Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[FredFlash]

Sorry, forgot the first half of this.

My God has authority over my religion, your God has authority over yours. Everyone else's god, or lack thereof, has the authority over their religion, IAW their beliefs. Unless you're trying to tie all religion to one God, or one type of God, which I don't think is appropriate. Thus, my statement that each individual gets to choose to which God (or lack thereof)/religion they believe, practice, etc.

Does God have absolute and exclusive authority over your religion?

 

[This_person]

What's the point of civil authority making a law if those who violate it are not punished; except to fool the people, like the Texas law that prohibits racial profiling, but does not provide for the punishment of those that do.

Perhaps I'm naive. I draw a distinction between "coersion, force, and violence" and the punishment of lawbreakers. I suppose the few people each year that are executed (death penalty, not murdered - that's not a few!) would see violence in their punishment. Overall, though, I just drew a distincition in my mind between these concepts.

But, I'm still not sure how this fits in with "In God We Trust" on our money.....

 

[This_person]

Does God have absolute and exclusive authority over your religion?

Before I answer such a personal question, may I ask where it fits in our discussion?

 

[FredFlash]

Sure, sorry. You were saying that in a couple of presidential speaches, presidents recommended that people fast and pray.

I was talking about the official proclamations issued by Presidents Washington and Adams recommending specific forms of worship.

You went on to ask questions that I inferred were your attempt at saying those recommendations constituted a governmental "duty" to fast and pray. Since the issue at hand is the first amendment portion which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I was talking about the official proclamations issued by Presidents Washington and Adams recommending specific forms of worship, which many, if not most, Americans of the Early Republic, judged to be non-coercive establishments of a religious duty by the President, which violated the spirit of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion and exceeded the trusts granted by the Constitution.

Logically, unless you're just trying to see me dance to your questions, you must have a reason for seeing this presidential recommendation, which I inferred you calling a duty, as having a point in our discussion. So, that begs the question, do you see this duty as having the same force as a law - as in "Congress shall make no law..."?

I will assume the duties in question are the recommendations to pray and fast made in the executive proclamations of the first two Presidents. Are you asking if the executive recommendations to pray and fast have the "same force" as an executive proclamation that imposed a penalty on those who disobey it? If so, the use of force, or non use of force, to enforce compliance with the executive religious proclamation is irrelevant. Both are steps, as James Madison wrote, "beyond the landmarks of [the] power" granted to the President. Also, both are prohibited by the spirit and reason of the establishment clause.

 

[This_person]

I was talking about the official proclamations issued by Presidents Washington and Adams recommending specific forms of worship.

Proclamation, okay...

I was talking about the official proclamations issued by Presidents Washington and Adams recommending specific forms of worship, which many if not most Americans viewed as non-coercive establishments of a religious duty, which violated the spirit of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

You can count me in the "other than most" category.

Interesting that such early leaders would have such a wrong view about the constitution, though, don't you think? I mean Washington and Adams, not the many if not most Americans that saw them as wrong.

However, that still begs the question; do you see this duty as having the same force as a law - as in "Congress shall make no law..."?

 

[This_person]

I was talking about the official proclamations issued by Presidents Washington and Adams recommending specific forms of worship, which many if not most Americans viewed as non-coercive establishments of a religious duty, which violated the spirit of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I have to admit, I do see this as reaching pretty hard. A non-coersive, non-congressionally initiated, non-law that was non-specific to a religion violated "Congress shall make no laws..."

I know the two negatives rule, what's the four negatives rule?

 

[This_person]

I will assume the duties in question are the recommendations to pray and fast made in the executive proclamations of the first two Presidents. Are you asking if the executive recommendations to pray and fast have the "same force" as an executive proclamation that imposed a penalty on those who disobey it? If so, the use of force, or non use of force, to enforce compliance with the executive religious proclamation is irrelevant. Both are steps, as James Madison wrote, "beyond the landmarks of [the] power" granted to the President. Also, both are prohibited by the spirit and reason of the establishment clause.

Once again, you added a good bit after I responded.

I was asking if these proclaimations by these presidents, in your view, carried the same weight of law, as in "Congress shall make no law..."

James Madison, commonly thought of as the architect of the constitution, thought there was no need for a first amendment (let alone the rest of the "bill of rights"), because the constitution stood on its own. He's clearly an outstanding person to refer to when discussing this, but certainly not the only person.

What were the repercussions of these proclamations, as I clearly was unaware of them? What happened with Washington and Adams? Did they have a rebuttal to Madison, or did they hang their head, agree with his wisdom, and rescind their words?

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
But when you misrepresent a different belief, or try to portray a religion while ignoring similiar scripture (that can and has been just as equally bastardized) we will debate it
...

There is our departure. I know the Bible to be God's Truth. You maintain it is bastardized. I will never agree. So the debate is what it is. You proclaiming the Bible is just trash and me proclaiming the gospel and the Bible as Truth. I guess I could put you on ignore like I have Fred and Midnight, but at least you make sense about some things, so I am reluctant to do that. But ...

Seems you just like argument. I don't. I will stand and defend Jesus, but I would rather just proclaim the gospel. Why, if you are so against religion of any form, are you in the Religion Forum? Seems that you want to push your anti-religion agenda on people who would just like to love God. Why do you find it necessary to push atheism in the Religion Forum. I don't go to atheist sites and proclaim the gospel and generally say all their lack of belief is bogus even though I know it is. You come off like a "school yard bully" just looking for a fight to me. You come into a place where most disagree with your belief and pick an argument. I know I cannot convert anyone to be a Christian by argument; it just does not happen. Do you really think that you will get anyone to give up their faith through your arguments?

 

[FredFlash]

Interesting that such early leaders would have such a wrong view about the constitution, though, don't you think?

Washington and Adams both knew the Constitution didn't grant them authority to issue religious recommendations to the people under the color of their office. They fell victim to the temptation to use religion to achieve political objectives.

I mean Washington and Adams, not the many if not most Americans that saw them as wrong.

Washington was cut some slack because he was a national hero of the highest order. However, ten, or was it twenty, thousand of the good people of Philadelphia marched on Adams' resident after he issue a fast proclamation and wanted to kill him. Adams blamed his defeat in 1800 on the people's perception that he was weak on church state separation.

However, that still begs the question; do you see this duty as having the same force as a law - as in "Congress shall make no law..."?

Blackstone's Fourth Rule of Legal Interpretation is,

AS to the effects and confequence, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very abfurd fignification, if literally underftood, we muft a little deviate from the received fenfe of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf m, which enacted “that whoever drew blood in the ftreets fhould be punifhed with the utmoft feverity,” was held after long debate not to extend to the furgeon, who opened the vein of a perfon that fell down in the ftreet with a fit.​

The word "Congress" bears "an absurd signification", if it is understood to prohibit Congress, but not the Executive Branch, from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, we must deviate a little from the literal meaning of the word "Congress" so as to avoid the manifestly absurd effect and consequence that the Chief Executive may make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

 

[This_person]

Washington and Adams both knew the Constitution didn't grant them authority to issue religious recommendations to the people under the color of their office. They fell victim to the temptation to use religion to achieve political objectives. Washington was cut some slack because he was a national hero of the highest order. However, ten, or was it twenty, thousand of the good people of Philadelphia marched on Adams' resident after he issue a fast proclamation and wanted to kill him. Adams blamed his defeat in 1800 on the people's perception that he was weak on church state separation.

Did they argue their point, or just hang their heads in defeat?

The word "Congress" bears "an absurd signification", if it is understood to prohibit Congress, but not the Executive Branch, from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, we must deviate a little from the literal meaning of the word "Congress" so as to avoid the manifestly absurd effect and consequence that the Chief Executive may make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree that executive orders can be written, as can policies and procedures be written into the fabric of public institutions without their being a law passed by the houses of Congress to back them up.

But, do you believe that a proclamation, or a speech, or any other form of unenforcable and unenforced recommendation like these proclamations (sorry for calling them speaches ealier) to "pray and fast" holds the weight of a reasonably interpretted (damn, I'm feeling like a lawyer now) version of "Congress shall make no law..."?

 

[FredFlash]

Perhaps I'm naive. I draw a distinction between "coersion, force, and violence" and the punishment of lawbreakers. I suppose the few people each year that are executed (death penalty, not murdered - that's not a few!) would see violence in their punishment. Overall, though, I just drew a distincition in my mind between these concepts.

Jefferson, and his posse, used the term "force and violence" to mean the use of the sword, if necessary, by civil authority to accomplish its objectives.

Blackstone used the term. He may have originated it, but I will bet it was Rutherforth.

Edmund Burke also used the term. Rutherforth's, Burke's and Blackstone's lives overlapped. Rutherford was the oldest. Burke the youngest.

But, I'm still not sure how this fits in with "In God We Trust" on our money.....

I maintain the the law that placed "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins is "a law respecting an establishment of religion", because "religion" is "the duty we owe to our Creator", and the duty to trust God is a duty owed to God, not a "social duty" owed to other men.

 

[FredFlash]

Did they argue their point, or just hang their heads in defeat?

Huh?

But, do you believe that a proclamation, or a speech, or any other form of unenforceable and unenforced recommendation like these proclamations (sorry for calling them speeches earlier) to "pray and fast" holds the weight of a reasonably interpreted (damn, I'm feeling like a lawyer now) version of "Congress shall make no law..."?

I am not sure what you are asking me. What is "a reasonably interpreted version of 'Congress shall make no law'...?" Are you saying that it is unreasonable to interpret the word "Congress" to include a chief executive that makes "an establishment of religion?"

 

[This_person]

Huh?

When confronted with many, if not most, Americans disagreeing with their views, did they agree with the masses, or argue that they weren't violating the first amendment?

I am not sure what you are asking me. What is "a reasonably interpreted version of 'Congress shall make no law'...?" Are you saying that it is unreasonable to interpret the word "Congress" to include a chief executive that makes "an establishment of religion?"

Nope, just the opposite. As I've stated (repeatedly), I understand that there is more than just a law passed by the House and Senate that could be construed as "Congress shall make no law..." I understand that an executive order, or different policies (codes of federal regulation, etc.) could be reasonably interpretted just like a Congressionally passed law.

So, what I'm asking you (I think this is about the ninth time) is: do you see a presidential proclamation, with no enforcement, no enforcability, no backing of any kind in policy, discriminatory actions, law, etc., do you see this proclamation as having the same weight as "Congress shall make no law..." Is this proclamation to hold up to that standard, equivalent to a law? If so, why? And if so, does that mean that every presidential proclamation holds up to the standard of having the same weight as "congress passing a law...", or is this instance different for some reason?

 

[FredFlash]

When confronted with many, if not most, Americans disagreeing with their views, did they agree with the masses, or argue that they weren't violating the first amendment?

I am not aware that Washington or Adams ever explicitly claimed that the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations. Proclamations generally contain a statement regarding the source of legal authority for the proclamation. For example, Washington's Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation contained the following very detailed statement of legal authority.

Whereas, combinations to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States and upon stills have from the time of the commencement of those laws existed in some of the western parts of Pennsylvania.

And whereas, the said combinations, proceeding in a manner subversive equally of the just authority of government and of the rights of individuals, have hitherto effected their dangerous and criminal purpose by the influence of certain irregular meetings whose proceedings have tended to encourage and uphold the spirit of opposition by misrepresentations of the laws calculated to render them odious; by endeavors to deter those who might be so disposed from accepting offices under them through fear of public resentment and of injury to person and property, and to compel those who had accepted such offices by actual violence to surrender or forbear the execution of them; by circulation vindictive menaces against all those who should otherwise, directly or indirectly, aid in the execution of the said laws, or who, yielding to the dictates of conscience and to a sense of obligation, should themselves comply therewith; by actually injuring and destroying the property of persons who were understood to have so complied; by inflicting cruel and humiliating punishments upon private citizens for no other cause than that of appearing to be the friends of the laws; by intercepting the public officers on the highways, abusing, assaulting, and otherwise ill treating them; by going into their houses in the night, gaining admittance by force, taking away their papers, and committing other outrages, employing for these unwarrantable purposes the agency of armed banditti disguised in such manner as for the most part to escape discovery;

And whereas, the endeavors of the legislature to obviate objections to the said laws by lowering the duties and by other alterations conducive to the convenience of those whom they immediately affect (though they have given satisfaction in other quarters), and the endeavors of the executive officers to conciliate a compliance with the laws by explanations, by forbearance, and even by particular accommodations founded on the suggestion of local considerations, have been disappointed of their effect by the machinations of persons whose industry to excite resistance has increased with every appearance of a disposition among the people to relax in their opposition and to acquiesce in the laws, insomuch that many persons in the said western parts of Pennsylvania have at length been hardy enough to perpetrate acts, which I am advised amount to treason, being overt acts of levying war against the United States, the said persons having on the 16th and 17th of July last past proceeded in arms (on the second day amounting to several hundreds) to the house of John Neville, inspector of the revenue for the fourth survey of the district of Pennsylvania; having repeatedly attacked the said house with the persons therein, wounding some of them; having seized David Lenox, marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, who previous thereto had been fired upon while in the execution of his duty by a party of armed men, detaining him for some time prisoner, till, for the preservation of his life and the obtaining of his liberty, he found it necessary to enter into stipulations to forbear the execution of certain official duties touching processes issuing out of a court of the United States; and having finally obliged the said inspector of the revenue and the said marshal from considerations of personal safety to fly from that part of the country, in order, by a circuitous route, to proceed to the seat of government, avowing as the motives of these outrageous proceedings an intention to prevent by force of arms the execution of the said laws, to oblige the said inspector of the revenue to renounce his said office, to withstand by open violence the lawful authority of the government of the United States, and to compel thereby an alteration in the measures of the legislature and a repeal of the laws aforesaid;

And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, when such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always, that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time;

And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;​

None of the religious proclamations of Washington or Adams actually claim Constitutional or even legal legitimacy.

Washington's claim to authority for his first religious proclamation was nothing more than "the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God", and that "both Houses of Congress...requested me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.'"

The First U. S. Congress probably did not intend to establish a legitimate legal precedent for executive religious recommendations. When Representative Thomas Tucker objected to the House requesting the President to issue a religious proclamation because "it is a religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us", no one argued that he was wrong.

The request was justified by the friends of the recommendation by "a number of precedents in HOLY WRIT" and "further precedents from the practice of the late Congress."

The First U. S. Congress did not request a religious proclamation the next year and no subsequent Congress requested one for over two decades. I know of two attempts that were defeated during that period.

President James Madison may have succumbed to political expediency when he issued four religious proclamations at the request of Congress during the War of 1812 despite the fact that he "was disinclined to such interpositions of the Executive."

Madison's proclamations, according to the recollections of Representative Gulian Verplanck during an 1832 debate in the House over a proposal to request President Jackson to issue a religious recommendation, were observed with "malice and bitterness”, "turbulent and rancorous political declamation" and "political sarcasm" "to rekindle political rage." The proposal was defeated.

From 1816 to 1861, a period of 45 years, no Congress requested an executive religious recommendation, and no President issued one.

 

[FredFlash]

...do you see a presidential proclamation, with no enforcement...as having the same weight as "Congress shall make no law?"

Are you asking me if an executive recommendation has the same legal authority as a law made by Congress, or do you want to know if I think an executive religious recommendation has the same power of influence as a Congressional religious recommendation?

 

[This_person]

I am not aware that Washington or Adams ever explicitly claimed that the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations.

None of the religious proclamations of Washington or Adams actually claim Constitutional or even legal legitimacy.

Washington's claim to authority for his first religious proclamation was nothing more than "the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God", and that "both Houses of Congress...requested me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.'"

When Representative Thomas Tucker objected to the House requesting the President to issue a religious proclamation because "it is a religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us", no one argued that he was wrong.

When "no one argued that he was wrong", did they then agree and vote NOT to ask for the proclamation? If so, why was it issued with the statement that it was issued from "both Houses of Congress requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer"?

I'm confused why so many of the original lawmakers and leaders had it so wrong as to both request the proclaimations and issue the proclamations.

This is interesting information of which I was unaware, though. Thank you.

 

[This_person]

Are you asking me if an executive recommendation has the same legal authority as a law made by Congress, or do you want to know if I think an executive religious recommendation has the same power of influence as a Congressional religious recommendation?

I have to admit, I never expected this to be this confusing of a question. I went back and added it up, just out of my own curiousity. This will be the eighth time I'm asking (not ninth like I thought earlier), with this being your fourth request for clarification as to what I mean. I hope this time I'm being clear enough for you!

I am asking if you think an executive recommendation via proclamation has the same authority as the authority represented by the words "Congress shall make no law...". In other words, for these proclamations to have a point in our discussion, they must meet the hurdle of violating the authority represented by the words "Congress shall make no law...". If they don't, we're wasting each other's time (though, it's interesting history).

Which will then bring to me the question of other executive proclamations. If, for example, it is proclaimed/recommended that I give the current administration's surge plan time to work, am I then obligated by governmental duty, to the same standard as "Congress...mak(ing a) law..." to then give the time recommended? Or, if we are to keep it to a religious level, if I were to read the president's official Christmas card that wishes me Happy Holidays, am I then obligated (is it my duty), by an authority equal to Congressional law, to be happy for the entire holiday season? Enforced by coersion, violence, or force - or not?

Or, is such a recommendation just a man (who happens to be president) offering some advice that he feels is appropriate for the time.

 

[This_person]

I maintain the the law that placed "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins is "a law respecting an establishment of religion", because "religion" is "the duty we owe to our Creator", and the duty to trust God is a duty owed to God, not a "social duty" owed to other men.

In your definition, you showed that a motto is a characterization. Do you think it's fair to characterize the bulk of the American population as trusting in one or another form of a god? Not a specific god, but just a god? And, if the bulk of the American population trust in a god, would it no be fair to say that you could characterize Americans with the phrase "In God We Trust"? Again, not every single American, but a characterization of the country's population - a "motto", if you will.

 

[FredFlash]

When "no one argued that he was wrong", did they then agree and vote NOT to ask for the proclamation?

They fell for some line of crap from Roger Sherman about Solomon proclaiming a day of thanksgiving. They apparently didn't know the Bible well enough to know that Solomon was the head of the national church, whereas President Washington wasn't.

If so, why was it issued with the statement that it was issued from "both Houses of Congress requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer"?

Because Congress passed the resolution.

I'm confused why so many of the original lawmakers and leaders had it so wrong as to both request the proclamations and issue the proclamations.

Religious liberty evolved over time in incremental steps. From the commencement of the American Revolution to the adoption of the Constitution, the "Toleration Model" of the Rights of Conscience formulated by John Locke lost ground to the "Full and Equal Rights of Conscience" concept of James Madison. Madison's formulation was probably the majority view at the time of the founding, but not by very much. The camp that believed the government should officially acknowledge at least the existence of God, although their political power was on the decline in 1789, was still a powerful minority at that time.

This is interesting information of which I was unaware, though. Thank you.

You are welcome, my friend.

 

[FredFlash]

I am asking if you think an executive recommendation via proclamation has the same authority as the authority represented by the words "Congress shall make no law...".

You're asking me to compare an unauthorized action by the Chief Executive to a provision of the Constitution that prohibits a class of actions by Congress. I don't know how to do that.

In other words, for these proclamations to have a point in our discussion, they must meet the hurdle of violating the authority represented by the words "Congress shall make no law...". If they don't, we're wasting each other's time (though, it's interesting history).

The issue presented seems to be whether the word "Congress" in the First Amendment includes the Chief Executive. In other words, does the First Amendment's prohibition against "an establishment of religion" apply to the President.

"Words are to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use." The general and popular use of the word "Congress" does not include the President.

"AS to the effects and confequence, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very abfurd fignification, if literally underftood, we muft a little deviate from the received fenfe of them." If the word "Congress" does not include the chief executive, the effect and consequence is that Congress is prohibited from making an establishment of religion but the President is not. It is absurd to believe that the will of legislator at the time the First Amendment was adopted was to prohibit one branch of government from establishing religion, but allow another branch to do so. The object was no establishment of religion by law.

So, to answer your question, the word "Congress" in the First Amendment includes the chief executive.

Which will then bring to me the question of other executive proclamations. If, for example, it is proclaimed/recommended that I give the current administration's surge plan time to work, am I then obligated by governmental duty, to the same standard as "Congress...mak(ing a) law..." to then give the time recommended? Or, if we are to keep it to a religious level, if I were to read the president's official Christmas card that wishes me Happy Holidays, am I then obligated (is it my duty), by an authority equal to Congressional law, to be happy for the entire holiday season? Enforced by coersion, violence, or force - or not?

Or, is such a recommendation just a man (who happens to be president) offering some advice that he feels is appropriate for the time.

Let's keep it at a religious level. The issue is:

"If I were to read the president's official Christmas card that wishes me Happy Holidays, am I then obligated (is it my duty), by an authority equal to Congressional law, to be happy for the entire holiday season? Enforced by coersion, violence, or force - or not?"

The two recommendations have the same legal authority, which is none.

Or, is such a recommendation just a man (who happens to be president) offering some advice that he feels is appropriate for the time.

If the recommendation is clothed with civil authority it is not merely that of a private citizen.