same basis as other groups.Now, square that with the lie that voluntary prayer is unconstitutional, if you think you can.Let me give you a helpful tip. Read the actual court case if you want to argue that something supports your position. So far, you've yet to find one that says what you think it says. It really seems like you're getting your information from a secondary source that doesn't understand what the case is about. Either that or your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

---

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

Like Dr Adequate I did my research. Simply Googling Wikipedia and looking up the translations of the Soviet Constitution linked from there is enough to find that Separation of Church and State was added in 1936.If the information can be found so easily you really have no excuse for not checking the basic fact of when the Soviet Constitution was changed. Think about it.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

What I find to support my idea is a LACK of law, lack of laws that separate atheism/humanism from state. Law, by itself, is only a small part of the total influence in how a society operates, or transcends from success to mediocrity, or complete failure. I was making a comparison. If Stone and Allegheny are 100% establishment cases, that means their decisions were based solely on a fear that religion would be established in the US government. And it is me who is accused of being paranoid?! Do you seriously believe that a danger of a Christian government (Christian worship requirements of all US citizens) could happen if one state allows 10 commandments displays in its schools?Why didn’t the Thanksgiving day proclamation face a similar court battle in 1789? So when you said to me in Message 113 that I need to learn the difference, that difference isn’t quite as simple as you implied? Here’s what you said;

quote:

---

Stone and County of Allegheny are Establishment Clause cases, not Free Exercise Clause cases. Here's an important point for you to learn. Private citizens have the right to Free Exercise of their religion, governments don't. So those cases have absolutely nothing to do with voluntary religious activities. They have to do with prohibiting Establishment of Religion by the government.

---

It’s obvious to me that ANY free exercise clause case can be transformed into an Establishment Clause case, if a court or attorney wants to do it. So there was a fear that the schools would suddenly turn Christian, and Christianity would be established? That the rest of the students would then be hog-tied and dragged into those classes? There have been many court cases since 1947 that have outlawed voluntary prayer, usually involving public schools. It’s been easy for them to claim them all as establishment cases. I don’t see any barriers that would prevent ANY free exercise case from being turned into an establishment case. That’s how separation of church and state actually destroys the free exercise clause of the first amendment.If you disagree, show me an example of a free exercise case being impossible to be turned into an establishment case. Something that would actually make it to court, that is — not an imaginary case involving only private property. My reading skills are trying to make sense of complex legal doublespeak. You’ll notice that McCollum decided that those (specified) voluntary religious classes were unconstitutional, and yet the Federal Equal Access Act says that it’s unlawful to discriminate against any students who wish to conduct a meeting.. Which is right and which is wrong?

Let’s see now, Jefferson and Madison informally referenced separation of church and state in the early 1800’s to protect the church from the state. In 1936, communists in the Soviet Union decided separation of church and state was a good way of keeping atheism combined with the state, unopposed. In 1947, the US Supreme court, led by Hugo Black, (a KKK member from the 1920’s who wasn’t crazy about blacks or Catholics) decided separation of church and state needed to be etched in a court decision for the first time in US history. Who really knows if the Soviets got their idea from Jefferson, or if Black got his idea from communist Russia? So, bottom line, we really have no way of knowing if the separation of church and state as applied by Russia and the US were tied together, who got their ideas from whom. But one thing does make sense — that separation of church and state as practiced by Russia works very well for atheist/humanist governments.So it's clear that separation of church and state is two dimensional. In the sense that Jefferson used it 200+ years ago, it was intended to protect the church from the state. In the sense that it's used today, it's intended to destroy the free exercise of religion.

No it does not. It allows you to practice your religion, and everyone else the means to practice his. Without it Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. would still be discriminated by Christians as they previously were and one can see that even with the separation, the idiocy that those who are against the Muslim Civic center in New York are using to prevent it being built. Religious bigotry has no place in government and the government has no right to prefer one religion over another. The separation aids both. Freedom from religion is freedom of religion.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Nonsense.The object during the founding of the US was to protect the State from the Church. It was clearly understood that there was NO way that a Union could be formed as long as there was a risk of one of the predominately Christian sects could gain power politically.

---

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

quote:

---

Let’s see now, Jefferson and Madison informally referenced separation of church and state in the early 1800’s to protect the church from the state.

---

Given Jefferson's opinion of organised religion I don't think that that's a sound conclusion. Also, bear in mind that the Virginia bill for religious freedom forbade government support for religion.For instance, Jefferson writing to Alexander von Humboldt stated

quote:

---

In 1936, communists in the Soviet Union decided separation of church and state was a good way of keeping atheism combined with the state, unopposed.

---

Or a way of paying lip service to civil rights. Your guesses about the Soviet motivation aren't evidence. They're just self-serving speculations.

quote:

---

So, bottom line, we really have no way of knowing if the separation of church and state as applied by Russia and the US were tied together, who got their ideas from whom

---

However we DO know that your original claim, that the Soviets got the idea from a 1947 U.S. court decision is utterly impossible. And we also know that just a little bit of fact checking would have shown that.
And it is clear that you haven't learnt your lesson because you now try to pass off more of your inventions as fact.

quote:

---

But one thing does make sense — that separation of church and state as practiced by Russia works very well for atheist/humanist governments.

---

We also know that the Soviet Union did carry out a number of campaigns against religion. That's not the way it is in the U.S. or likely to be.

quote:

---

So it's clear that separation of church and state is two dimensional. In the sense that Jefferson used it 200+ years ago, it was intended to protect the church from the state. In the sense that it's used today, it's intended to destroy the free exercise of religion.

---

So far as I can tell, neither is true. Jefferson was opposed to organised religion, did not want it to have special privileges and saw it as a threat to liberty. Today, aside from a few local officials misinterpreting the law (and either giving in or losing when taken to court) there are no attempts to destroy free exercise of religion. Or at least not yours.

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.

The courts have found that atheism and humanism are religions for First Amendment purposes. So the law would be the First Amendment.

I don't get too involved in discussions of law very often, so I haven't followed this thread much. But as an inhabitant of a town of about 10,000 people that supports about forty or fifty Christian churches, none of which are taxed, I can assure you that you and David Barton both are very, very mistaken about statements like that.And from observation, I think I can say that Barton is deliberately lying, not just mistaken. I don't know about you, Marc.

What is your source for Jefferson's opinion of organized religion? I see from multiple sources that he attended church services during and after his presidency. Here is one;

quote:

---

Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives.[6] After his retirement to Monticello, Jefferson continued to attend church services, riding into Charlottesville to the court-house on horseback carrying a small folding chair.[7]

---

Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Just as history 200 years later furnishes no example of an atheist-ridden people, or scientist-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. That may be, but my hope would be that my guesses would inspire a reader to think about whether or not it makes sense. Of course I would expect committed atheists to discard it without thinking, but there is always the chance that not every reader would be a committed atheist, or one that seeks to promote an establishment of atheism in the US. So it's important for current supporters of separation of church and state in the US to disregard any historical ties it may have to former communist countries. That's understandable. It was a very minor detail compared to my position as detailed mainly in the opening post - that separation of church and state in the US has changed, has evolved. That there once was an easily recognized difference in establishment of religion vs a promotion of religion. Today, just about any promotion is considered establishment by the courts. So you don't see any campaigns against religion in the US? There are attempts to destroy its promotion, a promotion that most past generations considered essential to "peace and good order" in a society of liberty.

I've been reading the thread, and I noticed your attempts in Message 16to disregard the significance of Everson. I've also noticed that subbie, in Message 19 (a self proclaimed expert in separation of church and state) was too busy using profanity against me to take any exception to your laughable claim that separation of church and state legally originated in 1878.Do you know what a LANDMARK court decision is? Wikipedia puts it into words very well;

quote:

---

Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law.

---

"Everson" was a landmark court decision, evidenced by the large number of references to it by future courts. It was a 5-4 decision and a controversial one. "Reynolds" was not a landmark decision. It was a (practically) unanimous one concerning bigamy and polygamy - it's reference to separation was very minor, and that reference wasn't used again. (until 1947)If you're in denial about judicial activism and its history in the US, I can see how you'd be clueless about the significance of landmark court decisions. But even if you continue to deny judicial activism, you really should consider the importance landmark court decisions can have on how a society changes, and how they themselves can make that change. You could also work on how to determine if a court decision is a landmark or not.

I don't. I see churches on every corner, with no civil activities ever scheduled for Sunday or Wednesday evenings because "that's church night!"