-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Thomas Jefferson and the Separation of Church and State
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
The thing people dont seem to understand about the 1st amendment...including the courts/congress/president...is this:
Religion is completely off limits to congress. They cant make a law respecting it. They cant make a law forbidding it.
I believe that the free expression in public should be placed in the hands of the majority.
If they want a prayer at a graduation, fine.
If some muslims want to have a speaker for a call to prayer, fine.
If a township wants to put up a nativity scene at christmas, fine.
But congress and the courts can't interfere. Thats the value and importance of the first amendment.
Too much medling has occured already.
Religion is completely off limits to congress. They cant make a law respecting it. They cant make a law forbidding it.
I believe that the free expression in public should be placed in the hands of the majority.
If they want a prayer at a graduation, fine.
If some muslims want to have a speaker for a call to prayer, fine.
If a township wants to put up a nativity scene at christmas, fine.
But congress and the courts can't interfere. Thats the value and importance of the first amendment.
Too much medling has occured already.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
which is all the more reason what he supported is a good example of things that are fully acceptable under the constitution.
i agree.
to make sure that the bold part of the previous quotation isn't abridged.
happyhelper
Senior member
Well riprotten, since public property = state property, I think that is what he meant... if you build a church on your own property (or on property bought by a group for a church) then you can practice your religion on that property (in that church). If you are at home, or at a friend's house, you can practice your religion so long as you have your friend's permission to do so. If you are on public property, which is separate from religion, then you can't preach your god to passersby or praise your god there. What's so complicated about that? A school is public property, as are most libraries and parks and so on.
TuxDave
Lifer
Forgive me for I have sinned... for I'm about to commit the Riporin Copy/Paste Argument Style... *ahem*
Church/state separation in the U.S. Constitution:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife.
In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:
"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."
This was ratified by the States in 1791.
The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension public schools) may not:
promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.
Wall of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."
During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government 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."
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid any involvement in religion.
Church/state separation in the U.S. Constitution:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife.
In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:
"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."
This was ratified by the States in 1791.
The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension public schools) may not:
promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.
Wall of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."
During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government 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."
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid any involvement in religion.
Amused
Elite Member
Like I said above (why does everyone always ignore my posts?), I think both sides in this debate have gone too far.
The most recent example is the banning of Boy Scouts from using public parks in San Deigo.
However, that said, government should strive to maintain religious neutrality. It's the only way to maintain religious freedom.
EXman
Lifer
You all are missing the point here.
Christians wanted freedom of religion.
England well was a bad place to live if you wanted that.
They came here to get away from state sponsored religion.
TJ said to a group of Baptists we are not going to establish a Federal Church.
from that came the twisting and spin that "Seperation of Church and State" means that the founders wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
This country was not founded by Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists by in large it was founded by Christians.
yes I am oversimplifing it but oh well
If you dispute that please find your liabrary card as the internet is full of garbage.
Christians wanted freedom of religion.
England well was a bad place to live if you wanted that.
They came here to get away from state sponsored religion.
TJ said to a group of Baptists we are not going to establish a Federal Church.
from that came the twisting and spin that "Seperation of Church and State" means that the founders wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
This country was not founded by Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists by in large it was founded by Christians.
yes I am oversimplifing it but oh well
If you dispute that please find your liabrary card as the internet is full of garbage.
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
If you don't follow the loving, forgiving, glorious path of Christianity, we'll be force to ostracize, emasculate and possibly imprison you. Have a blessed day. God loves you.
Amused
Elite Member
Again, a government that is not religiously neutral cannot maintain religious freedom. To have freedom of religion, my government must not support or endorce one religion over another.
And it was NOT just Christians who came to the US seeking religious freedom. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers doubted the divinity of Christ, and therefore could not be called proper "Christians."
There is NO mention of religious freedom only for Christians in any of the founding documents, nor in any verifiable quotes from the Founding Fathers. In fact, all of the founding documents fail to mention any specific religion.
Maybe you should use that library card?
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress.)
Amused
Elite Member
Well, of course. But at the same time you cannot demand that private individuals hide their religion from you. Nor can you demand that religious orgs cannot use public property just like any other individual. Just because their message is religious does not mean they give up their rights.
EXman
Lifer
spin and more spin
I do not see that I ever said all the founding fathers were your definition of Christian. Or "all were Christians." They were not. Duh?!
I don't see that I said Christians were the only settlers looking for religious freedom. Of course not what a great place to come to All religions are welcome, in theory.
I never said it was. I said "it was founded by Christians" (that means People not a Religion) not founded for Christian, or any religion for that matter. The simple fact is the people who Fought the war for independance were overwhelmingly self described Christians pure and simple. The Red Coats were not worried about the Jewish or Muslim Brigades or the tens of thousands of Bhuddists marching on their position. Ack!
Yea that is my point. Of course there isn't 🙂 And why would they choose one over another when they don't even mention one? 😕 that is why that is spin you are going in circles. 😀
I lost my wallet :disgust: But you need to Listen first with out prejudice and thoughts of spin.
I want freedom of religion if you choose none that is your choice as well but don't spin and Preach your Freedom from religion as fact or even what was intended. Freedom from a Church of the State is all that was meant. That was not Directed at Amused but to all peeps.
I'll let you have the last word if you wish 🙂 I've said my peace and if read w/o predjudice I think it is pretty clear.
DealMonkey
Lifer
These sort of "separation" threads spring up all the time around here and so I find myself saying the same things over and over. It's quite repetitive and annoying. Suffice to say, the public square (as you call it) is public property and therefore belongs to ALL of us. Same with gov't property, it belongs to the people, ALL of the people, not just SOME of the people.
With that in mind, how can we all agree on what religion will be promoted or not promoted within these public spaces? The answer is strict religious neutrality. Otherwise, as soon as you have a promotion of one religion over others or over a lack of religion, people are going to be upset at the perceived "establishment" of one religion vs another.
Amused
Elite Member
This is where my opinion has changed. I used to be an ardent atheist (I'm agnostic now) and I held the same hard-line position as the ACLU and American Atheists.
However, my position has changed. Let me lay it out:
The public square/park/pavilion is for all, correct? All people have a right to use it within the limits of the law. Should this not include ALL religious organizations? Should not ALL religious orgs have equal access (not equal representation, since that is an individual decision) to public facilities?
If not, how can you rationalize limiting the freedom of religious orgs while not limiting the freedom of others?
Granted, I do not support any government institution inviting, or granting one religious org to take advantage of public property over any other. The government MUST remain neutral. However, if other people are allowed to use public property for fairs, art and the like, I see no reason why religious orgs should be banned so long as the government remains neutral.
Like it or not, religious orgs are and should be protected under the equal protection clause. To deny them the same rights as others simply because their message is religious is UNequal and just wrong.
If the government does not invite nor endorse the religious org, there should be no ban on their EQUAL use of public property.
Oh, I KNOW you didn't just try to use Mr. Jefferson to argue for a stronger alliance between a religion and the government of the United States of America.
From the Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom, one of the three things Mr. Jefferson has incribed on his gravestone:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Next up, this link to a site of dozens of quotes from Mr. Jefferson relating to religion and government. Some exerpts:
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
From the Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom, one of the three things Mr. Jefferson has incribed on his gravestone:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Next up, this link to a site of dozens of quotes from Mr. Jefferson relating to religion and government. Some exerpts:
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
Mr. Jefferson sent a man to Europe to seek teachers because all learned Americans at the time were affiliated with religions. He refused to hire even one priest or similar character in his initial group of professors. There was no church built on Grounds, and was not one until many decades after he passed away. The University was often called a "heathen" institute because of this.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
They were??? Cool how bout we just get rid of all public parks in the U.S., they're taking up valuable Real Estate anyway.
Edit: Oh and ban all churches in the U.S. , that's a lot of Real Estate too and would add to the Tax rolls because Churches don't pay Taxes just like Corps don't.
Gen Stonewall
Senior member
😕
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
