From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:10:46 GMT

In article 724583764@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>
>>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>>
>>> [Jefferson's quote deleted.]
>>>>     [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT.
>>>>      "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]
>>>
>>>"... Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the Constitution had
>>>made it clear that no one Christian denomination would become the official
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>It was clearer than that. Read the first amendment again.
>
>Obviously not, you still have a wrong impression.  Keep reading.
>

He was right, the first amendment is very explicit. The opinions of
the founders are not law; it is.

>>>denomination, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor
>>>that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national
>>>denomination.  On January 1, 1802, President Jefferson responded to the
>>>Danbury Baptists in a letter.  He calmed their fears by using the now 
>>>infamous phrase to assure them that the federal government would not
>>>establish any single denomination of Christianity as the national
>>>denomination.
>
>>So, it is quite clear what was meant by Jefferson in the context of the first
>>amendment.
>
>You obviously think so.  However, I also see you ignoring why Jefferson
>wrote the letter in the first place and what concern he was addressing
>specifically.  But let's dig another quote out from Jefferson...let's 
>read this Jefferson quote very carefully and see what Jefferson meant 
>by separation.  Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808:

He was addressing the possiblity of one Christian sect being oppressed
in favor of annother by the Federal Government, right?

Surely the 1st Amendment does apply to this... its quite broad you
know.

>"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the
>Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
>doctrines, discipline, or exercises.  This results not only from the
>provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or
>free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the
>States the powers not delegated to the United States.  Certainly,
>no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to asssume authority
>in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government."
>
>[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, ed. 
>(Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. 
>XI, p.428, letter on January 23, 1808.]

You got it. This is my view also. Keep the government out of the
religion business.

>Now, what did Jefferson say here?  The government is prohibited
>from interfering with religious doctrine and practice as a result of
>the 1st Ammendment (see sentence 1-2).  Further...

Right, but he also says that "no power to prescribe any religion excercize,
or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the
General Government."; our position in a nutshell, more or less.

So why are you airing a quote that undermines your position?

>"In the Senate of the United States, January 19, 1853, Mr. Badger made 
>the following report:

Who is Mr. Badger, and why should we care what he thinks?

>The [First Amendment] clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.'
>What is meant by that expression?  It refered, without doubt, to that
>establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at
>public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages
>or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to
>othoer communions,--such law would be a 'law respecting an establishment
>of religion' ... They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit 'an
>establishment of religion' such as the English Church presented, or
>anything like it.  But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself,
>nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ... they did not
>intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public
>action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic
>apathy.  Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and
>the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted."
>
>[Tim LaHaye, Faith of our Fouding Fathers (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth 
>& Hyatt, Publishers Inc., 1987), p.27.]

I disagree; I think the Constitution prohibits _any_ establishment
of religion by the Federal Gov't.

Incidentally, his absurd slur agains atheists does not exactly inspire
confidence with his scholarship. You'd think if he was going to talk
about atheism he'd learn a little bit about what it is, and what
it implies.

>[A quite large deletion.]
>
>>Again, all of this according to the Supreme Court's mis-interpretation.
>
>But it wasn't a mis-interpretation, as shown by the second Jefferson
>quote presented above.  It was the correct interpretation.

That quote REINFORCES the view that the gov't should be OUT of religion
entirely.

>>>Nearly 70 years after the Reynolds case, in the 1947 Everson [v. Board of
>>>Education] case, the Court excerpted eight words out of Jefferson's address
>>>('a wall of separation between church and state') and adopted that phrase
>>>as its new battle cry.  It announced for the first time the new meaning
>>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>of separation of church and state--a separation of basic religious
>>>principles from public arenas. ... 
>
>>No, not a new meaning, but the original intent of Jefferson and the 
>>Constitution.  Supreme Court interpretations don't change the original
>>intent.
>
>No, sorry, you are mistaken.  The 1947 Court took the meaning out
>of context from the original letter and gave it a new meaning at 
>that time.  The Supreme Court's ruling DOES in fact change the original
>intent--not only Jefferson's intent but also the Senate's and the
>vast majority of the Founding Fathers.  

If the Founders wanted a Christian nation, why DIDN'T they put it in the
Constitution? It's not that hard to say "Christian Sect" instead
"Religion"; they could afford the ink, I'm sure.

So why didn't they DO what you say the vast majority of them wanted to do?

>You may believe that the Court has now rendered the correct interpretation,
>but 180 years of Supreme Court precedent saying that Christianity and 
>Government are intertwined; religion being taught in the schools and 
>not challenged or removed, but encouraged; and early text books that
>were practically lifted from scripture tell me that you are wrong. 

Once upon a time, we also felt very strongly that we had a "right" to
the entire continent; we were Destined to have it all. Obviously,
since this was once the view of the people and the government, it must
be right.

When do we invade Canada?

Once upon a time, we felt it was only civilized to destroy the native people
of this continent, and we did a good job but didn't quite finnish.

When are we sending in the marines?

I don't think the fact that the Government had some position once made
that position right.

>Provide any other evidence from the Founding Fathers or even something
>prior to 1947 (besides the obviously disputed Jefferson quote) that 
>support the _current_ interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States comes to mind.

Article VI:

      Section 3.  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
   the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
   and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
   several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support
   this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as
   a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
   States.

Amendments:

   1st Amendment
      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.

   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.


[the power to promote religions is not granted to the gov't, btw. Thats
why #10 is relevant.]

   14th Amendment
      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
   and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
   United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State
   shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
   or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
   State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
   due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
   the equal protection of the laws.

[this is a bit vague but is generally interpreted as saying that
 the first amendment (and other thing) applies to states too. Without this
 it clearly does not.]

I believe all of these are pre-1947, and Artice VI Section 3, plus
the First and Tenth Amendments are all the work of the Founders personally.

Surprising how they didn't explicitly do what you say they wanted to, isn't
it?

>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

The Truth is still the Truth even if it IS obvious. Really. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.