Separation
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.
Ok, with you there. It’s actually not in the Constitution. So far, so good. But:
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”
Uhm, yes. it is. She later clarified her point was that there is no statement about separation in the constitution. And she’s right.
That fits the narrative. This doesn’t:
Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment
[…]
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
The constitution is not a list of rights we do not have….
October 20th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
And I addressed them more than adequately. Not having public officials lead your prayer doesn’t mean you can’t privately pray. Got yer bags packed for Afghanistan yet?
No, because A) they consciously make efforts to include other faiths which sends the Taliban-Lite types around here into a tizzy when somebody uses a Quran, and B) it’s essentially a private body that makes its own rules for behavior. You can’t carry a gun in their either.
If you can’t see why that’s different than say…a teacher leading a public school class in prayer or legislative bodies using the 10 Commandments to make laws, I can’t help ya.
The Founders were deists dude. That’s not even a remotely controversial statement. That’s history 101.
Hawk:
That’s a load of stank ass bullshit and you fucking know it. They can pray if they want to–their teacher can’t require them to nor lead them in prayer or endorse a religion.
If you can’t see the difference, put down your keyboard, pack up the computer, and take it back to the store because you’re way too much the dullard to be wasting packets on the Intartubes.
Well then Jim, since we’re in agreement there…how can you not see that as the “Wall” Jefferson described? How exactly then does the govt integrate religion in a 1A compliant way into the business it does?
STILL waiting for someone to attempt even a semi-non-retarded response to that question. Good thing I’m not holding my breath.
YAG gets the 14A right at least, glad we got that settled and the “it only applies to Congress” witch is ding dong dead.
But then he gets all beshitted:
Huh? Freedom of the press. Duh. It’s a coarse example, I should have said “the govt” but the point is clear.
Easy–because having them practicing in their official capacity would be violating the “respecting” part. Duh. Nobody’s saying they can’t engage in PRIVATE prayer–once again, the difference is pretty obvious if you stop and rub a couple brain cells together.
If you wanna pray in the lunch room on your coffee break or have a Bible on your desk…knock yourself out. That’s a long way from the things that the Wall in question prohibit. And you damn well know it. This is why nobody is going around the offices at your local federal building confiscating crucifixes and Qurans. Duuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
And Jim–I’m not unsympathetic to your argument that it’s the govt and not the people that should be restricted–but that’s what the Wall is protecting!
Private practice is safe under the auspices of the Wall–but when you start letting public officials use their office to participate in public religious practices…if it’s not YOUR religion they’re practicing, is it that hard to see why it might be a problem?
Jefferson meant what he said.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
And on the House Chaplain bit…it’s no different than having Chaplains for the military or having a moment of silence where…if you’re not religious, just be silent as you don’t have to do anything.
I just don’t get why people struggle with this–the govt not being able to constitutionally deploy proselytizing teachers or 10 Commandments based laws isn’t keeping anyone from practicing their religions in private life.
So where’s the problem, exactly? Why pretend Jefferson and Madison didn’t say EXACTLY what they said and why engage in the mental contortions required to ignore what both they and the SCOTUS have roundly held for two centuries when your private religious practice isn’t threatened in the least?
There’s no reason to buy into O’Donnell’s bullshit unless you, in point of fact, want an officially sanctioned religion.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Sebastian you clearly said that if a student wanted to pray they “they’ve gotta do it privately”. Which clearly would be a violation of there rights. As for your suggestion that I pack up my computer, no. As frustrating as it is to try to explain simple concepts to liberals, I don’t give up that easily. (By the way if you disagree with what I said an actual argument works better than cursing.)
You say if you want to pray on your own that is alright, and that it is a long way from the things that the Wall in question prohibit. So I ask where is this arbitrary line drawn, and who gets to decide what is permitted?
As for your statement “I’m not unsympathetic to your argument that it’s the govt and not the people that should be restricted–but that’s what the Wall is protecting!”
So you are saying that the government has to restrict our behavior to protect us from ourselves.
And finally you keep referencing Jefferson to determine the intent of the 1st amendment, which seems odd considering he didn’t participate in writing or passing it. When he spoke of the wall of separation he was merely stating his own interpretation.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:49 am
Sebastian, you’re an idiot. Have you EVER taken history? EVER? Here are you two choices:
Jefferson, et al., remember the strife and tyranny resulting from state religions- Church of England, for example- and the should be a wall between church and state to stop that exact problem…
OR
Jefferson was afraid other religions would get offended if little Akbar heard someone say a prayer.
Hmm, which one could have been going through his mind?
October 21st, 2010 at 2:57 am
“More people attend church today than did then.”
Can you cite some references for this? What little I was able to find was quite to the contrary:
Church attendance in the 18th century: 75-80% http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html
Church attendance now: 43% http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/americans-church-attendance-inches-2010.aspx
October 21st, 2010 at 6:34 am
Sebastian – I understand you view teachers as cogs in the vast Federal Government Machine, but I tend to view them as part of small Local government entities that must be responsive to local issues and beliefs (they’d better be, as it’s usually the Local Government that’s paying them). You see that ‘wall’ as something that divides the public from government at all levels (sort of like the Great Wall of China was supposed to protect the Chinese from the Mongols…), while I see it as a shield protecting us (us INCLUDING Local Governments) from Federal Government interference in religion. Local Governments are not the Federal Government. They are the most responsive to the needs of their citizens, as they are local citizens as well. That is why I have no problem with Teachers leading students in prayer (as long as the parents consent to it). I do not believe the ‘wall’ was intended to separate
Local Government from its constituents.
I can agree that the 1A, as written, requires Local Governments to allow Freedom of Religion of its citizens, but I do not believe that it serves to separate Local Governments from participating in religion along with their fellow citizens. If they overstep, the community will let them know. People have much more direct influence over their Local Government than they do any other level of government.
October 21st, 2010 at 8:58 am
Jefferson and madison were not the sole originators of the constitution. The reason there is a freedom of religion period is that because there were founding fathers who wanted it in there. If they did not want there to be religion in the constitution it would not have been added. If they had wanted a separation of church and state they would have stated it outright. There is no such thing as a separation of church and state. The state is ruled by elected officials that base their decisions on there beliefs religious or not… That sounds pretty damn religious to me. If there is a separation why does the government fund the building of religious centers period???? According to sebastiens view there is a wall between the two. That simply does not exist. Currently the mosque being build in Ny is using government funds. Explain that separation to me again… As long as the government has people that are religious in it there will be no separation. There is no clear cut path or wording that states a separation. Unless you count what the supreme court said about the constitution 100 years after it was written. The constitution as written was able to be read and understood by the common man on the street. If the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state they would have said so OPENLY like they did with everything else….. Post founding father alterations have made it harder to understand. I also find it amusing that anti gunners read messages into the second amendment. There is an interesting correlation here. You cannot have it both ways. Either you can read messages or you cannot. If read messages then you must accept that the anti gunners are right….
October 21st, 2010 at 10:52 am
Jim: I believe we are in violent agreement on the state departments of education issue. Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but what was I expressing is that the citizens of each state should endeavor to end their own DOEs, independent of the FedGov. Of course, if the citizens of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts don’t want to do that, I have nothing to say about it since I no longer live there.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:44 pm
When this was originally blogged, I started to post mentioning the fact that states had state religions long after the establishment of the Constitution, but I figured somebody would–and they did. I still haven’t seen Sebastian the Blogless address this issue; he prefers to fling insults. Rather typical liberal behavior, actually.
October 21st, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Mark – Understood. I didn’t catch that difference. We are certainly in agreement. And you no longer live in MA? That would explain the ‘freeman’ in your name…
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 am
The 1A:
Perhaps more clearly,
Congress (and by the 14A the State Legislature) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress (and by the 14A the State Legislature) shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress (and by the 14A the State Legislature) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,
Congress (and by the 14A the State Legislature) shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press;
Congress (and by the 14A the State Legislature) shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
A police officer shutting down a newspaper is not “Congress (nor the state legislature)making a law abridging the freedom of the press” It is an officer enforcing a law that does not exist. Last time I checked officers couldn’t do that, period whether there is a constitution prohibition on that action or not. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to say that officers can’t enforce laws that don’t exist. Not unless you also want to argue that officers can do anything they damn well please so long as the COTUS doesn’t say they can’t.
Easy–because having them practicing in their official capacity would be violating the “respecting” part.
So that makes it OK to violate the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part?
I’m pretty sure the 1A doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless the latter interferes with the former” but I’ll check again.
Nope, still not there.
Again, in my example, (which I noticed you did not address) if you have four different gov’t agents leading four different religious prayers, exactly which religion is the one being established?
The answer? NONE.