Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[This_person]

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?

It would seem clear that a "law regarding the establishment of religion" would have to be some form of just that - some form of binding statement by Congress (or some other form of binding authority like code of federal regulation, departmental policy, executive order, etc.) that clearly states that one religion is the authorized religion of our country - or, that there are limits or infringements upon my free practice of my chosen religion.

Now, that being said, if my religion includes maiming three year olds, or taking narcotics and driving down the wrong way of the freeway at 173 miles per hour, those are legitimate, allowed restrictions on my practice of religion ("fire in in crowded theater" type of thing).

Try and keep in mind that the "bill of rights" are not actually rights, they're restrictions on government. You can't just include the words "establishment of religion", you have to recognize that this is a restriction on government from creating a rule of establishment of religion. Do you see the difference?

 

[This_person]

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?

If Congress believed a falsehood to be a true statement - an easily disproved falsehood - then they should be recalled.

But, your point seems to be "what about the minority? Are they're rights being trampled because of the majority?"

I don't think so, because there is not a shred of reasonable interpretation that stating a fact about the majority in any way establishes that the minority must conform. As I said, if it said "we're mostly women", based on the roughly 52% of our country that are women, that would not constitute a civil magistrate's assumption of civil recommendatory gender authority, giving me a duty to become a woman. It would just be a statement of fact.

If Steny Hoyer were to say "This country was built on the American Dream, which promised that Americans’ hard work and perseverance would bring prosperity and a better life for workers and their families. In this land of opportunity, no person who puts in an honest day's work should be relegated to poverty.", does this imply a civil magistrate's assumption of recommendatory jurisdiction of civil authority over a person's effort at work? Of course not. {Though, it does clearly indicate that the federal government has the authority to determine wages of it's citizens, which I personally think is BS, but that's a whole different discussion}

Do you see this?

 

[FredFlash]

I still believe that trusting in God is a religious act.

The issue is whether trusting in God is "religion", as the word 'religion" is used in the First Amendment. Is it?

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?

The word "cognizance", in the context of "religion is exempt from the cognizance of of civil authority", means "recognition, or jurisdiction; the assumption of jurisdiction in a case."

For Congress to regulate the tax exemption status of non-profit religious corporations differently than secular non-profits would be to take cognizance of religion.

 

[This_person]

The issue is whether trusting in God is "religion", as the word 'religion" is used in the First Amendment. Is it?

Religion1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So, as the act of trusting in a god is a religious act, this act relates to religion.

Is the concept of trusting in god a religion? No, no more than the concept of driving makes person a car. Trusting in God is a religious act, like driving is an action.

The word "cognizance", in the context of "religion is exempt from the cognizance of of civil authority", means "recognition, or jurisdiction; the assumption of jurisdiction in a case."

For Congress to regulate the tax exemption status of non-profit religious corporations differently than secular non-profits would be to take cognizance of religion.

But, by separating it out, isn't the government assuming some sort of control over religion? Doesn't this bring religion into the jurisdiction of government? At least, the financing of it? And, if you assume control over the financing of religion, aren't you assuming a control of an aspect of religion? Thus, if your assuming a role over one aspect of a religion, aren't you assuming control over any aspect of that religion?

Or, is this just a BS way of thinking, like thinking a person saying prayer is good is an assumption of civil magistrate's assumption of recommendatory civil authority........goodness, Fred, isn't this just a bit ridiculous?

 

[FredFlash]

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.

Please explain once again, why trust in God is a duty owed to the Creator, but a law placing a declaration of the people's trust in God on the nation's coins isn't a law that relates, refers to or concerns a settlement, recognition, or support of the people's duty to trust God.

The mere recognition of religion by a law, which is the duty we owe to the Creator - according to an early commentator and very highly respected authority on the meaning of the Constitution, who interpreted the establishment clause according to the actual words of the clause and the common law rules of statutory construction, instead of his personal views of religious liberty - makes the law a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

Doesn't the law made by Congress, that makes it mandatory to place "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins and notes, clearly qualify as a law that recognizes the duty to trust in God?

 

[This_person]

Please explain once again, why trust in God is a duty owed to the Creator, but a law placing a declaration of the people's trust in God on the nation's coins isn't a law that relates, refers to or concerns a settlement, recognition, or support of the people's duty to trust God.

The mere recognition of religion by a law, which is the duty we owe to the Creator - according to an early commentator and very highly respected authority on the meaning of the Constitution, who interpreted the establishment clause according to the actual words of the clause and the common law rules of statutory construction, instead of his personal views of religious liberty - makes the law a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

Doesn't the law made by Congress, that makes it mandatory to place "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins and notes, clearly qualify as a law that recognizes the duty to trust in God?

Clearly, I haven't gotten through. I submit these as helps to you in your quest to get me to "explain once again" this issue with which you struggle so much:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

I hope this helps.

 

[This_person]

The mere recognition of religion by a law ... makes the law a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

Does this mean you've changed your mind, and now agree that by recognizing religions are non-profit organizations the laws are recognizing religion, and therefore these laws are un-Constitutional?

 

[FredFlash]

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?

Nope. However, in the case of the law made by Congress mandating the placement of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins to declare the people's trust in God, there was a law made by Congress. In your analogy, there is merely the statement of one Senator.

Blackstone's rules permit us to examine writings, made prior to the making of a law that we are construing, if the prior writings cover the same subject matter as the law being interpreted, for clues to the meaning of an ambiguous phrase in the law being construed.

An examination of what was supposedly the first of many written "appeals from devout Christians throughout the country...urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins", reveals that the goal of the devout Christians that eventually succeeded in securing the law permitting the placement of "In God We Trust" on one of the nation's coins, was "recognition of ...Almighty God in some form on our coins." The object of the recognition was to ensure that, "[succeeding] antiquaries would not think "we were a heathen nation", and "to place us openly under the Divine protection."

Another prior writing on the subject matter reveals that the devout Christians believed that, "the trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins", because "no nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense." The writing explicitly states that the declaration of trust in God was to be a "national recognition."

These writing support my view that the law placing "In God We Trust" on the coins was a law that relates, refers to or concerns a settlement, recognition, or support of the people's duty declare trust in God.

Do you know of any prior writings on the subject matter of "In God We Trust, which support your claim that the law placing the phrase on the nation's coins was merely the statement of what Congress believed was a statistical truth regarding the religious opinions of the majority, instead of an unconstitutional assumption of civil authority over an imputed duty of every person to declare trust in God?

 

[This_person]

Nope. However, in the case of the law made by Congress mandating the placement of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins to declare the people's trust in God, there was a law made by Congress. In your analogy, there is merely the statement of one Senator.

Try and go for the point instead of nitpicking.

If Congress were to declare via printed report, in a law that used federal coffers to provide the funding, based upon a study performed, that the majority of cars passing a single point were red - would that then be an assumption of civil authority of a recommendatory authority of a recognition of car color, and therefore be an assumed statement of a required duty to people to have a red car?

An examination of what was supposedly the first of many written "appeals from devout Christians throughout the country...urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins", reveals that the goal of the devout Christians that eventually succeeded in securing the law permitting the placement of "In God We Trust" on one of the nation's coins, was "recognition of ...Almighty God in some form on our coins." The object of the recognition was to ensure that, "[succeeding] antiquaries would not think "we were a heathen nation", and "to place us openly under the Divine protection."

Another prior writing on the subject matter reveals that the devout Christians believed that, "the trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins", because "no nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense." The writing explicitly states that the declaration of trust in God was to be a "national recognition."

These writing support my view that the law placing "In God We Trust" on the coins was a law that relates, refers to or concerns a settlement, recognition, or support of the people's duty declare trust in God.

Do you know of any prior writings on the subject matter of "In God We Trust, which support your claim that the law placing the phrase on the nation's coins was merely the statement of what Congress believed was a statistical truth regarding the religious opinions of the majority, instead of an unconstitutional assumption of civil authority over an imputed duty of every person to declare trust in God?

I read the Treasury's website on it too!

Did you happen to notice that the recommendations of what the words should be went from "Our Country, Our God", to "God, Our Trust", to "In God We Trust"?

Many people solicit many things from government. That doesn't mean that their solicitation is the intent of the law. The fact that the words changed so significantly from what appeared to be an endorsement of religion to a statement of fact supports my lcaim that the law placing the phrase on the nation's coins was merely a statement of fact, not an assumption of civil authority over an imputed duty of every person to declare trust in god.

Not to mention, a statement is still not a duty, nor an assumption of authority, nor a civil magistrate's assumption of jurisdiction, nor any other wording you can come up with that takes it from being a statement of fact.

 

[FredFlash]

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?

by comparing the actions of the legislator [after the making of a law] to the words [of the legislator] in the law made by the legislator, we can get an idea of what the true intent of the legislator was.

Perhaps, but there are other much more natural and more probable signs of the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.

In the case of the Constitution, there were no official actions by the conventions that made it, from which the sense of dubious words could be gathered.

In the case of the First Amendment's religion clauses, what words in the clauses, after a good faith effort to construe the meaning of the words of the clauses according to the well established common law rules of interpretation, are still dubious, and require additional interpretation?

You appear to be trying to run around the words of the Constitution, to some historical events that square with your personal view of religious liberty, and then impute your personal views to the legislators that made the Constitution.

I thought we were trying to determine the will of the legislators, that made the Constitution, at the time the Constitution was adopted, regarding the relationship of federal civil authority to religion, according to the well established rules of statutory construction.

Have we given up on objective rules of interpretation?

If you want to debate the meaning of the Constitution according to the post enactment actions of the federal government, we can do that. But first, I want to know what rules were are going to follow.

Also, there has, since the adoption of the Constitution, been two basic American traditions of religious liberty. Are we going to examine only the government actions where one view prevailed, or shall we examine as well government actions where the other side prevailed.

For example, with regard to the post enactment actions of the federal government, are we going to consider only the fact that Congress passed resolutions requesting an executive religious recommendation 5 times during the first 72 years of the republic; and ignore the fact that in 68 of the first 72 years of the Republic, Congress did not believe it should request an executive religious recommendation? Or, are we going to consider federal government actions that reflect both American traditions of religious liberty?

What time period are we going to consider? The first year of the republic, or the first fifty years.

Are we going to impute, what appears to be the principle underlying the post enactment federal government action, to the legislator, or just say the act is legal?

Are going to say that any act not performed by government is illegal?

If the government's actions are contradictory, how do we weight the actions?

 

[This_person]

Perhaps, but there are other much more natural and more probable signs of the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.

I see very little that could be more natural than watching what the same people who approved the first amendment did with the first amendment.

You seemed to ignore this entire explanation of what you're now asking again:

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.

See, when you changed what I wrote to the argument you want to have, you changed my entire meaning.

I wasn't speaking of just AFTER the approval, I was also speaking of BEFORE. (that's why I brought up the Declaration of Independance, see?)

In the case of the Constitution, there were no official actions by the conventions that made it, from which the sense of dubious words could be gathered.

Nope, but many of the same men involved with approving it were still there for years after. That was the point I was getting at. The approvers intent is more important than the writer's intent - for it is the approver that is actually making the law. These people went one day from saying "yup, first amendment" to "yup, religious proclamation", and they believed it was okay. This tells me of their intent. The writer, if you choose to stick with him, said "yup, useless amendment" to "yup, religious proclamation". See, the people whose intent you're after demonstrated their intent with their actions.

In the case of the First Amendment's religion clauses, what words in the clauses are still dubious, and require additional interpretation?

None, for me. If it ain't a law or equivalent that establishes religion nor prohibits it, it's good ta go!

Why do you find this a difficult concept to grasp ahold of?

You appear to be trying to run around the words of the Constitution, to some historical events that square with your personal view of religious liberty, and then impute your personal views to the legislators that made the Constitution.

No, I'm using a good faith attempt to see what was done, and by whom, and compare that to the words they wrote and approved to understand what was going on, what the intent was. Once again, that something appears one way to you does not make it true.

I thought we were trying to determine the will of the legislators, that made the Constitution, at the time the Constitution was adopted, regarding the relationship of federal civil authority to religion, according to the well established rules of statutory construction.

I'm just an average Joe. I'm trying to do this without following anyone's rules of parliamentary control; of statutory construction; of civil magistrate's assumptions of jurisdiction; or a living, breathing, self-aware cognizance of an institution. Common sense, good faith interpretation of the people, words, and events.

Have we given up on objective rules of interpretation?

I know you won't answer this, because you rarely answer what I ask, but where was I other than objective?

If you want to debate the meaning of the Constitution according to the post enactment actions of the federal government, we can do that. But first, I want to know what rules were are going to follow.

Common sense, good faith, and reality.

Also, there has, since the adoption of the Constitution, been two basic American traditions of religious liberty. Are we going to examine only the government actions where one view prevailed, or shall we examine as well government actions where the other side prevailed.

For example, with regard to the post enactment actions of the federal government, are we going to consider only the fact that Congress passed resolutions requesting an executive religious recommendation 5 times during the first 72 years of the republic; and ignore the fact that in 68 of the first 72 years of the Republic, Congress did not believe it should request an executive religious recommendation? Or, are we going to consider federal government actions that reflect both American traditions of religious liberty?

Well, that's a lot of questions. I suggest common sense would dictate we cover any and all aspects of actions that actually occurred. Actions that didn't occur don't really indicate anything, do they?

What time period are we going to consider? The first year of the republic, or the first fifty years.

I would suggest the first five presidents. Since we're considering the intent of the people involved in establishing the government, I would think that would take us out to the edge of their influence over government, wouldn't you think? I mean, that's about 36 years - by the time JQA was installed, the rest weren't so prominent any more. What do you think? Is that a fair time frame to consider what the original intenders thought?

Are we going to impute, what appears to be the principle underlying the post enactment federal government action, to the legislator, or just say the act is legal?

I think it fair to assume that if it wasn't challenged in court or vetoed or actively denied occurance with an attempt, it was probably legal. After all, if we're looking for these men's intent, isn't it most fair to look at what they did with their words to see their intent?

Are going to say that any act not performed by government is illegal?

Well, no. That would be dumb. Not admitting Hawaii as a state wasn't illegal, it just didn't happen in that time frame. You can only judge the actions that occurred, really.

If the government's actions are contradictory, how do we weight the actions?

Well, one way would be to determine who suggested the two contradictory acts, who approved the contradictory acts, and if there were any lawsuits as a result (vetoes, appeals, repeals of laws, etc.) as a direct consequence of those acts.

Whaddya think?

 

[FredFlash]

I'm trying to point out that, while the first amendment says "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment 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.

The best clue to the will of the legislator at the time he made the law, according to the well established rules of statutory construction, are the words of the law the legislator made, not his actions after the law was made. His post enactment actions could, for a number of reasons, be in conflict with his will at the time the law was made. For example, he could, for moral or political or financial reasons, change his mind on the subject after the law was made.

In the case of the un-amended Constitution, there were no post enactment actions by the conventions, that made it. Therefore, there are no post enactment actions by the legislator from which to attempt to gather the meaning of the words of the instrument.

The only things we have are the known post enactment actions, as federal officers, by a small number of the men who participated in the making of the Constitution and then went on to become elected or appointed federal officers.

There were hundreds of men who participated in the conventions that made the Constitution. The number of delegates to the Massachusetts State Ratifying Convention alone were 355.

Three men who official participated in the making of the Constitution went on to become President of the United States, George Washington, James Madison and James Monroe.

Some of the men that participated in the making of the Constitution went on become U. S. Senators, Representatives or Supreme Court Justices. Off the top of my head, I can think of nine: Elsworth, Carrol, Monroe, Patterson, Madison, the other Carrol, Sherman, Vining, Wilson and Blair.

It would take a lot of work to determine which of the hundreds of men who participated in the making of the Constitution went on to become federal officers who performed an action, or actions that, could be an indication of their intent at the time they participated in the making of the law.

Are we going to consider only the official actions of federal officers? What about opinions on the meaning of the Constitution written after they left federal office?

One side will trot out President Washington, to testify that he issued two religious recommendations in eight years, to support its view that executive religious recommendations are not establishments of religion.

The other side will appeal to James Madison’s post enactment and post Presidential opinion that executive religious recommendations "imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to [our] political rulers [by the Constitution]." It will also appeal to the fact that President Monroe didn't issue any religious recommendations in his eight years in office.

Which of the three, Washington or Madison or Monroe, would have been most likely to know what the meaning of the final wording of the establishment clause was? Was it Madison who was one of the six men who actually wrote the final version of the establishment clause, or Washington who had nothing to do with the official framing and adoption of the establishment clause, or Monroe, who as a Senator, at least participated in the framing of the clause?

Does an official act as President count more than the opinion of an ex President on an official act of another President? What if a President's official's actions conflict with his later opinions?

If you want to debate the meaning of the constitution according to the post enactment actions of the government, I will oblige. However, I think we first need a set of rules and principles. In other words, a methodology to ensue objectivity.

 

[FredFlash]

So, by looking at the fact that, from the very first one, presidents discuss the importance of prayer

First, a President discussing the importance of prayer is not necessarily an assumption of civil jurisdiction over it. Second, show me where a President used his civil authority to discuss the importance of prayer. However, don't try to use his proclamations to convince me that Washington believed the Constitution gave the President power to issue religious recommendations. Washington knew his actions were extra-Constitutional, because he never claimed, in his proclamations, or elsewhere, that the Constitution gave him authority to issue them.

religious statements are a part of the very fabric of some of the founding documents

Point out the religious statement in the Constitution for me.

Congressional sessions begin with prayers

I remind you that nothing in the Constitution gives the majority in Congress authority over the prayers of the minority, and all the Congressional prayer in the world won't change the fact that the founders gave the federal government no jurisdiction over prayer or any other form of religion.

However, you seem determined to run around the words of the Constitution and gather the meaning of the document from the post enactment official actions of the government. You're shooting yourself in the foot with that argument, because there is no evidence whatsoever that the First Congress opened its daily convocations with prayer. The First Congress of the new government elected two Chaplains, paid them less than janitors and gave them an assignment to perform one half hour Anglican style divine service know as "prayers." However, don't just assume, as others have done, that the Chaplains were elected to open each day with prayer, because there is no evidence to warrant such a conclusion and lots of evidence that they didn't.

Please, don't show me any claims on government web sites, or by Supreme Court Justices, or by anyone else, claiming that the first two Chaplains to the U. S. Congress opened each daily session of the House and Senate with prayer, unless the claim is supported with credible historical documents, and you examine copies of the historical documents yourself and find that they provide credible evidence of opening prayers.

Are familiar with "A Century of Lawmaking?"

 

[FredFlash]

...clergy were a part of the military...

I have some very bad new for you. You just shot yourself in the other foot. During the First U. S. Congress there were no Army or Navy Chaplains on the Federal payroll.

Did they really mean, those approvers, that they envisioned a country where government is blind to the very concept of religion?

Nope. What they apparently envisioned - judging from the Constitution's non delegation of power over religion and the understanding of this denial, as expressed during the making of the Constitution, by the men who actually made the Constitution - was a federal government that was to take no legal cognizance of the duty we owe to our Creator. In other words, no legal jurisdiction over religion, the things that are God's, things purely sacred, the duty we owe to our Creator, the means of salvation or whatever you want to call it.

I read the Constitution's denial of legal cognizance of religion to prohibit the exercise of recommendatory power, whereas you appear - judging from your statement that, "They must have meant that Congress could [not] tell people what they must do and/or not do, in regards to religion" - to read it to prohibit only the exercise of force with respect to religion.

You seem to read the Constitution to give the federal government general advisory power over everything, including religion; whereas, I don't.

You sometimes, seem to read the Constitution to limit the federal government's general advisory authority over religion, to recommendations that do not endorse a particular religion.

 

[FredFlash]

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!

A President invoking his civil authority to issue religious advice to people, who never asked for it, is an assumption of advisory authority over the people's religion.

You obviously believe the government has advisory jurisdiction, whereas, I don't.

Why don't you give me your best argument for your view that the government has suggestive/advisory/recommendatory authority over religion. Please cover the following points.

Does the federal government have general advisory jurisdiction over all things? If so, where does it get such power?

Does the federal government have general advisory jurisdiction over religion? If so, where does it get such authority?

​

If the President can use his civil office to issue religious suggestions, what about other federal officers. Can the Director of the IRS use his civil authority, and the resources of the IRS, to issue advice not to pray? Can a U. S. Marshall use his office to recommend the singing of particular religious hymns, such as "The old rugged cross" or "Just a closer walk with thee?"

Is the display of the text of an abridged version of the "Ten Commandments" by federal civil authority permitted, under any circumstances, by the Constitution. If so, what circumstances?

 

[FredFlash]

... 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.

The doctrine of Strict Separation of Religion and Government - as pertains to government advisory power over religion in general, and executive religious recommendations in particular, as articulated in James Madison's 1822 letter to Edward Livingston and his Detached Memoranda (circa 1820's) - is in conflict with Madison's issuance of executive religious proclamations as President.

With respect to the question of federal advisory authority over religion, the issue seems to be whether to narrowly or broadly construe the Constitution's denial to the federal government of jurisdiction over religion.

Since the rights of conscience are probably the most cherished of all our God given natural rights, it seems reasonable to me that the non-delegation of power over religion to the government should be liberally and broadly interpreted, and that any doubt regarding whether the non-delegation covers advisory jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of religion and against civil authority.

Any words he spoke other than that were meaningless.

You crack me up. However, I guess one way to win an argument is to declare any evidence that doesn't square with your theory, to be meaningless.

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.

How do you know James Madison clearly believed, at the time the Constitution was made, that the Constitution granted the President authority to use his civil office to issue unsolicited religious recommendations to the people? During the actual making of the Constitution, as a delegate officially chosen to act on behalf of the people, Madison said that even the slightest meddling by the federal government with religion was a most flagrant usurpation [of the right of an individual to chose his religion and God's absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over religion].

Prayer is religion, and an unsolicited religious recommendation regarding prayer by the President, under the color of his civil office, is clearly a case of civil authority meddling with religion.

 

[FredFlash]

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.

The object our quest is the intent of the legislator at the time the Constitution was made, not the understanding of the document by just one of the over 1,000 men who made it more that two decades after the making of the law.

If you want to ignore the words of the Constitution and the well established rules of interpretation and construe the document according to post enactment actions of the government, please tell me, before the game starts, what the rules of interpretation according to post enactment official acts of the government are.

the motto holds no advice

You may have a point there. The writings on the subject matter suggest that it was a declaration by the government of the people's duty to trust in God. A man's duty to declare his trust in God, if such actually exists, is clearly a duty owed to God and matter of religion.

An assumption by government of a religious duty owed to God by the people, and deciding, for the people, how the people are going to discharge their duty , assumes that God actually established such and duty. That my friend, is an exercise of civil advisory power over the people's religion as well as an establishment of their religion.

nor wields any type of power whatsoever over religion

Jesus never used anything more than advice, suggestions and recommendations to influence the religion of others; but those suggestions had enormous power.

 

[FredFlash]

It would seem clear that a "law regarding the establishment of religion"

I shall assume that you meant a law pertaining to or concerning a settlement, recognition, or support of the duty that we owe to our Creator.

...would have to be some form of just that - some form of binding statement by Congress (or some other form of binding authority like code of federal regulation, departmental policy, executive order, etc.)

I shall assume that "binding statement" means a statement that the people are obligated to comply that is accompanied by some form of punishment for those who fail to comply.

I disagree with the view that a law pertaining to or concerning a settlement, recognition or support of the duty that we owe to our Creator requires some form of punishment for those who fail to comply. Instead, I share the view of the Democratic-Republicans that the non-delegation of power over religion, the ban against a religious test clause and the prohibition against an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, should be broadly construed to deprive the government of all, including both coercive and recommendatory, jurisdiction over religion. In other words, the words of the great Justice Joseph Story, to be precise, "the whole power over the subject of religion" was denied to the federal government.

In my view, the whole power - over the subject of the duty we owe to our Creator - includes recommendatory jurisdiction over religion. Therefore, an assumption of jurisdiction over religion or an establishment of religion does not have to be binding in the sense that there is a sanction imposed against those who do not comply. Merely clothing the assumption or establishment with civil authority is a sufficient quantum of civil authority to exceed the trust granted to the federal government and violate the prohibition against an establishment of religion.

 

[This_person]

I shall assume that you meant a law pertaining to or concerning a settlement, recognition, or support of the duty that we owe to our Creator.



I shall assume that "binding statement" means a statement that the people are obligated to comply that is accompanied by some form of punishment for those who fail to comply.

I disagree with the view that a law pertaining to or concerning a settlement, recognition or support of the duty that we owe to our Creator requires some form of punishment for those who fail to comply. Instead, I share the view of the Democratic-Republicans that the non-delegation of power over religion, the ban against a religious test clause and the prohibition against an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, should be broadly construed to deprive the government of all, including both coercive and recommendatory, jurisdiction over religion. In other words, the words of the great Justice Joseph Story, to be precise, "the whole power over the subject of religion" was denied to the federal government.

In my view, the whole power - over the subject of the duty we owe to our Creator - includes recommendatory jurisdiction over religion. Therefore, an assumption of jurisdiction over religion or an establishment of religion does not have to be binding in the sense that there is a sanction imposed against those who do not comply. Merely clothing the assumption or establishment with civil authority is a sufficient quantum of civil authority to exceed the trust granted to the federal government and violate the prohibition against an establishment of religion.

You're funny to discuss things with. You presume what I mean so that you can have something to disagree with that you've already decided the argument's answer!

We started this long, laborious discussion with my statement that there is no "separation of church and state" required by the Constitution. You seemed to disagree, though you never actually said so for a long time. I don't know how many pages it took for you to actually take (sort of) a position, other than a position of attacking anything I said.

I've yet to see anything in all of the questions you've asked nor quotes you've given that definatively tells me that there is a "separation of church and state" (other than a politician's letter to supporters of that thought). The actions I've seen taken actually disagree with the concept. The words certainly don't say "separation of church and state", they say no law of establishment of a state religion, nor prohibition of people having their own religion.

The examples you've given of violations were actions done by the same people whose intent you say is different than their actions, or already have been rejected by people much more learned than your or I on the Constitution's intents.

So, before we fall back into "nuh uh" - "yuh huh" arguing techniques, I shall concede that you have your opinion based upon your research and thought, I have mine based upon my research and thought, and isn't it great we live in a country where we can both have our own opinions!

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[FredFlash]

... if my religion includes maiming three year olds, or taking narcotics and driving down the wrong way of the freeway at 173 miles per hour, those are legitimate, allowed restrictions on my practice of religion ("fire in in crowded theater" type of thing).

Explain to me why those practices are not religion; or, why, although they are religion, at least to the person performing them, they should be restricted. What rule or principle do we, or rather did the founders intend for us to, use to decide what religious practices are legitimate and which are not, which can be restricted and which cannot?

Try and keep in mind that the "bill of rights" are not actually rights
they're restrictions on government.

First, tell me why.

You can't just include the words "establishment of religion", you have to recognize that this is a restriction on government from creating a rule of establishment of religion. Do you see the difference?

What's "a rule of establishment of religion?" Are you saying there are First Amendment rules governing "an establishment of religion", other than "Congress shall make no law respecting" them? If so, what are these rules?