Happy "Wall of Separation" Day to you all

[JohnnyMack]

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)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

[OUMallen]

I love this letter. Mainly because it makes me right to the hyper-evangelical crowd.

[StoopTroup]

Funny how some good ideas never pan out...

Israel’s ‘barrier’, ‘wall’, or ‘separation fence’ across the West Bank is the latest architectural expression of a twenty-year old political strategy. In a mind-opening three-part series that extends his renowned “The Politics of Verticality” into a new dimension, Eyal Weizman offers a penetrating analysis of how ideas about power, security and planning intersect with politics to shape the spaces in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict develops.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yet somehow those on the left interpret the above as meaning those in govt. can't profess a belief in "God". Hey Johnny, your "side" won. You should be calmed down and prepared to enjoy their command.

[StoopTroup]

I bet that Link Road would be fun to commute everyday.

[Okla-homey]

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)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

The sentiments expressed by President Jefferson in that infamous letter, which, it must be said, were completely without force of law, have been stretched beyond recognition to "apply" to myriad situations well beyond the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. All he wrote in that letter, and all the Constitution says, is Congress can't pass a law establishing/financing a national church, nor can Congress pass laws preventing the free exercise of religion. That's it. Srsly.

The Framers simply didn't want a "Church of the United States" established here like the Church of England, which was protected by the Crown and financed by the English taxpayer.

From that, we have come to place in which folks cite that letter, along with the aforementioned Constitutional language, to mean a town can't erect a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, a cross on public property, and kids must'nt be subjected to anything of a religious nature in public school lest they be indoctrinated into some shadowy and unconstitutional "state" religion.

Freedom OF religion, which includes the freedom to ignore religion if one chooses to do so. Not freedom FROM religion akin to a consitutional guarentee that folks who don't embrace religion shall be afforded some kind of bubble to prevent their exposure to it.

[StoopTroup]

My SCOTUS is itchy.

Thanks Homey. SPEK

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The sentiments expressed by President Jefferson in that infamous letter, which, it must be said, were completely without force of law, have been stretched beyond recognition to "apply" to myriad situations well beyond the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. All he wrote in that letter, and all the Constitution says, is Congress can't pass a law establishing/financing a national church, nor can Congress pass laws preventing the free exercise of religion. That's it. Srsly.

The Framers simply didn't want a "Church of the United States" established here like the Church of England, which was protected by the Crown and financed by the English taxpayer.

From that, we have come to place in which folks cite that letter, along with the aforementioned Constitutional language, to mean a town can't erect a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, a cross on public property, and kids must'nt be subjected to anything of a religious nature in public school lest they be indoctrinated into some shadowy and unconstitutional "state" religion.

Freedom OF religion, which includes the freedom to ignore religion if one chooses to do so. Not freedom FROM religion akin to a consitutional guarentee that folks who don't embrace religion shall be afforded some kind of bubble to prevent their exposure to it.

EGGSACTLY!

[Rogue]

Things have changed. I think the influence of churches in gov't is too much.
Freedom from church interference in public matters is not too far a stretch to think that the agnostic, or at least non-denominational, founder intended.

Whattya think TJ, or any other framer for that matter, would think about religious org.s having fund raisers for campaigns?

The sanctioning of certain, nay any, religious themed displays on courthouse lawns and gov't buildings is a slippery slope.

[OUMallen]

The sentiments expressed by President Jefferson in that infamous letter, which, it must be said, were completely without force of law, have been stretched beyond recognition to "apply" to myriad situations well beyond the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. All he wrote in that letter, and all the Constitution says, is Congress can't pass a law establishing/financing a national church, nor can Congress pass laws preventing the free exercise of religion. That's it. Srsly.

The Framers simply didn't want a "Church of the United States" established here like the Church of England, which was protected by the Crown and financed by the English taxpayer.

From that, we have come to place in which folks cite that letter, along with the aforementioned Constitutional language, to mean a town can't erect a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, a cross on public property, and kids must'nt be subjected to anything of a religious nature in public school lest they be indoctrinated into some shadowy and unconstitutional "state" religion.

Freedom OF religion, which includes the freedom to ignore religion if one chooses to do so. Not freedom FROM religion akin to a consitutional guarentee that folks who don't embrace religion shall be afforded some kind of bubble to prevent their exposure to it.

Not trying to be a jerk, honestly, but what you said above is opinion and not fact. You can have a nativity scene on public property, you just have to allow for other religions to be represented as well. Many public properties choose to not have anything to avoid the hassle.

As though a nativity scene on public property is somehow important. You guys kill me. There are WAY more important battles to be picked. When you can't have one on private property, then I'll be interested.

I'll never understand how people think this is such a big deal and that religion has a place in school. Thank God (and I mean that literally) that the Constitution keeps the religious fanatics from imposing their majority will on the rest of us.

[Dio]

Of course, the reason TJ was conversing with the Danbury Baptists about this is because they were being hassled by the State Church of Massachusetts, the Congregationalists. Individual states could have official churches then, the Feds couldn't.

As long as nobody forgets this part- "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", I got no problems. With all the clamoring for "hate crime" laws, we'll see.

[Frozen Sooner]

Of course, the reason TJ was conversing with the Danbury Baptists about this is because they were being hassled by the State Church of Massachusetts, the Congregationalists. Individual states could have official churches then, the Feds couldn't.

Everson v. Board of Education settled that one pretty conclusively in 1947. Which is meant as an amplification of your point, not a contradiction.

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 to 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 non-attendance. 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.

And I agree that the prohibition against interfering with the free exercise clause should definitely have attention paid to it with the exception of when compelling state interest is in play-ie the free exercise of the Mayan religion is not a legitimate defense against murder charges stemming from sacrificing the losing pee-wee soccer team.

[Okla-homey]

see below;

Not trying to be a jerk, honestly, but what you said above is opinion and not fact. You can have a nativity scene on public property, you just have to allow for other religions to be represented as well. Many public properties choose to not have anything to avoid the hassle.

I quite agree, nativity scenes and ten commandments displays get way too much attention. In fact, I still find it absurd certain people and organizations fight so hard to have them removed. I lived in Montgomery Alabama during the summer of 2003 when the entire country watched the showdown between the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a federal judge over a piece of granite about the size of three square bales of hay stacked on top of each other, ensconced in the foyer of the Alabama supreme court. It was inscribed with certain moral truths copied from various scripture. Now, in all fairness, he had it made and installed to pick a fight, but instead of ignoring it and thus stealing his thunder, the usual anti-religion groups weighed in (ACLU, AUSCS, etc.) and made it their business to make sure this horribly offensive and unconstitutional thing was hauled out forthwith. Google "Roy's rock" for details.

As though a nativity scene on public property is somehow important. You guys kill me. There are WAY more important battles to be picked. When you can't have one on private property, then I'll be interested.

See the above comment. I agree, it's not important. What is important is reversing the popular notion freedom of religion equals freedom from religion. Or that the mere presence of some religious symbol somewhere on public property is somehow the equivalent of state endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Meanwhile, the US House and Senate still open each workday while in session with a prayer, our money still says "In God We Trust," presidents and other public officials take their oath of office with their hand on a Bible, SCOTUS proceedings begin with the bailiff loudling declaring "May God Save This Honorable Court," we still have a military chaplaincy and hundreds of chapels on military installations all over the world financed by the US taxpayer, and churches still qualify for state and local property and income tax exemptions -- all strangely inconsistent IMHO

I'll never understand how people think this is such a big deal and that religion has a place in school. Thank God (and I mean that literally) that the Constitution keeps the religious fanatics from imposing their majority will on the rest of us.

Big deal? While I would'nt want any child forced to participate, and don't advocate the equivalent of a publicly administered catechism, I think orientation to religious principles is part of a decent basic education. I also happen to believe mandates like "don't murder", "don't steal", "speak the truth", "don't cheat on your spouse", "treat people the way you would like to be treated", "don't be greedy", etc. that happen also to be scripturally-based should be acknowledged as good rules for living and taught to all our kids in order to help stem the decline of our culture.

Sure, I'd love it of kids were taught these things at home rather than school. But the sad fact is, far too many children aren't being taught anything at all at home, thus the classroom is their only hope.

Finally, when people use the term religious "fanatic" nowadays, I tend to get a little uncomfortable because I fear they no longer mean just the extremists but also admittedly imperfect people who profess faith and aren't ashamed of doing so and who also support both foriegn and domestic missions work -- a/k/a Baptists like me.

[Sooner_Bob]

Yes! Another religion thread . . . God appreciates all the attention.

If people are talkin' about it at least they're thinking about it.

[OUMallen]

There's a difference between religion in school and judeo-christian ethics. We'll always be a country of judeo-christian ethics. Don't blur the two together.

As far as the inconsistencies- that doesn't have any true logical relation to the specific point of religious displays on public property. But when someone DOES get offended by the examples you cite, it'll probably have to come to a stop.


Personally- I think people need to just stop worrying about what others are doing to damned much. Tolerance is a virtue in basically every modern religion you come across. Why people don't practice that is beyond me!

[Okla-homey]

Personally- I think people need to just stop worrying about what others are doing to damned much. Tolerance is a virtue in basically every modern religion you come across. Why people don't practice that is beyond me!

Let's explore that a bit. I've come to believe there really aren't any "victimless" crimes -- except maybe for occasional pot smoking. Moreover, behaviors, that may well be percieved by most of us as strictly a personal matter, do in fact often have far-reaching implications that affect the rest of us. E.g. screwing around and the inevitable out-of-wedlock births that continue to increase at an alarming rate. Those daddy-less babies are statistically and indisputably twice as likely to grow-up and remain poverty-stricken, not finish high school, commit crimes and end up incarcerated. In that sense, others' freedom to do what feels good ends up affecting me personally and profoundly.

In fact, during the campaign, the president-elect got in some hot water with one segment of his base for saying as much about illegitimacy and the need for unmarried people to stop having kids. Remember the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ill advised comments into a hot mike? I'm encouraged the president-elect acknowledges the problem. Dialogue on the matter is the first step toward turning the tide.

Slippery slope you say? I say dismissing religious-based cultural norms as anachronistic or unconstitutionally oppressive is the real thin end of the wedge that is splitting apart our institutions and driving so many problems we face as a nation.

And finally, many people say they want "tolerance," but what they really want is "acceptance." Those are two very different things. The former already generally exists in the US.

[Sooner_Bob]

Right now what I want is a cheeseburger.

[StoopTroup]

Right now what I want is a cheeseburger.

RIGHT ON BOB!

I'm OUTTA HERE!

SEE YA ALL IN A BIT!

[Frozen Sooner]

Madison's intent with the Establishment clause was rather clear, I think. His belief that no state money should be used for promotion of any religion was spelled out in other writing.

[Okla-homey]

Madison's intent with the Establishment clause was rather clear, I think. His belief that no federal money should be used for financing any religious institution was spelled out in other writing.

fixed it for ya.