Church-state 'wall' coming back down?

http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20070127-114938-6345r.htm

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

the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, which took effect Dec. 15, 1791

U.S. courts rule about two times each week on cases involving whether prayers can be included in a high school graduation ceremony, an image of Jesus Christ can be displayed in a public school or a Ten Commandments monument can remain in a government building or public park.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says such prayers and displays violate the principle of separation of church and state.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, estimates the frequency of such rulings between 104 and 156 annually.

Mr. Lynn, whose group often gets involved in the cases, says they represent only a small fraction of incidents that arise.

"Most of these cases never even make it to court," he says.

The ACLU, which routinely takes on such cases in federal court, has scored some important victories in the church-state area.

Those victories include the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lee v. Weisman, which struck down school-sponsored prayers at public-school graduation ceremonies.

Another was the court's 2000 decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which struck down a Texas school district's policy of permitting students to vote on selecting a classmate to lead prayers before football games.

The tide started to turn in June 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled that a granite monolith on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin featuring the Ten Commandments -- along with Jewish and patriotic symbols -- did not violate the First Amendment's ban on an establishment of religion.

Francis Manion, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), says that with its 5-4 opinion in Van Orden v. Perry, the high court "did away with the idea that there is something constitutionally radioactive about the Ten Commandments."

In a December 2005 ruling about a Kentucky courthouse's display of the Ten Commandments, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the phrase "separation of church and state" is an "extra-constitutional construct ... [that] has grown tiresome." The court ruled that the display was allowed because it was "part of an otherwise secular exhibit."

Since then, the ACLJ, a public-interest law firm that specializes in religious-liberty cases, has won "most of the Ten Commandments court cases" in which it has participated, Mr. Manion says.

History of the 'wall'

Many Americans wrongly assume the words "separation of church and state" are included in the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Conn., on Jan. 1, 1802, 10 months after his presidential inauguration.

An analysis of that letter -- now housed at the Library of Congress -- as well as other documents from this nation's earliest years and nearly 150 years of legal decisions strongly suggest that Jefferson and his contemporaries would be at odds with the courts today regarding church-state issues, according to the Rev. Bryan Fischer, a minister and executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance in Boise.

Mr. Fischer says Jefferson coined the phrase that some judges are calling overused to "reassure" the Connecticut Baptists that they had "no need to fear oppression from the federal government or its intrusion into the free exercise of religion because the Constitution had erected a 'wall of separation between church and state.' "

"In other words, Jefferson's wall was designed to protect the church from the state, not the other way around," and it "was never intended to insulate the state from the influence of the church," Mr. Fischer wrote in a 2005 opinion piece published in the Idaho Statesman.

Mr. Lynn disagrees and calls opponents "historical revisionists."

"Thomas Jefferson was a longtime champion of not having the state involved in religion," says Mr. Lynn, an ordained minister with the United Church of Christ. "He and James Madison erected a framework for separation of church and state. ... It's clear the majority of the framers of the Constitution had no interest in having government accommodate religion."

Mr. Manion says the two sides in the church-state debate agree that the Founding Fathers opposed allowing government "to make any religion obligatory" or giving one religion preferential treatment over another.

"But we know the framers of the Constitution permitted acknowledgement of religion in the public square. Given the things Jefferson said and did, he would be sued by the ACLU if he were president today," he says.

The 'wall' in court

Jefferson's letter to the Baptists was cited by Supreme Court justices for the first time in the 1879 case of Reynolds v. United States.

George Reynolds, a Mormon polygamist, had been convicted of bigamy in the Utah Territory. He said his conviction should be overturned because it was his religious duty as a Mormon to have multiple wives.

Eight justices held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. The majority opinion alluded to Jefferson's letter, in which he said there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief.

The court said it recognized that under the First Amendment, Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But it noted that a law limiting marriage to one spouse at a time had been in effect since the times of King James I of England, who ruled from 1603 to 1625.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court case cited by many legal analysts as having the greatest influence on the church-state debate today is Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, N.J., in 1947.

"That's when the Supreme Court yanked the phrase out of an obscure letter Jefferson had written and inserted it in a legal ruling," Mr. Fischer says. "Overnight, it went from being an obscure phrase Jefferson had written" to being used in a way its author had not intended, he said.

In his lawsuit, Arch R. Everson charged that a New Jersey law authorizing local school boards to pay the costs of transportation to and from private and parochial schools violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution because it allowed indirect aid to religion.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The latter says: "No state shall make or enforce any law ... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

However, the court was divided 5-4 in its decision that the New Jersey law allowing reimbursement to parochial-school students was constitutional.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, one of the five who signed the majority opinion in the Everson case, acknowledged in a 1970 ruling that the Everson case turned the entire issue of religious liberty on its head.

By incorporating the 14th Amendment into the Establishment Clause, Justice Douglas wrote, the high court "reversed the historic position that the foundation of those liberties rested largely in state law," not federal legislation.

Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United, commemorated next month's 60th anniversary of the Everson ruling in the January issue of Church & State, his group's newsletter.

His article describes Everson as the "most important church-state decision you never heard of," which "kicked off the culture wars that still exist today."

"The importance of Everson can hardly be overstated," Mr. Boston wrote. "Virtually every case that deals with the 'establishment of religion' cites Everson. Federal judges use it as a touchstone when seeking guidance in contentious clashes over the proper role of religion in government. Its language appears in countless lower court rulings and legal briefs."

Debating Everson

However, there is disagreement about the importance of the Everson ruling among legal scholars.

Bruce Fein, a lawyer who specializes in constitutional law, is a sharp critic of the Everson ruling and has made his opinions known in columns published in The Washington Times and other newspapers.

"It sows more doubts than it dispels," he says. "If there really was a wall separating church and state, a city fire department couldn't even put out a fire at a church."

Besides, Mr, Fein says, "Thomas Jefferson never insinuated the wall was at the state level."

But Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, contends that "it makes a lot of sense to have a system where we all have basic [religious] rights, no matter what state we are in."

Mr. Manion says it's "hard to believe that in a country where 80 [percent] to 90 percent of the people believe in God" that the government forbids the acknowledgement "of the widespread nature of this belief."

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a public-interest law firm that takes on cases it sees as limiting religious freedom, says he sees several "ominous trends" in the church-state area.

"In the past few years, we've seen judges put more emphasis on something they call the government's speech doctrine, which limits free speech on government property," including prayer, Mr. Whitehead says.

He cites two cases the Rutherford Institute is working on, in which people were denied the right to pray in public ceremonies or meetings.

One case involves a City Council member in Fredericksburg, Va., who was told he could not say "in Jesus' name" in a prayer at a council meeting.

"So Christians can't pray now in public. It's dangerous," Mr. Whitehead says.

Researcher Amy Baskerville contributed to this article.

It's completely unfair--you would think after all these years there might be organizations that hold meetings in public where people might go pray and worship as they please. It's ridiculous that in this free country there aren't buildings, tents, someplace where people might go express their religious beliefs, that we have to keep them bottled up inside and there's just nowhere to go and be with people who understand what it's like. I guess christians are the new jews.

It's completely unfair--you would think after all these years there might be organizations that hold meetings in public where people might go pray and worship as they please. It's ridiculous that in this free country there aren't buildings, tents, someplace where people might go express their religious beliefs, that we have to keep them bottled up inside and there's just nowhere to go and be with people who understand what it's like. I guess christians are the new jews.

:applause:

I have never, in my entire life, understood why some Christians feel the need to protest/sue about including Christianity in EVERY SINGLE FACET OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

Do you want prayer in schools? You can pray any time you want! Just do it silently!

Do you want people to see the ten commandments? Why does it have to be at the state courthouse?

You want a nativity scene? Why does it have to be on the lawn of city hall?

You've got PLENTY of places to teach/demonstrate your religion- why does it have to be state-sponsored?

"Wall of separation between Church and state."

Sorry Republican hacks, there is absolutely no grey area there. You simply don't agree with Thomas Jefferson. Nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to your opinion but you would be doing yourself a favor if you would stop kidding yourselves.

"Wall of separation between Church and state."

Sorry Republican hacks, there is absolutely no grey area there. You simply don't agree with Thomas Jefferson. Nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to your opinion but you would be doing yourself a favor if you would stop kidding yourselves.

What? SO you think the phrase is being used the way it was intended?

As we all like football, how would you feel if your kid attended public high school in say, Dearborn, or a rural Hawaiian school, and pre-game you got to participate in an prayer for the beliefs of the majority?

Do you want to participate in a prayer to Allah, or Ki'i or another Hawaiian god?

It's completely unfair--you would think after all these years there might be organizations that hold meetings in public where people might go pray and worship as they please. It's ridiculous that in this free country there aren't buildings, tents, someplace where people might go express their religious beliefs, that we have to keep them bottled up inside and there's just nowhere to go and be with people who understand what it's like. I guess christians are the new jews.

:laugh: :laugh:

head's sarcasm meter is on full blast today.

:applause:

I have never, in my entire life, understood why some Christians feel the need to protest/sue about including Christianity in EVERY SINGLE FACET OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

Do you want prayer in schools? You can pray any time you want! Just do it silently!

Do you want people to see the ten commandments? Why does it have to be at the state courthouse?

You want a nativity scene? Why does it have to be on the lawn of city hall?

You've got PLENTY of places to teach/demonstrate your religion- why does it have to be state-sponsored?

You have it backwards. These things have long existed in these places. It is people/ACLU who have sued to get them removed.

It's completely unfair--you would think after all these years there might be organizations that hold meetings in public where people might go pray and worship as they please. It's ridiculous that in this free country there aren't buildings, tents, someplace where people might go express their religious beliefs, that we have to keep them bottled up inside and there's just nowhere to go and be with people who understand what it's like. I guess christians are the new jews.

Keep the faith brother. One day Christians may hold positions of power. Maybe we'll see one in the White House or even on the Supreme Court? You can at least dream.

This thread excites me. I really think we're going to solve this issue this time!

What? SO you think the phrase is being used the way it was intended?

The establishment clause or Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of it?

I think there are times when the establishment clause doesn't apply but people try to use it anyway.

But I also think that anyone who doesn't believe in a strict wall of separation between church and state simply disagrees with Thomas Jefferson. Nothing wrong with that, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Thomas Jefferson was human, so he could be wrong. But IMO he was right. Separation of Church and state is what's best for the country.

Rev. Bryan Fischer, for example, disgrees with TJ but he won't admit it because disagreeing with a founding father is political suicide. You can't have it both ways, and there is absolutely no grey area in Thomas Jefferson's legendary statement. He was a very deliberate man and he fully understood the implications of his words as President of the United States.

Republicans have been trying to debunk this letter for a years now, but their strategies keep failing so they keep changing them. First they tried to say the letter was not authentic. That failed. Then they tried to attribute this quote to Hugo Black, which was also false. Now they try to say Separation of church and state = Church can control state but state can't control Church. That will also fail so what's going to be the next strategy? Perhaps they will ask Websters to change the definition of "wall" and "Separation."

If he were alive today, it's safe to say Thomas Jefferson would not be Jerry Fallwel and James Dobson's best bud.

I still don't understand why its a big deal (on either side)

If there is a nativity scene, so what?

If the 10 commandments are posted, who cares?

I really think both sides make too big of a deal out of this. Personally, I could care less either way, I am going to worship how I want

I still don't understand why its a big deal (on either side)

If there is a nativity scene, so what?

If the 10 commandments are posted, who cares?

To a lib, these things are like sunlight to a vampire

To a lib, these things are like sunlight to a vampire

Which I never really understand

To be honest I just kinda ignore it. I have been to Mass at least 100 times in my life, but I am not Catholic.

Likewise I see no reason to really really push it. If a nativity scene isn't in front of the courthouse, is that really such a big deal?

The establishment clause or Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of it?

I do not think that anyone can say what TJ was trying to say, other than TJ himself. I think that the Seperation clause has been used in a way that was not intended

I think there are times when the establishment clause doesn't apply but people try to use it anyway.

We agree on this point.

But I also think that anyone who doesn't believe in a strict wall of separation between church and state simply disagrees with Thomas Jefferson. Nothing wrong with that, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Thomas Jefferson was human, so he could be wrong. But IMO he was right. Separation of Church and state is what's best for the country.

I agree here too. Unfortunately, I think we agree for different reasons. I do not think that displaying the 10 Commandments in a court house violates the Seperation. But you have to take in context how TJ was using the seperation. He wrote a letter to the baptists, assuring them they would not be shut out by the government establishing a state religion. This does not mean that he was suggesting that religion be shut out of government. This Seperation "clause" as it is now known has been used to apply the First Amendment as an excuse to remove religion from the government.

Rev. Bryan Fischer, for example, disgrees with TJ but he won't admit it because disagreeing with a founding father is political suicide. You can't have it both ways, and there is absolutely no grey area in Thomas Jefferson's legendary statement. He was a very deliberate man and he fully understood the implications of his words as President of the United States.

This is strictly your opinion. Unless we can somehow channel TJ's ghost, we can not be sure that he meant for his letter to ever be made public.

Republicans have been trying to debunk this letter for a years now, but their strategies keep failing so they keep changing them. First they tried to say the letter was not authentic. That failed. Then they tried to attribute this quote to Hugo Black, which was also false. Now they try to say Separation of church and state = Church can control state but state can't control Church. That will also fail so what's going to be the next strategy? Perhaps they will ask Websters to change the definition of "wall" and "Separation."

I think that reps have been trying for years to have the letter interpreted in a more strict manner. The seperation clause has been loosly applied to any expression of religion. Do i think that public schools should have teacher led prayers? No, but I also do not think that it should outlaw prayers at commencments led by students. My family is hard core right wing Reps, and we disagree on A TON of political views. But I believ that the seperation letter has been twisted to allow for the removal of all religious displays.

If he were alive today, it's safe to say Thomas Jefferson would not be Jerry Fallwel and James Dobson's best bud.

On this, we could not be in agreeance any more. The religious right is a little bit too far from center for me, as is the liberal left.:2cents:

*EDIT: spelling

Keep the faith brother. One day Christians may hold positions of power. Maybe we'll see one in the White House or even on the Supreme Court? You can at least dream.

We shall overcome.

Ironic the letter itself. Look at the closing

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

I do not think that anyone can say what TJ was trying to say, other than TJ himself.

He said it himself. A wall between church and state. There is no grey area there, it's as clear as day...unless you really don't want it to be. A wall is a wall and separation does not allow for overlapping, intertwining, interweaving, etc. TJ was fully aware of the definitions of those two words. I have studied him for years as he is one of my idols so I'm not making baseless claims-the man had a way with words.

I think too many people don't make the distinction between individual freedoms of expression and institutional religious sponsorship (Take Sarge for example in the post above mine). The former being allowed under any circumstances by Jefferson's view, the latter being a violation of principle and in some cases the establishment clause.

This is strictly your opinion. Unless we can somehow channel TJ's ghost, we can not be sure that he meant for his letter to ever be made public.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was fully aware that his private correspondence would eventaully be made public and often in his long written debates with John Adams, he was speaking to history and future people just as much as he was speaking to the sage of Quincy. We have thousands of pages of opinions from Jefferson and he went through great pains to keep them intact.

I agree here too. Unfortunately, I think we agree for different reasons. I do not think that displaying the 10 Commandments in a court house violates the Seperation. But you have to take in context how TJ was using the seperation. He wrote a letter to the baptists, assuring them they would not be shut out by the government establishing a state religion. This does not mean that he was suggesting that religion be shut out of government. This Seperation "clause" as it is now known has been used to apply the First Amendment as an excuse to remove religion from the government.

Quote:

I would agree with this if there were no "strange Gods" commandment. If we write on our courtroom walls "Thou shall hold no strange gods before me" meaning, you have to be Christian and Christian only, being muslim, buddhist, atheist, agnostic, hindu, pagan is wrong-that is an endorsement of one religion over every other religion, and thus a violation of the establishment clause.

:applause:

I have never, in my entire life, understood why some Christians feel the need to protest/sue about including Christianity in EVERY SINGLE FACET OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

Do you want prayer in schools? You can pray any time you want! Just do it silently!

Do you want people to see the ten commandments? Why does it have to be at the state courthouse?

You want a nativity scene? Why does it have to be on the lawn of city hall?

You've got PLENTY of places to teach/demonstrate your religion- why does it have to be state-sponsored?

Great post, I agree with all your points.

I still don't understand why its a big deal (on either side)

If there is a nativity scene, so what?

If the 10 commandments are posted, who cares?

I really think both sides make too big of a deal out of this. Personally, I could care less either way, I am going to worship how I want

It's about exclusion.

Case in point - while living in Dallas (Probably the issue right there), my Son went to a city run pre-school.

Come Christmas time they put up a big Christmas tree. I had no issue with that. But my son asked why we didn't have a Christmas tree. No problem, got a chance to talk about the difference in religions.

So he asked if he could bring a menorah to school. Said no problem, brought one in, asked the Teacher to put it next to the tree. Her reply "I don't think that's a good idea. I don't want to bring Religion in to the school"

It's about exclusion.

Case in point - while living in Dallas (Probably the issue right there), my Son went to a city run pre-school.

Come Christmas time they put up a big Christmas tree. I had no issue with that. But my son asked why we didn't have a Christmas tree. No problem, got a chance to talk about the difference in religions.

So he asked if he could bring a menorah to school. Said no problem, brought one in, asked the Teacher to put it next to the tree. Her reply "I don't think that's a good idea. I don't want to bring Religion in to the school"

Eh, I never had that problem. Which is probably why I generally feel the way I do about religion in public places

I was only asked about a billion times as a kid to do a presentation on Pakistan/Islam, and heard the same silly questions for years

So to me, it really is no biggie to me.

It's about exclusion.

Case in point - while living in Dallas (Probably the issue right there), my Son went to a city run pre-school.

Come Christmas time they put up a big Christmas tree. I had no issue with that. But my son asked why we didn't have a Christmas tree. No problem, got a chance to talk about the difference in religions.

So he asked if he could bring a menorah to school. Said no problem, brought one in, asked the Teacher to put it next to the tree. Her reply "I don't think that's a good idea. I don't want to bring Religion in to the school"

Well, technically the christmas tree is not expressing any religion. The tree is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a custom that was borrowed for Germany. So having a christmas tree up, devoid of any scenes of Jesus or religious themes, does not introduce religion to the debate.

Let's be honest, here, puritanical christianity has left an indelible impression on the laws and policies and even fundamental philosophical beliefs of this country. We see it in our everyday lives. In our feelings towards women, toward the environment, towards gays, and towards those of other religions, there is a smug sense of superiority, a righteous condescension that hangs in the air like stale cigar smoke. This is the danger of religion. You can't argue with god. If he says fags are evil, well then they are and that's it. And the great thing about the bible is that you can find a passage to support anything.

What disturbs me about most christian fundamentalists today is their inability to recognize metaphor and irony. This diminishes their ability to discern between fiction and reality. I mean, taking everything in the bible literally is akin to someone taking everything literally they've read in Lord of the Rings. No sane, rational adult human being would do that.

Well, technically the christmas tree is not expressing any religion. The tree is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a custom that was borrowed for Germany. So having a christmas tree up, devoid of any scenes of Jesus or religious themes, does not introduce religion to the debate.

It not called a "Custom from Germany Tree" it's called a Christmas tree...

And there aren't many non christians putting them up around christmas time.

Reguardless of how it started, today It repersents Christmas as much as a menorah repersents chanukah.

He said it himself. A wall between church and state. There is no grey area there, it's as clear as day...unless you really don't want it to be. A wall is a wall and separation does not allow for overlapping, intertwining, interweaving, etc. TJ was fully aware of the definitions of those two words. I have studied him for years as he is one of my idols so I'm not making baseless claims-the man had a way with words.

I don't disagree. I know the wall blocks overlap going both ways. I just do not think it was intended to grant freedom FROM religion, which is how the ACLU interprets it.

I think too many people don't make the distinction between individual freedoms of expression and institutional religious sponsorship (Take Sarge for example in the post above mine). The former being allowed under any circumstances by Jefferson's view, the latter being a violation of principle and in some cases the establishment clause.

I do not think we could agree more.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was fully aware that his private correspondence would eventaully be made public and often in his long written debates with John Adams, he was speaking to history and future people just as much as he was speaking to the sage of Quincy. We have thousands of pages of opinions from Jefferson and he went through great pains to keep them intact.

I suppose you could make this argument.

I would agree with this if there were no "strange Gods" commandment. If we write on our courtroom walls "Thou shall hold no strange gods before me" meaning, you have to be Christian and Christian only, being muslim, buddhist, atheist, agnostic, hindu, pagan is wrong-that is an endorsement of one religion over every other religion, and thus a violation of the establishment clause.

I do not think that the strange gods command crosses any line. I am not asking to have them displayed in the statehouse, but the courthouse. I do believe that the founders used the 10 Commandments as a basis for our law. Therefor they have historical signifigance, and not just religious signifigance.