Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[This_person]

Are you claiming that the will of the legislator, at the time the First Amendment was adopted, was that the word "religion" was to be construed as "all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural?" If so, why?

Is the meaning of "religion" limited to a belief in the existence a supreme belief? What about the duty we owe the supreme being, is that "religion?"

If you believe I'm changing my understanding of what religion is, please enlighten me as to what it actually is, and only can be considered, in your opinion.

 

[This_person]

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority

-Memorial and Remonstrance (1786) by James Madison
​

I will admit to having read this before, and thinking it meant society's cognizance, not the institution's cognizance. I will consider Mr. Madison's words for what they're worth, but it doesn't change my overall opinion on the substance of the subject. Good sideline argument, thought.

 

[FredFlash]

If you believe I'm changing my understanding of what religion is, please enlighten me as to what it actually is, and only can be considered, in your opinion.

All I know about your understanding of the meaning of the word "religion" in the First Amendment is what you tell me. Your interpretation of the word seems to be "a belief in a supreme being."

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as:

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2 a particular system of faith and worship.

3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
​

Thomas Rutherford wrote that words of a law should generally be understood according to the "common" use of the word. Blackstone wrote that words in a statute are generally to be understood in their "usual and most known signification...[or] their general and popular use." Chief Justice John Jay, in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) wrote that, "words are to be understood in their ordinary and common acceptation."

You seem to have formulated a meaning for the word "religion" that is not common, generally, popularly or ordinarily used. Why don't you follow the well established common law rule of interpretation that says words in a law are to be understood in their ordinary and common acceptation at the time the law was made?

 

[FredFlash]

I will admit to having read this before, and thinking it meant society's cognizance, not the institution's cognizance.

1. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.

--Memorial and Remonstrance (1786) by James Madison

​

I will consider Mr. Madison's words for what they're worth

Perhaps you should consider Mr. Madison's definition of the word "religion" and Blackstone's Third Rule of Legal Interpretation, which says that, "AS to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end." The writings prior to the framing of the First Amendment, on the subject matters of "establishment and free exercise of religion", that actually defined the word "religion", all defined it to mean, "the duty we owe our Creator."

These writings include the religion amendments to the Constitution recommended by the Virginia and North Carolina Ratifying Conventions, James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance and the Virginia Bill of Rights. George Mason and James Madison probably knew the Common Law Rules of Interpretation and were smart fellows who realized the importance of precisely defining the word "religion" in their writings on the subject of religion and its relationship with government.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You love to say i jump on an anti-Christian stance, and Midnight has already claimed he is Christian just not the same faith as you.

The problem isnt that i have an Anti-Christian belief, which i dont, its that i dont put Christianity above other religions like you do. You dont want religion in schools, Courtrooms or other public institutions, you want Christianity in those instances.

When it comes to a situation where one religion, Christianity, is portrayed over others, you have no problem with it, and dont understand why others would.

But what you fail to understand about the Founding Fathers, is while professing a belief in a (Natures) God, they didnt necessarily believe in YOUR God. Because they understood, not everyone follows the same God. To protect others from people such as yourself, who will proclaim anyone that doesnt follow Jesus is wrong, they established that the Government wasnt in the business of theocracy.

In your mind, any instance of God mentioned by the Founding Fathers, is your "Gotcha" that they were Christian, yet your fallacy is that there are other Gods than yours, you just dont accept them.

Here is your problem with the First Amendment, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, If you are going to be a Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) representitive, say a Judge, and there is a rule stating you can not establish one form of religion, then by displaying only one religions laws, you are placing One religions laws in prominence

Why do you think the Ten Commandment rulings have all fallen the way they did? While at the same time, the Supreme Court, which made the final rulings, has the Ten Commandments on display?

Because even though the Supreme Court does have the Ten Commandments, it has others as well. In the spirit of the First Amendment it doesnt hold one in higher regard over others. this is a recurring problem you have.

Its the same argument you lose, whenever religion in schools comes up. Unless you are going to show equal prominence to all religions, (like the Supreme Court does) you cant favor one over an other.

You see it as an affront against Christianity, when actually its in support of ALL AMERICANS, even non-Christians, first amendment.

Those institutions that support ALL religions arent under fire, even if they display Christian items. Its the instance of only portraying One Religion that causes the issue.

By your post, you seem to think you can read my thoughts, and in posting your thoughts about what you think I think, you get it wrong pretty consistently.

I do not want Christianity in our courts, schools, or government. I do not want a Christian theocracy. I also do not want Christianity excluded which is the current modus operandi of the courts, schools, and government due mainly to the idiots of ACLU and other suit happy lawyers.

Some of the founders were Deists, some were Unitarians, some were Quakers, some Episcopalian, some Presbyterian, or other Christian denomination. While many promote the idea that the First Amendment set a strict separation of church and state, it does not. One only has to read it. It only sets a limit on the laws that Congress can make. The idea of official religion was left up to the states. Massachusetts was the last state to officially end the establishment of religion by prohibiting it in its constitution and laws which did not occur until 1833.

If Muslims can have a specific time and rooms set aside to say prayers then Christians are entitled to the same treatment. If Muslims can have a prayer rug and a Qur'an, Christians can have crosses and Bibles. If a Muslim judge can have a prayer rug and Qur'an in his chambers, a Christian judge can have the Ten Commandments on the wall. If a Jew can wear a yarmulke, A Christian can wear a Jesus tee shirt. I am tired of people wanting to exclude Christianity but not having the cojones to stand up against Muslims.

I am a Christian. I am not some milk toast Christian In Name Only (CINO) that only believes in part of the Bible. I am not some wishy washy CINO that won't stand up for Jesus. I am not some hide in the corner CINO that is afraid to proclaim the gospel so as not to offend anyone.

You don't like my stance on Christianity because it is absolute. My stand is absolute because that is what Christianity requires. Sorry, I'll follow the Bible; I certainly won't knuckle under to the likes of you.

You want me to grin and take it from Muslims, Hindus, and anyone else and not stand up for Christ. That is not going to happen. I believe that Christianity is the way. I want everyone to find Jesus as Savior and Lord; to do otherwise would not be following the Bible. You want me to hide under some rock or say it is OK to be a Hindu or Muslim. I cannot prevent anyone from being a Hindu or Muslim or Taoist or atheist or agnostic or whatever, but I will not say it is OK, because I know that they are on the road to eternal damnation if they have heard of Jesus and God's plan of salvation. To say it is OK or it doesn't matter is to let them go to hell without showing them God's love and plan for forgiveness of all sin.

I don't expect you to agree. Don't expect me to give up my faith.

 

[FredFlash]

House of Representatives Adheres to Constitutional Principle of
Government Non Cognizance of Religion
​

March 4-5, 1830

Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post-offices and Post-Roads, to whom had been referred memorials from inhabitants of various parts of the United States, praying for a repeal of so much of the post-office law as authorizes the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday, and to whom had also been referred memorials from other inhabitants of various parts of the United States, remonstrating against such an appeal, made the following report:

That the memorialists regard the first day of the week as a day set apart by the Creator for religious exercises, and consider the transportation of the mail and the opening of the post offices on that day the violation of a religious duty, and call for a suppression of the practice. Others, by counter memorials, are known to entertain a different sentiment, believing that no one day of the week is holier than another. Others, holding the universality and immutability of the Jewish decalogue, believe in the sanctity of the seventh day of the week as a day of religious devotion; and, by their memorial now before the committee, they also request that it may be set apart for religious purposes. Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion; and it has been regarded as the proper business of government to protect all, and determine for none. But the attempt is now made to bring about a greater uniformity, at least in practice; and, as argument has failed, the government has been called upon to interpose its authority to settle the controversy.

Congress acts under a constitution of delegated and limited powers. The Committee look in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains is one that prohibits a religious test; and another which declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Committee might here rest the argument, upon the ground that the question referred to them does not come within the cognizance of Congress

--"21st Congress, 1st Session, House Report on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the House of representatives, March 4-5, 1830," American State Papers, Class VII, pp 229. American State Papers Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 244-268.​

 

[FredFlash]

The ...official religion was left up to the states.

Almost all of the State Constitutions, at the end of the founding era, excluded religion from the cognizance of civil government. All of the new states did the same.

There were some exceptions, but they were relics of the Church State, and "dead letters", such as religious tests that were not enforced and authorities to impose general assessments for support of religion that were never exercised.

 

[This_person]

House of Representatives Adheres to Constitutional Principle of
Government Non Cognizance of Religion
​

March 4-5, 1830

Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post-offices and Post-Roads, to whom had been referred memorials from inhabitants of various parts of the United States, praying for a repeal of so much of the post-office law as authorizes the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday, and to whom had also been referred memorials from other inhabitants of various parts of the United States, remonstrating against such an appeal, made the following report:

That the memorialists regard the first day of the week as a day set apart by the Creator for religious exercises, and consider the transportation of the mail and the opening of the post offices on that day the violation of a religious duty, and call for a suppression of the practice. Others, by counter memorials, are known to entertain a different sentiment, believing that no one day of the week is holier than another. Others, holding the universality and immutability of the Jewish decalogue, believe in the sanctity of the seventh day of the week as a day of religious devotion; and, by their memorial now before the committee, they also request that it may be set apart for religious purposes. Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion; and it has been regarded as the proper business of government to protect all, and determine for none. But the attempt is now made to bring about a greater uniformity, at least in practice; and, as argument has failed, the government has been called upon to interpose its authority to settle the controversy.

Congress acts under a constitution of delegated and limited powers. The Committee look in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains is one that prohibits a religious test; and another which declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Committee might here rest the argument, upon the ground that the question referred to them does not come within the cognizance of Congress

--"21st Congress, 1st Session, House Report on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the House of representatives, March 4-5, 1830," American State Papers, Class VII, pp 229. American State Papers Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 244-268.​

Like I say, interesting side argument......but meaningless to the issue at hand.....

 

[This_person]

All I know about your understanding of the meaning of the word "religion" in the First Amendment is what you tell me. Your interpretation of the word seems to be "a belief in a supreme being."

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as:

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2 a particular system of faith and worship.

3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
​

While my specific words are different, I believe the substance is the same. There's nothing in these definitions that changes anything I believe; indeed, there's no appreciable difference. Again, where is your point of contention with what I wrote?

You seem to have formulated a meaning for the word "religion" that is not common, generally, popularly or ordinarily used. Why don't you follow the well established common law rule of interpretation that says words in a law are to be understood in their ordinary and common acceptation at the time the law was made?

I was actually trying to be more broad in my interpretation to be more conservative; that is, to include more concepts of what religion could be. This stricter definition, while not much different in substance, certainly still holds for all I said.

If you have a point of contention, perhaps NOW would be the time to get to it.

 

[FredFlash]

While my specific words are different, I believe the substance is the same.

You exclude prayer and fasting from your interpretation of the word "religion" in the First Amendment, suggesting perhaps that you don't consider any method or manner of worshiping God as "religion"; whereas the most common and ordinary definition of religion (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods), includes worship.

In other words, you exclude worship from "religion", whereas the common ordinary use of the word does not. Is that not a substantial difference?

It appears to me that you are construing the word "religion" in the First Amendment to square with your personal preference for civil authority, recommendatory authority at least, over religious worship.

If you exclude prayer and fasting from the prohibition against an establishment of religion, don't you also exclude them from the interdiction against prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

 

[This_person]

You exclude prayer and fasting from your interpretation of the word "religion" in the First Amendment, suggesting perhaps that you don't consider any method or manner of worshiping God as "religion"; whereas the most common and ordinary definition of religion (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods), includes worship.

Okay, I see now where the problem is. By misunderstanding (willfully, or negligently, I don't know which) my point in (at least) posts 76 and 79, you're choosing to infer what you think I'm saying, or - rather - the argument you want to be having instead of what I'm actually saying.

The point is, when I said I don't consider those "religion" (as I stated in the posts) I meant that I don't see that as the government, through laws of Congress, establishing a religion. While praying is certainly, most commonly, thought of as a religious act, and fasting is often done as part of a religious ceremony, pennance, worship, what-have-you, I did not see the person of the president, speaking as an elected leader, being reasonably construed as a law, passed by congress, establishing religion.

Certainly, those listening had every right to pray, fast, not pray and fast, not fast and pray, or ignore the president completely. There are many recommendations that elected officials make that I don't follow on a daily basis. As long as Congress has made no law establishing that I must obey these recommendations, and there is not even close to a shred of evidence that there is any discrimination towards me or others that choose to not follow those recommendations, I can't fathom any reasonable person saying that those recommendations are laws of congress establishing those recommendations.

Can you?

In other words, you exclude worship from "religion", whereas the common ordinary use of the word does not. Is that not a substantial difference?

Certainly, had I been trying to narrow the definition of religion, I should have included the word "worship". But, what of the group that believes we're all just free spirits, that the universe is all one living thing? Is that not also a religion? And, if they don't "worship" a single or multiple superhuman, supernatural, controlling power, does that exclude them from the concept of religion? I don't think it should. And, what of the humanists? Belief that humans are what should be worshipped? If they don't believe that it's "super" human, does that exclude them from the concept of religion? And the scientist, for whom "super" human is contradictory, "super" natural is contradictory? Is that not a form of religion?

Certainly, any reasonable person would try and include a little more.

But, let's presume that we narrow the definition. Is there yet any conflict with a president recommending prayer with a prohibition against a congressionally passed law requiring prayer? That doesn't seem to be a reasonable conclusion. In fact, it seems to limit the president's first amendment protection to practice his religion.

It appears to me that you are construing the word "religion" in the First Amendment to square with your personal preference for civil authority, recommendatory authority at least, over religious worship.

Once again, that it appears to you that way does not make it so. I prefer civil authority stay out of religion, because I don't want someone telling me what religion I may or may not practice. However, I would not presume the right to prohibit others from doing so, as I don't have that right. Until Congress passes a law establishing a religion, or the president writes an executive order, or my state run school mandates a specific religion for my children to pray to (establishing that religion as the government sponsored one), or a law is written that no one may advance above PFC if they aren't Methodist, or some other such thing, I've yet to see the establishment clause challenged.

Do you see it challenged?

If you exclude prayer and fasting from the prohibition against an establishment of religion, don't you also exclude them from the interdiction against prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Ah, there's the rub for you. I never excluded prayer and fasting from the prohibition against an establishment of religion. You really should read what I write, not what you think I'm going to say! I excluded a talk from the president - regardless of subject - from a law of congress establishing a religion.

I do understand, now, that government action establishing a religion could come from something less stringent than an actual House or Senate law, but, a speech isn't it.

 

[FredFlash]

Dear This_person:

Please explain why you believe the will of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the U. S. Government to have recommendatory authority over religion?

Fred

 

[This_person]

Please explain why you believe the will of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the U. S. Government to have recommendatory authority over religion?

I've gotta tell ya, I'm getting a little tired of dancing for your amusement, and you not getting to your point.

What is "recommendatory authority"? A guy said something 'cuz he was president and thought it would make people feel good, and maybe help them. What is the first amendment violation in that?

This is much like the question above - Can you see any reasonable person saying that those recommendations are laws of congress establishing those recommendations?

And, "Until Congress passes a law establishing a religion, or the president writes an executive order, or my state run school mandates a specific religion for my children to pray to (establishing that religion as the government sponsored one), or a law is written that no one may advance above PFC if they aren't Methodist, or some other such thing, I've yet to see the establishment clause challenged. Do you see it challenged?"

I'll dance, but you've gotta supply some music here.

 

[FredFlash]

What is "recommendatory authority"?

It's the authority to issue advice, recommendations and suggestions. The prayer and fasting recommendations of Washington and Adams are examples of recommendatory authority over religion.

Jefferson and Madison both used the word "recommend", or rather a form thereof, to signify the power to issue religious advice. Neither Jefferson or Madison interpreted the Constitution to grant the President authority to issue religious suggestions.

Now, back to the question. Please explain why you believe the will of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the U. S. Government to have recommendatory authority over religion?

 

[FredFlash]

Can you see any reasonable person saying that those [religious] recommendations [by Presidents Washington and Adams] are laws of congress establishing those recommendations?

Do you consider James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Saint George Tucker to have been reasonable men?

 

[This_person]

It's the authority to issue advice, recommendations and suggestions. The prayer and fasting recommendations of Washington and Adams are examples of recommendatory authority over religion.

Jefferson and Madison both used the word "recommend", or rather a form thereof, to signify the power to issue religious advice. Neither Jefferson or Madison interpreted the Constitution to grant the President authority to issue religious suggestions.

Now, back to the question. Please explain why you believe the will of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was adopted, was for the U. S. Government to have recommendatory authority over religion?

Which question, the two I asked you right before this on from you, the others I asked previously that you didn't answer, or this one from you?

I see no will nor lack of will of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was admopted, for the US government to have "recommendatory authority over religion". I, further, see the concept as meaningless. Authority implies some sort of enforcement power, "control, command, or determine". In a speach given by an elected official, suggesting a nice little thought to people, there is no authority. No control, command, or determining factor. I find that argument to be extremely weak, and grasping at straws to find a fault. Of course, you've yet to say you even find a fault, you merely throw questions and leave.

So, again, I see no will nor lack of will in this contradictory, pointless tangent.

 

[This_person]

Do you consider James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Saint George Tucker to have been reasonable men?

I'll answer you when you answer me.

 

[FredFlash]

"Until Congress passes a law establishing a religion, or the president writes an executive order, or my state run school mandates a specific religion for my children to pray to (establishing that religion as the government sponsored one), or a law is written that no one may advance above PFC if they aren't Methodist, or some other such thing, I've yet to see the establishment clause challenged.

What about a law made by Congress that establishes the duty not to baptize infants and a U. S. Bureau of Baptism with the power to use reason and persuasion to convince the people not to baptize infants. The Bureau will have a budget of billions and will put up signs and billboards and run ads in print media and also run radio and television spots?

 

[This_person]

What about a law made by Congress that establishes the duty not to baptize infants and a U. S. Bureau of Baptism with the power to use reason and persuasion to convince the people not to baptize infants. The Bureau will have a budget of billions and will put up signs and billboards and run ads in print media and also run radio and television spots?

The bolded portion of the first part of the question would be unconstitutional, by reason of the first amendment. Congress passing a law, signed by the president (or otherwise allowed to become a law) that establishes a religious doctrine would not be allowed.

A US Bureau of Baptism, doing no more than making recommendations, would
A> Not violate the first amendment. If you think it does, explain why.
B> Be so fiscally stupid as to possibly get the person who created it impeached or otherwise removed from office. The checks and balances concept between the legislative and executive branches would pretty much ensure that something this idiotic never would happen.

 

[FredFlash]

I see no will, nor lack of will, of the legislator, at the time the Constitution was adopted, for the US government to have "recommendatory authority over religion".

Do you see evidence, in the un-amended constitution, that the lawmaker didn't want the government to have the power to use force and violence in matters of religion?