Separation of Church and State

_{May 8, 2007

Constitution, Culture, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is for ForTheKids (FTK) to discuss separation of church and state. An important topic IMO. I deleted her opening separation comment on the DCA Update II thread as well as responses because I wanted that thread to remain topical. Our blog software has no option for relocating comments. FTK has been so gracious to me on her blog when I go off topic I felt bad about it so here’s the venue. I’ll open it with links to a couple relevant articles I wrote last year, some verbatim quotes of relevant constitutional amendments, and some historical facts regarding use of the phrase by founders and the US Supreme Court:

List of Preambles to US State Constitutions

Self Evident Truths in State Constitution Preambles

This is all the constitution has to say on religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A wall of separation between church and state is a synthesis that doesn’t appear in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “wall of separation” while president in a letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the federal government would not establish a state church nor be biased in any way for or against Danbury Baptists. It wasn’t until 75 years later it came into legal parlance when the supreme court in 1878 used it in deciding Reynolds, where (of all things) the court defended marriage as institution between one man and one woman, holding against the “free exercise” claim of Mormons in Utah who wanted polygamy legalized. It was yet another 75 years before it was quoted a second time where in 1947 in Everson the USSC held that (of all things again) state funded transportation of children to and from parochial schools was constitutional. It was used by the USSC 23 more times after that until in 1970 the court backed away from it for setting a tone too hostile towards religion.

Moreover the 1st amendment didn’t apply to state governments until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 which included an extension of federal constitional rights to all citizens. Prior to the 14th amendment states weren’t forbidden from making laws regarding an establishment of religion. The relevant portion of the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So you see, when Jefferson and a few other founders talked about a wall of separation they were only talking about a wall between federal government and churches. State governments could do whatever they wanted with laws regarding religion. I mention the 14th because it adds crucial context to the early use of the phrase Jefferson coined i.e.; it was only about federal laws at that time. None of them were arguing that state and local governments couldn’t do as they saw fit and this ties neatly back into the articles I wrote about preambles in state constitutions. States weren’t nearly as bashful about God and government as the federal government was in the early days.

Comments

Onlookers: Let's try one last experiment. Namely, correction of a few of the more blatant errors that so sadly but tellingly occur on FF's part, and see if that can lead anywhere positive: 1] FF,76: why are you such a ardent advocate of civil authority over religion? No-one in this thread (apart from FF's ever so handy strawman) said or advocated such! Nor, has anyone save FF's strawmen, advocated that the US Constitution gives the Fed Govt control over religion or established one or more sects [or all denominations collectively] of Christianity as the National Religion of the USA. What the LOC summary, B F Morris or my own notes, etc. and supportive evidence, etc, as linked in 63 etc, provides is the historical context for properly understanding how the Judaeo-Christian tradition with roots in the OT [Jewish] and the NT [Christian] -- especially as elucidated through the liberation struggles that came out of the Reformation era -- materially shaped the political theory and praxis and historical and socio-cultural matrix that were the context for the US Constitution of 1787, and much of the subsequent history. 2] FF, 76: Didn’t the Lord Jesus Christ call for separation of the things that are God’s from the matters over which Caesar had legitimate jurisdiction? In fact,the relevant passage speaks of rendering to Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, and to God those things that belong to God. In context, the issue is that Caesar is -- as Rom 13:1 - 7 highlights -- God's servant to do us good by upholding justice. So, his jurisdiction is not set by himself but by God his Lord and Creator -- and for which he will in the end account. Government is under God (whether or not Caesar acknowledges it; for God is our Creator and Lord, cf. here Ac 17:24 ff etc] and Caesar is accountable before both God and the people for justice. And as the reformation thinkers from Duplessis-Mornay on saw, lower magistrates were also God's servants with the same mandate, so if Caesar turns tyrant, such have a duty of interposition [conjointly with the people] to defend the victims from their would-be oppressor. This is the basic vindication of the Dutch DOI 1581, the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, and of course the US DOI of 1776. (Thankfully, in our time, the General Election is an institutionalised framework for such interposition without having to fight.) Had FF simply read my linked notes and followed them up, he would have seen all this and more. 3] FF, 79: Show us where the Constitution says anything that could be construed to mean that its makers were guided by “covenant theology?” Of course, one needs not explicitly say something is so for it to be so; thus, the relevance of the evidence cited by LOC, by B F Morris, and even myself -- evidence FF refuses to address on the substance and the merits. Had FF read even just my notes [or just no 47 supra], he would have observed this excerpt that lays out the overall structure of the US Constitution as one grand overall statement -- a very typical style of C18 - 19 legal documents:
[Const] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord [cf Rom 1: 1 - 5] one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
BTW, Morris has an interesting discussion of the latter highlighted statement, on the import of the parallel dating. On the main point, in 47, I went on to note:
“Blessings,” of course is not a general legal term, but as the Theology-trained Madison [he studied under Witherspoon] would have known, is a covenantal one. Indeed, it reflects the ideas recently summarised by the US Library of Congress [cf the above linked] in discussing the religious framework of the US Founding [cite follows] . . . . A brief excerpt from the Congressional proclamation of penitence of May 1776 will suffice to show what “blessings of liberty” meant in America circa 1775 - 1787 [cite follows, cf. 47]
Of course, there is actually a large set of these Congressional proclamations and similar documents, of which the LOC collection gives a good cross section across the full founding era [as does B F Morris]. The notion that there was a decisive rejection of the spirit of 1776 by 1787 is without historical foundation. That also brings up the next gross error: 4] FF, 80: The U. S. Constitution wasn’t written or adopted with the understanding that it would be interpreted according to the Library of Congress’ summary of the role and importance of the covenantal understanding of nationhood and government under God in the American founding era. Q: Who said it was? ANS: no-one, save the ever-handy strawman FF hopes to knock over. What the LOC summary does, is to accurately reflect and sum up the body of evidence cited as can be examined by simply following the link in 63 to the relevant page. In turn, that makes crystal clear just what "Blessings of Liberty" under "OUR Lord" meant, circa 1776 - 1789 in the USA -- as a part of what was then generally known as Christendom. 5] FF, 83: There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution to indicate that the will of the lawmakers was to prohibit the establishment of any one sect while permitting the legal establishment of Christianity. Strawman, again. Amdt 1 is of course a prohibition on the setting up of a Federal level Church of the USA, but especially when tied to the reservation of un-delegated powers to the states and people, it reflects the Westphalia principle of 1648, of accepting local establishment of churches but protecting the rights of dissenters. Morris has an interesting discussion on this matter, though he does not explicitly address that crucial 1648 settlement We are not talking of the legal establishment of Christianity, but of the impact of the Covenantal understanding of nationhood and Government under God -- as point 3 just above outlines. Many more similar gross errors are in FF's declamations above, but I think that astute readers can see enough to make up their minds by this point. 6] Blackstone. Instead of further belabouring point by point, it is worth closing off by excerpting a classic remark by Blackstone, which sets the 1776 DOI and 1787 Constitution in the context of legal thought shaped by the Judaeo-Christian heritage:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 - 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 - 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 - 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law
THAT is the plainly Judaeo-Christian context for applying Blackstone's principles of Common Law interpretation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 28, 2007
October
10
Oct
28
28
2007
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PST}

Dave Scott wrote: “Prior to the 14th amendment states weren’t forbidden from making laws regarding an establishment of religion.” Dear Dave: You need to read the State Constitutions in effect prior to the 14th Amendment. For example, the Ohio Constitution of 1851 said “No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief…” The prohibition against any interference with the rights of conscience was rather broad don't you think? James Madison's view of the rights of conscience precluded even the exercise of recommendatory authority over religion by civil government.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST}

Dave Scott wrote: "…the 1st amendment didn’t apply to state governments until the 14th amendment was ratified…" Dear Dave: No court ever ruled that the 1st amendment didn’t apply to state governments until the 14th amendment was ratified. The Constitution says that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” It could be argued that the Republican form of government required that religion be exempt from the authority of the government.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

Dave Scott wrote: "...trough suppression of highly material evidence and silencing of the other side of the debates, the perception has been created that the US founding had nothing to do with the flow of Judaeo-Christian influences. Dear Dave Scott: I don’t see any Jewish principles in the U. S. Constitution. The only “Christian” principle I see in the document is the liberal Christian view that “the civil magistrate has no power over things purely sacred”, as distinguished from the fraudulent Calvinistic “nursing fathers” view of the relationship of religion and government.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST}

Kairos wrote: "They sought to avert the deleterious impact of... [the] establishment of any one sect as a church of the USA..." Dear Kairos: There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution to indicate that the will of the lawmakers was to prohibit the establishment of any one sect while permitting the legal establishment of Christianity. The withholding of the rights of conscience from the trust granted to our national political rulers indicates that the view of most Americans in 1878 was that religion should be wholly exempt from the authority of civil government.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PST}

Onlookers: Mr Flash has failed to even correct his problem of mistaking a citation with copious supporting evidence from the US Library of Congress, as a statement from me. And that, AFTER I have specifically called attention to and then corrected his mistake. That should suffice to show the depth of the problem at work here, especially the want of basic ability to evaluate and objectively address evidence -- as opposed to endlessly regurgitating what I have to call tired out talking points. Sad. Until/unless I see evidence of serious engagement of evidence and of the historical dynamics expressed in that evidence, there is nothing more to say, other than that serious onlookers can easily enough follow up evidence for themselves. Just go to post 63 and follow up. [Remember, link no 2 is to a 36 MB file. Link no 3 shows what my own summary of the case looks like.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST}

Kairos wrote: "...the US founder..and their work reflect the...impact of the Judaeo-Christian worldview..." Dear Kairos: The view that religion was totally exempt from the cognizance of civil government was apparently the view of most American Christians in 1788. That’s why they established a national government with no power whatsoever over religion.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

Kairos wrote: “...I have cited the US Library of Congress’ summary on the role and importance of the covenantal understanding of nationhood and government under God in the American founding era.” Dear Kairos: The U. S. Constitution wasn’t written or adopted with the understanding that it would be interpreted according to the Library of Congress’ summary of the role and importance of the covenantal understanding of nationhood and government under God in the American founding era. It was written to be interpreted according to the well-established common law rules of construction laid down prior to 1787 by Blackstone, Rutherforth and Coke.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PST}

Kairos wrote: “The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.” [Cf substantiating details by following the link and onward links.]” Dear Kairos: So what, dude? The U. S. Constitution of 1787 granted the government “not a shadow of a right to intermeddle in religion.” What does that say about the deeply religious men who wrote and voted for its adoption? Show us the words in Constitution that suggest that, at the time of its adoption, the national legislators and the American people considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity. Show us the words of the Constitution that indicate it was an agreement between God and the United States. Show us where the Constitution says anything that could be construed to mean that its makers were guided by “covenant theology?” Show us where the Constitution says that the public prosperity of a society depends on the vitality of its religion?Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PST}

Kairos wrote: "Relative to interpretation of documents composed at a given locus in history, the contemporary documents and commentary by witnesses should suffice to show that it is the contemporary one-sided secularist revisionist interpretations that are the distorted ones." Dear Kairos: What particular contemporary one-sided secularist revisionist interpretations do you object to?Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST}

Kairo wrote: “As to his bald assertions that attitudes and understandings of the process of Government formation changed nationally radically between 1775/6 and 1787, I will simply leave that to perusal of the already linked Library of Congress display site; noting too that the linked facsimile of the B F Morris book bequeathed to Harvard by Sen Charles Sumner is also relevant and quite detailed. (I found its discussion of the context of the Constitution, Ch XII, p. 246 ff, interesting.) “ Dear Kario: A good way to see the change, from 1775 to 1787, in the people’s attitude toward the mixing of religion with civil government is by comparing the religion provisions of the colonial charters and the laws made under those charters, as of the commencement of the revolution in 1775, to the state constitutions and laws on the same subject, as of the close of the founding era, 1793.Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST}

Kairo wrote: “[Fred] is here supposing or suggesting that what an established church is — after the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 and the relevant preceding history, as well as that of England in the reformation era and down to in fact our own times — a matter of personal interpretation!" Dear Kairo: I wanted to know what exactly and precisely you meant by the phrase "state-level established churches" before deciding if I agreed with your claim, or rather your understanding that,“at the time of the Constitution’s coming into force, there were nine state-level established churches.” However, since you can’t, or won’t, even tell me what you meant by the phrase, I am forced to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the relationship of religion to the state governments at the time the U. S. Constitution was adopted. BTW, why are you such a ardent advocate of civil authority over religion? Didn't the Lord Jesus Christ call for separation of the things that are God's from the matters over which Caesar had legitimate jurisdiction?Fred Flash_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST}

Onlookers: I first note that I have already several times cited the US Library of Congress' apt summary on the role and importance of the covenantal understanding of nationhood and government under God in the American founding era; most recently in 73 [with the link]. It should be clear from that link and the onward evidence cited -- as well as from the highly informative and abundantly detailed discussion and evidence in Mr Morris' book [also linked in 63] and also my own notes and citations [again linked in 63] -- that this Judaeo-Christian, Biblically based understanding of nationhood, justice/rights and government played a vital role in the American founding era, thus in the spreading of modern democratic self-government by a free people across the world. I cite it yet again:
The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.”
In short, on the evidence, the US founders and their work reflect the positive impact of the Judaeo-Christian worldview and value system on the rise of modern liberty. They sought to avert the deleterious impact of Institutional establishment of any one sect as a church of the USA, while basing their institution of new Gov't on the underlying principles and commonalities of what C S Lewis would come to call Mere Christianity, as are to be found in say the 2nd paragraph of the US DOI. They by and large succeeded, and became a vital link in the contribution of the Judaeo-Christian worldview and associated values to the emergence and strength of modern liberty. That is, they did secure in material measure the Blessings of liberty -- note the use of a covenantal word often found in the many calls to prayer, penitence and thanksgiving in the revolutionary era by the founding Continental Congress [which of course relates to the covenant of nationhood under God] -- to themselves and increasingly so, to their posterity; though many a liberation struggle lay in the future, as is inevitable in such matters. Thus also, the modern, secularist historical revisionism often reflected in the distorted use of Jefferson's "wall of separation," is ill-founded. But, through suppression of highly material evidence and silencing of the other side of the debates, the perception has been created that the US founding had nothing to do with the flow of Judaeo-Christian influences as summarised. Indeed, many argue, assert or simply assume that this tradition is the inevitable and mortal enemy of liberty, often tossing around smear-words like "theocracy." But in fact -- just as the US DOI of 1776 warns in its famous 2nd paragraph [by using the term "self-evident"] -- it is the secularist revisionism that ends up in many self-contradictory and potentially or actually tyrannical absurdities in theory of rights, policy, law, court rulings, and of course in fact on the ground as well. This is unsurprising, for, it can be seriously argued that the modern agenda of secularists tends to create a de facto establishment of the quasi-"antichurch" of evolutionary materialism and associated secular humanism. And, abundant history shows that such institutional establishment tends to tyranny, just as the Founders sought to avert. Recently discussed declarations by Mr Dawkins in and around the Crystal Clear Atheism conference and the associated Guardian interview make this all too painfully plain. And the associated declarations of the Minister of Education in Sweden underscore just where that leads: tyranny. On the main theme of this blog [and as the case of the Minister of Ed of Sweden's declaration sadly illustrates], one damaging effect of the growing quasi-establishment of the antichurch of evolutionary materialist secular humanism is that there is a suppression of a legitimate and evidentially well-supported [cf. my always linked] emergent research programme, Design Theory. Indeed, as the movie Expelled documents, this abusive suppression has reached proportions of now almost routine censorship, slander, career-busting, abuse of power and emergent tyranny in the relevant institutions of science and education. Had Mr Flash simply consulted and responded to the LOC summary and its underpinning evidence [as well as the other linked materials], the above would have been abundantly clear. GEM of TKI PS: Fred, I think there is a Kairo here at UD, who is not me.kairosfocus_{October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PST}

Kairo wrote: “[Fred] has not even bothered to follow up and even briefly respond to relevant links in a given identified comment which he has already cited himself …” Dear Kairo: You have a bad habit of citing evidence without making it clear what you are trying to prove.Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PST}

Onlookers: Sadly, Fred's pattern continues. For instance, he has not even bothered to follow up and even briefly respond to relevant links in a given identified comment which he has already cited himself, and is here supposing or suggesting that what an established church is -- after the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 and the relevant preceding history, as well as that of England in the reformation era and down to in fact our own times -- a matter of personal interpretation! As to his bald assertions that attitudes and understandings of the process of Government formation changed nationally radically between 1775/6 and 1787, I will simply leave that to perusal of the already linked Library of Congress display site; noting too that the linked facsimile of the B F Morris book bequeathed to Harvard by Sen Charles Sumner is also relevant and quite detailed. (I found its discussion of the context of the Constitution, Ch XII, p. 246 ff, interesting.) Relative to interpretation of documents composed at a given locus in history, the contemporary documents and commentary by witnesses should suffice to show that it is the contemporary one-sided secularist revisionist interpretations that are the distorted ones. So, sadly, it is plain that we are clearly dealing with the classic fallacy of the closed mind, with hints of selective hyper-skepticism as was long since exposed and refuted by the well-known professor Simon Greenleaf, late of Harvard Law School. In short, the evasive nature of the objections being made underscores the force of the point on the merits of fact and logic. In short, the LOC's classic statement as already excerpted and linked at No 63 supra, stands:
The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.” [Cf substantiating details by following the link and onward links.]
Fred's evasive response relative to the merits of fact and logic -- by one who claims to be familiar with the relevant evidence -- is therefore utterly telling. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus wrote: "You may also find the specific statements of the Northwest Ordinance, and the comments on it in the LOC materials helpful in clarifying some of the issues you seem to have as well over “promotion” of Christian belief and associated virtues and values [as opposed to the establishment of a Federal level National Church of the United States, as there was and to some extent still is a National Church of the United Kingdom*]." Dear Kairo: What issues, dude? ********************************** Kairosfocus wrote: “I understand that at the time of the Constitution’s coming into force, there were nine state-level established churches.” Dear Kairos: What’s your definition of a state-level established church?Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus wrote: "That statement comes with abundant historical source materials, some of it facsimiles of originals, even of manuscripts. (The book I linked gives more, vastly more. Warning: very fat PDF, about 36 MB.)" Dear Kairo: What statement are you referring to my dear friend?Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus wrote: "I have given you more than sufficient information to follow up for yourself. " Dear Kairo: I am quite familiar with all of the evidence you cited. I am also knowledgeable of the common law rules of construction, which exclude almost all of it from consideration as we endeavor to interpret the meaning of the words of the Constitution.Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST}

Fred I have given you more than sufficient information to follow up for yourself. I need make no further comment to you until you show evidence of serious interaction with it. Indeed, unfortunately, you don't seem to have understood where I excerpted and cited the US LOC display statement [using blockquotes to show what I was citing not stating myself], as I also linked. That statement comes with abundant historical source materials, some of it facsimiles of originals, even of manuscripts. (The book I linked gives more, vastly more. Warning: very fat PDF, about 36 MB.) So far, sadly, you are just repeating tired-out talking points -- especially the same sort of strawmen you have been setting up and knocking over in addressing Jerry above. That's not good enough. I note, for the sake of onlookers at least, that the force of the overall actual evidence -- and as the LOC aptly summarised -- is that the US Constitution arises in and expresses the second covenant (of government under God towards justice etc) of a nation established under God [as is envisioned in say the DOI of 1776, the first covenant being nationhood under God], in the ambit of the general Judaeo-Christian framework -- as would be expected in what was then known as Christendom. I have given enough names and links for you or an interested onlooker to trace the chain of ideas and events for yourself. You may also find the specific statements of the Northwest Ordinance, and the comments on it in the LOC materials helpful in clarifying some of the issues you seem to have as well over "promotion" of Christian belief and associated virtues and values [as opposed to the establishment of a Federal level National Church of the United States, as there was and to some extent still is a National Church of the United Kingdom*]. GEM of TKI * I understand that at the time of the Constitution's coming into force, there were nine state-level established churches. The relevant Bill of Rights amendments allowed for that, and insisted that the right of religious dissent and activities associated therewith -- expression, publication, association -- be protected. I further gather that the 14th Amdt [?] in the post-Civil War era, in effect extended disestablishment to the individual states, at least as it has been interpreted.kairosfocus_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus wrote: “. . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity .” Dear Kairo: Show us where the U. S. Constitution grants the government authority to promote Christianity. PS: The people's attitude regarding government promotion of Christianity underwent a dramatic shift from 1775 to 1787.Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PST}

Kario wrote: “Observe as well, the summary made by the LOC, e.g.: The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men…” Dear Kario: Please explain to me why the religious opinions and beliefs of the members of the Continental Congress should be substituted for the words of the Constitution and the common law rules of construction?Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PST}

Kario wrote: "You may find it wise to review the book facsimile from the Harvard Library courtesy the estate of the late, notable Senator Charles Sumner." Dear Kario: I am quite familiar with the work by Sumner. However, it wasn’t adopted by the American people as a framework of civil government. The U. S. Constitution of 1787 was adopted for that purpose.Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PST}

Kario wrote: Note especially the proclamations of days of fasting and prayer by said congress, and the substance of such, especially that of May 1776, just before the US DOI was issued. Dear Kario: The American people didn’t adopt government proclamations of days of fasting and prayer (or laws over the Kingdom of Christ, as the Baptists put it) as their constitution of government. Instead, they adopted the U. S. Constitution, which granted the government no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever over religious fasting or prayer, or any other duty owed to the Creator.Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

kairosfocus wrote: “…start by carefully reviewing and responding on the substance of the evidence here, which through the Library of Congress, comes from the acts of the Founding era Continental Congress." Dear Kario: I assume the issue on the table is the meaning of the Constitution as it regards the relationship of religion to the government of the United States. In other words, you believe I should start my attempt to discern the meaning of the words of the Constitution by carefully reviewing the evidence presented in the Library of Congress exhibit. Please explain to me why I shouldn’t just rely on the well-established common law rules of construction to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution. Isn’t that the way the lawmakers intended it to be interpreted?Fred Flash_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

Fred First, start by carefully reviewing and responding on the substance of the evidence here, which through the Library of Congress, comes from the acts of the Founding era Continental Congress. (NB: It includes facsimile reproductions of relevant Congressional proclamations.) Note especially the proclamations of days of fasting and prayer by said congress, and the substance of such, especially that of May 1776, just before the US DOI was issued. (You may find it wise to review the book facsimile from the Harvard Library courtesy the estate of the late, notable Senator Charles Sumner, here.) Observe as well, the summary made by the LOC, e.g.:
The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
You may then wish to examine the background to that, say starting with a summary of some of the evidence with onward links here. Then come back on your polemical talking points, in light of a more balanced understanding of the relevant context, historical and current. Ability to discuss with understanding the relevant parts of Duplessis-Mornay's work, the Dutch DOI of 1581 under William the Silent, that of Samuel Rutherford, as well as Locke properly placed in the historical trend of thought, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity while you are at it, and of course that of Blackstone and behind all of that to address Justinian's synthesis, Corpus Juris Civilis, will be an asset. En passant, the import of the Trinity Decision on the point will be relevant, as will the remarks of the last of the great Calvinist statesmen, Abraham Kuyper, in his Princeton lectures in the 1890's. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PST}

Jerry wrote: "The separation of church and state issue was made up in the 20th century…” Dear Jerry: What exactly is separation of church and and state? I have the sense that you may attach a different meaning to the phrase than I do.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PST}

Jerry wrote: “The separation of church and state issue is bogus…” Dear Jerry: Explain to us why Separation of Church and State is counterfeit or fake.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

Jerry wrote: “After World War II no one had any problem with vets using their GI bill money in religious schools.” Dear Jerry: Explain to us how that constitutes civil power over religion.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PST}

Jerry wrote: “At the same time [the First Amendment was adopted] some states did establish state religions.” Dear Jerry: What exactly do you mean by “state religions?”Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

Jerry wrote: “The constitutional amendment was about preventing the establishing of a state religion sponsored and supported by the federal government.” Dear Jerry: What words in the First Amendment do you construe to mean that it “was about preventing the establishing of a state religion sponsored and supported by the federal government?” I don’t see the words “preventing”, “establishing”, “state”, “sponsored”, “supported”, “federal” or “ government” in the First Amendment.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply