Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 07-16-2002, 08:25 AM

In the wake of reaction to the 9th circuit court ruiling on the pledge of allegiance, some articles in newspapers have mentioned how there are people who argue that church-state separation was only meant to prevent the government from establishing a state or national church. That's all.

By reading the myriad of opinions of members here, it is clear that you think church-state separation goes even farther than this, so far to even prevent the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance as well as fighting the public posting of the Ten Commandments.

My question is - what historical basis is there for this board's general idea of sincere church-state separation?

Many opponents of the pledge ruiling have indeed used the argument that the founding fathers only wanted to prevent an established national church and religion. They did not want the removal of religious symbols from public and related things.

So, where does the historical evidence point?

MassAtheist · 07-16-2002, 08:38 AM

From <a href="http://www.au.org/myths.htm" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was settled on.

The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many religions on an equal basis.

A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives' debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for "non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally. (The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)

-RRH- · 07-16-2002, 08:43 AM

Well, if I wanted to establish a national church, one important step would be the frequent use of that church's symbols in the government.

Secular Elation · 07-16-2002, 08:48 AM

MassAtheist,

Since that information is from American's United, I doubt any church-state skeptics will take it seriously. Such skeptics will only argue their interpretation of the founding fathers who "founded this nation on Christian principles."

RRH,

Well, if I wanted to establish a national church, one important step would be the frequent use of that church's symbols in the government.

If I recall, the only relevant point is that congress opens with a prayer. This is not a religious symbol, but it is a religious action. How is this unconstitutional?

Philosoft · 07-16-2002, 09:15 AM

<strong>Wrote Secular Elation:

If I recall, the only relevant point is that congress opens with a prayer. This is not a religious symbol, but it is a religious action. How is this unconstitutional?</strong>

I'd say it's strictly not. Elected officials are simply a sample of the population. They're not required, as individuals, to represent or respect all political and religious viewpoints of the constituency. They can ask for guidance from the IPU (PBUHHA) for all the Constitution cares. They can draft laws based on Scripture, Hammurabi, Sagan Asimov, or whoever else has written about codes-of-conduct for all the Constitution cares. They just can't use their governmental status to promote or disparage any religion or non-religion.

MassAtheist · 07-16-2002, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>MassAtheist,

Since that information is from American's United, I doubt any church-state skeptics will take it seriously. Such skeptics will only argue their interpretation of the founding fathers who "founded this nation on Christian principles."
</strong>

And that would be essentially an ad hominem attack - they would be ignoring the content of the message merely because of it's source.

In any case, your original question was:

Quote:

what historical basis is there for this board's general idea of sincere church-state separation?

To pare down my quote to make the answer a little more obvious:

Quote:

...an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected.

and

Quote:

Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives' debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another...."

That is, if the intention was "only meant to prevent the government from establishing a state or national church", then they would have done exactly that. But in fact, the founders specifically rejected language that would have done precisely what today's religious right claims the founders wanted to do.

I think that the explicit rejection of language that would have prevented only a national establishment shows clearly that the framers intended the prohibition to be broader in scope.

Buffman · 07-16-2002, 02:01 PM

Secular Relation

Once again I will post the source I use to quiet the abundance of misinfermation being generated about this issue.

"The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins" edited by Neil H . Cogan, Oxford University Press, 1997 (ISBN 0-19-510322-X)

Chapter 1
AMENDMENT I
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
(Pgs. 1-82)

The information found in those pages is not guesswork or opinion. If the folks who are challenging the Church-State separation meaning wish to put their money where their mouth is, I feel sure you could make a nice living off them by having a copy of this book with which to challenge their opinions.

MassAtheist attempted to cut-down the AU statement to make it easier to relate to these people who would question the source. I can not abbreviate 82 pages of 9 1/4" x 7 1/4" information in order to satisfy them...nor will I...without charging them for my valuable time and knowledge. That book cost me over $80.00. It sources every item. It is not easy to use, but is the most accurate available regarding what was said, why, and by whom (in their own words where ever recorded) at the actual time this part of the Amendment was being drafted. If they claim to have a more accurate source of knowledge about this issue, that is another challenge I would gleefully make...betting that they don't.

Many opponents of the pledge ruiling have indeed used the argument that the founding fathers only wanted to prevent an established national church and religion. They did not want the removal of religious symbols from public and related things.

Specifically, whose/which religious symbols should the elected government(s) display in public? Specifically, whose/what related things. Each Sect, and many of the denominations of those Sects, have very specific symbols and "related" things. Which ones should the "federal republic government" support by displaying them in public? Aren't thay already displayed in public all across this country...though on non-taxed, private, religious facilities and property. Perhaps they wouldn't mind if the government started taxing religion instead of already giving it a free ride at "everyone's" expense.

07-16-2002, 08:25 AM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Church and state separation? In the wake of reaction to the 9th circuit court ruiling on the pledge of allegiance, some articles in newspapers have mentioned how there are people who argue that church-state separation was only meant to prevent the government from establishing a state or national church. That's all. By reading the myriad of opinions of members here, it is clear that you think church-state separation goes even farther than this, so far to even prevent the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance as well as fighting the public posting of the Ten Commandments. My question is - what historical basis is there for this board's general idea of sincere church-state separation? Many opponents of the pledge ruiling have indeed used the argument that the founding fathers only wanted to prevent an established national church and religion. They did not want the removal of religious symbols from public and related things. So, where does the historical evidence point?

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

07-16-2002, 08:43 AM	#3
-RRH- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Winnipeg Posts: 2,047	Well, if I wanted to establish a national church, one important step would be the frequent use of that church's symbols in the government.

07-16-2002, 08:48 AM	#4
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	MassAtheist, Since that information is from American's United, I doubt any church-state skeptics will take it seriously. Such skeptics will only argue their interpretation of the founding fathers who "founded this nation on Christian principles." RRH, Well, if I wanted to establish a national church, one important step would be the frequent use of that church's symbols in the government. If I recall, the only relevant point is that congress opens with a prayer. This is not a religious symbol, but it is a religious action. How is this unconstitutional?

07-16-2002, 09:15 AM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	<strong>Wrote Secular Elation: If I recall, the only relevant point is that congress opens with a prayer. This is not a religious symbol, but it is a religious action. How is this unconstitutional?</strong> I'd say it's strictly not. Elected officials are simply a sample of the population. They're not required, as individuals, to represent or respect all political and religious viewpoints of the constituency. They can ask for guidance from the IPU (PBUHHA) for all the Constitution cares. They can draft laws based on Scripture, Hammurabi, Sagan Asimov, or whoever else has written about codes-of-conduct for all the Constitution cares. They just can't use their governmental status to promote or disparage any religion or non-religion.

07-16-2002, 02:01 PM	#7
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Secular Relation Once again I will post the source I use to quiet the abundance of misinfermation being generated about this issue. "The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins" edited by Neil H . Cogan, Oxford University Press, 1997 (ISBN 0-19-510322-X) Chapter 1 AMENDMENT I Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses (Pgs. 1-82) The information found in those pages is not guesswork or opinion. If the folks who are challenging the Church-State separation meaning wish to put their money where their mouth is, I feel sure you could make a nice living off them by having a copy of this book with which to challenge their opinions. MassAtheist attempted to cut-down the AU statement to make it easier to relate to these people who would question the source. I can not abbreviate 82 pages of 9 1/4" x 7 1/4" information in order to satisfy them...nor will I...without charging them for my valuable time and knowledge. That book cost me over $80.00. It sources every item. It is not easy to use, but is the most accurate available regarding what was said, why, and by whom (in their own words where ever recorded) at the actual time this part of the Amendment was being drafted. If they claim to have a more accurate source of knowledge about this issue, that is another challenge I would gleefully make...betting that they don't. Many opponents of the pledge ruiling have indeed used the argument that the founding fathers only wanted to prevent an established national church and religion. They did not want the removal of religious symbols from public and related things. Specifically, whose/which religious symbols should the elected government(s) display in public? Specifically, whose/what related things. Each Sect, and many of the denominations of those Sects, have very specific symbols and "related" things. Which ones should the "federal republic government" support by displaying them in public? Aren't thay already displayed in public all across this country...though on non-taxed, private, religious facilities and property. Perhaps they wouldn't mind if the government started taxing religion instead of already giving it a free ride at "everyone's" expense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.