[lbsnowryder]

Help me get a better understanding of the 1st Amendment. I found this on a different website. It seems to have angered a few people and I was curious how other people view it.

I'm asking you guys for help so that i can either argue the point or admit that this statement is wrong.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't understand where the concept of separation between Church and State has come from. It is clear that the founders of this country were religious, just look at the wording and the mention of "God". Then look at the First Amendment above. Where does it say that there has to be a separation? In fact, it says that Congress can NOT make a law which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The limitation is that Congress can not make an official State religion.

It seems to be that many of the laws attacking religion violate the Constitution since it is a law which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

[99WranglerGirl]

The phrase building a wall of separation between church and state was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...lcsm_index.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

From the usconstitution link:

Mr. President
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 separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[EvilM0nkey]

the 1st ammendment doesn't exist anymore. I see no evidence of it.

[Prot]

You will not find the phrase separation between church and state anywhere in the constitution. What the first amendment does is prohibit government from endorsing or banning any religion. This has been taken to the extreme though, like anything else and as a result, the original intent seems to be lost on society.

[PJL]

It seems to be that many of the laws attacking religion violate the Constitution since it is a law which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

How? Can you point out a law or situation where the free exercise of religion has really been violated? Yes, we tell teachers they essentially have to leave their keep their religion to themselves and not impose it on children, but the Supreme Court has always allowed student-led and student-based prayer in school. It has also supported the right of religious student groups to get equal access to school facilities as secular groups. Also, the government gives special tax status to churches, gives children that attend sectarian schools public transportation, etc. The government does not ignore religion or do things to inhibit the practicing of religion. The idea of no government-imposed religion or of a secular government does not mean that free exercise of religion by individuals have been infringed.

[dz1087]

The military has chaplains

[Texan4life]

Originally Posted by Evil Monkey

the 1st ammendment doesn't exist anymore. I see no evidence of it.

I think they are all ignored, especially the 10th ammendment.

The first ammendment is there to protect religion from government control, not the other way around. It limits Congress, not religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[PJL]

^ I disagree. That's ignoring the fact that the founders were primarily from a country where the state and the church were completely intertwined. You want to keep the government out of churches, of course, but you also want the churches from being given power through the government. It is not the job of the government, in other words, to legislate the morality taught by Christianity just because the religion supports it and is pressuring the government to do so. The best and fairest government for all religions - except those who are trying to gain an unfair share of power for their church - is to have a completely secular government that does not try to inhibit individuals from practicing their religion. That is why congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, and why it shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof. Also, tell me how people are able to freely exercise their religion if the government is implementing policies on behalf of another religion? Or how do you keep government out of religion but let religion have control of government?

[Texan4life]

I'm not saying that the church should be running the government. I'm just saying that the ammendment was included to prevent the government from dictating how of if we worship. That's why most early settlers left their homeland in the first place.

Morality is determined by the people. Religous people are part of the people also and their opinions shouldn't be ignored because they have moral convictions based on their religious views instead of whatever nonreligous people base their moral convictions on.

[PJL]

Originally Posted by TJ Tex

I'm not saying that the church should be running the government. I'm just saying that the ammendment was included to prevent the government from dictating how of if we worship. That's why most early settlers left their homeland in the first place.

Not really. For example, the group we know as the Puritans in England were wealthy, educated, respected; they just believed the English society was beneath them and wanted to start their Biblical "city on the hill" as a beacon of the purity and righteousness of Christianity to the rest of the world in the colonies. So it's not that England was oppressing them, it's that it wasn't oppressive enough for them. You can also see this reflected in the social norms they adopted once they got here, which was absolute religious tyranny. The pilgrims wanted "religious freedom," but they were a bunch of communists (in that they believed in communal living) and religious extremists, and ended up forming a very small and ultimately unimportant (culturally) section of the early settlers. We know about them for the purposes of our "thanksgiving" celebration, but ultimately nothing after that. The rest of the colonies were settled largely by business opportunists and debtors. People have a lot of false romantic notions about the early Christian settlers of the US, and forget that the countries from which they came and from which the Founders came and the tradition from which they were educated involved a heavy immoral relationship between church, be it catholic, orthodox, or Anglican, and state governments. For over 1,000 years Christianity (mostly through Catholicism) dominated European culture and government, so to say that they were just trying to keep government out of religion, from a historical perspective, is naive and ignoring basically all of European history from the Holy Roman Empire until the Renaissance.

[cookeab]

Originally Posted by PJL

How? Can you point out a law or situation where the free exercise of religion has really been violated? Yes, we tell teachers they essentially have to leave their keep their religion to themselves and not impose it on children, but the Supreme Court has always allowed student-led and student-based prayer in school. It has also supported the right of religious student groups to get equal access to school facilities as secular groups. Also, the government gives special tax status to churches, gives children that attend sectarian schools public transportation, etc. The government does not ignore religion or do things to inhibit the practicing of religion. The idea of no government-imposed religion or of a secular government does not mean that free exercise of religion by individuals have been infringed.

What do you mean by violated? Do you mean where a court of competent jurisdiction has held that it was violated, or where people "feel" it was violated. You need not look any further than zoning cases where people want to congregate in a particular location, and there are ordinances against it. In almost every case, the state, or the municipality argues that it is for safety and public welfare due to traffic, etc. There are numerous cases where Court's have held the ordinances violated the first amendment. There are also a ton of other cases dealing with everything from whether you can legally drink a certain tea as part of a religious ceremony to whether or not people who have crosses or other items associated with christianity in the public view have to remove them. Your statement that "The government does not ignore religion or do things to inhibit the practicing of religion," is not really accurate. I think a more fair statement is that it goes both ways depending on the situation.

[RedJeepXJ]

laws against religion wtf are you talking about, there have been many attempts to get laws passed to promote religion and some have actually passed. the right to free speech does not apply to a captive audience, teachers leading prayer in school is wrong becuase the students are required to be there, they do not have the freedom to leave like they do at a church. and in that case how would you feel if your kids teacher was islamic and made the class recite an islamic prayer, The teacher does have freedom of speech right?

and the puritan society is not what christians think it is, it more closely resembled communism then any form of democracy

[cookeab]

Originally Posted by PJL

Not really. For example, the group we know as the Puritans in England were wealthy, educated, respected; they just believed the English society was beneath them and wanted to start their Biblical "city on the hill" as a beacon of the purity and righteousness of Christianity to the rest of the world in the colonies. So it's not that England was oppressing them, it's that it wasn't oppressive enough for them. You can also see this reflected in the social norms they adopted once they got here, which was absolute religious tyranny. The pilgrims wanted "religious freedom," but they were a bunch of communists (in that they believed in communal living) and religious extremists, and ended up forming a very small and ultimately unimportant (culturally) section of the early settlers. We know about them for the purposes of our "thanksgiving" celebration, but ultimately nothing after that. The rest of the colonies were settled largely by business opportunists and debtors. People have a lot of false romantic notions about the early Christian settlers of the US, and forget that the countries from which they came and from which the Founders came and the tradition from which they were educated involved a heavy immoral relationship between church, be it catholic, orthodox, or Anglican, and state governments. For over 1,000 years Christianity (mostly through Catholicism) dominated European culture and government, so to say that they were just trying to keep government out of religion, from a historical perspective, is naive and ignoring basically all of European history from the Holy Roman Empire until the Renaissance.

I dont think this is really accurate either. The Puritans were not happy with the reformation of the catholic church in the sixteenth century, and what they saw as the monarchy's selling out religious doctrine to politics and to catholics. The puritans did not want religion mixed with politics. They believed God rules everything, and didn't see a need for all the pomp and circumstance of the catholic church. You can't really compare catholicism and its role in Europe to a group of people who despised catholics, and I also think your comment regarding puritans being culturally unimportant is naive. Why do you think there are blue laws in many states. Why do you think America is just about the only developed nation where we cant see boobies on regular TV. It is because this country was founded by puritans, and still is recovering from its puritan values.

[PJL]

^ No, I said the "pilgrims" were culturally unimportant. They were not the Puritans. Different group. The Puritans formed several institutions in American law that continue on today, such as the written deed recording system. They also had their own version of the Bill of Rights (probably where the idea was taken from) although many of their enumerated rights proved to be hypocritical - the right to free speech comes to mind. But the Puritans also had a different idea of what it meant to have "liberty." They viewed "liberty" as freedom from vices and sin, not the freedom to do what you want.

Originally Posted by cookeab

What do you mean by violated? Do you mean where a court of competent jurisdiction has held that it was violated, or where people "feel" it was violated.

It's almost irrelevant what people feel, to be honest. Anyone who gets the short end of the stick is going to "feel" like they were violated, whether they really were or not from a legal point of view. People in the Mozert case who wanted to change the entire public school's curriculum to include nothing that challenged or opposed their particular brand of Christianity thought their rights were violated. Ultimately there's no way to make everyone happy.

You need not look any further than zoning cases where people want to congregate in a particular location, and there are ordinances against it. In almost every case, the state, or the municipality argues that it is for safety and public welfare due to traffic, etc. There are numerous cases where Court's have held the ordinances violated the first amendment.

Right, because the jurisdiction couldn't survive strict scrutiny. Now are you talking general first amendment principles of freedom of assembly here?

There are also a ton of other cases dealing with everything from whether you can legally drink a certain tea as part of a religious ceremony to whether or not people who have crosses or other items associated with christianity in the public view have to remove them.

In the cases of the crosses and public displays of Christianity, you're probably referring to public land or people who are public employees, correct? In other words, things that could prima facie violate the Establishment clause? As far as the tea drinking thing, that's interesting. I'll have to look that up. But from the religion cases I've reviewed, the courts are pretty inclusive of what constitutes a religion and have only stepped in in cases where the "ritual" of the religion includes animal sacrifice or use of illegal narcotics. On the other hand, it's completely acceptable for the Catholic church to serve alcohol to 9 year olds.

Your statement that "The government does not ignore religion or do things to inhibit the practicing of religion," is not really accurate. I think a more fair statement is that it goes both ways depending on the situation.

I'll agree with that, since society and government is a balancing act. But at the same time, the whole idea that there's somehow a "war on Christianity" going on in our society is a patently ridiculous idea forwarded by people who have a clear political agenda and want to stir up support for their side, since it's so easy to drum up support when you look like a victim, rather than to say "we're trying to forward a completely unconstitutional agenda by drumming up popular support using people who are widely ignorant of the law." But you have to agree that more often than not the courts and the laws side with the individual's right to free exercise.

[cookeab]

I think the tea case is a Supreme Court case with City of Hialeah. Its been so long since I took conlaw.