From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Religion and Govt. [was: U.S. Bill of Rights today]
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.123704.13602@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@egr.msu.edu (Ed Symanzik) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>		AMENDMENT I:
>>	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.

>>		REALITY I:
>>	Polygamy in the Mormon faith: Banned.

>    Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and 
>    Christian countries.  They are crimes by the laws of the United
>    States...To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend
>    common sense of mankind.
>	Davis v. Beason; 133 U.S.333 (1890).

However having a court recognize that ours is a "Christian country" is
an establishment of religion which is banned by the Constitution.
Despite this claim rules against polygamy and bigamy are religious
tenets of Christian and Jewish religions (I would guess that the author
felt "Christian" was a precondition for "civilized".  Hinduism is
accepting of polygamy.  Islam is to a defined extent.  Mormanism was
until outlawed.  Restrictions on these religious tenets are restrictions
upon the free exercise thereof.

>>	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
>>			 			     Platform.

There is nothing unconstitutional about this.

>John Quincy Adams:
>    The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected,
>    in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with
>    the principles of Christianity.
>	J. Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, 1860
>	(reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1970),p.XXIX.

Of course, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian and reading his writings
may make it clear why the establishment of religion was banned.  

Also note that all of the included texts in the article i am responding
to appear to be religious or Christian publications.  Of course such
publications would argue on the side of religion.

>>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.

>If "uphold the Constitution" means to interpret the Constitution the
>way the Founding Fathers intended it to be read, then I agree.

There is no such requirement for citizenship.  Thomas Jefferson was an
athiest and would certainly not agree with the preceding poster.

>First of all, atheism is not a religion as the contemporary court would
>have us believe.  Here is what the Founding Fathers meant by religion.

I do not belive that a court has called athiesm a religion, although some 
religious right groups try to label humanism such.  The label does not
apply and does not agree with the (removed) posted definition.

[Definition by Noah Webster 52 years after Dec. of Ind. deleted as 
 immaterial.]

>Here are a few quotes to support Bush's statement.  (I can produce more 
>if you aren't convinced).

>The House Judiciary Committee:

>    Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any
>    attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been
>    strangled in its cradle.  At the time of the adoption of the 
>    Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that
>    Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination].
>    ...In this age there can be no subsitute for Christianity: that, in
>    its general principles, is the great conservative element on which
>    we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions.
>	 B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil
>	 Institutions of the United States (Philidelphia: George W.
>	 Childs, 1864), pp.320-321,323.

Reference to the Judiciary Committee is not given, just to a religious
tract.  I will choose to believe that this was a claim made by a witness
or by an individual Representative instead of by the whole committee
until shown otherwise.

It was certainly not the universal sentiment to encourage Christianity,
witness Jefferson.  And more specifically the government was precluded
from such encouragement as it would be partial establishment.

>The Supreme Court:

>    No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any
>    legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.  
>    This is historically true.  

Of course.  The Constitution bans restrictions on religion.  There is no
action against religion allowed.

>    From the discovery of this continent 
>    to the present hour, there is a single voice making this 
>    affirmation....These are not individual sayings, declarations of 
>    private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice 
>    of the entire people....These, and many other matters which might 
>    be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass 
>    of organic utterances that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
>         Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 465,471 (1892).

I.e. many people claim that this is a Christian nation.  The Supreme
Court in this text does not claim that this is a Christian nation, just
that there are many such utterances.  [Parse the sentence if this is not
clear to you.]  It may be that elsewhere the Supreme Court made such a
ruling.  In which case it would be erroneous, just as the "Separate but
Equal" ruling was erroneous.  The Supremes are not God, they have been
known to make mistakes.

>John Witherspoon, a president of Princeton who trained one third
>of the Founding Fathers and also signed the Declaration:

>    What follows from this?  That he is the best friend to American
>    liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and
>    undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness
>    to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.  Whoever is
>    an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate] to call
>    him AN ENEMY TO HIS COUNTRY.
>         John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon
>         (Philadelphia: William W. Woodard, 1802), Vol. VI, p.414.

Amazing!  A preacher opposed to athiests!  I will grant you that a
number of the Founding Fathers were highly religious and wished to
establish Christianity as the national religion.  However, the
compromise worked out (the Constitution) specifically banned such
establishment.  So the loosers gripe and maintain their former
position.

>The Supreme Court of Mass.:

>    [The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of
>    God, as well...as Christians of every denomination....THIS 
>    PROVISION DOES NOT EXTEND TO ATHEISTS, because they do not believe
>    in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions,
>    whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and 
>    professions.
>	 Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland; 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206,233,234
>	 (Sup.Ct.Mass. 1838)

I assume that this is in reference to lack of protection for some
activity by a non-religious group.  Certainly a non-religious group is
not protected by the "free exercise [of religion]" clause.  This has
nothing to do with any claim of lack of rights by athiests.

>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.
                                    ^ = juvenile
>    The destruction of morality renders the power of government 
>    invalid....The corruption of the public mind, in general, and 
>    debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene
>    pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the 
>    most injurious consequences.... No man is permitted to corrupt the
>    morals of the people.
>	 Commonwealth v. Jesse Sharpless and Others; 2 Serg. & R.
>	 91,103,104 (Sup.Ct.Penn. 1815).

Fortunately this sentiment is not embodied in the Constitution.  The
Freedom of the Press overrides such appeals to nicety.  I say
"fortunately" because anyone with sufficient power would then be able to
label anything they opposed as "immoral" (drinking, smoking, wearing
bathing suits, not wearing bathing suits, taking recreational drugs,
marrying (or having sex with) someone of another "race", playing rap
music, ...) and therefore giving the government the right to ban it.

Alternative values should be argued in the marketplace of ideas, not by
banning some as "corruptive of morals".

>The intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the U.S. government
 ^^^One
>from establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.
>This is what they had been fleeing from in England where the national
>denomination had been Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant.  They did not 
>intend to protect other religions.  

False.  This was not stated.

>They also did not prevent religious involvment in government, 

False.  The agreement was to prevent it to the great extent (although
chaplains for the houses of Congress were envisioned).

>on the contrary, they wanted to encourage it.

Certainly some did (see below).  The agreement was that the Government
should not be involved in this.  Individuals and churches were free to.

>    By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established
>    religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed 
>    upon the same equal footing.
>	 Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799.

But the establishment of religion was banned so this is invalid on its
face.

>    It is impossible to rightly govern...without God and the Bible.
>	 George Washington.

Personal opinion.

>    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
>    and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our
>    Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
>	 John Jay.

Personal opinion.  The reader should understand that such a statement
would not be made unless it was an argument against the opposite
position.  I would guess that this might have been part of a campaign
tract against Thomas Jefferson.  If so, then the election of TJ showed
that the people rejected this argument.  Thus at least by 1804, THE
AMERICAN VOTERS REJECTED THE IDEA THAT THIS WAS A CHRISTIAN NATION.

>All of the cases you cite are a result of the Supreme Court wrongfully
>applying the 14th Amendment to the other amendments.  

It seems that you wish to discuss the 14th instead of the First
Amendment.  In the 14th Amendment, the Federal Government was
intentionally taking power from the states as a set of states that had
rebelled was being reincorporated by force into the Union.  Previous
states' rights were removed so that protections that people had from the
Federal Govt., were granted to them from the states as well.  The intent
was because it was (justifiably) felt that the states would do whatever
was in their power to legislate against the newly freed slaves and
former opponents of the rebellion.  In granting these additional rights
the USG did not restrict them on basis of "race" or previous condition
of servitude, granting extra rights to certain people, but provided them
to all citizens.

>Since that time,
>the Supreme Court has assumed more and more power.  They now determine
>the constitutionality of laws and they create laws themselves through
>"judicial orders."  This was never intended.

It was not intended under the Bill of Rights.  It was intended after
the Civil War.  There were new circumstances and new intentions.  The
new intensions were added to the Constitution through the process of
amendment.

>    You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
>    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
>    one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
>    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
>	 Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

Jefferson lost this case (Marberry vs. Madison, right?).  As a former
president he was on the side of a strong presidency.  The Constitution
set up the three branches of govt. with "checks and balances".  TJ
didn't want the president to be checked and balanced by the Court.

>    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the
>    federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is
>    scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by
>    day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and 
>    advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of 
>    jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.
>	 Thomas Jefferson, 1821.

He seems upset that he lost.

>    As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
>    [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
>    execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
>    the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
>    was never intended, and can never be proper.
>	 James Madison, 1788.

They are not given the right to not enforce a law.  They do have the
right to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

But all these quotes are before the 14th Amendment so are immaterial to
today's circumstances.

>So what it comes down to is this; in order to reverse the Court's
>encroachment on your rights, 

I fail to see the Court's encroachment that is referred to.

>you have to reverse the decision in
>Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, where the Court began this 
>mess.  Of course this would have to include the so called "separation 
>of church and state," and given your support of polygamy, pornography, 
>Satanism, and drugs, I doubt you are willing to do that.  

This is the first reference to Satanism in the discussion.

>This is
>probably a "Catch 22" for you as the two are inseparable but you 
>have to make a choice - do you want what the Founding Fathers 
>intended or not?

Not.  I wish to include the Amendments added after the Founding Fathers.
I certainly wish the Supreme Court to be able to rule on the
constitutionality of laws, which i believe arises from the Constitution.
I believe that the compromise made by the Founding Fathers included the
separation of church and state although a number of them were opposed to
it.  I will go along with their agreed upon intent.

Some intents of the Founding Fathers i certainly do NOT want, and these
have been eliminated: acceptance of slavery, treatment of native
Americans as less than human, restriction of votes to men, acceptance of
ownership of property as a requirement of voting, and non-voting status
for the Federal District.  I have disagreements with other portions of
the Constitiution and would support ammendments to rectify these (ERA,
voting rights for DC equivalent to any state, and direct voting for
President.  I would also look into a more parlimentary system for
Congress allowing more parties to participate).

>Ed Symanzik
>Michigan State University
>symanzik@egr.msu.edu


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution