Rover
Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ahumananimal
One more time...I invite you to offer proof Jefferson and Madison, through either their public or private statements, thought it was fine for religion to meddle with the state,
The best proof is in the document they wrote. Let's take a closer look at First Amendment...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It says clearly two things about religion. First, that Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, religious requirements, etc. And second, it says that Congress shall not infring upon the free exercise of religion. Both those prohibitions protect religion from government. Nowhere does it offer a similar protection for government from religion. These were smart folks, writing what they knew to be a legal document. The protections for religion are quite clear. If they desired to offer similar protections to government, it's natural to assume they would have been equally clear. And if they were not, that was intentional.
Let's look further at the other rights enumerated in the First Amendment. It uses the same language in offering protection to the freedom of speech and of the press. You argue that such language (freedom "of" religion) offers both a protection to the people to practice the religion of their choice, and also means that the government enjoys a protection "from" religion. And if so, the same language used to offer freedom "of" speech would also mean that the government has protection "from" speech. Similarly, the same language stating a freedom "of" the press would mean the government also enjoys a freedom "from" the press.
Clearly, that is not the case. The same terminology, contained in the same sentence, cannot mean one thing in one instance and something entirely different in another instance. That's inconceivable, and you cannot make a cogent argument to the contrary.
Let's butress this intention with Jefferson's own words as he wrote to the Danbury Baptists:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
His entire letter to the Danbury Baptists is a reassurance that government will not incur upon religion as was done in jolly old England by the establishment of the Church of England. He speaks of the rights of citizens, and men, to be free from opposition to their religious callings. Not of the rights of government to be free from religion. He speaks quite clearly of the prohibition of the American Legislature from making any such laws that might affect the free practice of religion. He makes no such reference, not even in implication, about the prohibition of religion in government.
Really, given the body of evidence to the contrary, it's your burden to demonstrate where and how either the Constitution or its Framers meant to provide protection to the government "from" religion. It should be really easy, if it exists. It should be really obvious and direct, if it exists. It should be unambiguous if it exists. It just doesn't exist.
And finally, our rights are derived from God, not from government. The Declaration of Independence creates a foundational purpose for our Constitution, and enumerates quite clearly from where our rights originate:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you remove religion from our government, you also remove the origin of our rights. They would exist no longer as a gift to us for simply being citizens of our country, but at as a gift of our governement itself. As rights from God they can not be infringed upon by man. But as rights from the government, they can (and will) exist or vanish at the pleasure of politicians. We can see how that works in other countries, and have a sense in the past half century what kind of impact it can have right here at home.
quote:
or explain away why the Constitution was at that time and still is secular in construction.
Because our government follows a Constitution, not a religion. We are a country of laws, not doctrine.
quote:
The lack of legal protections of the state from religion in the 1st Amendment hasn't been my debate here; it's the concept and the origin of the idea of "separation of church and state" and how the Founders were on to the need of this concept from the very beginning.
If it's now your intention to say that the Founding Fathers intended for there to be protection of religion (as is expressly stated in the First Amendment), then we are (and always were) in agreement. I have said as much from the very outset.
I also said that the notion of separation of church and state as a protection for the government, from religion, was the legal construct of Justice Hugo Black. Such a notion appears nowhere in 160 years of American law until he developed in a series of opinions he wrote in landmark cases during the late 1940's into the 1960's. That's a fact. He first latched onto the idea in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, and is widely credited for lobbying his colleagues to flesh out the concept in succeeding years and cases. That's a fact. Justice Hugo Black was a member of the KKK. That's a fact. The KKK hates Catholics as well as blacks. That's a fact. His membership in the KKK caused a problem during his Senate confirmation hearings. That's a fact. His membership in the KKK caused a greater uproar after he was confirmed, when the Pittsburgh Post Gazette did a little investigative reporting into his KKK affiliation. That's a fact.
Those facts, and more, are readily available to anyone who wishes to read about Justice Black. Here are a series of biographies with some reliable bibliographies of source material:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-black
Sadly, they do not devote much attention to the particular issue we are discussing here other than to say that he was instrumental in the development of First Amendment rights. For more information about that, you'll have to read a bit deeper.
I have no doubt that this has not been a sufficient reply. No such reply short of Jefferson returning from the grave and speaking directly to you would suffice. And even then you are likely to tell him that he's wrong. But for any objective reader who may be informing themselves about American history, it's an open and shut case.
John
< Message edited by Rover -- 11/5/2008 6:32:57 AM >
_____________________________
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."
Sri da Avabhas
|
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 
Profile
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread