Uncategorized

Texas GOP Declares Christian State

WOAI San Antonio reports,

Just two weeks after adopting a hard line platform at its convention in San Antonio, the Texas Republican Party is under fire from Jewish groups.

The convention, which was dominated by religious conservatives, approved platform language that calls the United States a ‘Christian Nation,’ and calls the separation of church and state ‘a myth.’

Linda Berger of Houston, a spokeswoman for the American Jewish Committee, says the language is ‘hurtful’ to non Christians.

I know I posted ’em already recently, but just to, again, invoke a couple of quotes from our founding fathers:

“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” — The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams

“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” — James Madison

How much clearer does it need to be?

54 thoughts on “Texas GOP Declares Christian State

  1. “How much clearer does it need to be?”
    Does what need to be? Its true that many of the founding fathers were not too religious, but this in no way negates the reality that the founding of our country and its principals were highly influenced by religion.

  2. Also,
    No where in the first amendment or bill of rights does it mention the “separation of church and state”- a phrase first mentioned in a letter by Jefferson reassuring the Danbury Baptist Association that religion should not be interfered with or regulated in any way by the federal govt.
    Danbury Baptist Association was further reassured as they watched Jefferson initiate a school program for the Washington D.C. school district which placed the Bible into public schools as the primary textbook (as well as a book full of Christian songs).
    On March 4, 1805 in an official government act, as President of the United States, he offered A National Prayer for Peace, ending with the words, “- – – all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen”
    Remember, it was Thomas Jefferson who primarily wrote the Declaration of Independence (a government document) in which were included such words as “God”, “Creator”, “Supreme Judge of the world”, and “Divine Providence”
    When a national seal was suggested for the United States, Jefferson proposed “The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night”.
    The “wall of separation between church and state” that Jefferson described was a wall to separate the government from ever interfering with our religious freedoms, not a wall to separate religious expression from our schools, courthouses, and other public places.
    (ive copied different segments from some Christian websites, but the historical information is all accurate.)
    A few choice quotes from the founding fathers does nothing to contradict the overwhelming evidence that this country was founded on religious principals, and that our founding fathers in no way wanted to eliminate religion from all areas of govt.

  3. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist said:
    “There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition
    that the framers intended to build a wall of separation”25
    He also said:
    “ – – the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous
    diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters
    of the Bill of Rights – – – The “wall of separation between
    church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a
    metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It
    should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

  4. Jimbo,
    The Constitution is our nation’s mission statement, the foundation of our entire legal system, and there is a reason that there is absolutely no mention of God in the Constitution of the United States. The same thing that establishes our freedom of religion also establishes our freedom FROM religion. And we all get to choose. Love it or leave it.

  5. Some folks tried once to correct the omission of any God’s invokation in the US Constitution….
    “We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, invoking the favor of Almighty God, do hereby, in behalf of these States, ordain and establish this Constitution for the Provisional Government of the same: to continue one year from the inauguration of the President, or until a permanent constitution or confederation between the said States shall be put in operation, whichsoever shall first occur….”
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapro.htm
    They lost.

  6. I went through all the trouble of citing historical proof for my argument, and you just counter it by saying “take it or leave it.”?
    “and there is a reason that there is absolutely no mention of God in the Constitution of the United States.”
    What is the reason? And WHERE are you getting this from? I never heard that the reason was seperation of church and state.
    “The same thing that establishes our freedom of religion also establishes our freedom FROM religion.”
    what is your source that it protects us “from” religion?
    This is only the liberal interpretation; completely ignoring the intent of the framers. Earlier supreme court decisions and chief justice renquist completely disagrees with this liberal interpretation.
    Youre telling me that jefferson- who wanted bible and Christian songs to be studied in public school, wouldn’t want bible and Christian songs to be studied in public school?
    Bottom line is that the separation of church and state has no support in the first amendment, or any other document, and many great legal scholars disagree with it. So although you can interpret it as you choose, it is far from “clear.”

  7. Jimbo, Congress makes the laws and the First Amendment prohibits them from making any law establishing any religion, or prohibiting its expression.
    That means no one can keep you from worshiping Jesus if you want to. That also means you gotta keep your faith out of my face.
    Why isn’t that good enough for you?

  8. “That also means you gotta keep your faith out of my face. ”
    No it doesnt. It is only the liberal interpretation. The supreme court chief justice and many legal scholars disagree.
    Furthermore, you have done nothing to refute my evidence that “separation of church and state” has no basis in the framers intent or the constitution. (i.e Jefferson wanted bible and Christianity to be studied in public school, and some states had established state religions at the time the 1st amendment was passed, which served to protect state religion).

  9. ” I wonder if those same people have a problem with a …. Jewish state.
    Asaf Shtull-Trauring • 06/21/04 03:20pm”
    The difference is that Israel was founded as a “Jewish State.” being a Jewish state is the whole reason it exists. The Unites States was not founded to be a “Christian State.”

  10. Zionista: “That also means you gotta keep your faith out of my face. ”
    Jimbo: “No it doesnt. It is only the liberal interpretation. The supreme court chief justice and many legal scholars disagree.”
    So, Chief Justice Rehnquist believes that you MUST get your faith into my face. Why it is so important for you to get your faith all up in my face anyway? And why should it be so important to Chief Justice Rehnquist that you get your faith all up in my face?
    Why, Jimbo, why?

  11. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist said:
    “There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition
    that the framers intended to build a wall of separation”
    He also said:
    “ – – the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous
    diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters
    of the Bill of Rights – – – The “wall of separation between
    church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a
    metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It
    should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
    I dont know if he thinks that they “must” be in anyones face, or why its important to him. You can set up any straw man you want, and imply anything you want from his words.
    Im just telling you what he said, and how separation of church and state is not in the constitution, but rather the liberal interpretation of it.
    I never commented on if separation of church and state is right or wrong , i was commenting on legal and constitutional interpretations and the historical reality that surrounded the first amendment.
    Remember, the constitution isnt a perfect document. Just because you think something should be so, doesnt mean that its constitutionally protected.
    You have still not attempted to refute my evidence that the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. All you have done thus far was give me your opinion on the matter. This is a legal issue; your opinion of what the law should be is irrelavent.

  12. “not to mention rehnquist is the worst chief justice in the history of the supreme court”
    Good argument. Either way, its far from “clear” that the separation of church and state is found in the constitution or the intent of the framers.
    also, most legal scholars rank him somewhere in the middle.
    Scalia, who is known as one of the greatest justices (not in ideoligy, but superior legal reasoning and opinion writing), also agrees with rehquist.

  13. Jimbo,
    As far as I can tell, you haven’t provided any real evidence to refute. Unless the Rehnquist quote you provide is from a specific legal decision (and so far you have not referenced it as such), then as an opinion it carries no more weight than yours or mine. And until it is, then your interpretation is no more Constitutional than any liberal interpretation. All we have here is a controversy.
    Further, you have no more idea what the intention of the framers was than the next guy does. That’s why the Constitutional Congress was sharp enough to write it into a legal framework which states, again rather clearly, that the legislative body of our government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Note that it does not say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of A RELIGION, but that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” You don’t have to believe what I do. I don’t have to worship like you do. No one has to believe anything in particular at all. We’re all free to walk our own proverbial road. And neither you, nor your conservative scholars, nor Chief Justice Rehnquist can do anything within any legal construct to change it.

  14. Jimbo: “Just because you think something should be so, doesnt mean that its constitutionally protected.”
    That argument applies to your opinion as well.

  15. i’m sorry, jimbo–but instead of relying upon a supreme court justice’s “belief” as to what the framers of the constitution intended, i’d rather rely upon their quotes directly. browse these links and then tell me if you think rehnquist and scalia are accurately interpreting the views of the framers. cuz i think to anyone who’s not attempting to be disingenuous, it’s pretty obvious that they’re not.

  16. My evidence that the separation of church and state isnt “clear” and it wasnt the intent of the framers to keep religion out of all aspects of govt, has been:
    1) Its not written anywhere in the constitution (This at a time where several states had “state religions” (mass. being one of them).
    2) Legislative history, and Jefferson himself state that the purpose of the 1st amendment is to protect state religion from federal interference.
    3) God is mentioned many times in the declaration of independence (why would the framers do this if they wanted religion out of all areas of govt?)
    4) Jefferson wanted public schools to teach Christianity
    5) Many supreme court justices and legal scholars think the separation of church and state is baseless (thus making it not so “clear”).
    All you keep on doing is repeating the liberal interpretation.

  17. Mobi-
    I agree with you that many founding fathers werent big fans of religion, but you quoting them saying how they oppose religion in no way means that the constitution doesnt allow religion on any aspect of state govt or the framers intended it to be that way.
    Rehnqest wasnt saying that the framers intended the country to be religious, he is merely saying that there is absolutely no evidence that the framers wanted the first amendment to mean that religion isnt allowed in any are of govt. If that were the case, why would they protect official state relgions,and implement bible study in school.
    Even you have to admit that the first amendment wasnt meant to keep religion out of school.
    If you have any evidence (other than just repeating the liberal interpretation) that the framers meant to separate church and state, please let me know.

  18. Jimbo: “All you keep on doing is repeating the liberal interpretation.”
    It’s an interpretation, and I’m a liberal. So what? What’s your point? You had even said yourself, “Remember, the constitution isnt a perfect document. Just because you think something should be so, doesnt mean that its constitutionally protected” (Jimbo • 06/22/04 10:30am). Just because you may favor a conservative interpretation, you still have to respect the legal constituionality of real case law. And so far (keyn-ahora!), there remains a limit to the extent that Christians can get their faith all up in our face. Deal with it, or else try the secession thing again.

  19. Jimbo: “If you have any evidence (other than just repeating the liberal interpretation) that the framers meant to separate church and state, please let me know.”
    It doesn’t matter. The Constitution is the only legal framework we have in the United States, and the framers and their intentions are NOT the Constitution. If it were, they would not have had to bother establishing an independent judiciary. In Judaism terms, it’s alot like the Torah and the rabbinic tradition of Oral Law. If all we had was the Torah, the Karaites would be running the show.

  20. Jimbo: “God is mentioned many times in the declaration of independence (why would the framers do this if they wanted religion out of all areas of govt?)”
    Apples and Oranges. The Declaration is not substantially more than revolutionary rhetoric. The Constitution, on the other hand, is LAW. And why would the convention of the Constitutional Congress leave all mention of God out of the Constitution if they wanted to include religion in any area of the government?

  21. Jimbo: “God is mentioned many times in the declaration of independence (why would the framers do this if they wanted religion out of all areas of govt?)”
    Another thing that is troubling about this statement and others like it is the reference to “the framers,” as if the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution weren’t drafted more than ten years apart; and as if the Constitution wasn’t of an entirely different nature than the Declaration. The Constitution required ratification in order to become the basis for law, legislation and government. None of this was required of the Declaration of Independence.

  22. Huh?
    I was never arguing that it wasnt the law. I know that this is the way liberal judges interpret it. I was saying that it has no basis in historical fact, and therefore, shouldnt be the law.
    And remember, if bush wins the election, he will probably get to appoint at least 2 judges. Cases can, and have, been overturned.
    Either way, you once again presented nothing other than the liberal interpretation.
    Answer this: If the framers wanted a total separation of church and state, why would they create a first amendment to protect “state religions”?
    and why would they implement religious learning in public schools?

  23. Oy, Jimbo. You’re wasting my time and exploiting historical circumstances for the sake of some pathetic liberal-bashing crusade. And I sincerely wish you the worst of luck with that….

  24. “Oy, Jimbo. You’re wasting my time and exploiting historical circumstances for the sake of some pathetic liberal-bashing crusade. And I sincerely wish you the worst of luck with that”
    Not true. I was simply debating with you over the issue of separation of church and state.
    You clearly have no evidence to support any of your arguments and thus have to resort to name calling.

  25. when engaged in an argument, calling the other sides actions/arguments “pathetic” is name calling.
    I guess thats what you have to do when you dont have any evidence.

  26. In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ”a wall of separation between Church and State.”
    The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 281 (A. Libscomb ed., 1904).

  27. ah, here ya go
    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, & 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 & State. 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.

  28. Looks like Jefferson was a “flip-flopper.” And, yes, this would be an example of name-calling.

  29. mobi-
    I already mentioned this in my first post:
    I wrote:
    “No where in the first amendment or bill of rights does it mention the “separation of church and state”- a phrase first mentioned in a letter by Jefferson reassuring the Danbury Baptist Association that religion should not be interfered with or regulated in any way by the federal govt.”
    btw, why did you cut the letter off right before it ended? Ill post the rest of his letter:
    ” 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 and esteem.”
    If Thomas Jefferson truly believed that the 1st Amendment was intended to “separate church and state” by removing all religious influences from education, why would he initiate a school program that featured the Bible and Isaac Watts Hymnal (full of Christian songs) as the two primary textbooks? This was done over a decade after the 1st Amendment was written.
    once again, that letter was written to the Danbury Baptist Association to let them know that the federal govt wont interfere with their religion.
    Early U.S. courts clearly understood Jefferson’s intent when he wrote about ‘a wall of separation between church and state’. In fact, unlike recent court cases, they quoted his letter in its entirety, including the full context. Today, only 8 words are quoted from his letter.

  30. do you have evidence for this text book thing? also, aren’t public schools a somewhat modern, recent phenomena?

  31. The Second American Revolution, by John W. Whitehead, David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982, p. 100, Quoting from J.O. Wilson, Public School of Washington, Washington D.C., Columbia Historical Society, 1897, Vol. I, p.5
    (honestly, i have never read the source itself, but ive seen it cited many times, and have no reason to doubt its validity).
    And there have been public schools in this country for over 200 years.
    I have way more proof that the founding fathers and writers of the first ammendment had no problem mixing religion with govt, and that bible and prayer should be allowed in school. Here is another one:
    Fisher Ames (Author of 1st amendment).
    “Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
    book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble.
    In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant;
    and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and
    the Bible will justly REMAIN the STANDARD of language AS WELL AS OF FAITH.”
    He is promoting that bible be taught in school for both its educational AND its religious values.
    The only thing that is clear is that this “wall” was meant to protect state relgions from federal intrusion.

  32. Jimbo: “when engaged in an argument, calling the other sides actions/arguments ‘pathetic’ is name calling.”
    OK, fine. Let’s remove the adjective “pathetic,” and see how it works….
    Jimbo is exploiting historical circumstances for the sake of a liberal-bashing crusade.
    This is a true statement, supported by the fact that Jimbo’s opposition to the principle of a wall of separation between religion and state amounts to opposition to the historic judicial interpretation of the first amendment as an ethic of maintaining a socio-political environment of religious freedom while prohibiting religious advocates from getting their faith all up anyone’s face.
    Why isn’t this status quo good enough for Jimbo and William Rehnquist?
    If we all remain free to pass along the religious traditions of your choosing within the confines of your own family, why is it necessary that the government promote any particular religious traditions to the public at large?
    What is really going on in this discussion?

  33. “The only thing that is clear is that this ‘wall’ was meant to protect state relgions from federal intrusion.”
    Jimbo, how do you get that from this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    That says that the federal government shall have no ability to establish a national religion, or to prohibit others from practicing their religion.
    While all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people, do the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights supercede the laws enacted by an independent state or its voting populace?
    If a state were to enforce a law which violated my constitutionally protected rights, such as the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, could I not take the matter to the Supreme Court? Indeed, I could, as was the case when California, I believe, was using aerial infrared technology to scan for indoor pot growers. The Supreme Court found their use of that technology to be a violation of the 4th Amendment and states are no longer permitted to employ that technology.
    Likewise, could not the case be made that if a state sought to establish a “state religion” it could be deemed a violation of the 1st Amendment which prohibits legislature from establishing a state religion? Or do you think that is limited specifically to Congress, in that the US Congress–the federal legislature–can not do so, but states are permitted to?
    I would tend to believe it’s the former, as opposed to latter, which is why the 10 commandments were recently removed from that courthouse in Alabama. Neither a state nor the federal government has the right to establish a religion, as both would be in violation of the 1st Amendment protection against a government-mandated religion.
    But I’m going to invite my friend who’s an editor at Reason to chime in on this one…

  34. me: do state laws have to comply with the bill of rights
    assistant editor of reason magazine—a journal of libertarian thought— julian sanchez: Yeah, of course… well, most of the bill of rights, anyway. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, most of the bill of rights was “incorporated” to apply against the states in a series of Supreme Court cases. But this was done on a clause-by-clause basis, and not every clause of every amendment was incorporated.
    me: ok so the argument this one guy jimbo is posing is that a state has a right to establish a religion within that state. like, the texas gop has declared america a christian nation in their platform and seeks to proselytize christianity with texas tax dollars.
    julian: Uh, no. Pure bollocks. True in the early 1800s, but patently false since the passage of the 14th. The guy clearly knows nothing about constitutional law.
    me: this guy says it’s ok cuz the 1st amendment is meant to keep the fed from interfering in “state religions.”
    julian: And in 1820, he’d be right. Tell him to read a law journal printed in this century. Here’s the first case that explicitly acknowledged the incorporation of the establishment clause.

  35. Mobi,
    1) I think you misunderstood me.
    you wrote:
    “ok so the argument this one guy jimbo is posing is that a state has a right to establish a religion within that state”
    I was never saying that states can still have a state relgion, but rather, that states had religions at the time the first amendment was passed (which julian agreed with me about), which makes it unlikely that the 1st amendment (or jeffersons “wall”) was meant to remove religion from all areas of govt. This was in response to your argument that said the separation of church and state was very “clear.” (as furhter proof i cited jeffersons school program).
    My main point is that this whole separation of church and state (that there can be no relgion in any aspect of govt) is simply the liberal judges interpretation, and was not the objective of the first amendment.
    2) The mistake you made was:
    “Likewise, could not the case be made that if a state sought to establish a “state religion” it could be deemed a violation of the 1st Amendment which PROHIBITS legislature from establishing a state religion.”
    I agree with you about the bill of rights applying to state (i never said otherwise) However, in your last statement you simply assumed your conclusion. This is the whole debate. Conservatives say that the 1st amendment DOESNT prohibit this, liberals say it does. The liberal side has become the law, but could just as easily be overturned in the near future.
    This isnt a question of the 1st amendment applying to states, everyone agrees with that. Its a question of interpretation whether or not the 1st amendment actually prohibits all relgion from state and fed govt.
    3)”me: this guy says it’s ok cuz the 1st amendment is meant to keep the fed from interfering in “state religions.”
    julian: And in 1820, he’d be right”
    – and this is all i was saying. that since this was the case in 1820, i dont understand how anyone can argue that the original purpose of the 1st amendment was to separate church and state.
    I dont disagree with a single thing julian said.

  36. it still seems pretty inconsistent with many of the other writings of the founding fathers, including jefferson, who comes off like an athiest in many of his writings. most of our founding fathers were not christians, but rather religious freemasons, rosicrucians, and members of the bavarian illuminati. they came to america to flee religious persecution under the anglican church.

  37. i do agree with you that most of them werent too religious. But this in no way means that they wanted the constitution to prohibit any mixing of govt and religion. And you can see that by their actions.
    They were politicians and they understood that the country was highly religious. They would never make an amendment that would alienate the whole country.
    And i think that Julian agrees with me that initially the 1st amendment wasnt meant to separate religion and govt.

  38. ok..so we agree..the framers didn’t necessary believe in the total absolute wall–but is it possible perhaps that they did but didn’t feel the rest of society was ready for that step?
    i mean, check out the convo i’m having with ariela on orthochist … isn’t it possible that that was one step in a longer path to overcoming our dependence on religion?

  39. Jimbo: “My main point is that this whole separation of church and state (that there can be no relgion in any aspect of govt) is simply the liberal judges interpretation, and was not the objective of the first amendment. …The liberal side has become the law, but could just as easily be overturned in the near future.”
    But, Jimbo, how does this even come down to a liberal vs. conservative paradigm?
    The trouble is if you, or I, or anyone else can really know precisely what “the framers” intended. The agenda of the Consitutional Congress was not to establish opinions, but rather to establish the legal framework necessary to sustain what was then (and perhaps still is) a radically novel form of government. To continually harp on “liberal” interpretations the way you do raises suspicions about your motivation (let alone your grasp of what “liberal” even means). So why even frame it that way?

  40. Mobi-
    “isn’t it possible that was one step in a longer path to overcoming our dependence on religion?”
    while this could certainly be the case, there is a large difference between wanting to distance from religion, and saying that the constitution prohibits religion in any area of govt. But who knows.
    Zion-
    Im not sure i understand your point. I dont have any ulterior motivation here.
    This is a debate between liberal and conservative scholars. I am adding nothing new here. Liberals say that the first amendment should be interpreted to mean separation of church and state. Conservatives say it was never meant to mean that.
    Most controversial constitutional issues comes down to judicial interpretation of the constitution. So it is the opinions of the justices that actually determine what the constitution says (i.e. does the term “privacy” include “abortion”). To figure out what the framers intended, the court will often times look to the legislative history.
    You write:
    “The trouble is if you, or I, or anyone else can really know precisely what “the framers” intended.” If you think judges dont try to figure out what the intent of the framers was, then you dont know how the judicial system works.
    What exactly do you think my motives are?

  41. This has been interesting…Glad you guys kept up with it.
    My two cents: Personally, I think it’s very simple. I don’t believe the framers ever had any intent to excise religious influences from gov’t. They just didn’t want a theocracy, or a gov’t that was in bed with a particular religious affiliation, like Europe had been for the last 700+ years. That’s it. Not a one of them ever posited that religion would (or should) cease to have a place in the governmental life of the American nation. They were all about including EVERYONE in the marketplace of democracy, and they felt national religion prevented that inclusiveness. They wanted to open up “markets”, so to speak: capital markets, religious markets, and philosophical/political markets (“speech”). So that’s why the Constitution declares that the state will not respect the “establishment of religion”…meaning, it will not, as a governmental structure PREFER one religion over another. The current view that the “wall” was to EXCISE religion from the state is, I believe, misguided, since that really goes against their entire philosophy of inclusion in the marketplace.
    But, the original intent of the post was to point out that Texas was declaring that the U.S. is a “Christian Nation”. Well, that’s not something I believe the framers would condone, any more than they would condone the complete excision of religion from government. The framers may have not been terribly religious, but the Constitution isn’t entirely a document of the secular Enlightenment either. It is heavily influenced by Christianity, and this would have been unavoidable even if they tried, since English common law is fundamentally Christian in it’s way of looking at conflict resolution. Besides that, there are also a whole host of pre-millenial eschatological influences on the foundation of this country that most people aren’t aware of (see Ruth Bloch’s Visionary Republic for an excellent read on that). So in a way, the fundamentals of American jurisprudence is definitely influenced by Christianity in a number of ways, but I don’t think it is or really ever was a Christian Nation (like France was a Catholic Nation or Syria is a Muslim Nation).
    Anyway, that’s my 2 cents…enjoyed reading your posts….

  42. As I understand, one of the important articles of Christian faith is the obligation to evangelize — “to go forth and spread the good news,” I paraphrase. The way I read Rehnquist and those who advocate his opinions is that working to prohibit Christians from using the infrastructure of the state as a platform for evangelism amounts to a kind of “liberal elitist” suppression of Christian faith and persecution of Christian Americans. Since no one that I’ve ever heard argue for church-state separation has posed any threat to Christian expression within their own Christian communities, it strikes me as more than a little passive aggressive to claim persecution when compelled simply to mind their own business.

  43. zion-
    This isnt about Christian and non Christian. Rehnquist has ruled the same way when deciding cases involving Judaism (see satmar case). I am arguing from a purely legal standpoint, not advocating any specific religious ideology.
    now i think understand what youre trying to say. And no, i wasnt trying using the term “liberal” to attempt to dismiss the separation of church and state argument. I used the terms “conservative” and “liberal” because those are the sides that are arguing. Its not as if “separation of church and state” is the normative position and thus shouldnt be labeled liberal.

  44. OK, Jimbo,
    I appreciate your clarifying your POV, and I am beginning to understand your position in the discourse. This conversation began within the framework of the “Christian nation” declaration by the Texas GOP, and that has colored my own POV here. While the wider church-state separation controversy comes with alot of baggage, the issues surrounding the general principle of church-state separation are hugely important and complicated, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion here where there has already been alot of interesting food for thought served up.

  45. Hello, hello boys and girls. I’ve been away for a while but now I’m back (Mo, why is the font on the site so damn small?!?)
    Before I begin, I think we need a little Civics lesson. You know, just to freshen up. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. And in terms of the Federal Government, it set up 3 branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative Branch makes the law. The Executive Branch enforces the law. And the Judicial Branch interprets the law. This includes the Constitution. So, in effect, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, be the justices liberal or conservative, loose or strict constructionist. US law is an ever changing corpus as it was meant to be.
    The most important point, which no one has yet made, is that it doesn’t matter what the framers intended. They understood that law must change to fit the times, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law, and more importantly, gave the legislature the power to alter the constitution itself, if there was broad consensus to do so.
    To put it another way, the framers of our Constitution did not intend there to be Civil rights for all racial groups, or even to ban slavery. They did not intend for women to have equal rights, or voting rights. That is, they didn’t intend those things directly. However, the 9th amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, what’s written in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., is the bare minimum or rights.
    Jimbo (and many others) like to throw around the fact that nowhere in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state”. While this is true, that precept is established as law, by the Supreme Court, through the constitutionally mandate interpretation of the law.

  46. EMT writes
    “They understood that law must change to fit the times, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law, and more importantly, gave the legislature the power to alter the constitution itself, if there was broad consensus to do so.”
    The first part ( “They understood that law must change to fit the times, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law”) is a view only held by those who view the constitution as a living and everchanging document. You shouldnt throw it around as if were fact. Scalia and thomas would surely disagree with that statement. They believe all changes to law should be done via the legislator, and not an unelected group of judges (i.e. judicial activisim).
    “Jimbo (and many others) like to throw around the fact that nowhere in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state”. While this is true, that precept is established as law, by the Supreme Court, through the constitutionally mandate interpretation of the law.”
    I have completely acknowledged that this is how the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment. But as I stated earlier, many conservatives, such as rehquist, do not agree with this interpretation, and would gladly change it if they had a chance. Just like you said “US law is an ever changing corpus as it was meant to be.”, so there is no reason to stop debating the issue just because its been interperted one way.
    Anyway, im unsure what your main point is, or even if we disagree on this issue.

  47. also
    “it doesn’t matter what the framers intended”
    You never heard of judges looking to legislative history in their opinions?
    And it was relevant to the original argument of this post which involved the views of our founding fathers (see mobis quotes).

  48. EMTZA: “The most important point, which no one has yet made, is that it doesn’t matter what the framers intended….”
    Actually, I brought up this very same point Tuesday morning. If you’re going to show up late to the party, at least get caught up before you explain it all to those of us who’ve been here all along.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.