Congress shall make no law

[toledo_jesus]

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

Has the Supreme Court violated the second part of this clause by denying students the opportunity to pray in public schools?

[popestpiusx]

Yes, but the problem is much larger than that. It results from a fundamnetal misunderstanding of what that clause actually means.

[toledo_jesus]

please, elaborate...

[duarc]

They haven't denied students the opertunity to pray in school. They've stopped school officals from doing things like praying over the intercom. Students are free to pray as they want during school hours so long as they don't pressure others into doing the same thing.

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp"]http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp[/url]


God Bless!
ironmonk

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='duarc' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:25 AM'] They haven't denied students the opertunity to pray in school. They've stopped school officals from doing things like praying over the intercom. Students are free to pray as they want during school hours so long as they don't pressure others into doing the same thing. [/quote]
Actually, students can even pressure others if they want. It's just that teachers who are, in effect, employees of the government can't state an opinion.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:49 AM'] [url="http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp"]http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp[/url]


God Bless!
ironmonk [/quote]
I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but it was Jefferson, not Franklin, who coined the phrase.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 29 2004, 01:04 PM'] I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but it was Jefferson, not Franklin, who coined the phrase. [/quote]
Ah, it was a letter to Franklin from Jefferson.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:31 AM'] Ah, it was a letter to Franklin from Jefferson.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Actually, it's my understanding that it was a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

[popestpiusx]

The first amendment apllies to the Federal Government. It forbids the federal government from tampering the state religions. An established religion, according to the understanding of that term byu the founders, was a state supported and enforced religion. It is not merely 'a religious establishment". It is realy states rights issue that would keep the Federal government from establishing a national religion, and allows explicity the established religions of the various states to exist without fear of federal reprisal. Evidence of this is that many of the original states had established religions and it was not until the mid 19th century that the last one was abolished. But it was done freely by the state, without federal intimidation. Virginia dis-established the Anglican religion as the established religion, but that was only resulting from the fact that it would have allowed the British religous authorities (including the king) to continue to exert some political control over the state. The same day that the state legislature passed the religious freedom amendment to the state constitution, they also passed a law making it a crime to skip religious services on Sundays, clearly indicating that religious freedom (with all its many faults) was not freedom from religion.

[toledo_jesus]

interesting.
So at no point was it ever the goal to have a state devoid of religion, rather it was that the religious practices of the people could not be governed by the state.

[Guest Aluigi]

originally it appears it was so that the federal government could not interfere in state religions.

the states had official religions they used to make laws.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 29 2004, 02:53 PM'] interesting.
So at no point was it ever the goal to have a state devoid of religion, rather it was that the religious practices of the people could not be governed by the state. [/quote]
No, it was that the religious practices (or establishments) of the states could not be governed by the federal government. Logically that would include the people as well, but their religious practices could be goverened by the various states.

[toledo_jesus]

ah.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 29 2004, 12:51 PM'] The first amendment apllies to the Federal Government. It forbids the federal government from tampering the state religions. An established religion, according to the understanding of that term byu the founders, was a state supported and enforced religion. It is not merely 'a religious establishment". It is realy states rights issue that would keep the Federal government from establishing a national religion, and allows explicity the established religions of the various states to exist without fear of federal reprisal. Evidence of this is that many of the original states had established religions and it was not until the mid 19th century that the last one was abolished. But it was done freely by the state, without federal intimidation. Virginia dis-established the Anglican religion as the established religion, but that was only resulting from the fact that it would have allowed the British religous authorities (including the king) to continue to exert some political control over the state. The same day that the state legislature passed the religious freedom amendment to the state constitution, they also passed a law making it a crime to skip religious services on Sundays, clearly indicating that religious freedom (with all its many faults) was not freedom from religion. [/quote]
The First Amendment was intended to allow religious freedom. The founding fathers may not have known the extremes to which it would be taken, but they did not want religion and state to mix.

Madison for example stated:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state."

Saying that a state did a thing does not mean that it was constitutional. At one point states had miscegenation laws. They were not constitutional either.

[Socrates]

This all just goes to show how the original intent of the Constitution (to limit the power of the Federal Gov't and protect state's rights) has been perverted by modern liberalism to impose godlessness on everybody.

The (tenth? - sorry, I forget) ammendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt by the constitution belong to the states or to the people.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 29 2004, 03:10 PM'] This all just goes to show how the original intent of the Constitution (to limit the power of the Federal Gov't and protect state's rights) has been perverted by modern liberalism to impose godlessness on everybody.

[/quote]
Can't say that I follow that line of logic.

[quote]The (tenth? - sorry, I forget) ammendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt by the constitution belong to the states or to the people.[/quote]

Correct, the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which has no relevance, but is one that is often overlooked.

[popestpiusx]

Burnspivy,
The same Jefferson you quoted above also promised an order of French Ursuline Nuns that the Federal Government would fund them after the Louisiana Purchase in which they lost their state patronage. He was also one of the key figures that pushed the law through the Virginia state legislature outlawing skipping Sunday services.

Furthermore, you have a fundamental misunderstanding what "establishment of religion" meant in 18th Century british law. Even though the colonies seperated from Britain, they still employed the Bristish legal system and simply modified it into a republic. This is the only legal system they would have known. The British Common Law system had a huge influence on the Framers and would have especially influenced the terminology. Plus, the framers themselves lived in states and influenced the state governments, many of which had established Churches. There was no objection. Never was. It was left to the states.

[God Conquers]

You definately have to take into consideration the reason there are people living in America in the first place at this time: they are being persecuated religiously at home in Britain.

After the 2nd Civil war the founders of the United States wanted to ensure that they would always have freedom to express their religion.

[popestpiusx]

Is that comment to me or who?