Separation of Church and State?

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:44 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I never quoted from the opinion. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I merely wrote of the results, in a general sense, which is proven by the facts of the case. Prior to the 1947 Everson case, "separation of church and state" was left up to the states to define. It was the 1947 Supreme Court decision that codified that doctrine at the federal level, to wit nationalization.

The intent of our "Founding Fathers" is clear from their own words. The path was defined by our first Chief Justice, John Jay; American patriot Patrick Henry, and many others.

John Jay and Patrick Henry were not founders. Neither one of them participated in the framing of the instruments that established our system of government. Henry voted against ratification. John Jay was not a member of the bodies that ratified either document.

John Jay drafted the New York Constitution of 1777 which removed the references to "faith in God by Jesus Christ" that was contained in the Colonial Charter. He also included this provison to keep ministers of the gospel out of government.

And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function, therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under and preference or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this state."

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:55 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 21, 1868 with the intent of providing civil rights to former slaves. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court comingled the 14th and 1st Amendment by claiming the 14th Amendment now allowed the Court to apply the 1st Amendment to the states and not just to the federal government, which was the original intent. That interpretation by the Court was also in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).

This was explained in the book Judicial Supremacy: The Supreme Court on Trial by Robert Dornan and Csaba Vedlik, Jr. (MA: Plymouth Rock Foundation), Page 85.

"The Bill of Rights was intended to be a restriction on the national government, not the states. Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1833 decision of Barron v. Baltimore emphasized that the Bill of Rights restricted only the national government. But since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment... as incorporating the Bill of Rights, i.e., making it applicable to the states. The Supreme Court has thus achieved precisely the opposite of what was intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights: instead of being solely a restriction on the national government, the Bill of Rights is now a restriction on the states."

We've read at least one lawyer's opinion in this thread. I found another attorney's view of "The myth of church-state separation" from August 2003. I'm sure his name will launch immediate, rapid-fire attacks, but I think he makes some valid points.

Explain to me why freedom of religion is not a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States?

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:56 pm

FredFlash wrote: John Jay and Patrick Henry were not founders. Neither one of them participated in the framing of the instruments that established our system of government. Henry voted against ratification. John Jay was not a member of the bodies that ratified either document.
Relax, Fred. I never said any of that. The "Founding Fathers" was in reference to the link I provided. This is not even close to a moot court and I'm not taking the bar exam. This is just a fun little discussion forum. Loosen up.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:37 am

FredFlash wrote: Explain to me why freedom of religion is not a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States?

Fred
That's kind of a let down. I thought lawyers knew everything; or at least most of them think they do.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:17 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Our federal House of Representatives and Senate open every day's business with a prayer led by a House or Senate Chaplain. Sometimes, guest clergy are allowed to lead those bodies in prayer. It is looked upon as a high honor for clergy in the field to be called upon in such a manner. Is this askew, or am I living in the "Twilight Zone?" Why is this "wall of separation" enforced selectively?

Opening government assemblies with prayer may or may not be an establishment of religion. My view is that a government official, in his official civil capactity, suggesting or recommending that those assembled pray is an establishment of the duty to pray and is improper. If the civil official is directed by his conscience and convictions to suggest or recommend prayer to others he should make it clear that his religious authority to direct the divine duties of others does not flow from the authority of his civil office. The civil official should clearly inform the individuals assembled that his authority to direct their prayers comes from God and not a government stooge.

*************************

THE MYTH OF OPENING PRAYERS IN THE FIRST U. S. CONGRESS

Contrary to the perjury of Chief Justice Warren Burger and the propaganda of Justice Antonia Scalia, there is no evidence of opening prayers in the official records of the daily proceedings and debates of the House of Representative or Senate of the First U. S. Congress.

Click this link to the first page of the Annals of Congress and turn the pages to see if there were opening prayers during the First U. S. Congress. XXXX//memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=51

Click this link to the first page of the Journal of the House and turn the pages to see if there were opening prayers in the House during the First U. S. Congress. XXXX://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=001/llhj001.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj0011))%230010001&linkText=1

Click this link to the first page of the Journal of the Senate and turn the pages to see if there were opening prayers in the Senate during the First U. S. Congress. XXXX://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj0011)):%230010001&linkText=1

****************************

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:23 am

Congrats, Fred. You have 15 posts and can post links now, I believe.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:28 am

ChiptBeef wrote: The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 21, 1868 with the intent of providing civil rights to former slaves. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court comingled the 14th and 1st Amendment by claiming the 14th Amendment now allowed the Court to apply the 1st Amendment to the states and not just to the federal government, which was the original intent. That interpretation by the Court was also in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).

This was explained in the book Judicial Supremacy: The Supreme Court on Trial by Robert Dornan and Csaba Vedlik, Jr. (MA: Plymouth Rock Foundation), Page 85.

"The Bill of Rights was intended to be a restriction on the national government, not the states. Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1833 decision of Barron v. Baltimore emphasized that the Bill of Rights restricted only the national government. But since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment... as incorporating the Bill of Rights, i.e., making it applicable to the states. The Supreme Court has thus achieved precisely the opposite of what was intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights: instead of being solely a restriction on the national government, the Bill of Rights is now a restriction on the states."

We've read at least one lawyer's opinion in this thread. I found another attorney's view of "The myth of church-state separation" from August 2003. I'm sure his name will launch immediate, rapid-fire attacks, but I think he makes some valid points. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=34343
Unfortunately for your argument, Chip, Amendments to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, by definition.

I think you've both forgotten the fact that law restricts - only. The Constitution grants nothing. It acknowledges our rights, nothing more. We have every right to do every thing until we make a law that restricts it.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:07 am

Accountable wrote: Congress has chaplains. They pray before starting business. The President places his hand on a Bible to be sworn in "So Help Me God." Every courtroom in America has witnesses place their left hand on the Bible to swear to tell the truth before testifying (although they may have stopped this practice). Congress has not established a religion, per the Constitution. Congress, or at least state legistations, have established law limiting or prohibiting religious exercise, in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constution of the United States is becoming a de facto List of Founders' Recommendations.

What does the fact that the First U. S. Congress had two Chaplains have to do with the meaning of the establishment clause?

What does it mean that the First U. S. Congress did not pray before starting bussiness?

What does it mean that George Washington did not place his hand on a Bible to be sworn in as our first President nor did he add "So Help Me God" to his oath?

What is the basis for your claim that: Every courtroom in America has witnesses place their left hand on the Bible to swear to tell the truth before testifying (although they may have stopped this practice)

James Madison and Laban Wheaton judged that Congress established two religions. Wheaton said, "Now, if a bill for regulating the funds of a religious society could be an infringement of the Constitution, the two Houses had so far infringed it by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains. For so far it established two different denominations of religion. Mr. W. deemed this question of very great consequence. Were the people of this District never to have any religion?" Source of Information: The Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States with an Appendix containing Important State papers and The Public Documents, and all The Laws of a Public Nature; with a Copious Index. Eleventh Congress - Third Session. Comprising the Period from December 3, 1810 to March 3, 1811, Inclusive. Compiled from Authentic Materials. Washington: Printed and published by Gales and Seaton, (1853) pp 982 - 985.

What State laws limit or prohibit religious exercise, in direct violation of the Constitution?

****************************

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:20 am

ChiptBeef wrote: 1. I consider the Congressional Record credible.

2. I cannot speak for anyone else.

3. I would be satisfied to return to the original intent of the Constitution as it was practiced from adoption in 1790 to the Supreme Court's controversial interpretation of 1947.

4. It's not an establishment of religion either, in my opinion.1. As far as I know, any senator or congressman can have about anytihng at all put in the congressional record. It is, as the name implies, a RECORD of everything said on the floor of congress, and also of things NOT SAID there which, for one reason or another, a congressman wants to leave a record of. There is no test of credibility that I'm aware of.

2. Understood.

3. Who is to say what the 'original intent' was? The words speak for themselves. One era or century may interpret them differently from the next.

4. I understand what you are saying here, but one has to factor in demographics. The early USA was almost entirely Christian and Jewish. That is no longer the case. Some schools may have been able to get away with prayer and Bible reading because no one objected. That might still be true in isolated areas today. But now there are significant numbers of other religions.

America is a unique and wonderful country, and there are things that it does better than any other country on earth. There are also things that it does very poorly, and at the head of that list is ANY sort of involvement with religion.

If you wish to list some of the ways you think the state SHOULD be involved in religion, please do so, and we can discuss them one by one.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:38 am

Bronwen wrote: 1. Chipper, the 'wall of separation' goes back to Jefferson.

Are you referring to the legal principle or the label stamped on it?

Fred

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:41 am

Accountable wrote: Congrats, Fred. You have 15 posts and can post links now, I believe.

Zippy!

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:47 am

Accountable wrote: 1. My stand is that churches provide a moral anchor that influences our general culture.

2. One doesn't have to attend church to be influenced by it. It's just that simple.

3. The danger I see is that some groups are so zealous in their fight to get religion out of gov't, they are pushing it out of the very culture.

4. Somebody has to pick up the pieces, and politicians are more than happy to have something they can do to point out their worthiness to be re-elected.

5. So gov't slowly becomes our moral anchor - our buoyant, maleable, poll-driven anchor. :yh_frustr

6. Gay marriage is a perfect example. That's a moral issue in which the gov't should not get involved. In fact, it should extract itself from marriage, full stop. No more licenses, tax incentives, nothing. That's the churches' purview. I should not have a vote in how you and (an)other consenting adult(s) conduct your love lives.1. Here you lose me. The churchES (plural) hardly provide A (singular) moral anchor. The Episcopalians, as you know, recently made an openly gay man a bishop. Other sects of Christianity are rabidly homophobic. Differences between religions are, and always been, the norm rather than the exception.

2. As I said earlier in the thread, organizations like the Moron Majority and Christian Coalition are strongly opposed by other groups. I see no unilateral influence here.

3. Well, since there shouldn't be any religion in government in the first place, I don't see how you can villify those who are trying to get it out. Can you give specific examples of how such efforts push religion out of American culture? I don't see it. As I have been claiming throughout this thread, the purpose of the wall of separation is to support rather than inhibit religious expression and religious freedom.

4. Pandering to the not-too-bright is as old as politics itself. When the president himself is not too bright, as is the case currently, that becomes especially evident.

5. Once again, I don't see it and would like some specific examples.

6. Here I agree and disagree. Gay marriage may be a moral issue but it is a social issue also. The best solution would probably be for the state to be concerned with the legal aspects of domestic partnerships, whether or not they qualify as 'marriages' in the traditional sense, leaving the moral and spiritual concerns to the churches.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:58 am

FredFlash wrote: Are you referring to the legal principle or the label stamped on it?Both, while not attempting to split hairs. I was responding to another poster's contention that no such thing existed until 1947.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:17 am

Bronwen wrote: Both, while not attempting to split hairs. I was responding to another poster's contention that no such thing existed until 1947.
I never claimed the it didn't exist until 1947. I merely stated the fact that the Supreme Court never codified it into Constitutional doctrine until the 1947 case of Everson. Stop the spin, please.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:28 am

FredFlash wrote: Opening government assemblies with prayer may or may not be an establishment of religion.
The Senate and House currently employ chaplains at $140,300 and $160,600, respectively. The Supreme Court upheld the practice of chaplains and prayer in the Senate and House based on past precedent and the historical record. The only period the Senate and House did not have a paid chaplain was from 1857 to 1859.

"The custom of opening legislative sessions with a prayer began in the Continental Congress, which elected Jacob Duche, Rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, to serve as its chaplain from 1774 to 1776. Except for a brief period (described below), both chambers have elected a chaplain since the First Congress in 1789."

Source of information: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc ... S20427.pdf

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:32 am

Accountable wrote: Unfortunately for your argument, Chip, Amendments to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, by definition.
I never argued that any of the Amendments were unconstitutional. I have, and will continue to contend, that some of the Supreme Court interpretations and decisions surrounding this issue were wrong.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:43 pm

Dear ChiptBeef:

The Senate and House of the First U. S. Congress paid their Chaplains $250 for a typical year where Congress was in session for six months. In some years they were paid less and at least one Chaplain was paid some extra money. Congressmen were paid $1,098 for a typical year of six months of work.

Source of Information:

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 1

Page 639 of 831

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... linkText=1

THE MYTH OF OPENING PRAYER IN THE FIRST U. S. CONGRESS

Contrary to the perjury of Chief Justice Warren Burger and the propaganda of Justice Antonia Scalia, there is no evidence of opening prayers in the official records of the daily proceedings and debates of the House of Representative or Senate of the First U. S. Congress.

Click this link to the first page of the Annals of Congress and then turn the pages to see for your own self if there were opening prayers during the First U. S. Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &recNum=51

Click this link to the first page of the Journal of the House and turn the pages. You will find that there were opening prayers in the House of Representatives during the First U. S. Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... law:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj0011))%230010001&linkText=1

Click this link to the first page of the Journal of the Senate and turn the pages and then you tell me iif there were opening prayers in the Senate during the First U. S. Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... law:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj0011)):%230010001&linkText=1

**********************

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:35 pm

Bronwen wrote: Both, while not attempting to split hairs. I was responding to another poster's contention that no such thing existed until 1947.

Ok thanks.

Thomas Jefferson did not invent the legal concept of Separation of Church (Religion) and State (Government); he borrowed it from the Baptists.

A month after this correspondence James Madison, with the approval of Washington, brought several Constitutional amendments before the House of Representatives, and amongst them moved the adoption of this:

'Article 1. 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.'

The chief difference between the old Article VI and this amendment lay in the fact that in the first instance Congress was left at liberty to impose religious tests in other cases than those of 'office or public trust under the United States,' whereas, this amendment removed the power to make any 'law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

This proposition met with great opposition in Congress, but it passed that body September 23d, 1789, and was submitted to the several States for ratification. Eleven of the thirteen States adopted it between November 20th, 1789, and December 10th, 1791, New Jersey voting on the first of these dates and Virginia on the last, and all the rest between, those periods excepting Connecticut and Massachusetts. Thus, the contemned, spurned and hated old Baptist doctrine of soul-liberty, for which blood had been shed for centuries, was not only engrafted into the organic law of the United States, but for the first time in the formation of a great nation it was made its chief corner-stone. For the first time on that subject the quiet, pungent old truth asserted its right to immortality as expressed by Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected is become the head-stone of the corner.' http://www.reformedreader.org/history/armitage/ch12.htm

**************

Thomas Jefferson was not the first to use a form of the word "separate" or a form of the word "wall" to signify the principle of no government authority over religon. James Burgh, in his 1775 "Crito", wrote "Build an impenetrable wall of separation between" Church and State. Jefferson in 1802 wrote, "building a wall of separation between" Church and State.

James Burgh (1714-1775) was a radical Commonwealth Whig who was one of Britain's foremost spokesman for political reform whose writings influenced political thought in revolutionary America.

Burgh thought religion was a matter between God and one's conscience; and he contended that two citizens with different religious views are "both equally fit for being employed, in the service of our country." In his work Crito (1766, 1767), Burgh proposed building "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." He dismissed the conventional argument that the public administration of the church was necessary to preserve its salutary influence in society.

"I will fairly tell you what will be the consequences of your setting up such a mixed-mungrel-spiritual-temporal-secular-ecclesiastical establishment. You will make the dispensers of religion despicable and odious to all men of sense, and will destroy the spirituality, in which consists the: whole value, of religion. . . .

Shew yourselves superior to all these follies and knaveries. Put into the hands of the people the clerical emoluments; and let them give them to whom they will; choosing their public teachers, and maintaining them decently, but moderately, as becomes their spiritual character. We have in our times a proof from the conduct of some among us, in respect of the appointment of their public administrators of religion, that such a scheme will answer all the necessary purposes, and prevent infinite corruption;--ecclesiastical corruption; the most odious of all corruption.

Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil. Do not send a graceless officer, reeking from the anus of his trull, to the performance of a holy rite of religion, as a test for his holding the command of a regiment. To profane, in such a manner, a religion, which you pretend to reverence, is an impiety sufficient to bring down upon your heads, the roof of the sacred building you thus defile."

Thomas Jefferson admired and recommended Burgh's writings. In 1790 he advised Thomas Mann Randolph, his future son-in-law, that a young man preparing for a legal career should read, among other works, Smith's Wealth of Nations, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws , Locke's "little book on Government," the Federalist, Burgh's Political Disquisitions, and Hume's Political Essays. In 1803, while President, he even "urged" one of Burgh's books on Congress." Given his enthusiasm for Burgh's work, it is plausible that Jefferson's construction of the First Amendment was influenced by Burgh's recommendation for "an impenetrable wall of separation." Jefferson was not the only AAmericanin the founding era who admired Burgh's writings. John Adams wrote that he had "contributed somewhat to make Political Disquisitions more known and attended to in several parts of America," and reported that the work was "held in as high estimation by all my friends as they are by me." The Philadelphia publishers of Political Disquisitions (who "published on a subscription basis within sixteen months of the English" edition listed over one hundred prominent American "encouragers" or subscribers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Chase, John Dickinson, John Hancock, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, and James Wilson."

Source of Informaton:

Carla H. Hay, James Burgh, Spokesman for Reform in Hanoverian, England (Washington, D.O.: University Press of America, 1879), 30, 41-44.

Carla H. Hay, James Burgh, 51.

James Burgh, Crito, or Essays on Various Subjects, 2 vols. (London, 1766. 1767), II: 68,

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, 30 May 1790, in Life and Selected Writings of Jefferson, 496-97.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Bernard Moore. 30 August 1814, in Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson, 1. 55.

H. Trevor Colbourn, "Thomas Jefferson's Use of the Past," William and Mary Quarterly July 15 (3rd series, 1958).

Letter from John Adams to James Burgh, 28 December 1774, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston, Mass.,Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), IX: 351. See also [Adams], Novanglus," in Works of Adams, IV: 21 n.

James Burgh, political Disquisitions: or, An Enquiry into public Errors, Defects, and Abuses 3 vols. (Philadelphia Pa., 1775), 111: "Names of the Encouragers."

Oscar and Mary Handlin, "James Burgh," 57.

**************************

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:44 pm

FredFlash wrote: Dear ChiptBeef:

The Senate and House of the First U. S. Congress paid their Chaplains $250...

Source of Information: Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 1, Page 639 of 831

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... linkText=1
I never personally claimed a prayer was offered at the First Congress. But your link proves a chaplain was on the government payroll at the time. Thanks for the back up.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:52 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I never personally claimed a prayer was offered at the First Congress. But your link proves a chaplain was on the government payroll at the time. Thanks for the back up.

Yep. Now tell me what the Chaplains did for their $250 a year.

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:15 pm

FredFlash wrote: Explain to me why freedom of religion is not a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States?
Since you have obviously lost your lawyerly knowledge for a brief instant, please enjoy the following:

From The Oxford Companion to American Law, Edited By Kermit L. Hall, Page 639 to 640.

"PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.""The Constitution of the United States declares in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, that "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and in Amendment XIV, Section 1, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge that privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States." Both clauses were designed to secure certain rights of national citizenship. Five years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Case (1873) declared that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States were limited to those "which owe their existence to the federal government, its national character, its Constitution, or its laws." These rights included the right to travel between states and the right to protection overseas, but, crucially, did not include such fundamental liberties as freedom of speech and religion. One consequence of this decision was that constitutional litigants stopped pleading privileges and immunities, pinning their hopes for protection of civil liberties and rights on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe (1999) declared unconstiutional on privileges and immunities grounds California's effort to place durartional requirements on welfare benefits, but this is the only case that is good law that relies on that constitutional provision. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV has been the subject of a little more commentary and legislation, protecting rights of out-of-state residents to certain commercial opportunities, but not much more." Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, 1998. - Mark A. Graber"

By linking the Fourteenth and First Ammendment in the 1947 Everson case, the Supreme Court faulty decision violated the Bill of Rights intent.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:20 pm

FredFlash wrote: Now tell me what the Chaplains did for their $250 a year.

I don't know. I wasn't there. Really, I don't care. I can tell you exactly one thing the current chaplains do for $140,300 and $160,600, respectively. They lead the Senate and House of Representatives in a daily, morning prayer at the start of each legislative business day.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:40 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Since you have obviously lost your lawyerly knowledge for a brief instant, please enjoy the following:

From The Oxford Companion to American Law, Edited By Kermit L. Hall, Page 639 to 640.

"PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.""The Constitution of the United States declares in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, that "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and in Amendment XIV, Section 1, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge that privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States." Both clauses were designed to secure certain rights of national citizenship. Five years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Case (1873) declared that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States were limited to those "which owe their existence to the federal government, its national character, its Constitution, or its laws." These rights included the right to travel between states and the right to protection overseas, but, crucially, did not include such fundamental liberties as freedom of speech and religion. One consequence of this decision was that constitutional litigants stopped pleading privileges and immunities, pinning their hopes for protection of civil liberties and rights on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe (1999) declared unconstiutional on privileges and immunities grounds California's effort to place durartional requirements on welfare benefits, but this is the only case that is good law that relies on that constitutional provision. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV has been the subject of a little more commentary and legislation, protecting rights of out-of-state residents to certain commercial opportunities, but not much more." Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, 1998. - Mark A. Graber"

By linking the Fourteenth and First Ammendment in the 1947 Everson case, the Supreme Court faulty decision violated the Bill of Rights intent.

What were the Privileges and Immunities (or rights), according to the founders, secured by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; and why is the right of conscience not considered to be a Privilege and Immunity of the citizens in the several States?

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:48 pm

I'm not your legal secretary. In post #184 in this thread, you wrote "I am a lawyer..." What law school did you attend? When did you graduate? Where do you practice law? What is your legal specialty? Answer those simple questions with documentable evidence, then I will take your eternal questions under advisement.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:25 pm

FredFlash -

While your getting your documents together to post to support your claim, I've got a question. In Post #186 of this thread, you wrote "the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God... and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause." Do you support the legal action taken by California atheist Michael Newdow to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from our currency and coin?

www.restorethepledge.com

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:14 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I never argued that any of the Amendments were unconstitutional. I have, and will continue to contend, that some of the Supreme Court interpretations and decisions surrounding this issue were wrong.
Stop swingin' Chip. We ain't fightin'.

LINK

US Constitution wrote:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All I'm saying is that once that bolded sentence was added to the Constitution, it placed states' rights and state law subordinate to federal.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:25 pm

Bronwen wrote: 1. Here you lose me. The churchES (plural) hardly provide A (singular) moral anchor. The Episcopalians, as you know, recently made an openly gay man a bishop. Other sects of Christianity are rabidly homophobic. Differences between religions are, and always been, the norm rather than the exception.
There will always be fringe disagreements. I'm talking about the core. I know that since I've typed more than three words here you've already shut down the receptors and are only looking for ways to argue, so I'll stop there.

Bronwen wrote: 2. As I said earlier in the thread, organizations like the Moron Majority and Christian Coalition are strongly opposed by other groups. I see no unilateral influence here.
Your statement has no relationship whatever to that part of my post you labeled #2.

Bronwen wrote: 3. Well, since there shouldn't be any religion in government in the first place, I don't see how you can villify those who are trying to get it out. Can you give specific examples of how such efforts push religion out of American culture? I don't see it. As I have been claiming throughout this thread, the purpose of the wall of separation is to support rather than inhibit religious expression and religious freedom.None so blind as she who will not see.

Can you give specific examples of how your "wall of separation" supports rather than inhibits religious expression and religious freedom?

Bronwen wrote: 4. Pandering to the not-too-bright is as old as politics itself. When the president himself is not too bright, as is the case currently, that becomes especially evident.Another irrelevant statement. Go spew your Bush-phobia to someone that cares.

Bronwen wrote: 5. Once again, I don't see it and would like some specific examples.

6. Here I agree and disagree. Gay marriage may be a moral issue but it is a social issue also. The best solution would probably be for the state to be concerned with the legal aspects of domestic partnerships, whether or not they qualify as 'marriages' in the traditional sense, leaving the moral and spiritual concerns to the churches.
Why should the state be involved with marriage at all?

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:26 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I'm not your legal secretary. In post #184 in this thread, you wrote "I am a lawyer..." What law school did you attend? When did you graduate? Where do you practice law? What is your legal specialty? Answer those simple questions with documentable evidence, then I will take your eternal questions under advisement.

I thought you claimed the Fourteenth Amendment should not be interpreted to incorporate the First Amendment I was examining your interpretion.

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:37 pm

FredFlash wrote: I thought you claimed the Fourteenth Amendment should not be interpreted to incorporate the First Amendment I was examining your interpretion.
Your words. Examine away.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:07 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: FredFlash -

While your getting your documents together to post to support your claim, I've got a question. In Post #186 of this thread, you wrote "the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God... and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause." Do you support the legal action taken by California atheist Michael Newdow to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from our currency and coin?www.restorethepledge.com

James Madison is the authority on the establishment clause and the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“religionÃ¢â‚¬ in the establishment clause means Ã¢â‚¬Å“the duty that we owe to the CreatorÃ¢â‚¬. If we owe the Creator the duty to believe in "one Nation under God"; then a law that recommends a belief in "one Nation under God' is an establishment of a duty to God and a violation of the establishment clause. If we owe God the duty to trust him then the law that requires "in God we trust" stamped or printed on our money could be reasonably considered an establishment of a duty to trust God, and is therefore improper.

Both of these questions are close calls. I resolve close calls regarding the establishment of religion against the government and in favor of not trespassing on the Lord's prerogative to dictate a man's divine duties. It is better to go to far rather than not far enough to keep the government out of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s jurisdiction.

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:24 pm

FredFlash wrote: James Madison is the authority on the establishment clause
Madison disagrees.

"In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands." http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

It's fair to consider Madison's opinions with all others, but unfair to only consider Madison, based on his own words.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:31 pm

FredFlash wrote: John Jay and Patrick Henry were not founders. Neither one of them participated in the framing of the instruments that established our system of government.
"Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays."

That means that John Jay, the first Chief Justice, also "made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution" by helping author the Federalist essays.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:17 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Madison disagrees.

"In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands." http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

It's fair to consider Madison's opinions with all others, but unfair to only consider Madison, based on his own words.

No other framer or ratifier of the First Amendment, other than James Madison, is known to have attempted to perpetuate or promulgate his interpretation of the religion clauses. Why do you suppose that is?

Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts was a framer of the religion clauses. He was a Federalist and active in politics during the election of 1800 when everyone knew that Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the establishment clause prohibted the issuance of religious recommendations. Why didn't Ames, a Federalist, dispute Jefferson's interpretation?

Representative Benjamin Goodhue of Massachuseets was another framer of the religion clauses. He was a Federalist Senator during the 1800 elections; yet he never disputed the Jefferson/Madison interpretation of the religion clauses.

The list goes on. Oliver Ellsworth was co-chairman with James Madison on the six man committee that framed the final version of the religion clauses. He wrote a report in 1802 for the Connecticut legislature defending the same Certificate Law that the Danbury Bapstists complained of in their letter to President Jefferson. Ellsworth had every bit as much authority as Madison on the meaning of the religion clauses and obviously did not favor a Total Separation of Church and State . Yet he never disputed Jefferson and Madison's interpretation of the religion clauses.

Representative Theodore Sedgwick was a framer of the First Amendment and Speaker of the House as a Federalist during the 1800 election. He never disputed Jefferson's interpretation of the establishment clause.

My theory is that there was no dispute with Jefferson and Madison's interpretation even by the framers who did not like it. The Madison view prevailed during the Early Years of the Republic in the following Church-State disputes.

The ongoing (1789 Ã¢â‚¬“ The Civil War) dispute over Presidential Religious Proclamations. MadisonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view prevailed in 70 of the first 74 years of the Republic. It got real ugly in 1832 when the Counterfeit Christians tried to take advantage of an epidemic and moved for Congress to pass a resolution requesting Andy Jackson to issue a prayer proclamation.

Legislative prayer. There was no daily opening prayer in Congress for the first 74 years. If you ever find a prayer in the official records, please tell me where it is.

The 1800 dispute over the support of religion in the Ohio Territory.

The 1811 dispute in the House of Representatives regarding government authority over the selection and termination of a churchÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s minister.

The House of Representatives Sunday Mail Delivery dispute of the 1830Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s.

The 1789 dispute over posting the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts and Post Offices.

The 1822 dispute over religious messages on the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s money.

During the Early Years there were no disputes over Ã¢â‚¬Å“one Nation under GodÃ¢â‚¬ because the Federal Government respected GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s authority and did not go around issuing religious advice to the people.

Madison was still the authority in 1878 when the Supreme Court adopted his interpretation and let Jefferson name it.

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:23 am

FredFlash wrote: John Jay and Patrick Henry were not founders. Neither one of them participated in the framing of the instruments that established our system of government. Henry voted against ratification. John Jay was not a member of the bodies that ratified either document.
That's not the only standard for acceptability into the category of "Founding Father." Besides, your opinion is incorrect regarding these two patriots input into the framing of our controlling historical documents.

John Jay is viewed by many as a Founding Father based on his impact on the Constitution via the Federalist essays, his standing as President of the Continental Congress, First Chief Justice and his role in the American Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

Patrick Henry is often referred to as a Founding Father from his leadership in the American Revolution, his role as the First Governor of Virginia, and "As a leading Federalist, he was instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:16 am

ChiptBeef wrote: That's not the only standard for acceptability into the category of "Founding Father." Besides, your opinion is incorrect regarding these two patriots input into the framing of our controlling historical documents.

John Jay is viewed by many as a Founding Father based on his impact on the Constitution via the Federalist essays, his standing as President of the Continental Congress, First Chief Justice and his role in the American Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

Patrick Henry is often referred to as a Founding Father from his leadership in the American Revolution, his role as the First Governor of Virginia, and "As a leading Federalist, he was instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

Patrick Henry and John Jay are not at the top of the list of authorities on the meaning of the First Amendment. If the aim is to discern the understanding of the legal bodies that gave legal effect to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and if the text of the provision under consideration is ambiguous, then we must next consider the opinions expressed during the official convention or legislative proceedings and debates that produced the provision.

In the case of the First Amendment's religion clauses the meaning of the word "religion" is going to determine 99.44 percent of its meaning. The legislative proceedings and debates that produced the religious clauses offer no explicit definition of the word "religion." However, the religious liberty amendments to the Constitution recommended by the State Ratification Conventions do include an explicit definition.

Two of the five freedom of religion amendments recommended by the State Ratification Conventions explicitly define the "word" religion to mean, "the duty which we owe to our Creator." We must have a definition of "religion." Therefore we should adopt the definition of religion in the amendments proposed by North Carolina and Virginia. However, we should leave the door open in the event that another definition proves to be understanding of those who authorized the religion clauses.

PS: If Patrick Henry is an authority on the meaning of the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“religionÃ¢â‚¬ then he confirms the Virginia and North Carolina definitions. Henry claimed that he was the author of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“duty which we owe the CreatorÃ¢â‚¬ definition.

PS: John Jay was an anti-Catholic bigot. While governor of New York he led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York. Jay did not even believe in religious toleration let alone full-blown religious freedom. George Washington himself, in a personal letter to a church in Baltimore, disputed Jay's view:

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In the enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. Ã¢â‚¬“ George Washington letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, 27 January 1793

John Jay is a member of the American Religious Liberty Hall of Shame, not an authority on religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Fred

***************************

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:22 am

FredFlash wrote: Both of these questions are close calls. I resolve close calls regarding the establishment of religion against the government and in favor of not trespassing on the Lord's prerogative to dictate a man's divine duties. It is better to go to far rather than not far enough to keep the government out of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s jurisdiction.
That's nice and lawyerly. The question remains; Do you support atheist Newdow's law suits to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from our money? Yes or no.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:33 am

FredFlash wrote: Patrick Henry and John Jay are not at the top of the list of authorities on the meaning of the First Amendment. John Jay was an anti-Catholic bigot. John Jay is a member of the American Religious Liberty Hall of Shame...
I never claimed they were, but there opinions on the matter could be considered as part of a reasonable debate, given their place in history. Please provide internet links to support your claims of against Chief Justice John Jay.

John Jay had the confidence of the majority of delegates to the 1778 Continental Congress, being elected as their president. John Jay had the confidence of our first presdient, George Washington, being appointed by him as our first Chief Justice. John Jay had the confidence of the majority of citizens of New York state, being elected as their Governor. Those are sound endorsements, no matter what the spin.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/jay.htm

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:00 am

ChiptBeef wrote: That's nice and lawyerly. The question remains; Do you support atheist Newdow's law suits to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from our money? Yes or no.

If you show me the precise law suits you refer to, I will examine them and answer your question.

Fred

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:26 am

Accountable wrote: 1. There will always be fringe disagreements. I'm talking about the core. I know that since I've typed more than three words here you've already shut down the receptors and are only looking for ways to argue, so I'll stop there.

2. Your statement has no relationship whatever to that part of my post you labeled #2.

3. Can you give specific examples of how your "wall of separation" supports rather than inhibits religious expression and religious freedom?

4. Another irrelevant statement. Go spew your Bush-phobia to someone that cares.

5. Why should the state be involved with marriage at all?Acc, I don't understand why you're so hostile all of a sudden. Could it be that you're unable to support your position? The 'none so blind' argument is a cop-out of the first magnitude. You have made clams without providing the least clue to what you're talking about. All I have requested are specific examples, none of which you have provided.

1. And having promised to stop, he goes on and on. There are indeed fringe disagreements, but probably even more the closer you approach the core.

2. I'm not sure that's true, here's what you said:One doesn't have to attend church to be influenced by it. It's just that simple.So, tell me how I'm influenced by religions to which I do not belong or churches which I do not attend.

3. Sure, but that should be obvious. A Jewish kid shouldn't have to sit in a public school classroom and hear claims that Jesus Christ is God, which to him/her would be blasphemy.

4. I guess that depends on your point of view. The wall of separation certainly seems under more of a threat during administrations of presidents who are both (a). Republicans and (b). nincompoops. Reagan said he thought both orthodox science and 'scientific creationism' should be taught so the student could choose. Dubya's view does not seem far from that. As far as I can remember, Dub's dad, being a Republican but with a little more on the ball, advocated no such thing.

5. Because there are all sorts of practical, non-religious issues involving marriage that need to be subject to some sort of regulation for the good of the society as a whole. That is, however, somewhat beyond the scope of this thread.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:33 am

Bronwen wrote: Sure, but that should be obvious. A Jewish kid shouldn't have to sit in a public school classroom and hear claims that Jesus Christ is God, which to him/her would be blasphemy..

Since I'm right on the battlefield in this topic, I have to tell you that I have a wonderful Hindu kid in my class whose parents are doctors in our community. He's a neat kid, and as All-American as they come.

During the Christmas season, he didn't complain a bit about all the Christmas related stuff the schools did, but he sure did feel uncomfortable when the kids teased him about not being able to celebrate Christmas.

Separation of Church and State is a very real issue to me.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:40 am

Jives wrote: Since I'm right on the battlefield in this topic, I have to tell you that I have a wonderful Hindu kid in my class whose parents are doctors in our community. He's a neat kid, and as All-American as they come.

During the Christmas season, he didn't complain a bit about all the Christmas related stuff the schools did, but he sure did feel uncomfortable when the kids teased him about not being able to celebrate Christmas.

Separation of Church and State is a very real issue to me.:oYour 'pi' argument at the bottom is one of the best I've heard. How about the winner of yesterday's 'powerball' lottery? What was the jackpot? 400 million, more or less? What were the odds? Must be a fake, 'cuz according to the ID'ers, no one could possibly have won with those odds!

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:39 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I never claimed they were, but there opinions on the matter could be considered as part of a reasonable debate, given their place in history. Please provide internet links to support your claims of against Chief Justice John Jay.

John Jay had the confidence of the majority of delegates to the 1778 Continental Congress, being elected as their president. John Jay had the confidence of our first presdient, George Washington, being appointed by him as our first Chief Justice. John Jay had the confidence of the majority of citizens of New York state, being elected as their Governor. Those are sound endorsements, no matter what the spin.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/jay.htm

In the debate on the meaning of the establishment clause, there are much more relevant opinions than those of John Jay. During the founding era there were those who favored what James Madison dubbed the "full and equal rights of conscience", and there were those like Patrick Henry, John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth who inclined toward the toleration model of the right of conscience as articulated by John Locke.

I don't know the exact date that Madison's view stepped into the shoes of Locke's. The process, in what is now the United States, of divorcing our duty to the Creator from the government's authority occured over a 233 year peroid. The Puritains in New England and the Anglicans in Virginia did a little bit of separating religion from government in the 1620's by separating the Clergy from Civil Authority. The process culminated in 1833 when the Protestant religion was finally disestablished in Massachusetts by abolishing the compulsary tithe system and the authority of local governments over local Church affairs.

During the founding era (1781 to 1792) the James Madison/Thomas Jefferson faction won a lot of Church-State disputes but they lost a few as well. For example" James Madison lost the first round of the fight over executive authority over religious proclamations but he won the next seven rounds and 70 of the 74 rounds during the Early Days of the Republic.

It was not John Jay's view of religous liberty that prevailed during the early years of our Republic. James Madison's concept held the high ground. How many times did the Supreme Court cite John Jay as an authorirty in its first opinion in 1878 on a dispute governed by the religion clauses?

Fred

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:48 pm

Jives wrote: Since I'm right on the battlefield in this topic, I have to tell you that I have a wonderful Hindu kid in my class whose parents are doctors in our community. He's a neat kid, and as All-American as they come.

During the Christmas season, he didn't complain a bit about all the Christmas related stuff the schools did, but he sure did feel uncomfortable when the kids teased him about not being able to celebrate Christmas.

Separation of Church and State is a very real issue to me.

Howdy Mr. Jives:

What did you fly?

Do you teach in a public school? If so, what sort of guidelines do you have regarding separation of church and state? Do you lead your students in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Fred

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:32 pm

Speaking of lawyerly things, I always thought it was about the money and ego with some.

http://www.aunty-spam.com/index.php

"When Emails Haunt You - The Saga of William Korman and Dianna Abdala"

While not an exclusive government matter, I'm reminded of the prophetic words of Abraham Lincoln, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." The courts have so zealously tried to eliminate matters of faith from our public life, that now we find ourselves on the receiving end of that doctrine, IMO.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:54 pm

FredFlash wrote: Howdy Mr. Jives:

What did you fly?

T-38 Talons, mostly. I was an instructor at Vance AFB in Oklahoma. I flew F-15 Eagles out of Kirtland AFB in the Reserves. I'm old and inactive now, just your average ground-bound math teacher.

Do you teach in a public school?

Affirmative. It's a special school for children who were retained in the 8th grade, since parents can no longer override retention under NCLB. Here's my school's website:

http://fc.fms.k12.nm.us/~jives/

If so, what sort of guidelines do you have regarding separation of church and state?

Simple, don't mention God in the classroom if you like your job.

Do you lead your students in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Every morning! And believe me, the irony of leading a class in saying "one nation, under God.." isn't lost on me.

So was I right, Fred? Are you ex-Air Force?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:24 pm

Jives wrote: Simple, don't mention God in the classroom if you like your job. Every morning! And believe me, the irony of leading a class in saying "one nation, under God.." isn't lost on me.
That's the legacy of the Supreme Court's decisions, many of which leave a double standard.

Chamber v. Marsh (1982)

"The legislature by majority vote invites a clergyman to give a prayer, neither the inviting nor the giving nor the hearing of the prayer is making a law. On this basis alone...the saying of prayers, per se, in the legislative halls at the opening session is not prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

State Board of Education v. Board of Education of Netcong (1970)

"Students...would listen to reading of "remarks" of the chaplain read from the Congressional Record... was unconstitutional establishment of religion."

It's constitutional for the Senate and House Chaplains to pray, but it's unconstitutional for students to hear the prayer. :-5

Chambers v. Marsh (1982)

"Bogen v. Doty...involved a county board's practice of opening each of its public meetings with a prayer offered by a local member of the clergy...This Court upheld that practice, finding that it advanced a clearly secular purpose of "establishing a solemn atmosphere and serious tone for the board meetings"..."establishing solemnity is the primary effect of all invocations at gatherings of persons with differing views on rekigion."

Graham v. Central Community School District (1985)

"School district's inclusion of religius innvocation and religious benediction as part of its graduation ceremonies violated establishment clause of the First Amendment."

Kay v. Douglas School Distirct (1986)

"Religious invocation...included in high school commencement exercise conveyed message that district had given its endorsement to prayer and religion, so that school district was properly prohibited from including invocation in commencement exercise."

Invocations are constitutional in certain government, public settings but not others. :-5

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:27 pm

I know what you're saying, Chip. Ever try to explain "Pi" to a group of children, going into how it is a fundamental value found in atoms, planets, solar systems, and galaxies....without ever mentioning a Creator?:-2

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:30 pm

On the other hand, I had to fire a teacher once who was heard saying to her class, "OK, so we all agree that Satan exists, that we are servants of Satan, and that we are all sinners..."

This sword cuts both ways. You don't want to excise religion out of society totally, but you also don't want people teaching their "version" of religion to other's children.:-2

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:39 pm

Jives wrote: T-38 Talons, mostly. I was an instructor at Vance AFB in Oklahoma. I flew F-15 Eagles out of Kirtland AFB in the Reserves. I'm old and inactive now, just your average ground-bound math teacher.

Affirmative. It's a special school for children who were retained in the 8th grade, since parents can no longer override retention under NCLB. Here's my school's website:

http://fc.fms.k12.nm.us/~jives/

Simple, don't mention God in the classroom if you like your job.

Every morning! And believe me, the irony of leading a class in saying "one nation, under God.." isn't lost on me.

So was I right, Fred? Are you ex-Air Force?

I did 18 months in the U. S. Army as a paratrooper.

I guess if you teach math, God may not come up that often. But "don't mention God" is a bit harsh. I am gonna guess that the administrator's primary concern is to avoid lawsuits.

I would personally rather see separation go to far in favor of no civil trespass upon God's jurisdicition over his religion; than for it too far in favor of government meddeling in our divine duties. But "no mention of God" is a bit much.

The Courts should just go back to the basics of the 1878 Reynolds Opinion and the fundamental principle should be no government attempts to influence the student's duties to the Creator.

For example: It would be no violation of the principle, if it were not done merely as a pretext to influence the duty we own the creator, to mention the theory that the universe is governed by a Creator and that the laws of the universe, including the laws of mathmatics, can be discovered by the mind of man.

What would happen if a teacher in your school claimed that he coud not, as an agent of the government and because of his religious sentiment that "God ruled the conscience of man", attempt to influence his student's opinions regarding their duties to God by recommending the pledge of allegiance to the student with its affimation of belief in God?

Fred