Prayer Cases Turned Away by U.S. Supreme Court Justices

There's two very flawed assumptions in liberal legal thought surrounding the First Amendment of the Constitution.

1) What is meant by the "establishment of religion"
2) What is the "government"

As Marine points out, the constitution was written at a time where the Roman Catholic Church was the predominant church/service inside of UK/Great Britain. For a modern day example of such a state see: The Vatican as well as Russia, both of whom are predominately ruled by their clergy.

The framers main intent as Marine and I have stated, is to prevent the US from being a Vatican-like state. The Church currying political favor with the government as well as control of the government.

Not whether Ma/Pa and Teachers prayed or not, which brings us to 2nd:

The definition of the government. Traditionally, we are supposed to be made of both the state/federal levels of government and while I've consistently pointed out that federal supercedes State when there's a conflict, if a conflict doesn't arise(or in this case, it shouldn't arise) then there isn't a problem.

The framers not only did not intend to violate the individual right to freedom of religious choice(that quite literally was the whole point), they also didn't intend to extend the meaning of government, to non-governing institutions.
.
Let me make this stupidly clear: A publicly-funded school is NOT an institution of the government. If we claim it to be so, then even the school boards should be federalized and the local zoning taxes should be repealed as a matter of double-taxation.

See how stupid the liberal theory is? How it lasted as long as it has, is precedence, not logic. Logically, the founders didn't see the school as governing and they weren't concerned with ma and pa's religious faith. They were concerned as Napoleon was christened God-Emperor. That type of stuff.

 

Right. But to really understand what he was saying, you have to know why he said it. Do you know why he said it?

 

billofrightsinstitute.org › danburybaptistsLetters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists ...
Thomas Jefferson wrote to a letter to a Baptist Church from Danbury, Connecticut, in which he explained his beliefs about federalism and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Jefferson did

First you must read the letter to Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist church. That is why Jefferson wrote his letter to to them explaining the separation clause.What were they worried about?

 

Here is the letter from the Danbury Baptist. It was because of this letter that Jefferson wrote back and explained about the wall of separation. If not for this letter he may not have said it. What was the church worried about?

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

 

As you can see, they were worried that Jefferson or other Presidents would make laws interfering with religion. Jefferson wanted to assure them they wouldn't. But he was also letting them know he didn't want the church interfering with government like was done in England. It would be like a wall of separation. Now to believe Jefferson was talking about complete separation of church and state and not interference, you would have to show complete separation and there never has been. For years the Capital was used as a church and Jefferson had a front row seat. From day one till today, we pay the clergy to say the morning prayer to Congress. Using different religions. In the War of 1812, the President declared a Day Of Morning and Prayer. Lincoln set aside Sunday as a day of worship for the troops And made Thanksgiving a national Holiday. In the 1980's IN God We Trust was also put on our coins and in the Fifties on our paper Money. Christmas was also declared a National Holiday. So as you can see we never had separation of church and state. What Lincon meant was a wall of separation of interference with one another and why the USSC was wrong in ruling so.If brought up again I have no doubt it would be over turned like Row/Wade.

 

You had better think again and read my last two posts.

 

That wasn't all of it by any means.

The colonies were an escape solution for those denied religious freedom by the governments in their points of origin.

Our founders were solidly versed in the problems throughout the world of having an established religion.

In fact, even in America in some colonies taxes were paid to the prevailing church of the colony.

What they wanted was for religion NOT to be part of government - for government to be separated from favoring or disfavoring the religions of the population.

That doesn't include government employees or government elected officials or laws or legal decision encouraging or selecting their favorite religion.

The government must be neutral on religion.

 

those that think they need the government to push religion on the people

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780"

 

the only religion the government is really interfering with is the Peyote Religion

not one they will let you practice in the privacy of your own home

 

The government wouldn't be pushing religion on people. In the liberal view of the religious clause, people cannot express or act in their faith in public spaces and what is basically non-governing territory.

I'm sorry, but a school isn't a governing institution. Even granting the damn school districts and the various boards of education, yes they set curriculum but on a educational, not indoctrinating basis. If we want to tailor it specifically, religion shouldn't be part of the curriculum then, but open expression of one's faith should still be fair game.

 

So you would have no problem, for example, with a school district dropping the pledge of allegiance and opening each school day with a prayer to Allah. Right?

 

Despite what I think of Islamism(it borderlines actual propaganda and thus indoctrination and an obvious anti-Western bias), in order to be consistent as you point out, I'd have to accept it.

 

The Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut had good reason to want clarification regarding the strong separation of church and state. The first Baptist church in the colonies was established in Providence, Rhode Island by Roger Williams, a dissident Puritan who was excommunicated and exiled from Massachusetts Bay Colony. Baptists were considered heretics by the dominant Congregationalists and Church of England communities.

I think it is likely that separation was adopted more because the dominant Congregationalists and Church of England could not agree than that they wanted to tolerate the Baptists of RI, Quakers of PA, Catholics of MD, or the smattering of Swedish and German Lutherans, and Dutch Calvinists.

Beginning in Providence in 1636–1637, Roger Williams founded a colony in which religion and citizenship were separated. This same principle was continued in the first charter of 1644 and affirmed by the newly created colonial government in 1647. This principle was explicitly affirmed in the Charter of 1663 which John Clarke wrote and secured. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was regarded by the neighboring colonies with undisguised horror, and Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Connecticut spent the next 100 years trying to dismember the "heretic" colony. The other colonies passed laws to outlaw Baptists and Quakers, leading to the hanging of four Quakers in Massachusetts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_United_States#History

 

Your "interpretation" is unconstitutional.

 

We have never had separation as I have pointed out. When you read the two letters, it seems plain that the separation Jefferson was talking about was the interfering of the two into each other.

 

allowing schools to force religion on innocent children is sick, only a bad religion would need to do that

Evangelicals don't just want to allow schools to do it, they want to force the schools teachers to do it

 

I would be more inclined to have a one minute of silence so that you could pray or not.

 

If not silence, then there would be a battle over the content of the prayer, leading to prescription of specific acceptable texts. You wouldn't want each teacher permitted to call down fire and brimstone on their least favorite political figures.

 

Or how about the school day / council meeting etc just starts. Anyone who wants to pray can do it on their own time. Anyone who wants to spend a minute of silence not praying can also do that on their own time.

 

Parents condemning religion around their kids is even sicker. Just because you ( not you personally) don't believe in a God doesn't make it so and children should be allowed to make up their own mind. If for no other reason than to help shape their lives. Franklin knew the benefits of religion even though many didn't think him religious. Read his letter to Thomas Paine who wrote about a non existing God and wanted Franklin's opinion before publishing it.

The Age of Reason – A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine


I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

I intend this Letter itself as a proof of my Friendship, and therefore add no Professions to it, but subscribe simply yours,

B.F

 

I think we all know how religion is dying out in America and the actions of our youth today clearly show it. Ben Frankln was a smart man. Even though he may not be a man who believed in God, he knew of the benefits of it. I so wish many of my Liberal friends knew that too.

 

I think organized religion that is devoted to a wrathful man in the sky has run it's course. I don't miss it in my life, but there have been to many times that I have received guidance and ... help in my life to discount the existence of a caring observant presence in the universe.

It seems to me that when man gets involved in religion they invariably turn it into a for profit enterprise. Which is why organized religion is fading, spirituality lives within everyone ... if they'll let it.

Most of our Founders were deists, they believed in "God", but they abhorred the manipulating predatory nature of religion.

IMHO.

 

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
John Adams

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson

The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.
Benjamin Franklin

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
Abraham Lincoln


I have no issues with people that believe in whatever chose belief structure they have picked. But when they start using those chosen beliefs to attack other and write laws with — that’s when they should be fought against.

Religion is dying out because the christian nationalists have weaponized. They have no one but themselves to blame.

 

"Parents condemning religion around their kids is even sicker."

yep, Christians would not complain at all if another religion was pushed on their children in school, LOL

let Parents push their religious beliefs on their own Children, they can send them to Sunday School if they wish... though some are probably afraid to leave their children alone with preachers nowadays

 

Can't write religious laws. That's where the Separation clause comes into effect.