First Amendment Establishment Clause Myth

[telaquapacky]

In light of the slow-but-sure Nazi-like seizure of power in America by the so-called “Christian” right, I think it’s important for us to understand constitutional religious liberty issues more clearly. I’m sharing here a religious liberty bulletin I recently received. I’ll share others in the future if they are pertinent:

The Myth regarding the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause has become as dogmatically believed by the religious right as evolution is believed by the scientific community. Because of the upcoming changes on the Supreme Court, as well as a number of significant Court decisions, we need to spend some time understanding the myth and why we must continue to rebut it.

We are currently discussing the possibility of preparing a full length documentary film to counteract the claims of those who support the myth. If you are interested in contributing to this important and timely project, please contact us as soon as possible. Time is of the essence!

Original Intent and the Separation of Church and State: Debunking the Myth

The Myth: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was only intended to preclude the designation of an official national church or denomination. It was not intended to prevent the government from getting involved in religion. This would permit the Federal government, and especially the states, to engage in a wide range of overtly religious activities, both promoting and financially supporting religion, while restricting the religious beliefs and practices of minority undesirable religions.

The Facts:

1. The Establishment Clause did not grant the Federal government any power over religion. Architects of the Constitution, like James Madison, argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed, because the Federal government created by the Constitution was one of limited, delegated powers, with no power to infringe on individual rights. The Constitution simply doesn’t give the Federal government any power over religion.

2. The Establishment Clause went through several drafts before its final version. Several of those drafts had language that clearly restricted the clause to prohibiting a national church. These drafts were rejected in favor of a broad prohibition on any form of religious establishment. The mythological version was most definitely considered by the founders, supported by a few, but decisively rejected! (See “The Establishment Clause” by Leonard Levy for a full analysis of these drafts.)

3. The myth is really only viable because most people have forgotten what an “establishment” of religion is. The prohibition is on all forms of religious establishment, including Christianity. The founders were well aware of what it would mean to establish religion. Before the United States was formed, in the colonial era, there were a variety of examples where the government established religions. In some colonies, a single church was favored, while in others, two or more churches enjoyed official status and benefits. These benefits included tax funding of clergy and teacher salaries, and land grants for churches and schools. Some colonies even required clergy to be licensed by the government based on what they believed.

4. A corollary to the myth contends that the states are free to establish religion and that the establishment clauses only apply to the federal government. In theory, this was true until after the Civil War when Congress amended the Constitution to prevent states from infringing on the civil rights of their residents. In reality, all of the states had already adopted their own “establishment” clauses, and most were even stronger than the Federal Constitution. This myth pretends that state constitutions don’t exist, and that the Civil War never happened

Advocates of the Myth that government can be involved in religion so long as the government does not establish a national religion are offended at how some liberals have used the Separation of Church and State as a weapon against religion, and particularly against public religious expression.

The Facts:

1. It is true some liberal groups are just as intemperate in advocating an extreme view of the Establishment Clause as some conservatives are in advocating a restrictive view of the Clause.

2. Such intemperance does not discredit the basic concept of Separation of Church and State. Some members of the religious right are surprised to learn that Separation of Church and State is an idea that the Baptists came up with to avoid religious persecution. It is not something that the secularists or atheists developed to attack Christianity. Unfortunately, the religious right in its quest for power has attacked this separation, calling it everything from a “gross misinterpretation” to a “satanic delusion.” This is inaccurate and dangerous for those who may find themselves categorized as religious minorities.

3. Separation of church and state serves an important religious liberty function. It preserves the independence of religious institutions, while insuring that their survival is based on voluntary commitment and support, rather than state aid. Such voluntarism is the genius of the American system of church and state, since it has produced the most vibrant religious communities in the western world.

Conclusion

In the next few months, we will be hearing a lot in the media about what “original intent” means. As you hear the rhetoric from both the left and the right, we need to remember what our founders really meant, and that the strength of our churches and of the government is best preserved when church and state are separate.

Source:

Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty

August 16, 2005

[Clint]

Is it your view that because government is not to influence religion that religion is not to influence government?

[telaquapacky]

Clint wrote: Is it your view that because government is not to influence religion that religion is not to influence government?One would hope that our leaders would have enough moral character to represent us with honesty and integrity. Our Declaration of Independence says that our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is endowed to us by God. Whether unbelievers appreciate that or not, it says that God gives them too the right to believe or not, and live happy, prosperous lives. It assumes that if religious believers are our representatives, they will respect the rights of everyone, whether they believe the same way or not, because God, Himself expects them to respect those rights.

I believe that the trend among Evangelical Christians and their leaders is away from that. I don't believe the "Christian" right that is gaining influence and power in Washington can be trusted to respect others' right to liberty of conscience. Listen to the hate-filled rhetoric of their leaders. The Pat Robertson faux-pas is only a little triangle tinkle in a symphony from hell that is building in volume to a crescendo in the halls of government.

AdamZapple said in the Pat Robertson thread about giving the states the prerogative to legislate regarding religion. That's dangerous. The states can even less be trusted than the federal government to protect the rights of religious minorities.

What was that famous quote about how evil triumphs because good men kept silent? We need to speak a clear, informed voice about religious liberty.

[Clint]

I have shared your concern about an unholy alliance between government and religion for many years. I’m not at all happy with President Bush’s initiative to combine faith based organizations with government.

I don’t think that most churches even consider the fact that when they do their constitutions for the purpose of tax exemption they are giving government power over the church.

[Adam Zapple]

AdamZapple said in the Pat Robertson thread about giving the states the prerogative to legislate regarding religion.


I did?

Will you please copy and paste my quote so I will know what you are talking about?

[Accountable]

Adam Zapple wrote: I did?

Will you please copy and paste my quote so I will know what you are talking about?
Well whoever said it was right, right, right. Get the fed of of non-constitutional areas!

[Adam Zapple]

I did say that accountable, but I never said states should get in the business of regulation religion...(and it wasn't in the Pat Robertson thread):-4

[Accountable]

Adam Zapple wrote: I did say that accountable, but I never said states should get in the business of regulation religion...(and it wasn't in the Pat Robertson thread):-4
Yup. You, Clint & I were having fun gutting all the federal departments. I'll find it.

[Accountable]

It was in Court rules atheism a religion

[telaquapacky]

Adam Zapple wrote: I did?

Will you please copy and paste my quote so I will know what you are talking about?

(from the Court rules atheism a religion thread)

Let's sweep it all out. If it's not a mandated funtion of the federal government per the constitution, abolish it. Send it back to the states where it all belongs.
Sorry, Zapp! Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "If it's ( If religion) is not a mandated function of the federal government per the constitution, abolish it (religious legislation). Send it (religious legislation) back to the states."

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: Sorry, Zapp! Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "If it's ( If religion) is not a mandated function of the federal government per the constitution, abolish it (religious legislation). Send it (religious legislation) back to the states."
Can't send it back if it's not there in the first place. The Constitution prohibits religious legislation, does it not?

[Adam Zapple]

I was speaking in general of shrinking our federal government. The feds have usurped too many responsibilities that the constitution left to the states to handle. The Constitution spells out the duties and responsibilities of the federal government and hands everything else to the states. We need to get back to that. Religion wasn't on my mind.

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: Well whoever said it was right, right, right. Get the fed of of non-constitutional areas!Religious liberty is a constitutional principle, as are all civil rights. They are guaranteed to all citizens, therefore it is the role of the federal government to protect them, by limiting it's power to legislatively impinge upon them, and likewise limiting states powers to do likewise.

Of course, If a law that restricted the rights of a certain religious minority to buy or sell was introduced, it could easily be construed as having to do with commerce- and therefore a states' issue.

Did you know that Congress considers Sunday laws neutral and void of religious connotation? That's why some states have Sunday laws and some don't.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[telaquapacky]

Adam Zapple wrote: I was speaking in general of shrinking our federal government. The feds have usurped too many responsibilities that the constitution left to the states to handle. The Constitution spells out the duties and responsibilities of the federal government and hands everything else to the states. We need to get back to that. Religion wasn't on my mind.Thanks for the clarification.

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: Religious liberty is a constitutional principle, [...]


Absolutely right. I misspoke.

[FredFlash]

telaquapacky wrote: In light of the slow-but-sure Nazi-like seizure of power in America by the so-called “Christian” right, I think it’s important for us to understand constitutional religious liberty issues more clearly. I’m sharing here a religious liberty bulletin I recently received. I’ll share others in the future if they are pertinent:

The Myth regarding the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause has become as dogmatically believed by the religious right as evolution is believed by the scientific community. Because of the upcoming changes on the Supreme Court, as well as a number of significant Court decisions, we need to spend some time understanding the myth and why we must continue to rebut it.

We are currently discussing the possibility of preparing a full length documentary film to counteract the claims of those who support the myth. If you are interested in contributing to this important and timely project, please contact us as soon as possible. Time is of the essence!

Original Intent and the Separation of Church and State: Debunking the Myth

The Myth: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was only intended to preclude the designation of an official national church or denomination. It was not intended to prevent the government from getting involved in religion. This would permit the Federal government, and especially the states, to engage in a wide range of overtly religious activities, both promoting and financially supporting religion, while restricting the religious beliefs and practices of minority undesirable religions.

The Facts:

1. The Establishment Clause did not grant the Federal government any power over religion. Architects of the Constitution, like James Madison, argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed, because the Federal government created by the Constitution was one of limited, delegated powers, with no power to infringe on individual rights. The Constitution simply doesn’t give the Federal government any power over religion.

2. The Establishment Clause went through several drafts before its final version. Several of those drafts had language that clearly restricted the clause to prohibiting a national church. These drafts were rejected in favor of a broad prohibition on any form of religious establishment. The mythological version was most definitely considered by the founders, supported by a few, but decisively rejected! (See “The Establishment Clause” by Leonard Levy for a full analysis of these drafts.)

3. The myth is really only viable because most people have forgotten what an “establishment” of religion is. The prohibition is on all forms of religious establishment, including Christianity. The founders were well aware of what it would mean to establish religion. Before the United States was formed, in the colonial era, there were a variety of examples where the government established religions. In some colonies, a single church was favored, while in others, two or more churches enjoyed official status and benefits. These benefits included tax funding of clergy and teacher salaries, and land grants for churches and schools. Some colonies even required clergy to be licensed by the government based on what they believed.

4. A corollary to the myth contends that the states are free to establish religion and that the establishment clauses only apply to the federal government. In theory, this was true until after the Civil War when Congress amended the Constitution to prevent states from infringing on the civil rights of their residents. In reality, all of the states had already adopted their own “establishment” clauses, and most were even stronger than the Federal Constitution. This myth pretends that state constitutions don’t exist, and that the Civil War never happened

Advocates of the Myth that government can be involved in religion so long as the government does not establish a national religion are offended at how some liberals have used the Separation of Church and State as a weapon against religion, and particularly against public religious expression.

The Facts:

1. It is true some liberal groups are just as intemperate in advocating an extreme view of the Establishment Clause as some conservatives are in advocating a restrictive view of the Clause.

2. Such intemperance does not discredit the basic concept of Separation of Church and State. Some members of the religious right are surprised to learn that Separation of Church and State is an idea that the Baptists came up with to avoid religious persecution. It is not something that the secularists or atheists developed to attack Christianity. Unfortunately, the religious right in its quest for power has attacked this separation, calling it everything from a “gross misinterpretation” to a “satanic delusion.” This is inaccurate and dangerous for those who may find themselves categorized as religious minorities.

3. Separation of church and state serves an important religious liberty function. It preserves the independence of religious institutions, while insuring that their survival is based on voluntary commitment and support, rather than state aid. Such voluntarism is the genius of the American system of church and state, since it has produced the most vibrant religious communities in the western world.

Conclusion

In the next few months, we will be hearing a lot in the media about what “original intent” means. As you hear the rhetoric from both the left and the right, we need to remember what our founders really meant, and that the strength of our churches and of the government is best preserved when church and state are separate.

Source:

Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty

August 16, 2005


*****************************************

The “No National Religion” Interpretation of the First Amendment Is Hogwash!
The Counterfeit Christians of the Religious Right have been pushing the “No National Church” interpretation of the establishment clause since it spewed from the from the demonic mind of Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) twenty-two years after the First Amendment was written. Wheaton was a Federalist who made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to assume civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. His first goal was to impose government established religion over the ten miles square of Washington D. C. by expanding the jurisdiction of the Congressional Chaplainships.

In 1811, Wheaton and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause to prohibit Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of rules and procedures to govern the selection and remove of the minister of a church. Wheaton argued that Congress had already established two religions “by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains.”

Madison agreed with Wheaton that Congress had established two religions. However, the establishment occurred two years before the First Amendment took effect and Congress certainly did not intend to assume any authority over matters of religion by its actions regarding the Chaplains.

The only religion Congress claimed authority over by electing Chaplains was their own religion, not that that of the people. Congress may have abused its legislative authority to pay each Chaplain $250 per year. However, it appears that the purpose was only to retain them for inaugurations and funerals that called for "officiating". It was not to support their ministries.

The Chaplains were paid less than messengers and never assigned any daily or periodic duties. The Chaplains were paid $250 if Congress worked a typical year which was less that one fourth of what an ordinary Congressman earned for six moths. During the two year term of the First U. S. Congress the Chaplains were called upon only one time and that was to preform a divince service after George Washington was sworn in the first President.

Chaplain to Congress William Linn was in charge of the very large Collegiate Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, from 1786 till 1805 and was a regent of the University of the State Of New York from 1787 till his death. Chaplain Samuel Provoost was the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York and Rector of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church in New York at the same time he was Chaplain to Congress. Their full time duties with their religius societies and low pay obviously precluded them from being present every day in Congress.

Note: The First U. S. Congress met 171 times during its First Session (March 4, 1789 to September 29, 1789). I have examined the records of the Senate and House for each one of those 171 meetings. There is no mention whatsoever of opening prayers.

The 1811 dispute over the establishment clause arose in the matter of a veto of legislation by President Madison. The House voted 71 to 29 to reject the “No National Church” Interpretation of Pitkin and Wheaton and accept the “Total Separation of Religion and Government” interpretation of James Madison. James Madison was thus established as the authority on the religion clauses.

Source of Information: The Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States with an Appendix containing Important State papers and The Public Documents, and all The Laws of a Public Nature; with a Copious Index. Eleventh Congress - Third Session. Comprising the Period from December 3, 1810 to March 3, 1811, Inclusive. Compiled from Authentic Materials. Washington: Printed and published by Gales and Seaton, (1853) pp 995 - 998.

[FredFlash]

Clint wrote: Is it your view that because government is not to influence religion that religion is not to influence government?


James Madison and lots of others defined the word "religon" in the establishment clause to mean, "the duty that we owe to the Creator." Madison held that government had no business influencing the the duty that we owe to the Creator and vise versa.

The duty not to abort a fetus would be a duty owed to the fetus, not to God. Therefore, it is not a religious duty for First Amendment purposes.

The duty to believe that Christ is the only son of God and our Lord would be a duty owed to God. Therefore, it is a divine duty for First Amendment purposes.

FF

[FredFlash]

telaquapacky wrote: The myth is really only viable because most people have forgotten what an “establishment” of religion is. The prohibition is on all forms of religious establishment, including Christianity. The founders were well aware of what it would mean to establish religion. Before the United States was formed, in the colonial era, there were a variety of examples where the government established religions. In some colonies, a single church was favored, while in others, two or more churches enjoyed official status and benefits. These benefits included tax funding of clergy and teacher salaries, and land grants for churches and schools. Some colonies even required clergy to be licensed by the government based on what they believed.




What is the definition of "an establishment of religion?" If the prohibition is against all forms of religious establishment, we need to know what one is so that we don't establish one.

What does the word "religion" in the First Amendment mean?

Fred