From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: The Spanish/American War
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:44:16 GMT

In article <HISTORY%92121414040989@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET writes:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:28:32 -0600 "Bring me Joan, dipped in Spam"
><TBEAUDOIN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET> said:
>
>>         Was the United States the first country to enshrine the principle
>> of separation of church and state? I realize said principle is not
>> enshrined in our constitution, but rather has evolved as a result of
>> the legal application of US constitutional principles.
>
>How do you reckon that? Amendment I forbids the establishment
>of religion. That is enshrined as one can get. To establish
>a church is to unite church and state. To disestablish is to
>separate church and state, as happened in Ireland in 1869
>and in Wales in 1912.
>
>Denis Paz
>Department of History
>Clemson University
>South Carolina, U.S.A.


I'm not an historian, hence somewhat out-of-place here, but nevertheless:

   I think there are three *distinct* phenomena being discussed here:
       (1) Establishment of a church
       (2) Separation of church and state
       (3) Uniting church and state

What does each mean precisely?

To me (1) means only that a particular church (e.g., Anglican,
Evangelical in Hohenzollern Prussia) has a special legal position in
a particular country. Maybe it is the faith of the royal family; maybe
it is subsidized by the government; maybe (as was the case in Britain)
it is the religion imputed on soldiers' i.d. disks if they do not name
some other specific religion. But a state with an established church may
still allow the free exercise of other faiths, and the establish church 
will not necessarily exercise (say) judicial powers.

(2) seems to me to have come to mean that the government should not interact
in any way with a particular church (e.g., no religious-holiday decorations
in government buildings, no tax exemptions to noncharitable religious
organizations)

(3) suggests to me making a single *unit* of church and state -- i.e., fusing
the two into a theocracy. Of course a theocracy has an established religion,
so (3) ==> (1), but not conversely. In most theocracies (e.g., Calvin's
Geneva, Iran ) a church would exercise judicial powers; and possibly the
practice of other faiths would be prohibited or discouraged. As I pointed
out above, this would not necessarily be the case in a state with an
established church.

Also, the 1st Amendment does *not* prohibit the establishment of a religion
-- it only prohibits the establishment of a religion *by Congress*. Thus
a particular State (e.g., New Hampshire, North Carolinia, etc) could have
established a religion. Later, the doctrine of absorption (meaning that the
Bill of Rights applied to state and local governments as well the Federal)
meant that what Congress was prevented from doing, a State could not do.

I believe the original poster may have wondered how the U.S. went from the
1st Amendment to lawsuits over a Christmas wreath or a menorah in a
municipal building. I would suggest changing attitudes of tolerance
provided the will (to litigants against religious practices by State/
local governments) and the doctrine of absorption provided the means.



Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU