Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Technogeek · 03-24-2003, 01:42 PM

A debate over Texas's sodomy law on another forum recently lead to this laugable post:

Quote:

You know not of what you speak; the constitution does not specify any such doctrine of separation of Church and State - in fact, the founding fathers practiced much the opposite. Local city taxes went to fund local churches and so on. Religious life was very intertwined with the government.

All the constitution says is that Congress cannot recognize an official state religion (implying that all citizens must belong to such a religion), and that Congress shall not pass any laws preventing you from exercising your religious beliefs.

A very liberal Supreme Court reversed 100 years of precedent (previous Supreme Court decisions supporting the entanglement of church and state) and overrode the wishes of the founding fathers by inventing the doctrine of "separation of church and state". They stole the phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to some quakers in Pennsylvania where he was assuring them that the government wouldn't interfere with their religious practices. He wasn't even coming close to saying that government and religion should be totally and 100% separate.

The constitution survives because it is a flexible document. Some up-and-comers with new ideas about what was right and wrong sat on the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to mean what they wanted it to mean. That has happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen in the future. Thus, we aren't forever locked into the same way of thinking. New generations can reinterpret things as necessary. Sometimes it sucks, but overall it works out (as far as the "big picture" is concerned).

In other words, typical "no such thing as seperation of church and state" claptrap. What I find amusing about bringing up that letter (the Danbury Baptist letter, as I said in the topic) is that Jefferson's explaination of the Establishment Clause means church/state seperation was never intended.

In other words: "Jefferson said that the Establishment Clause means x, therefore, x was not intended."

Am I the only person to have caught that?

Toto · 03-24-2003, 01:49 PM

Not to mention that Jefferson is alleged to have written the 'Danbury Baptist letter' to some quakers.

I am not aware of any previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the entanglement of state and religion. Anyone?

Technogeek · 03-24-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Not to mention that Jefferson is alleged to have written the 'Danbury Baptist letter' to some quakers.

I had figured he had gotten the sub-religions mixed up myself, since the Danbury Baptist letter is the only one I know of that uses the phrase "seperation of church and state" to explain the Establishment Clause.

Toto · 03-24-2003, 02:11 PM

The whole issue is explored in more depth here:

A Study Guide For The Words/Concept: "Separation of Church And State"

and:

ARGUMENT: The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution

Quote:

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. As noted earlier, separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer, for example, notes:

"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).

Second, accommodationists don't apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer, for example, observes that:

(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118).

gravitybow · 03-25-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Technogeek quotes:
A very liberal Supreme Court reversed 100 years of precedent (previous Supreme Court decisions supporting the entanglement of church and state) and overrode the wishes of the founding fathers by inventing the doctrine of "separation of church and state". They stole the phrase from Thomas Jefferson's letter to some quakers in Pennsylvania where he was assuring them that the government wouldn't interfere with their religious practices. He wasn't even coming close to saying that government and religion should be totally and 100% separate.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Founding Father to write about the separation of church and state. James Madison, often called the "architect" or "father" of the Constitution, also put his two-cents worth in. What were the wishes of this pivotal figure?:

Quote:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, 1803, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, quoted from James A. Haught, "2000 Years of Disbelief"]

The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, posesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819]

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]

...it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]

Sounds to me like this founder wanted 100% total separation and describes this doctrine as working both ways. Guess he was in league with those liberal Supreme Court justices, eh?

Of course, if one still wants to play the silly "no separation in the Constitution" word game, then let's apply it equally: "Trinity� doesn�t appear in the Bible in any form (trinitarian, triune god, etc.). The authors of the New Testament could have said it clearly, but didn�t. Not a pip, not a squeak. The Trinitarian doctrine wasn�t established as dogma until hundreds of years later, and then very contentiously. Even today, it is not universally held by Bible-believing sects. So, if a Trinitarian wishes to deny that separation exists even after Madison clearly says it does and why it does, I can only conclude that their religion is based on a falsehood.

MortalWombat · 03-25-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gravitybow
Of course, if one still wants to play the silly "no separation in the Constitution" word game, then let's apply it equally: "Trinity� doesn�t appear in the Bible in any form (trinitarian, triune god, etc.).

One doesn't even have to use the Bible as an analogy. We can look no further than the Constitution itself: no where in the Constitution are the phrases "separation of powers" or "right to a fair trial" written either. But they are today considered to be well established constitutional principles.

fromtheright · 03-25-2003, 06:02 PM

My problem with the quote in the original post (besides simple stupidity or ignorance--the letter was to the Danbury Baptists not Quakers obviously) is that the author simply contradicted him/herself. First he decries the Supreme Court overriding the wishes of the Founders and then goes on to praise the Constitution as a flexible document. I guess it just wasn't bent in his/my direction by the Supreme Court.

Technogeek, do you mind sharing the forum it is on. I hate it when those on my side make us look ridiculous.

RufusAtticus · 03-26-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright
I hate it when those on my side make us look ridiculous.

You must be a very hate-filled man then.

gravitybow · 03-26-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
One doesn't even have to use the Bible as an analogy. We can look no further than the Constitution itself: no where in the Constitution are the phrases "separation of powers" or "right to a fair trial" written either. But they are today considered to be well established constitutional principles.

Right, MW. And Toto addresses similar accomodationists' inconsistencies in the Pfeffer material he quotes. You and I agree, ya' don't see anyone complaining about those other shorthand phrases for constitutional concepts. I'm merely pointing their "analysis" in their direction on a position that has much less going for it.

fromtheright · 03-26-2003, 10:16 AM

I knew that was coming and was just waiting to see who would jump at it.

But you're right, with the Bartons, Marshalls, etc. out there it's tough sometimes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2003, 01:49 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Not to mention that Jefferson is alleged to have written the 'Danbury Baptist letter' to some quakers. I am not aware of any previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the entanglement of state and religion. Anyone?

03-25-2003, 06:02 PM	#7
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	My problem with the quote in the original post (besides simple stupidity or ignorance--the letter was to the Danbury Baptists not Quakers obviously) is that the author simply contradicted him/herself. First he decries the Supreme Court overriding the wishes of the Founders and then goes on to praise the Constitution as a flexible document. I guess it just wasn't bent in his/my direction by the Supreme Court. Technogeek, do you mind sharing the forum it is on. I hate it when those on my side make us look ridiculous.

03-26-2003, 10:16 AM	#10
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	I knew that was coming and was just waiting to see who would jump at it. But you're right, with the Bartons, Marshalls, etc. out there it's tough sometimes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.