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.
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.[1]
Mr. President
To mess? 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.
If proposals to force taxpayers to fund religious ministries are implemented...
Originally posted by Jamuhn
But the US is establishing a religion, thats the whole point. Making it compulsory to support a religion is establishment. Show me where in the constitution it says establishment means saying "Our national religion is so-and-so.."
Originally posted by BlackJackal
No one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Originally posted by Jamuhn
But the US is establishing a religion, thats the whole point. Making it compulsory to support a religion is establishment. Show me where in the constitution it says establishment means saying "Our national religion is so-and-so.."
No one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?
Originally posted by Masonic Light
If we are free, then we have the right to be from religion if we so choose. This subject was brought up by Benjamin Franklin, who said it neither scars his body nor robs him of property if his neighbor does not believe in God, and our forefathers unanimously agreed that the sphere of religion was outside that of the secular state.
Please tell me where in
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
do you see seperation of Church and State.
(While true that) the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution, there is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: �Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...� The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Jefferson worked to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that: ...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...
In the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S., for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Originally posted by BlackJackalNo one is asking for a national religion. But the government is passing laws saying that prayer is not permisable in schools is that not a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof?
2003-JAN-8: NJ: Freedom of speech issue: Students prohibited from giving gifts: Daniel Walz was told by the principal of his public elementary school in New Jersey that he could not give out pencils inscribed with the message "Jesus loves the little children." during Easter season in 1998-APR. In 1998-DEC, he was prohibited from distributing candy canes with a Bible message during a party. His classmates were permitted to hand out non-religious gifts. He was told that he would have to distribute the canes outside of the school building before or after classes. Stephen Aden, spokesperson for the Fundamentalist Christian group, the Rutherford Institute, said that: "He was told he couldn't pass those [items] out because school officials were afraid that parents would get wind of it and think that the school was promoting Christianity. So it's clearly a case of discriminatory treatment on the basis of Daniel's Christian faith." On Jan-8, oral arguments were heard by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Philadelphia on behalf of Daniel Walz and his mother Dana. A ruling is expected in the spring.[1]
2003-JAN-14: MA: Freedom of speech issue: Six students suspended: Six high school students attending Westfield High School are members of the school's L.I.F.E. Bible club. Both school Principal Thomas Daley and Superintendent Thomas McDowell refused the club's request to distribute candy canes during non-class time. The reason given is that other students might find the Bible verses on the canes "offensive." They handed out the canes anyway, and were each suspended for a day. Liberty Counsel, a Fundamentalist Christian legal defense agency has filed a lawsuit with a federal court to declare the school's literature-distribution policy unconstitutional. Spokesperson Mat Staver said: "One of our clients is a National Honor Society student. She's a senior seeking scholarship and entry to universities and colleges this year. A suspension of this nature would devastate her future career opportunities." Another student has applied to the U.S. Air Force Academy; a suspension would probably block him as well. Staver called the actions of the school officials "blatantly hostile and anti-Christian.... "It is very evident that instead of applauding the fine students who are academic achievers, they instead have sought to suspend them solely for distributing a candy cane that contains Bible verses and Christian messages. That is horrendous -- [and] it's unthinkable that in today's society these kinds of students would face suspension. But that's in fact what these school officials have done." There is no indication in the media reports that this is an anti-Christian response by the school administration. It appears to be a simple refusal to recognize the free speech rights of students in the area of religion [2]
2003-FEB-7: USA: Federal government threatens public school funding: The federal Department of Education issued a policy statement similar to those published by the previous Clinton administration. It emphasizes that public schools must allow student-led and student-initiated prayers if done outside of regular class hours. But they cannot implement compulsory school prayers in the classroom. Education Secretary Rod Paige wrote: "Public schools should not be hostile to the religious rights of their students and their families. At the same time, school officials may not compel students to participate in prayer or other activities." The statement mentioned that teachers may "take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities." They may meet with each other "before school or during lunch" for prayer and Bible study, and "may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies." The guidelines also require that students at assemblies and graduation ceremonies may not be restricted in expressing religion as long as they were chosen as speakers through "neutral, evenhanded criteria." The statement notes that to avoid controversy, schools may issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does not represent the school's official position.
- Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel -- a Fundamentalist Christian legal defense group -- said: "I'm very excited about the clarity, and very optimistic that these guidelines will go a long way in solving issues related to students' religious speech. We will use these actively in dealing with schools, and we'll use them in cases we're litigating as well."
- Reggie Felton, spokesperson for the National School Boards Association said that the guidelines may generate additional confusion. He said that allowing teachers to openly pray outside of classroom time may cause problems, particularly if it is not clear that they are doing it unofficially, as individuals, outside their teaching roles.
- Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, wrote: "The emphasis here, as usual, is on 'religious rights.' Althought the DOE guidelines claim that government is not endorsing or promoting religion, vague and misleading language is sure to result in the types of abuses we've been seeing in public schools against those who do not wish to engage in religious activities." She asked: "Will students believe that their grades may be affected by joining activities where a teacher is present, such as 'See You At The Pole' or a Bible study group? And what about indirect pressure from teachers who reward religious students, and even penalize those who don't participate?"[3]
2003-OCT-1: TN: Student suspended over creationism: A grade eight student at the Colonial Heights Middle School in Kingsport TN was suspended because she failed to follow an order to stop discussing religion in class. The problem began in science class when the teacher was discussing the big-bang theory about the origin of the universe. Some students objected, saying that it conflicted with their religious beliefs. The teacher told them that she could not lead a religious discussion in science class. Principle William Cline is reported as saying that this led to a rumor mill concerning the teacher's religious beliefs that was harmful to the teacher and disrupted learning. Cline is reported as saying that when a student allegedly encouraged another pupil to put a religious pamphlet on the teacher's desk, the teacher "felt like it was a form of harassment." The student was suspended.[4]
2004-APR-7: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear case: Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Christian group, reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to not hear a case involving mealtime prayers at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), an institution that is funded by the government. By doing this, the court let stand a prior appeals court ruling which found the prayers to be unconstitutional. A number of cadets had challenged the tradition of mealtime prayers which had its origins with the founding of the school in 1839. Prayers have been discontinued since 2001. Carrie Cantrell, a spokeswoman for Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, defended the prayer tradition. She said that the court's "...inaction on this issue creates a tear in the fabric of our country." She described the prayer which ends "Now, O God, we receive this food and share this meal together with thanksgiving. Amen," as nonsectarian -- i.e. acceptable to all faith groups and specific to none. However, she appears to be in error. There are many religious groups (e.g. Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Humanists) who have no concept of deity. There are other groups who recognize multiple deities, not a single God. There are those, like Deists, who believe in a God but who believe in one that is not necessarily open to communication with humans. This prayer would probably be unsatisfactory to these groups. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the fundamentalist Christian American Center for Law and Justice, was disappointed. He said: "Here you've got a voluntary prayer at a military institution; everyone there is over the age of majority, so they're adults. And yet the Supreme Court lets stand a decision which says the prayer is unconstitutional. They've missed a big opportunity, and it's really disappointing."
Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissent critical of the justices who gave the majority decision.[5]