From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:51:09 GMT

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
: 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.
:

I disagree that Magnus's impression is wrong; however, the First Amendment is
vague enough that I would like find a book like Madison's notes of the
Constitutional Convention for the debates that certainly surounded the Bill of
Rights prior to their ratification.  (is this clear? :^))

: >>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 firs
t
: >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:
:
: "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.]
:
: 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...
:

The Government is also prohibited from DICTATING OR DIRECTING (the definition 
of Prescription) any religious exercise or discipline.  (Last sentence)

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

Who?

:
: 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'

I consider tax exempt status for all income and properties to be an "endowment
at public expense" as well as a "peculiar [privilege] to its members",
especially the clergy.

:             ... 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.

Amazing how in only 64 years people can have such a distorted view of what the
founding fathers were about.  With eloquent diests and freethinkers like
Jefferson and Franklin, one could hardly have gotten away with talking about
"the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy," but with time and
complacency the theistic majority again tries to exert undue influence.

:          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.]

A Senator of 1853 can hardly be considered a "Founding Father".

:
: [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.

I disagree that you have established this point.

: >>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.
:

And I submit that you and the earlier Court twisted the meaning of Jefferson's 
words.

: 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;
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Careful, you're making our argument for us (Separationists I mean).  If 
"Christianity and Government are intertwined" then that is contrary to the 
First Amendment.

:                             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.
:

It tells me that the ideals this country was built on were loftier than the 
people were able to attain.  But we learn and grow and there are heights yet to
attain before this country conforms to those ideals.

: 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.

Again I ask, are there any books concerning the debates that took place prior 
to ratification of the Bill of Rights?

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

Mike McAngus
-- 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the 
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respection an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism