This is Not a Christian Nation

[ronaldo]

Here is an interesting blog article by a Muslim American. I agree totally with what he saying about this country not being a Christian Nation. Our founding fathers set up our nation to be a nation for all religions or no religion at all.
Your comments please. I want to hear how all of you feel about this.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/10293

[Jubelum]

"Christian Nation" as a term is already hugely problematic. Our founding documents (written by Christians, Freethinkers, Agnostics, etc) set up a system that is *supposed* to treat religious exercise equally. In that sense, this is not a "Christian Nation."

In practice, most people in the United States identify as "Christians." The people, not the government, are Christian. The government is not supposed to establish a state religion (like England had before 1776) NOR PREVENT the free exercise of religious belief.

I'd like to remind the author that it is the free exercise that is in far greater danger than the right to be free of a state-established religion.

Also, someone needs to find "separation of church and state" in the Constitution for me.

[SDW2001]

"Christian Nation" as a term is already hugely problematic. Our founding documents (written by Christians, Freethinkers, Agnostics, etc) set up a system that is *supposed* to treat religious exercise equally. In that sense, this is not a "Christian Nation."

In practice, most people in the United States identify as "Christians." The people, not the government, are Christian. The government is not supposed to establish a state religion (like England had before 1776) NOR PREVENT the free exercise of religious belief.

I'd like to remind the author that it is the free exercise that is in far greater danger than the right to be free of a state-established religion.

Also, someone needs to find "separation of church and state" in the Constitution for me.

Couldn't agree more. Also, the resolution was just useless politically correct nonsense. By sheer numbers, we ARE a christian nation. What is it, 85% or something, with 95% plus believing in "God." I don't think anyone is claiming that the government was set up to be Christian, is he?

[ronaldo]

"Christian Nation" as a term is already hugely problematic. Our founding documents (written by Christians, Freethinkers, Agnostics, etc) set up a system that is *supposed* to treat religious exercise equally. In that sense, this is not a "Christian Nation."

In practice, most people in the United States identify as "Christians." The people, not the government, are Christian. The government is not supposed to establish a state religion (like England had before 1776) NOR PREVENT the free exercise of religious belief.

I'd like to remind the author that it is the free exercise that is in far greater danger than the right to be free of a state-established religion.

Also, someone needs to find "separation of church and state" in the Constitution for me.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

This came from the Wall of Separation letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[@_@ Artman]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1in_god_we_trust.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)

[ronaldo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1in_god_we_trust.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)

So Artman tell me to which God are we referring.

Out of Many, One

[@_@ Artman]

So Artman tell me to which God are we referring.

Out of Many, One

Wiki echoes my sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Controversy)...

Today, the motto is a source of some heated contention. Opponents[4][5] of the phrase argue that the First Amendment and a need for Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" require that the motto be removed from all governmental use, including on coins and paper money. They argue that religious freedom includes the right not to believe in the existence of deities and that the gratuitous use of the motto infringes upon the religious rights of those whose beliefs do not include a god. They argue that an endorsement of any deity by the government is unconstitutional.

Let's say...Out of one nation, many choices.

[ronaldo]

Wiki echoes my sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Controversy)...



Let's say...Out of one nation, many choices.

I believe they are wrong.

[tonton]

Couldn't agree more. Also, the resolution was just useless politically correct nonsense. By sheer numbers, we ARE a christian nation. What is it, 85% or something, with 95% plus believing in "God." I don't think anyone is claiming that the government was set up to be Christian, is he?

Please remember that 95% of those 85% are self-named "Christians" who do not follow "WWJD" ideals whatsoever.

[Jubelum]

Please remember that 95% of those 85% are self-named "Christians" who do not follow "WWJD" ideals whatsoever.

meaning.....?

[@_@ Artman]

I believe they are wrong.

You speak in riddles...:err:

[sammi jo]

There used to be the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, now regarded as quaint and archaic by various government departments and law enforcement agencies, and especially by the Bush Administration:

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 of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment clearly implies the separation of church and state. It infers that people are free to practise the religion of their personal choice, which logically also implies that each person has the right to freedom from religion, either a specific faith or organized religion generally. The whole point was to avoid the misery, unrest, turmoil, bloodshed, wars and 100% negativity that tend to follow when a state defer to a specific faith, such as in the UK. But with the Bill of Rights now largely consigned to the history books....

One of the scariest things happening right now in this country is the drive, ignored in the media, to evangelize members of the US military. Michael Weinstein's latest book "With God on Our Side... One Man's War against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military" tells all. This is an ongoing program to enroll our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into evangelical "Christianity", complete with all the trappings of the Rapture, holy wars against some imaginary evil, and "End of Time" scenarios. By "enroll", perhaps "brainwash" is a more apt term. Of course, it doesn't take an IQ of 165 to realize that the ideas behind evangelical "Christianity" don;t have a fat lot in common with the teachings of Jesus Christ....

But those of us who have seen the first 3rd of the documentary Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) might have some doubts as to what Jesus was all about, perhaps even his very existence, as traditionally portrayed.

[segovius]

I'm wondering if these guys that voted against the Ramadan resolution would vote likewise viz a viz Hannukah (not that such an equivalent situation could ever occur), I tend to think not - and from that it is a short step to the realization that this is merely (yet more) anti-Islam animus.

But it strikes me that it if these voters feel this way it is because they perceive Islam as 'bad' and Judaism (say) as 'good'.

In a way - from their pov - they are correct.

That is to say:

From their own knowledge of Islam they are right to oppose it.

From their own knowledge of Islam it IS a threat.

From their own knowledge of Islam they should vote and act against it.

The problem is that their own knowledge of Islam is false and erroneous. There are reasons for this but here is perhaps not the place to go into why this should be - it is enough to draw attention to the fact that it is wrong.

The answer is to educate these people - perhaps through public programmes or educational projects which politicians could attend to enrich their historical perspective. of course these would be opposed by certain sectors but at least some form of remedy would be under way....

[segovius]

There used to be the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, now regarded as quaint and archaic by various government departments and law enforcement agencies, and especially by the Bush Administration:



The First Amendment clearly implies the separation of church and state. It infers that people are free to practise the religion of their personal choice, which logically also implies that each person has the right to freedom from religion, either a specific faith or organized religion generally. The whole point was to avoid the misery, unrest, turmoil, bloodshed, wars and 100% negativity that tend to follow when a state defer to a specific faith, such as in the UK. But with the Bill of Rights now largely consigned to the history books....

One of the scariest things happening right now in this country is the drive, ignored in the media, to evangelize members of the US military. Michael Weinstein's latest book "With God on Our Side... One Man's War against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military" tells all. This is an ongoing program to enroll our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into evangelical "Christianity", complete with all the trappings of the Rapture, holy wars against some imaginary evil, and "End of Time" scenarios. By "enroll", perhaps "brainwash" is a more apt term. Of course, it doesn't take an IQ of 165 to realize that the ideas behind evangelical "Christianity" don;t have a fat lot in common with the teachings of Jesus Christ....

But those of us who have seen the first 3rd of the documentary Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) might have some doubts as to what Jesus was all about, perhaps even his very existence, as traditionally portrayed.

Are U.S. troops being force-fed Christianity? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p13s02-lire.html)

[Jubelum]

Darn Crusaders... :no:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/python3.gif

Seriously, if the allegations in that CSM article are proven true, then someone needs to be hung from a yard-arm. There is no place for such behavior in our military, and those responsible for it should be discharged from their duties, or at the very least lose rank.

[ronaldo]

You speak in riddles...:err:

What did I say that makes you think that I speak in riddles? Maybe I didn't understand your response.

[SDW2001]

Please remember that 95% of those 85% are self-named "Christians" who do not follow "WWJD" ideals whatsoever.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I also don't see what qualifies you to judge how anyone adheres to his faith. It's ironic really....you espouse the virtues of no one judging anyone else's lifestyle, then you slam Christians who you personally deem to be living lifestyles inconsistent with the WWJD ideal. Nice.

There used to be the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, now regarded as quaint and archaic by various government departments and law enforcement agencies, and especially by the Bush Administration:

Specifically? I seem to recall there being a plethora of vicious anti-Bush media outlets. They seem to have no problem getting their political opinions across. Yet Bush Has Shredded The First Amendment™ has become a rallying cry even though there nothing to back it up.




The First Amendment clearly implies the separation of church and state. It infers that people are free to practise the religion of their personal choice, which logically also implies that each person has the right to freedom from religion, either a specific faith or organized religion generally.

Opinion. Implication. Inference. All personal and subjective things, sammi. To me it simply means the government may not establish an official religion and that it may not overtly promote on religion over the other. In other words, exactly what it actually says. I don't think it means what you're inferring at all...it doesn't mean that the government and all public institutions must be cleansed of all religion.

The whole point was to avoid the misery, unrest, turmoil, bloodshed, wars and 100% negativity that tend to follow when a state defer to a specific faith, such as in the UK. But with the Bill of Rights now largely consigned to the history books....[/quote]

There you go again.



One of the scariest things happening right now in this country is the drive, ignored in the media, to evangelize members of the US military. Michael Weinstein's latest book "With God on Our Side... One Man's War against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military" tells all. This is an ongoing program to enroll our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into evangelical "Christianity", complete with all the trappings of the Rapture, holy wars against some imaginary evil, and "End of Time" scenarios. By "enroll", perhaps "brainwash" is a more apt term. Of course, it doesn't take an IQ of 165 to realize that the ideas behind evangelical "Christianity" don;t have a fat lot in common with the teachings of Jesus Christ....

Most members of the military are Christians, yes? I don't know the specific numbers. It's also been part of military tradition for what...200 years? Unit, Corps., God, Country and all of that?

The statement I've highlighted in bold is truly laughable. I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on that.


But those of us who have seen the first 3rd of the documentary Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) might have some doubts as to what Jesus was all about, perhaps even his very existence, as traditionally portrayed.

Can we just not go there. Your views on Christianity are well documented around here. Do we need more on them?

[SDW2001]

Yes, reasonable minds disagree about what the free exercise and establishment clauses actually mean. Read your way, it's perfectly valid to interpret those clauses extremely narrowly. But I don't think it's valid at all to claim the plain meaning of the words in that amendment aligns with your view. The words "official state religion" don't quite appear in that amendment, do they?. What an "establishment of religion" actually means is pretty ambiguous however you interpret it.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

I just think that's about as plain as could be, especially given the context of a nation founded by those fleeing a country with an official (and mandatorily practiced) religion.
It's clear to me that they meant the government cannot establish the same thing, not that there cannot be a voluntary prayer in a public school classroom or that a high school football coach can't pray with his team.

[sequitur]

Treaty with Tripoli:

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



The Christian Nation Myth:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[ronaldo]

Treaty with Tripoli:

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



The Christian Nation Myth:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

There could be endless debate on weather The United States was founded on christian principles, or not.

James Parton, one of the standard biographers of Jefferson, says:

"His religious tone was also that of most healthy English souls before religion became intense and opinionative. The Jeffersons appear to have been of that good-tempered and sensible class who escaped the anguish and narrowness of the Puritan period, equally incapable of fighting a bishop or stoning a Quaker. To such, religion was never a system or a salvation. It was the supreme decency, the highest etiquette, with the addition of bell-ringing and Merry Christmas. That Jefferson was able to attain to a rational and comfortable tone of mind on this distracted subject, without any severe internal conflict, was a happiness he owed to the well-tempered mind of his father, and to the healthy race from which he sprang." (Life of Jefferson, p. 738.)
Richard Hildreth, the historian, in speaking of Jefferson's religious opinions, says:

"Jefferson's relations to the religious opinions of his country were somewhat peculiar. He believed, like Paine, in a personal God and a future life, but, like him, regarded Christianity, in the supernatural view of it, as a popular fable, an instrument for deluding, misgoverning and plundering mankind; and these opinions he entertained, as he did most others, with little regard to any qualifying considerations, and with an energy approaching to fanaticism. But he was no more inclined than were the New England Rationalists to become a martyr to the propagation of unpopular ideas. That he left to Paine and others of less discretion or more courage than himself." (History of the United States, vol. 5, p. 458 .)
"Jefferson seems to have considered himself excessively ill-treated by the clergy, who were constantly twitting him with his Infidel opinions." (Ibid, p. 461.)

o He attended religious services in the Capitol Building (and such services were also held in the Supreme Court building).

o He favored using the word "God" in the national motto.

o He granted land, buildings, and salaries for clergy teaching in Indian schools.

o Supported the use of the Bible as reading materials in such schools.

o He personally prayed at public events.

o Exempted churches from taxation.

o In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

http://www.geocities.com/atheismsucks/therealthomasjefferson.htm

You can find a ton contradictory information on all of the founding fathers and their beliefs. So who knows for sure?

I still believe that when the founding fathers spoke of God in public they were referring to Natures God. Not the God of any specific religion.
One thing is for sure, they all were certainly free thinkers and great men Which is much more than you can say about the bozos that are running our great country today.

Oh, and one other thing. Believe in whatever you want to believe in, because isn't that what this country is all about anyway? Freedom to think, freedom to have an opinion, and freedom to dissent. I think this what many people have forgotten about because we have had it so good here.

As Thomas Jefferson said: "Every generation needs to have its own revolution".

[@_@ Artman]

What did I say that makes you think that I speak in riddles? Maybe I didn't understand your response.

Well, I guess you believe Wiki was wrong. Whatever. From your last great post, all that cleared up. Good job. :smokey:

[ronaldo]

Well, I guess you believe Wiki was wrong. Whatever. From your last great post, all that cleared up. Good job. :smokey:

Thanks.

[e1618978]

a high school football coach can't pray with his team.

A high school football coach is a government employee in a position of power. Where do you draw the line? I would say that voluntary prayer in school is fine as long as the rest of the student body is not pressured to go, and as long as they don't have to stay for it (like it is segregated off, like smokers are). A coach leading a team prayer is way out of line, IMHO.

[ronaldo]

A high school football coach is a government employee in a position of power. Where do you draw the line? I would say that voluntary prayer in school is fine as long as the rest of the student body is not pressured to go, and as long as they don't have to stay for it (like it is segregated off, like smokers are). A coach leading a team prayer is way out of line, IMHO.

Actually a high school football coach would be a state employe. Lets not forget about states rights. Oops wait a minute, we might have another civil war here.:)

[e1618978]

Actually a high school football coach would be a state employe. Lets not forget about states rights. Oops wait a minute, we might have another civil war here.:)

The state governments still have to follow the constitution, and the supreme court has ruled that ruled that school prayer (even a prayer to a generalized god that would apply to any theistic religion, and even if you let the students opt out) is unconstitutional. The case was Engel v. Vitale.

[SDW2001]

A high school football coach is a government employee in a position of power. Where do you draw the line? I would say that voluntary prayer in school is fine as long as the rest of the student body is not pressured to go, and as long as they don't have to stay for it (like it is segregated off, like smokers are). A coach leading a team prayer is way out of line, IMHO.

Careful....that's not what I said. I said prayingwith the players. There is a lawsuit going on right now about that very thing. A coach bowed is head as the players led their prayer. It's the same thing as me not being able to pray in front of my students. Now tell me how my rights aren't being violated far more than theirs?

Realize what you're doing here.

You're making an argument about the plain-meaning of the establishment clause by bringing in historical evidence. That's not a plain-meaning argument at that point. I think you're right to look outside the actual words of the clause to try to ascertain the drafters' intent, but again that's not really a plain-meaning argument at that point. A plain-meaning argument typically looks just at the words of the clause, which in this case is pretty clear with the free-exercise clause but really vague with the establishment clause. I think it's difficult if not impossible to make a plain-meaning argument in this case for the simple reasons that the establishment clause (1) doesn't contain the actual words "official state religion" and (2) to describe the concept of an "official state religion" it uses different and arguably broader words.

However, while I'm not conceding that the framers intended the establishment clause to forbid only the establishment of a state religion, as a more general matter, evidence of the framers' intent isn't necessarily "dispositive" as we say (a factor that automatically settles an issue). We also have to look at what the words of the clause actually say, which is an issue quite apart from what the framers intended the words to mean. At the end of the day, the thoughts of the framers aren't the law; the words in the clause are the law.

Oftentimes Congress will intend to do something in a statute but courts will not read the statute as actually providing for that challenged action if it doesn't actually say it in the statute. We see this issue played out another way with affirmative action. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 utterly and unambiguously forbids discrimination based on race. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race. How is affirmative action legal if it flies in the face of the letter of the law? Well, there's an issue concerning the spirit of the law as evidenced by congressional intent and the letter of the law as evidenced by the words in the statute.

I'm weary of arguments about the framers' intent and the whole "intentionalist" theory of constitutional interpretation in general because honestly how can we really tell what the framers intended when they wrote the Constitution? On the weekends does someone play polo with the founders? We have the federalist papers and a wealth of letters and documents from the framers, but it's nothing like today where congressional intent is easier to ascertain since congressional debate is on the record. And while we can ascertain what some of the founders thought about certain issues, do we know with any reliability that the words actually codified are not the result of compromise, as is oftentimes the case with congressional statutes? This issue is complex as you can tell.

Good points. That said, we have to make judgments about the spirit of the law and the author's intent all the time. Given the historical context and the content of the clause itself, it's exceptionally clear to me. But, that's just me.

Let me put it this way: What in the statement supports a true "separation of church and state" as opposed to merely preventing the state from establishing a religion? In other words, why would the benefit of the doubt go to that side? If we DO ignore the historical context/intent argument (and I don't think we should), what in the plain meaning of the statement supports the "separation" position?

[segovius]

This thread is a classic - starts out with a quote from a Muslim talking about how his religion is downplayed in the US and overlooked while 'Christianity' is elevated as the ONLY religion in town and then every single post proceeds to ignore the issues he raises, blatantly avoid the Islamic issue and instead discuss 'Christianity' from a US centric position while ignoring/mis-understanding the whole point of the discussion.

:lol:

You just could - not - make - this - stuff - up.

Pathetic really.

[ronaldo]

This thread is a classic - starts out with a quote from a Muslim talking about how his religion is downplayed in the US and overlooked while 'Christianity' is elevated as the ONLY religion in town and then every single post proceeds to ignore the issues he raises, blatantly avoid the Islamic issue and instead discuss 'Christianity' from a US centric position while ignoring/mis-understanding the whole point of the discussion.

:lol:

You just could - not - make - this - stuff - up.

Pathetic really.

Good point.

[SDW2001]

Discussion of the establishment clause gets at the very heart of the debate about the relationship of religion and our government.



Yeah, supported that way, you can definitely make valid arguments.

However, whether any interpretation of the establishment clause is "exceptionally clear" is wildly overstating the case.



I wish I could give you a good answer, but I haven't yet studied the issue in any great depth.



Right, but my point wasn't that we should ignore completely the historical context and evidence of the framers' intent. Anything that helps us understand the law or gives context aids interpretation of the clause. I don't think the plain meaning of the establishment clause necessarily sets out that "separation of church and state" either. Like I said: it's vague. But still looking just at the text, I think the broadness of the words "establishment of religion" supports the principle of the separation of church and state.

But my question is why? If it's that broad, it supports my position as much as yours. In other words, if you're saying "we don't really know what it means," than well...we don't know what it means. All we can do is take the clause and make the best judgement about meaning we can. And I think if one does that, if one looks at historical context and the nature of religion's role in society at the time it was written, if one looks at what the framers were escaping, it's more than reasonable to conclude it wasn't "God" they wanted out of government, it was forced practice of religion. Granted, it's not a certainty, but one thing that is certain is that there isn't much, if any evidence against the statement I just made.

But let's move even further down the road. Let's look at what the country has been since it was written. Our legal system is partially based on judeo-Christian principles. For hundreds of years, the establishment clause didn't prevent people from praying schools or before city council meetings. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that the Supreme Court decided these were basically egregious sins (irony intended). Separation of Church and State, as you know, is not found in the establishment clause, but in the words of the USSC itself as it relied on various documents from Jefferson and others. While this concept may have been important to Jefferson, why was it not specifically outlined in the Constitution? One has to believe that the framers didn't want to go that far. That's speculation of course, but a valid question nonetheless.

In reality though, my concern on this topic is limited to voluntary prayer in public schools, teacher and administrator participation in the same and issue such as displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings, especially court houses. Here is West Chester we had just such a debate not long ago. Unfortunately the debate is populated with fundamentalists with "REPENT!" signs on one side, and hippie, anti-government atheist lefties on the other. Neither is helpful or convincing. To me, it's simply an issue not of endorsing religion, but of law and order. Many of our laws are based on the Commandments at least loosely, so the best argument I would think would be that's not a religious symbol, but more of a historical one.

As for schools, I'd make the argument that my first amendment rights are being violated because if I wanted to, I would be prevented from praying in front of students, even if I didn't lead them.

Anyway...that's a lot to take in. Back to watching the Jets get their asses handed to them in the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter. Thou Shalt Not Blow Games in The Last Few Minutes.

[SDW2001]

No, you don't want to argue that the language of those clauses is broad at all. You want to argue that the language is very narrow and only refers to laws prohibiting the establishment of an official state religion. If the language is broader than that, then the broadness of the language would support additional laws prohibiting more than just the establishment of an official state religion.


OK.



I don't know enough yet to argue this point.

Yet? You don't have to wait for Second Semester™ to have a discussion, Shawn.



It's completely irrelevant whether at some point in the chain from primordial soup to the drafting of the Constitution that vaguely "Judeo-Christian principles" informed its drafting.

Not, it's not. We just talked about historical context.

The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment written by deists, not Christians,

I don't disagree. But that doesn't make your argument any stronger. We're talking about the generic "God" in public life. Oh, and many actually were Christians. Not all were the aforementioned desists.


...and was influenced primarily by the writings of European philosophers, not the Bible. The arrogance of Christians to assert that the Constitution and Article III is any way a Christian document is disturbing.

No one claimed it was a "Christian document." Don't use a strawman there.



Ah, yes, the principle of stare decisis.

But remember, the doctrine of the separation of church and state is now, obviously, the well-enshrined interpretation of those clauses, so stare decisis is persuasive for the current interpretation, not the old one.

So the current interpretation is more valid and sound because it's current and has existed for 40-50 years? What about the prior time?



No, I don't think you can necessarily draw that inference. You don't know that they discussed and disregarded it-- and you don't know whether they thought the wording they ultimately chose encompassed that separation principle (except you do from the historical evidence of Jefferson and Madison- who explicitly believed just that).

Well, it's speculative as I said. My question is...if Jefferson and Madison explicitly believed what they did, why would they not push for the inclusion of a full "separation" clause? That's not a question that can just be left to hang out and dry.



Not going to get into full-fledged first amendment debate about all the issues.

That's fine, but they seem to be the most relevant of the real-life implications of the current interpretation. So, I don't see how you can't get into it.

[SDW2001]

I'm not in the mood to deal with those short, choppy, argumentative one-liners.

If you want to clean that up to make it clearer that you're making some sort of overall point and not just being argumentative, be my guest. But I will respond to a few things you've mentioned. First, stare decisis is just one canon of statutory interpretation and it only applies to current law. The length of time we've upheld the separation of church and state principle is persuasive because we've upheld it for so long. Obviously that's not a very good reason to continue to uphold things, but that factor has some persuasiveness. However, I don't know enough about how courts have historically handled the establishment and free exercise clauses to give you an definitive answer about why the courts had at one time "allowed" prayer in school and things of that nature. Maybe there wasn't a Constitutional challenge involved?

Second, concerning why the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the Constitution, I can't really give you a definitive answer here either. Who knows? Again, maybe the framers thought the words they ultimately chose encompassed the separation principle (Jefferson and Madison certainly did). Getting back to my earlier point about my wariness towards intentionalist interpretation of the Constitution, it's just difficult if impossible to discern the framers' intent. That's why we rely on what the text actually says and other forms of interpretation to ascertain what the Constitution means.

For the record I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I appreciate your explanation. It just seems like you don't want to take a position for some reason, which I find odd.