Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Establishment Clause means...........????

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Sincerely, Robert Baty ... Sincerely, Robert Baty ... Does ... mean that ... as Jerry McDonald proposes? ... What Does The 1st Amendment Teach? by Jerry D.
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Elsewhere, someone has suggested the following:

      > You might also want to read up on
      > Madison's vetoes as president.
      >
      > The bills he vetoed did not even come
      > close to establishing a national religion.
      >
      > Nevertheless, he thought they violated the
      > establishment clause.
      >
      > Clearly, James Madison's vetoes --
      >
      >> one to block the incorporation of
      >> a church in Washington;
      >
      >> another to stop a small piece of
      >> federal land from being given to
      >> a small Baptist church;
      >
      >> and a "pocket veto" to stop a bill
      >> exempting a Bible Society from taxes
      >
      > -- show that his intent and application
      > of the First Amendment was absolutely not
      > limited only to preventing a national
      > religion.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      For example, someone else has quoted Hugo Black as proposing:

      > The "establishment of religion" clause
      > of the First Amendment means at least
      > this:
      >
      >> Neither a state nor the Federal
      >> Government can set up a church.
      >
      >> Neither can pass laws which aid
      >> one religion, aid all religions,
      >> or prefer one religion over another.
      >
      >> Neither can force nor influence a
      >> person to go to or remain away from
      >> church against his will or force him
      >> to profess a belief or disbelief in
      >> any religion.
      >
      >> No person can be punished for
      >> entertaining or professing religious
      >> beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
      >> attendance or nonattendance.
      >
      >> No tax in any amount, large or small,
      >> can be levied to support any religious
      >> activities or institutions, whatever
      >> they may be called, or whatever form
      >> they may adopt to teach or practice
      >> religion.
      >
      > Neither a state nor the Federal
      >> Government can, openly or secretly,
      >> participate in the affairs of any
      >> religious organizations or groups
      >> and vice versa.
      >
      >> In the words of Jefferson, the clause
      >> against establishment of religion by
      >> law was intended to erect a
      >>
      >>> "wall of separation between
      >>> church and State."

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@> wrote:

      Does

      > "Congress shall make no law
      > respecting an establishment
      > of religion",

      mean that

      > Congress cannot make a law
      > making one religion the state
      > religion and down grade any
      > other religion as was done in
      > England,

      as Jerry McDonald proposes?

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:

      > New article on ONUG blog
      >
      > http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/what-does-the-1st-amendment-teach/

      Following is the text of that article, which raises some interesting issues, as noted above:

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

      What Does The 1st Amendment Teach?

      by Jerry D. McDonald
      February 6, 2011

      Much debate centers on the meaning of the 1st Amendment which states:

      > "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."

      Atheists, along with religious humanists argue that the 1st amendment guarantees that nothing religious can be endorsed by the government. This is argued in order to get prayer taken out of the school, the words "One Nation Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance, and "In God We Trust" taken off of our currency. If they had their way there would be NO, God based religion in this country whatever.

      On the podcast of Freedom Radio on November 20, 2010, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, played the song "Imagine" by John Lennon, who in the song wanted his hearers to imagine a world without churches, heaven or hell. I don't know if this song is played every week or not, but it was on this one. Dan Barker, states that their program is there to insure the "Jefferson Wall of Separation of Church & State." These people believe that the constitution guarantees that the U.S. Government cannot, in any way, endorse religion, but their belief is wrong.

      The 1st amendment states that

      > Congress cannot make a law making
      > one religion the state religion
      > and down grade any other religion
      > as was done in England.

      This is what the following words mean:

      > "Congress shall make no law
      > respecting an establishment
      > of religion."

      In England the government had "The Church of England" and unless you were a member of that church you had no right to worship God. England tried to have a theocracy so that the church and state were one and the same.

      This is what Jefferson, and others, added the 1st amendment to stop.

      There was nothing in their minds that forbade the government from recognizing God as Supreme and Sovereign.

      There was nothing, in their minds, that would forbid the government from even using the phrase "In God We Trust." All of these men believed in God, and they would all be turning over in their graves if they knew what was being done in their names today.

      What these people wanted to stop was what England had done and that was to stop people from believing as they pleased, which is clearly spelled out in the final words of that sentence

      > "or prohibiting the free
      > exercise thereof."

      Atheists/humanists don't quote the last part of that sentence because those words explain the first part of the sentence.

      It has been said that the Marbury V. Madison case in 1803 gave Supreme Court Justices the right to interpret the constitution and make decisions accordingly.

      This is all well and good, but one needs to properly interpret the constitution and not mis-interpret it.

      What the ACLU, FFRF, and others are doing today is mis-interpreting the constitution.

      They are not using proper rules of interpreting when they arbitrarily claim that the 1st amendment.

      In order to properly interpret the 1st amendment one needs to look at it from the eyes of those who wrote it.

      What were they thinking?

      The writers of the 1st amendment didn't want our government to set up a single religion so as to force everyone to be a member of it.

      They wanted everyone to be free to worship God as they saw fit, or not worship if that is what a person saw fit to do.

      They didn't want people to be penalized for not being part of a certain religion.

      However, this is not part of modern thinking.

      Today those who argue that the 1st amendment forbids any kind of religious adherence in the government completely ignore the mind of those who wrote the 1st amendment.

      If humanists/atheists, today, were honest with themselves, they would know that they have no standing.

      However, they are not honest with themselves or anyone else.

      They know what they want–the eradication of a God based religion, period.

      They want to set up their own religion–a godless religion–as the state religion.

      They do not want God in government. They don't want God in the public school.

      If they had their way God would not exist in the hearts of anyone in this country.

      They claim to be free thinkers, and they claim to uphold free thinking. However, that only holds if you think as they think.

      Their definition of "free thinking" is thinking "free of religion."

      If a person thinks that God exists and decides to follow God, then they claim he is not being a "free thinker" and he is ridiculed.

      Free thinking should be, and this is what the founding fathers had in mind, that one is free to think and believe as he wishes.

      This is what the 1st amendment guarantees.

      The so-called "Separation of Church & State," as understood by atheists/humanists today, simply does not exist in the 1st amendment.

      The government does not violate the constitution when the 10 commandments are allowed in our Court Rooms, or when prayer is made at a high school football game, or even when Congress offers prayer before going into session, anymore than it violates the 1st amendment when it has chaplains in the U.S. military.

      To have the phrase "One Nation Under God" eradicated from our pledge of allegiance because of a supposed violation of the 1st amendment would be a severe injustice to our nation.

      To have the phrase "In God We Trust" eradicated from our currency would be severe injustice.

      Neither of these violate the constitution of the United States.

      In looking at this through the eyes of Thomas Jefferson and others who wrote the 1st amendment, it is easily seen that what they had in mind and what people today have in mind are two totally different things.

      If one is going to interpret the 1st amendment, then interpret it, but properly interpret it.

      Look at what the founding fathers were saying and interpret it based on that.

      If that is done, all this debate on what violates the 1st amendment will stop.

      --------------------------
      --------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      ... Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language, ... says our founders only meant to prohibit the United States from establishing one
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Someone else has put it this way:

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

        Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language,

        > "Congress shall make no law
        > respecting an establishment
        > of religion,"

        says our founders only meant to prohibit the United States from establishing one denomination as the official national religion.

        The evidence refutes this narrowest of interpretations.

        19. From John Adams' writings we find the following:

        1)

        > The United States described as,
        >
        >> "the first example of governments
        >> erected on the simple principles
        >> of nature."

        2)

        > That the developers of our government
        > never,
        >
        >> "had interviews with the gods or
        >> were in any degree under the
        >> inspiration of Heaven."

        3)

        >> "[G]overnments thus founded on the
        >> natural authority of the people alone,
        >> without a pretense of miracle or mystery,
        >> and which are destined to spread over
        >> the northern part of that whole quarter
        >> of the globe, are a great point gained
        >> in favour of the rights of mankind."
        >
        > It would be hard to describe a more
        > materialistic approach to government.

        20.

        > During the 1789 Congress Madison proposed
        > an amendment he regarded as the most
        > important one for the Bill of Rights.
        >
        > The amendment's text:
        >
        >> "No state shall violate the equal
        >> rights of conscience, of the press,
        >> or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
        >
        > It passed the House but failed in the
        > Senate. Not only did Madison believe in
        > a godless Constitution that separated
        > church and state, he believed it did
        > not go far enough in protecting equal
        > freedom of conscience.

        21.

        > In his letter to the Danbury Baptist
        > Association (1/01/1802), Thomas
        > Jefferson cited
        >
        >> "a wall of separation between
        >> Church and State"
        >
        > as his reason for denying their request
        > for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's
        > metaphor came from James Burgh, one of
        > England's leading, now forgotten,
        > enlightenment political writers. Burgh's
        > "Crito" (1767) had the phrase,
        >
        >> "build an impenetrable wall of separation
        >> between things sacred and civil."

        22.

        > President James Madison vetoed an 1811
        > Congressional Bill that gave a charter
        > to an Episcopal church in the District
        > of Columbia. Also in 1811, he vetoed
        > another Bill that gave federal land to
        > a Baptist church in the Mississippi
        > territory.

        23.

        > In 1812, Congress requested a national
        > fast day. Madison issued a non-sectarian,
        > voluntary proclamation for people "so
        > disposed" who wished to appeal to god
        > for success in the War of 1812. Madison
        > later regretted his decision. In 1819,
        > he talked about,
        >
        >> "a perfect separation between
        >> ecclesiastical and civil matters,"
        >
        > and in 1832,
        >
        >> "an entire abstinence of government
        >> from interference in any way whatever,"
        >
        > in matters of separating church and state.

        -------------------------------------------
        -------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        ... (1) separationism, which holds that the establishment clause prevents any government endorsement or support of religious establishments. Examples of those
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's another way someone else explains it; different perspectives on what the 1st amendment Establishment Clause means:

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

          (1) separationism, which holds that the establishment clause prevents any government endorsement or support of religious establishments. Examples of those holding this view include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.

          (2) accommodationism, which holds that the government may support or endorse religious establishments as long as it treats all religions equally and does not show preferential treatment. This view is held by President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court.

          (3) preferentialism or Christian dominionism, which holds that the establishment clause only prevents a literal Church of America from being created and does not prevent the government from explicitly endorsing Christianity. This uncommon view is held by the Rev. Pat Robertson and former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, and there is evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe that the preferentialist interpretation of the establishment clause applies to state law. This is due more to his narrow interpretation of the incorporation doctrine than to his interpretation of the establishment clause itself, which is probably accommodationist.

          During most of the 20th century, the Supreme Court held primarily to a separationist interpretation of the establishment clause.

          Recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that there may be a gradual shift to a mild accommodationist position in the coming years with respect to private school vouchers, federal funding for faith-based charities, and symbolic or historical affirmations of religious heritage (such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or "in God we trust" on currency).

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

          I can hardly wait for the Supreme Court to render its opinionn on such things in the context of IRC 107 (the income tax free housing allowance for "ministers").

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Jerry McDonald
          I have a new article on the One Nation Under God blog. This article was written by Andrew J. Mikel, and I received it in the mail in 1998 while preaching at
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 20, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I have a new article on the One Nation Under God blog. This article was written
            by Andrew J. Mikel, and I received it in the mail in 1998 while preaching at
            Waynesville, MO. I found it while going through some things from our last
            move.http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/intent-of-the-first-amendment-signers/


            In Christ Jesus
            Jerry D. McDonald


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • rlbaty60
            ... I have a new article on the One Nation Under God blog. This article was written by Andrew J. Mikel, and I received it in the mail in 1998 while preaching
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 21, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't think the link was "clickable" as posted, so try this:

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:

              I have a new article on the One Nation
              Under God blog. This article was written
              by Andrew J. Mikel, and I received it in
              the mail in 1998 while preaching at
              Waynesville, MO. I found it while going
              through some things from our last move.

              http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/intent-of-the-first-amendment-signers/

              --------------------
              --------------------
            • Robert Baty
              See recent archives here regarding a different approach to the issue raised in Jerry s new article . Sincerely, Robert Baty ... I have a new article on the
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 21, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                See recent archives here regarding a different approach to the issue raised in Jerry's "new article".

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                I don't think the link was "clickable" as posted, so try this:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:

                I have a new article on the One Nation
                Under God blog. This article was written
                by Andrew J. Mikel, and I received it in
                the mail in 1998 while preaching at
                Waynesville, MO. I found it while going
                through some things from our last move.

                http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/intent-of-the-first-amendment-s\
                igners/

                --------------------
                --------------------
              • Jerry McDonald
                http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state-2/ The above link leads to a new article on ONUG blog In Christ
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  http://onenationundrgod.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state-2/


                  The above link leads to a new article on ONUG blog

                  In Christ Jesus
                  Jerry D. McDonald


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.