It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The American Revolution was actually a low point in American religious adherence. Sociologists have shown that no more than 20 percent of the population in 1776 belonged to a church. Then, under the influence of evangelical expansion during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century, church membership grew rapidly until, by 1850, more than one-third of Americans belonged to a church. In 1890, after another round of Protestant evangelization and Catholic immigration from Ireland, Italy and elsewhere, the proportion rose to 45 percent. And in 1906, church members became a majority — 51 percent of the population.
So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
The American Revolution was actually a low point in American religious adherence. Sociologists have shown that no more than 20 percent of the population in 1776 belonged to a church.
I find the first section interesting that the seperation of church and state amendment applied only to federal, and not to states.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
No, a state cannot establish a religion.
Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The state governments also have no right to prohibit freedom of the press, to commit unreasonable searches, or to quarter soldiers.
When will people learn to Constitution?
In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit. The Bill of Rights, however, had no effect on how a state treated its churches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted, many did. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
You know...that's a clearly biased (and oddly insane) web site...I'd ignore it. Why? Well, school prayer isn't an issue. You can pray all you want in schools in America. The school merely has no right to lead prayers as it would be a prohibition of the free exercise of religion of the students in the school. In loco parentis doesn't extend to the right to impose religion.
The only way you could have school led prayer in a public school would be to somehow create an all-inclusive prayer that would include all of the contradicting beliefs on religion and the nonreligious. And that would be either impossible or an insanely long speech.
Originally posted by spyder550
From the point of view of this taxpaying individual -- a nativity or a god blessing is the establishment of a religion - it is certainly not my religion and not my blessing. I dont trust people who are driven by the hope that they may be the ones to enable an apocalypse.
I pay my share of taxes -- I am involved in my community and politics. Why should I have to suffer the slings and arrows of your religions.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I don't believe that schools should force prayer on anyone, although I do believe that they should set aside time for students if they wish to pray as an individual or group.
The First Amendment says nothing about it, although many have interpreted it to mean Separation of Church and State.
There is a fundamental difference in the way that you and I think, and in the way that you and I see the Constitution, and I think that it is fair to say that there is absolutely nothing that I can say that will change your mind, and there is absolutely nothing that you can say that will change my mind.
I see the Constitution as a divine document, written by God inspired men.
There is no debating that fact, because it is clear by the wording of the Declaration and the Constitution that that is true.
I see the bill of rights as a declaration of God given natural rights on loan from God.
God gave man freedom and liberty, and it is man's duty to uphold and protect those rights.
Government does not give men rights, they only grant privileges.
And finally, I believe that the Constitution is not up for interpretation, and that it means today what it meant when it was written.
I am going to assume that you would disagree with that. Forgive me if my assumption is wrong, but assuming that you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as times change, then my question to you is what was the point of the Constitution in the first place?
If it can be interpreted as one sees fit, depending on the situation, then why have one to begin with?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
I find it odd that someone who is against the separation of church and state is telling me to read the document where the words first appear. I'm referring to Article VI under the current form of the Constitution...which contains the 14th Amendment, as eight bits pointed out.
And it is a living document...because history changes. If you think that the founders thought that the Constitution should stay rigid then why the hell did they include the 9th Amendment? Hell, why are you under the impression that the founders thought that the Constitution should be interpreted to the letter?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
The establishment clause doesn't speak to simply establishing a state religion, it speaks to the inability of the state to endorse religion to any degree.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The grammar is a bit obtuse as English was slightly different back then, but this mean an establishment of any religion, not just the one. And the SCOTUS rulings have frankly been somewhat conservative on the issue.