Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[FredFlash]

The words "In God We Trust", grammatically, has no difference than "English is the language we speak". It is not a duty to speak English. It's not an assumption of civil authority over the language we speak. It's not a language. It's a factual sentence.

If Congress passed a law putting "English is the language we speak" on the nation's coins, it would be an assumption of advisory civil authority over the language of the people.

...a motto is not a religion.

Why can't a motto be a duty we owe to our Creator?

The Supreme Court agreed when it rejected the same motto on a government building when that was challenged. A lower court (hasn't made it to the SCOTUS yet) said the same thing when this exact motto was challenged recently.

We're debating original intent.

 

[This_person]

What if the statement was "baptize infants", "don't believe in transubstantiation",

Do you mean, "What if it were an order/command instead of a statement of fact?" Well, that would change the whole meaning then.

"Jesus saves"

Do you mean, "What if it were a specific religion's motto instead of a statement of fact?" Well, that would change the whole meaning then, wouldn't it?

or "Christian Nation?"

Do you mean, "What if it specified a religion, would that be different?"

Yes, those things would be different.

An assumption of civil authority, over religion at least, does not have to involve any penalty for non-compliance other than the mere implication that those who don't comply with the advice will be putting themselves at risk, even if the potential harm is nothing more than than public censure, which is present in any official religious recommendation of the government.

I'm not an expert or anything, but the people who are (Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justices, federal judges, etc.) disagree. I agree with the experts.

If religious recommendations don't imply civil power over religion, why did ten thousand Republicans get so pissed off at John Adams for recommending a fast?

I'll go you one more; If it does, why did so many founders - people involved in actually formulating and voting in this specific amendment - feel that it was justifiable to be violating their own intentions?

I think the Republican Party started about sixty years later, by the way.

 

[This_person]

If Congress passed a law putting "English is the language we speak" on the nation's coins, it would be an assumption of advisory civil authority over the language of the people.

You win the contest of peristence. You 'yuh huh'ed one more time than I can 'nuh uh' and still care.

Why can't a motto be a duty we owe to our Creator?

It can. This one just isn't.

We're debating original intent.

Again, the intent was to stop another constitutional congress from being formed. The architect of the amendment "violated" what you're claiming his own intent was. That tells me more of what his intent really was than any flowery letters he wrote to others.

When this same man thought the Congress was overstepping it's bounds with a roads and waterways bill, Madison actually did something. He responded in 1817 with this letter:

Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison,
President of the United States

Oh, and then he VETOED the bill. When he thought something was outside the authority he helped architect, he DIDN'T do it.

His intent, with his proclaimation, is quite clear to me.

 

[FredFlash]

What if the statement was "baptize infants", "don't believe in transubstantiation",

Do you mean, "What if it were an order/command instead of a statement of fact?" Well, that would change the whole meaning then.

I mean that the statements were statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact. Most people either baptize, or don't baptize infants, and, believe, or don't believe, that the wine and bread used in communion are the actual blood and body of Christ. The statements would be whatever Congress determined to be the beliefs of the majority.

Is it a general rule of religious liberty that any statement Congress believes is true cannot be an establishment of religion?

 

[FredFlash]

"Jesus saves"

Do you mean, "What if it were a specific religion's motto instead of a statement of fact?" Well, that would change the whole meaning then, wouldn't it?

I see. So the rule is that, if the statement, that Congress believes is true, is a specific religion's motto, then the statement is "an establishment of religion. Does the religion's motto, that Congress believes is true, have to be a statement regarding religion?

 

[This_person]

I mean that the statements were statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact. Most people either baptize, or don't baptize infants, and, believe, or don't believe, that the wine and bread used in communion are the actual blood and body of Christ. The statements would be whatever Congress determined to be the beliefs of the majority.

Is it a general rule of religious liberty that any statement Congress believes is true cannot be an establishment of religion?

"Baptise Infants", and "Some of us baptise our infants" are, grammatically, two very different statements - one being an order, the other being a statement of fact.

Baptism certainly limits the number of religions being discussed to a very small amount. Of a particular religion. Probably a problem because you would be getting into a particular religion.

For congress to establish a religion, they would pretty much need to do something that establishes a religion. Statements of fact regarding the populace seem highly unlikely to establish anything. Stating that 52% of the population does not establish a person's gender, y'know?

 

[This_person]

I see. So the rule is that, if the statement, that Congress believes is true, is a specific religion's motto, then the statement is "an establishment of religion. Does the religion's motto, that Congress believes is true, have to be a statement regarding religion?

You've twisted what was asked, answered, asked, and answered again that I don't even know what the hell you're getting at anymore. Sorry.

 

[FredFlash]

Yes, those things would be different.

An assumption of civil authority, over religion at least, does not have to involve any penalty for non-compliance other than the mere implication that those who don't comply with the advice will be putting themselves at risk, even if the potential harm is nothing more than than public censure, which is present in any official religious recommendation of the government.

I'm not an expert or anything, but the people who are (Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justices, federal judges, etc.) disagree. I agree with the experts.

We're debating original intent. What convinces you, and the experts, that the will of the founders, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the federal government to have the authority to assume recommendatory jurisdiction over the duty we owe to our Creator?

 

[FredFlash]

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

Let's see, the first portion of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and your hypothetical is a law that has in it an establishment of a religion - atheism.

I thought you said that there can be no establishment of religion unless there is some type of coercion. Congress, in my example, imposes no penalty against you for not conforming to its statement that you don't trust in God.

 

[FredFlash]

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

Let's see...The next part reads "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and your hypothetical does not allow me to be any religion I choose to be, as it restricts trusting in a god. So, yep, it meets a violation of the First Amendment.

I see. So, "prohibiting the free exercise of religion", can be nothing more than a statement regarding religion, that Congress believes is true, and makes a purely recommendatory law.

Have you changed your mind regarding whether trust in God is religion? If trust in God is not religion, as you previous claimed, why is trust in God exempt from the government's cognizance when it comes to the free exercise of religion, but cognizable with respect to an establishment of religion?

 

[FredFlash]

Are you saying that the duty to trust in God is not a religious/sacred matter?

Absolutely not. "The DUTY" is an individual's choice to have or not have, based upon their religion. "The STATEMENT" that people do (or do not) has nothing to do with a duty.

I see. So, the duty to trust in God is religion (a duty we owe to our Creator), but a statement about the duty trust in God has nothing to do with the duty trust in God. Is that what you're saying?

 

[This_person]

We're debating original intent. What convinces you, and the experts, that the will of the founders, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the federal government to have the authority to assume recommendatory jurisdiction over the duty we owe to our Creator?

By not improperly twisting the situations we're discussing into a "recommendatory jurisdiction over the duty we owe to our Creator", it's easy to see how the founding fathers did not have a problem with government and religion co-existing on a single page. Why, these very founding fathers declared to the world that we Americans have certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator. They open their meetings with prayer. You mention at least three presidents who were amongst these founders that declared it a good idea, in their opinion, to pray.

Based upon the founding fathers actual actions, the words they wrote into officially binding laws and precedents, what makes you think they would object to a recommendation by an individual here or there, or a motto that includes the word God?

 

[This_person]

I thought you said that there can be no establishment of religion unless there is some type of coercion. Congress, in my example, imposes no penalty against you for not conforming to its statement that you don't trust in God.

Once again, YOU said there can be no establishment of religion unless there is some type of coercion, saying it as if it were my point. That's never been my point.

 

[This_person]

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

Let's see...The next part reads "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and your hypothetical does not allow me to be any religion I choose to be, as it restricts trusting in a god. So, yep, it meets a violation of the First Amendment.

I see. So, "prohibiting the free exercise of religion", can be nothing more than a statement regarding religion, that Congress believes is true, and makes a purely recommendatory law.

Have you changed your mind regarding whether trust in God is religion? If trust in God is not religion, as you previous claimed, why is trust in God exempt from the government's cognizance when it comes to the free exercise of religion, but cognizable with respect to an establishment of religion?

The hypothetical situation you set up would have a law that would require a duty to not trust in God. That would be an establishement of a form of religion, and it would prohibit me from practicing whichever religion I choose.

The inference you get from that is that "a statement regarding religion, that Congress believes is true, and makes a purely recommendatory law" is equivalent to a duty. Well, a statement and a recommendation are different. A statement and a recommendation and a duty are all different. So, you're asking me if I was sailing across the desert and my wheels fall off, how many pancakes would it take to hold up my house.

The answer is blue, because ice cream has no bones.

 

[This_person]

Have you changed your mind regarding whether trust in God is religion?

No, I still believe that trusting in God is a religious act.

If trust in God is not religion, as you previous claimed, why is trust in God exempt from the government's cognizance when it comes to the free exercise of religion, but cognizable with respect to an establishment of religion?

Please stop misinferring what I'm saying, and then continuing with your misunderstanding after it's been corrected to you, and then putting dumb thoughts out as if they were mine.

Your basis for your question is "If trust in God is not religion". I feel I don't need to answer the rest of the question since the basis for it is invalid, thus nullifying the question.

However, the tenor of the question makes me ask, again, one of the many questions I've asked that have gone unanswered from you. Since you seem to clearly believe that religion should never be in the cognizance of the government, does that imply that you believe there should be no tax-free status for religious institutions? Do you think that it is in the nation's best interest - and in fact the intent of the first amendment - that the government in every and all ways ignore that religion even exists?

 

[This_person]

I see. So, the duty to trust in God is religion (a duty we owe to our Creator), but a statement about the duty trust in God has nothing to do with the duty trust in God. Is that what you're saying?

If I were a senator, and I told you studies show most cars on a freeway were red, would you see that as an assumption of this civil magistrate of a recommendatory civil authority over the color of cars, and thus the duty imposed on you be in a red car if you were on that freeway?

 

[FredFlash]

...it's easy to see how the founding fathers did not have a problem with government and religion co-existing on a single page.

I thought we were debating the will of the founders, at the time the Constitution was adopted, regarding the relationship of civil authority to religion.

Why, these very founding fathers declared to the world that we Americans have certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator.

Why do the words of the Declaration of Independence trump the words of the Constitution, as the best indicator of the meaning of the Constitution?

Also, wasn't the right to no civil authority over their duty to the Creator, one of the most, if not the most, cherished of the inalienable rights granted by God to all men?

They open their meetings with prayer.

How does that change the fact that the government was granted no jurisdiction over religion? By the way, what meetings were opened with prayer?

You mention at least three presidents who were amongst these founders that declared it a good idea, in their opinion, to pray.

How does that change the fact that the government was granted no jurisdiction over religion?

Based upon the founding fathers actual actions, the words they wrote into officially binding laws and precedents...

What actions?

what makes you think they would object to a [religious] recommendation by an individual [under color of his civil office]...

I just interpret the words of the Constitution by the common law rules of statutory interpretation, and let the pieces fall where they may. If there is room in the process for personal opinion, I tilt in favor of James Madison's doctrine of strict separation of church and state, because it was the view that generally prevailed during the first 50 years of the Republic.

...what makes you think they would object to a motto that includes the word God?

That's not what I think. I think the will of the legislator, as expressed by the words of the Constitution, conflict with a law establishing a national motto that constituted religious advice or a declaration of the people's religion, because the legislator gave the federal government no power whatsoever over religion.

 

[FredFlash]

YOU said there can be no establishment of religion unless there is some type of coercion, saying it as if it were my point. That's never been my point.

I see. So, we agree that "an establishment of religion" does not have to involve anything more in the way of coercion, than the mere implication of civil jurisdiction over religion. Is that correct?

 

[FredFlash]

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

The hypothetical situation you set up would have a law that would require a duty to not trust in God. That would be an establishement of a form of religion, and it would prohibit me from practicing whichever religion I choose.

Let's revise the hypothetical. Let's say Congress amends the current law, that places "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins, by adding the word "don't" after the word "We" and before the word "Trust", to make the motto read, "In God We Don't Trust." Would "In God We Don't Trust" on the nation's coins be "an establishment of religion", if Congress believed the statement was a true statement regarding the people's religion?

 

[This_person]

I thought we were debating the will of the founders, at the time the Constitution was adopted, regarding the relationship of civil authority to religion.

Cool, I thought so, too!

Why do the words of the Declaration of Independence trump the words of the Constitution, as the best indicator of the meaning of the Constitution?

Trump them? I don't believe that I implied that in any way. I was showing actual actions that were done by many of the same people, or the respected peers of the people, involved in writing the Constitution. See, by comparing their actions to the words, we can get an idea of what the true intent of the words were.

Also, wasn't the right to no civil authority over their duty to the Creator, one of the most, if not the most, cherished of the inalienable rights granted by God to all men?

I believe they were equally identified as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And, they weren't granted by God. They were granted by "their Creator", previously referred to in the document as "Nature's God", which may or may not be the same God to which you refer.

How does that change the fact that the government was granted no jurisdiction over religion?

Once again, you're mixing concepts.

See, what I'm trying to point out is that, while the first amendment says "congress shall make no law respecting the establishement of religion", there are clues as to what that means in the actions of the people who were instrumental in writing and approving (actually, the intent of the approvers is far more important than the intent of the writers, wouldn't you agree?) these words. So, by looking at the fact that, from the very first one, presidents discuss the importance of prayer, religious statements are a part of the very fabric of some of the founding documents, Congressional sessions begin with prayers, clergy were a part of the military, etc., etc., etc., we can begin to gather our thoughts as to what they really meant. Did they really mean, those approvers, that they envisioned a country where government is blind to the very concept of religion?

Clearly, we can see the answer to this is; no, that's not what they envisioned, for that's not what they created.

So, what must they have meant? They must have meant that neither Congress could pass a law, nor any other instrument of governement could create something akin to a law that establishes, or tells people what they must do and/or not do, in regards to religion.

How does that change the fact that the government was granted no jurisdiction over religion?

Precisely. "How" indeed. A president suggesting that people pray does not change the fact at all that government was specifically prohibited the authority over religion. Good job!

... If there is room in the process for personal opinion, I tilt in favor of James Madison's doctrine of strict separation of church and state, ...

That would be the doctrine of a president who performed the action of suggesting prayer? I would agree with that doctrine. Any words he spoke other than that were meaningless.

You're much better with the quotes than am I, and I applaud you for that, but I do remember one quote that fits. I don't know who said it, because that matters not to me, but the quote is "Your actions speak so loudly I cannot hear what you say." This is why I try to show you that when Madison actually believed Congress was acting outside its authority, he vetoed the bill.

He clearly did not believe it was outside of his authority to issue a proclamation that included a suggestion to pray, because he performed that action.

That's not what I think. I think the will of the legislator, as expressed by the words of the Constitution, conflict with a law establishing a national motto that constituted religious advice or a declaration of the people's religion, because the legislator gave the federal government no power whatsoever over religion.

And, as the motto holds no advice, nor wields any type of power whatsoever over religion, it is not in conflict with the law.

This is what competant authority has determined regarding the will of the legislator at the time.