Separation of church and state, tell me I'm wrong.

[WingDinger]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, lets parse this. How do you "respect an establishment"?

You could give funding. You could set up an honor. You could prefer one to another.

Standard fare says that you cannot establish a STATE religion. I say, that contained in the words is the ability to glean a separation, without having to take into account any other document.

So, Congress shall make no law,RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT, of religion.

This is possible, because there are at least two meanings for establishment. One a noun, and one, a verb. I dont think this escaped the founders.

I am a christian, although not of the foolish 6 thou earth variety. I am vigilant in not allowing Gov to support or prefer any one over another. Nor do I want a mamby pamby all encompassing politically correct person stepping in for a real God. If any.

Am I all wet?

[Lyric]

1. Maybe my brain is fried ATM, but I have no idea what your post was about.

No offense, but I read it three times and still couldn't figure out exactly what your point is.

[WingDinger]

2. respecting an establishment, means a wholly nuther thing than

Not establishing a state religion.

[billh58]

78. Actually, the SCOTUS has

already defined the meaning of the "establishment clause," and has used that interpretation on many occasions. See the link below, and there are many other links for the term "establishment clause" if you are intrested.

http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. It's about RW trolling. To wit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9390675

[WingDinger]

24. While I have ZERO embarrassment on that thread, you will get in trouble by calling out a locked thre

thread

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Oooo, I'll have a deleted message. I'm shaking in my boots.

:boring:

[WingDinger]

26. What exactly is your problem with diversity of opinion?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Don't you see?

I'm a liberal, and therefore evil and tyrannical and an enemy of all that's holy, good, wholesome and American.

[WingDinger]

31. And I'm a liberal, and about to agree with you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. It's been fun but now you'l have to excuse me.

Almost time of my daily virgin blood bath.

[Donnachaidh]

72. somehow, I heard the voice of Andy Rooney in that posting

:rofl:

[COLGATE4]

3. OK - you're wrong. The word "respecting" in this context is a

synonym for "regarding" in 20th Century English. The prohibition is therefore that 'Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...". I.e., they can't establish it, they can't prohibit it.

[FSogol]

5. Exactly "respecting" means "concerning" or "regarding". n/t

[WingDinger]

34. That still doesnt preclude my interpretation.

[Confusious]

39. Yes it does

Even the commas are taken into account when deciding what the clause means, and you added commas, so your interpretation is invalid.

You have to take the clause as a whole "Congress shall make no law respecting (regarding) an establishment of religion"

giving any money to a church would be an "establishment." You also have to look at the reason they put that there. A lot of Europeans countries had state religions which abused their position and incited violence against minority religions. The founders wanted to avoid that.

One could also say that tax breaks for religion are "establishment", though I'm not sure if the courts have ever seen it that way.

[WingDinger]

41. I add the commas, to make it obvious my intent. Not necessary.

[Confusious]

44. Well then, you're not reading the clause correctly

You're just taking a part out that you think makes your case. You have to read the whole clause, and understand the whole clause.

[WingDinger]

45. That really doesn't change it. It is still a sentence.

[Confusious]

49. There's always the dictionary

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

re·spect·ing
prep
Definition of RESPECTING
1
: in view of : considering
2
: with respect to : concerning

"respect" and 'respecting" have a lot of different definitions. You're using one that you think will make your case, though it is not the right one.

Using your definition makes the entire clause nonsensical.

[WingDinger]

52. Definition of establishment.

establishment <ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt>
n
1. the act of establishing or state of being established
2.
a. a business organization or other large institution
b. the place where a business is carried on
3. the staff and equipment of a commercial or other organization
4. (Military) the approved size, composition, and equipment of a military unit, government department, business division, etc., as formally promulgated
5. any large organization, institution, or system
6. a household or place of residence
7. a body of employees or servants
8. (modifier) belonging to or characteristic of the Establishment; orthodox or conservative the establishment view of history


As we see, it means both the verb form, to establish, and the noun form, establishment, a synonym being a club, salon, business etc.

[Confusious]

57. That is why we have courts

The word "establishment" is open to interpretation. What is considered "establishment?"

To most here, any money given to churches is considered establishment. To the rest, like me, even tax breaks should be considered "establishment."

But through most of the history of the United States, any money given to any church is considered "establishment."

By the courts, by precedence, and by the intent of the founders.

[WingDinger]

58. You are still only using the verb form.

[Confusious]

59. Like I said

Using your definition (or a noun) makes the entire clause nonsensical.

2.nonsensical - having no intelligible meaning; "nonsense syllables"; "a nonsensical jumble of words"
nonsense
meaningless, nonmeaningful - having no meaning or direction or purpose; "a meaningless endeavor"; "a meaningless life"; "a verbose but meaningless explanation"

You said it yourself: How do you "respect an establishment"?

You also used respect, which has a completely difference definition the "respecting"

[WingDinger]

60. We are here today, to respect this establishment, in deed and with donations.

[Confusious]

62. I can see what you're trying to say now.

But it still doesn't work.

You have to change words, which is not allowed. Laws are not broad, they are narrow, with each word carefully chosen to give the exact meaning of the definition.

You can't suddenly change "person" to "persons." It can change the meaning of an entire sentence, as changing a verb to a noun will do.

[WingDinger]

63. You are saying I CHANGED it from a verb to noun. That is unclear.

[Confusious]

65. No, it's pretty clear

You said "you're using the verb form, what about a noun" or something to that effect.

[WingDinger]

66. But it is unclear that it was not also intended.

[Confusious]

61. dup

[Confusious]

46. I could also do this

"establish a STATE religion"

You want to establish a state religion? why?

[WingDinger]

50. Exactly the opposite intent. How can ebody here not get that?

[Confusious]

51. That was an example of what you are doing.

Most here view, as the courts do, as precedence stands, as the founders wrote about, that no money go to any religion.

Any break in that is viewed as establishment.

[the redcoat]

6. You beat me too it

The OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of a word being used, therefore I'd say the whole argument is pretty moot.

[elleng]

11. Not an argument; its a question, a request for help understanding.

[the redcoat]

68. The only questions I saw were:

1 "How do you "respect an establishment"?"
and
2 "Am I all wet?"


For the first one, the OP answered his own question (albeit using the completely wrong meaning of the word "respect," making his/her answer invalid).

And that second question...well I'll be honest, I have no idea how anyone could answer that.



The rest of the post is pretty clearly taking a position on the issue, which implies it's an argument, even though it's closer to incoherent rambling than it is to an argument.

[WingDinger]

8. OK, then

Congress shall make no law, regarding an establishment. It still plays. My point is, you can create a comma there, in spirit. To make the thought apply to the noun form of establishment.

[Obamanaut]

12. But there is no comma there. nt

[WingDinger]

14. Nor does it say that of religion is a runon.

[geardaddy]

10. Yep.

[Dr Fate]

35. Yup- I was going to say "having to do with"

Congress shall make no law "Having to do with" an establishment of religion.

[WingDinger]

36. That STILL doesn't preclude my interpretation.

[Dr Fate]

38. Frankly, I do not understand your interpretation.

And no offense, but I'm not sure if I need to. I certainly understand what TJ and JA were saying to each other in their various correspondences, and I certainly understand what my law professors have told me about the 1st Amendment.

What is your interpretation- that congress actually can establish a church or establish a national religion? That congress can pass laws that ban religion, or favor one over another?

What is it that Pro-Establishment clause const. scholars are saying that you are taking issue with?


Are you saying that if a religion is already "established", congress can then "respect" it, so long as they do not "establish" a brand new one- is that what you are saying?

[WingDinger]

42. I am saying that the Con includes a separation of church and state.

Many righties claim it does not. Many of you here also claim that. Without realizing you do.,

[WingDinger]

43. Or more correctly, righties claim that it is separation of church from state, not state from church.

They say that not until you include the federalist papers, do you get separation of state from church.

[Dr Fate]

55. Then they incorrectly ignore the establishment clause in favor of the free exercise clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"= Freedom FROM the religions of others. The state cannot establish a religion or favor one over the other.

"...or prohibit the free exercise thereof..."= Freedom OF religion.

We are not only free to exercise the religion or belief system of our choice, but we are also supposed to be free from having the state impose someone else's religion over us.

This is all basic stuff that we are supposed to know by the 8th grade or so.

If the concept of separation of state from church is supported in the FED papers, great-does not suprise me at all. I'm not sure how that helps out the argument of these RWers.

[Dr Fate]

47. In that case, I have no issue with you. The Constitution certainly does contain that concept.

Just like it pertains to the concepts of a fair trial and privacy, even though those exact phrases are never used in the document itself.

The term "Separation of church and state" comes from letters b/t TJ & JM- you can google it all day long if you have not already done so.

Some claim that the establishment clause merely bans government (due to incorporation under the 14th, we are not just dealing with the federal congress here) from starting a church. If so, then why did the founders use broad term "religion" and not the more narrow term "church"?

[WingDinger]

73. Another effect of the difference with verb and noun is tense.

If it is establishment, the verb, it is present tense, if not future. Whereas, if it is the noun, it is referring to the past tense. So, it means that, you cannot make or create a church, by gov, nor can you prefer, or fund, or honor one. That is already ESTABLISHED. Thus, protecting us from starting, or boosting anyo, or all.

[BurtWorm]

81. Establishment is a noun. In no way can it be construed as a verb

Very unclear what you're getting at here. You seem to be trying to start an argument in which only you understand what you're talking about and the rest of us agree with each other (and those who wrote the constitution).

[Obamanaut]

4. Could "...no law respecting an establishment..." mean making no

having anything to do with establishing a religion, rather than discussing an establishment, ie, Walmart, Target, etc?

[WingDinger]

9. Could it not be a crafty way of including both?

[Obamanaut]

13. Maybe it's part of a long-standing conspiracy, and you have ferreted

it out.

Good for you.

[WinkyDink]

28. No. They weren't writing a sonnet.

[elleng]

7. 2 sections, 'concerning' establishment, and free exercise.

NO LAW may be made 'concerning,' 'relating to' any action which might be considered/construed as establishing/promoting a religion, that is, ANY religion. More later.

[Obamanaut]

15. To sum up, going back to OP subject line. You are wrong. You asked

to be told, and several folks have, but you appear unaccepting.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. No, wait, let me guess.

"Separation of church and state" is bunk and therefore schools should be free to hold Christian services in the classroom, right?

[WingDinger]

18. Why must you go for the troll insult? I am serious. And those churchy types say that

it is not until you go outside of the Con, do you encounter the concept of separation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. I call 'em as I see 'em.

How about those gay bullied children who are unfairly more protected than straight bullied children, huh?

[WingDinger]

23. Nor could you satisfactorily answer that one.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. It had all the answer it merited. -nt

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. it is clearly being used as a verb

respecting an establishment of religion


religion is the noun



yes, you are all wet

[WingDinger]

21. Explain how that is clear.

[WinkyDink]

27. Means "with respect to".

[WingDinger]

30. OK then, same thing.

with respect to an establishment. Does not require it to be an establishment of state religion.

[SanchoPanza]

37. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is pretty clear on these issues.

The operating precedent for Establishment Clause cases is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which clarified the majority opinion written by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The relevant portion of Justice Black's opinion:

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."

From Chief Justice Burger's majority opinion in Lemon:

The language of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment is, at best, opaque, particularly when compared with other portions of the Amendment. Its authors did not simply prohibit the establishment of a state church or a state religion, an area history shows they regarded as very important and fraught with great dangers. Instead, they commanded that there should be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." A law may be one "respecting" the forbidden objective while falling short of its total realization. A law "respecting" the proscribed result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause. A given law might not establish a state religion, but nevertheless be one "respecting" that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment, and hence offend the First Amendment.

In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."

The Lemon opinion created a three-pronged test (the so-called "Lemon Test") to adjudicate these matters. In order to pass constitutional muster vis-a-vis Establishment, a government action must:

1) Have a secular legislative purpose.
2) Must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
3) Must not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Rule Three might seem a bit vague, but the court has pretty much defined excessive entanglement as creating a situation where the government is put into a position of needing to regulate religious activity. The Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that the court struck down in Lemon, ones that allowed the state to reimburse parochial school teachers for the teaching of secular material, had a provision calling for the states governments to actively monitor parochial school curricula to ensure that state money only supported secular activity. In examining the constitutionality of these provisions, Burger wrote: "We need not decide whether these legislative precautions restrict the principal or primary effect of the programs to the point where they do not offend the Religion Clauses, for we conclude that the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes in each State involves excessive entanglement between government and religion."

Now both Everson and Lemon were 5-4 decisions, as were most of the decisions that followed them (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, in 2000, was 6-3). In terms of the technical legal issues this is irrelevant, though there is a block on the court that does not agree with Lemon (or Everson, for that matter). Justice Thomas believes that the Establishment Clause does not enshrine any sort of fundamental individual right and is therefor not suitable for incorporation against the states. Meaning, presumably, it is constitutionally permitted for states to create official churches. Which is odd, considering that Thomas champions "Framer's Intent" and the framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, openly stated that he wrote the Due Process clause of the 14th in such a way as to incorporate ALL provisions of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights. But whatever. It's not like this is the only area of constitutional law where Thomas has been somewhat of a flaming hypocrite.

So there are court analysts who think that current Establishment Clause jurisprudence isn't quite as settled as, say, that pertaining to Free Exercise. People like Thomas, however, are in a pretty small minority. Scalia, for instance, holds that the Establishment Clause applies to the states, but disagrees with the notion that it holds that governments can't favor religion over non-religion. He believes that it only applies among religions.

[WingDinger]

40. While I obviously agree with all that, I fail to see why it cannot also

mean a separation. We have always, since my childhood, added state religion. Narrowing the scope of the Con. Allowing the religiously theocratic, to claim that the con doesnt include a proper separation of church and state.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Who's 'we'?

You say "We have always, since my childhood, added state religion". Who is the 'we' to which you refer? Everyone else reads the same First Amendment that there's always been. Perhaps you've spoken to some strange person, and thought that their quoting of the amendment was typical.

Perhaps your problem is that you accuse other DUers, in #42, of unconsciously supporting right wingers:

"I am saying that the Con includes a separation of church and state. Many righties claim it does not. Many of you here also claim that. Without realizing you do."

If you're going to accuse others of supporting a right wing position, you better have some evidence. So far, you haven't shown any. Jefferson said the First Amendment implied separation of church and state, and no-one on DU has disagreed with that. But you claim they do. Is it any wonder people are getting fed up with you in this thread?

[Subdivisions]

48. The authors of the U.S. Constitution were very effective with language.

The language used regarding religion makes it very clear that religion and government are to remain separate.

Period.

[WingDinger]

53. That is what I am trying to ESTABLISH

[Xithras]

54. To understand the intent, you actually need to look at the other writings of the founders.

The Constitution was not drafted in a vacuum, and many of those involved in its creation later wrote about the debates surrounding, and intents of, the various elements of the Bill of Rights and the Articles.

James Madison, a founding father, the fourth President of the United States, and one of the primary drafters of the Constitution made the meaning quite clear. In an 1811 letter to a church fearing government persecution, he wrote: "Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

While Madison wasn't as fierce as Jefferson in enforcing the "wall" (Jefferson twice refused to acknowledge Thanksgiving, because he felt it was an improper government acknowledgement of a primarily religious holiday), he did make it clear that the Constitution precluded any overlap between religion and civil government of any level. Madison made it clear in this (and a half-dozen other) writings that the purpose of the First Amendment was not merely to preclude the establishment of a state religion, but to largely prevent government and religon interfering with each other at all.

[WingDinger]

56. Yes, it becomes clear in the federalist papers, I am trying to make it clear before then.

[BurtWorm]

64. You know what antidisestablishmentarianism is (besides a very long word)?

It was an ideology in the 17th and 18th centuries in England that opposed the movement (initiated by non Anglican Protestant sects) to "disestablish" the Church of England as the national church.

This is the sense in which "establish" is used here. The authors of the First Amendment were putting it writing that Congress had no business establishing an official church. Of course they were talking mostly about "churches"--they even referred to Jewish synagogues as churches in those days. But the word "establish" makes it clear that they did not think it was any business of the government to sanction one form of belief over another. The First Amendment leaves that choice in the hands of the citizens.

[WingDinger]

67. yes, the OF RELIGION qualifier makes it pertain to churches.

[BurtWorm]

75. This is what is known as the separation of church and state. That's the clause right there.

[NoGOPZone]

69. Yes, you're wrong. nt

[WingDinger]

74. Another effect of the difference with verb and noun is tense.

If it is establishment, the verb, it is present tense, if not future. Whereas, if it is the noun, it is referring to the past tense. So, it means that, you cannot make or create a church, by gov, nor can you prefer, or fund, or honor one. That is already ESTABLISHED. Thus, protecting us from starting, or boosting anyo, or all.

oops, posted in wrong place,

[Drale]

70. I dont think the tea baggers who want a religious state

realize that it could very easily be turned against them, and that in a religious state like that of Iran, they would not be able to practice all the disgusting horrible sexual acts they like to rant against yet still participate in.

[Hekate]

71. "Am I all wet?" Well, since you ask...

Yes, I believe you are. Also, apparently you are a "toehead." (I base the latter on the link to your other post.)

Cheers.

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Founders definitely wanted no Church of England equivalent here, since state religion

invariably supports a monarch who rules "by the will of God"---in order to enrich the state religion. Read the Founders' papers and you will see that.

Second concern was to have no state religion that would interfere with the religious practice of dissenters.

[warrior1]

77. I wish

they would keep their religion off of our money, etc. Still not separate enough.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Language fail.

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

Means

"Congress can't make any laws creating an official religion..."

There's only one meaning of "establishment" (creation) and there's only one meaning of "respecting" (regarding) in the first amendment.