quote:

Congress cannot create a law to arrange a single institutionalized system adhering to a certain belief.

NOT that Congress cannot allow any expression of any belief in any
place in government - there is simply a prohibition on selecting any
religion, or sect of any religion, as the state, or sanctioned,
religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Previous posts have shown the thoughts of the founders in regards to religion and god/supreme being/creator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I have said separation of church and state were never mentioned. Show me where they were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I have said separation of church and state were never mentioned. Show me where they were.

Wasn't it you that mentioned that Jefferson talked about it?

quote:

The central issue in the 1800 presidential campaign was whether a Deist (Thomas Jefferson) was as qualified to be president as was a Christian (John Adams). When Jefferson was elected, delighted Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to congratulate him and to express their hope that his sentiments on religious liberty “will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the earth.” Jefferson responded by penning the most explicit, clear and concise interpretation of the original intention of the First Amendment on record.

quote:

Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptist Association

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and appreciation which you are so good to express toward me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and state. (emphasis added) 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 his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the Common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

From A.A. Lipscomb and A.E. Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, 1907), vol. 16, p. 281.

quote:

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction - his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson's draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Im a firm believer that is this is causing such a huge issue, why not take it back to court to end this debate? Thats what i dont understand. People are upset over a few words, yet, stand around and nit pick at the laws that allow it instead of changing the law that initiated it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45


That's kinda what they're doing. Reference the original post in this thread. What do you think a lawsuit is for?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404
Thats not the way laws are supposed to be made. Other wise I could wait for the majority to do something and then sue them. And in that way you would have tyranny by a minority over a majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404
Thats not the way laws are supposed to be made. Other wise I could wait for the majority to do something and then sue them. And in that way you would have tyranny by a minority over a majority.

But that *is* the way they are intepreted and how precedence is set. Someone doesn't like something, they debate the wording of the constitution in a hearing and then after that, the result is used for subsequent cases. It's.....kinda how our system works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Seperation of church and state was mentioned in a letter from Jefferson, not in the 1st Amendment.

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history.... The establishment clause [of the First Amendment] has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years.... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state].... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers."
(Associate Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I dont meqan drag it through for each and every time someone wants to put god on a building. But, im guessing they know they would lose if it was done any other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

That is not the way you make law. Congress does that. People sometimes try to to run around the process and come at it thru the back door.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Seperation of church and state was mentioned in a letter from Jefferson, not in the 1st Amendment.

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history.... The establishment clause [of the First Amendment] has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years.... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state].... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers."
(Associate Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985.)

Rehnquist's opinion you quote from is a dissent. IOW he lost and his opinion in this matter is not precedent.

This like much of what you have quoted in this thread has the unmistable stench of David Barton a liar who has been peddling his completely made up version of US history for decades.