[N]o power (emphasis mine) over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805.
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. (emphasis mine) Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808.
In light of these statements, made both before as well as after Jefferson's use of the phrase wall of separation in 1802, to what conclusions should we come? In answering this question, I want to highlight the especially-telling quote, taken from Jefferson’s letter to Samuel Miller, where he asserts that the power of the federal government is "interdicted," that is, "prohibited and/or placed under a legal sanction" (Webster’s defined), by the First Amendment.
When you examine the First Amendment clause in light of this comment, you must conclude that the First Amendment was meant to insure that the federal government would remain passive on the issue of religious freedoms. In other words, it prevents the government from taking action against the free exercise of religion. The federal government, then, has no ability to enforce a "no religion zone" on federal and state facilities, public areas, or on any institution which accepts government support. It is a total and permanent restraining order against the federal government, barring it from the creation of regulations that might interfere with the free expression of religion by any citizen of this country.
Just as a restraining order prevents one individual or group from taking action against another individual or group, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause prevents legislators from taking action against individuals or groups seeking to express their religious beliefs. In addition, this clause is extremely broad in scope; it does not specify certain places or times in which we can or cannot exercise this freedom.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Saleski
ah yes....judicial "activism"...also known as "they won't let us do what we want"
look, us secularistas do not want to squelch public expression of religion...we just don't want it forced down anybody's throat.
2 - JR
Did the founding fathers print "In God We Trust" on their money? Did they dictate that all children should recite the phrase "under God" every day in school?
3 - David Flanagan
Mark,
It is the secularists who are not getting what they want from legislators. So, rather than just deal with the fact that in a democracy you don't always get what you want, secularists are going to these activist judges who are willing to circumvent the democratic process and force your secularism down our throats.
The only reason that federal courts have the power to do this is because the 14th Amendment, ironically, allows the federal government to enforce the First Amendment and to make sure states follow First Amendment principles. That all by itself sounds okay, until you think it through and realize that its a case of the fox being put in charge of the hen house.
How can the federal government enforce a restraining order on itself? So, all told, if you read what I've written, you'll see that the greatest danger to us all is not the activist courts that are aggressively secularizing our society, its the fact that they are REINTERPRETING the First Amendment. If you can reinterpret the First Amendment on issues of religious freedom, you can do the same in regards to freedom of assembly and of the press too.
And, lo and behold. That is already starting to happen.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
4 - Mark Saleski
It is the secularists who are not getting what they want from legislators
except for of course that judge (who i assume was not a secularist) who had the ten commandments monument removed by the 'activist' court.
sorry, i'm not buying it.
5 - David Flanagan
[E]xcept for of course that judge (who i assume was not a secularist) who had the ten commandments monument removed by the 'activist' court.
Actually, the situation with Judge Roy Moore has some similiarities and some differences. The judge placed the Ten Commandments monument in the hall himself from what I remember. I think that was the wrong thing to do.
Judge Moore's stand was that the federal government cannot mandate what the states do in regards to freedom of religious expression, but, because of the 14th Amendment, the federal government CAN mandate such expression. So, when the federal court ordered the monument removed, Judge Moore should have complied immediately.
The fact that he refused to do so was the real controversy and one in which many Christians who had supported the Judge then opposed him in his decision. As a matter of fact, a friend of his, also a Christian, was the one who recommended his immediate removal from the bench, which is what was done.
Does this example invalidate anything I've written? Not a chance!
Thanks.
David Flanagan
6 - Mark Saleski
Does this example invalidate anything I've written? Not a chance!
i have a sneakin' feeling that nothing could invalidate what you've written...even words from 'god' himself.
7 - David Flanagan
i have a sneakin' feeling that nothing could invalidate what you've written...even words from 'god' himself.
I'm pretty sure that words from God would supercede my own... Yeah... Probably. ;-)
David Flanagan
8 - gerrard
I've never understood why anyone would want their religious beliefs forced into anyone else's consciousness. Why does any kid going to school really need to hear that you believe in god?
Beyod that, I really doubt that many of the Christian's promoting the practice of religion in schools, etc. would be standing up for the right to discuss Satanism, Islam or for that matter Atheism in public schools.
Why don't we just keep our religious beliefs in the home and churches?
9 - David Flanagan
I've never understood why anyone would want their religious beliefs forced into anyone else's consciousness.
I'm sorry, did I write an article promoting prayer in public schools? Read the last section of my article and you'll see the main points I'm trying to drive home.
Personally, I think the courts have the public school prayer issue exactly right. Public schools cannot initiate prayers, but neither can they interfere with those students who are exercising their right to pray. Also, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of students to initiate group prayers in certain circumstances.
For example, if several players on the high school football team wanted to pray before the game, they could do so. Its voluntary and student-iniated, therefore, there is no worry of forcing religion on anyone.
Other than that, this article has nothing to do with forcing anything down anyone's throat. Instead, its about protecting our free press, our right to assemble peacefully to protest (a freedom that anti-war protesters having been exercising quite a bit lately), and the right to worship in the manner of our choosing.
Thanks. :-)
David Flanagan
10 - Natalie Davis
"Other than that, this article has nothing to do with forcing anything down anyone's throat."
That's not how I see it. If I walk into a government building -- say a "justice" building -- and see some religious monument, I will know that justice for all does not exist there. That's forcing it down people's throats. The Pledge, which I refuse to say, forces it down people's throats. The money, which we are forced to use, indeed forces it down people's throats. Invocations at governmental events forces it down people's throats.
Yes, people should be free to exercise their religions and worship as they please. But it shouldn't be done on governmental property supposed to represent and serve ALL Americans. And it sure as hell shouldn't be done with taxpayer dollars.
11 - Mac Diva
(Yawning.) More Right Wing tripe from longterm Free Republic participant David Flanagan. Here's hoping he will at least learn to spell 'separation.' Just underlining it and putting it in bold aren't good enough.
If you guys think Flanagan is pathetically misinformed here, you should check him out in cahoots with his buddies at Free Republic. One gets the feeling of having entered an alternative universe where stupidity rules. I became aware of Flanagan some time ago while tracking the nut who calls himself 'True Blackman' at Free Republic. They are often on the same threads spouting piffle that would embarass John Birch himself. When Flanagan turned up here, I knew what to expect.
12 - David Flanagan
Yes, people should be free to exercise their religions and worship as they please. But it shouldn't be done on governmental property supposed to represent and serve ALL Americans. And it sure as hell shouldn't be done with taxpayer dollars.
Well, I think perhaps what needs to happen is that all people should be allowed to express themselves. In the Supreme Court building there are various religious monuments that honor the establishment of law and order in our society, which is appropriate to both the nation and the role that the Supreme Court plays.
Overall, we are a society that has always had an expressed faith in God. People believe in God in different ways and follow different faiths, but the overwhelming majority of people in this country do believe that we are one nation "under God," and expressing that in our currency and pledge in no way constitutes the "establishment of religion." Establishment of religion would be the government funding or endorsing ONE religion over all other, and perhaps even restricting other religious organizations, which is what the framers were intent on preventing. They did not want another state-sponsored church like the Anglican Church with religious leaders who had the power of state and could jail anyone who did not follow the government-sanctioned faith.
In the end, our government is a reflection of ALL Americans. If they are not, then they are not a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people," are they?
Thanks.
David Flanagan
13 - David Flanagan
I became aware of Flanagan some time ago while tracking the nut who calls himself 'True Blackman' at Free Republic.
Mac,
As usual, I'm very honored that you should stoop to comment on any one of my particular posts. Much appreciated. ;-)
Secondly, I love posting to Free Republic, and any other place where they'll let me. As I've said before, I'm easy that way.
Finally, would you like to make any particular comment regarding the topic itself or are you just here for a short stay? I realize that some people, when ignorant of the subject, often attack the person, but usually you will at least take a passing swipe at the content before attacking the person, just to give the impression that you care about the topic no doubt.
Thanks. :-)
David Flanagan
14 - David Flanagan
One other quick comment for those who keep insisting that its not appropriate to "force religion down another person's throat," or something to that effect. What would you suggest?
Are you saying that the First Amendment is really a mandate for the government to go out and make sure that no one in our society ever gets offended by another person? If that is the case, then I guess we can expect to see this website, as well as every other site, newspaper, radio program, tv show, etc., shut down in the near future.
If the First Amendment is about preventing people from expressing offensive ideas, then as a free society we are in BIG trouble. But we all know that the First Amendment was created to do exactly the opposite of that, right? Its not meant to prevent offense, it was created to INSURE that such offenses would take place by making sure that government in this country could not do what totalitarian governments do every day to people who "offend the state."
I dare say, a society where no one is offended by another is never a society I would choose to live in. Just nod your head and agree with me here. ;-)
Thanks.
David Flanagan
15 - Mac Diva
Right. (Laughing so hard I'm gonna have to mop up the coffee I'm spilling.) I'm the one ignorant of First Amendment law. So, the folks who hire me to teach it are pretty dim, I guess. I told y'all this guy is a riot.
Kudos to the rest of the posters on this thread. You've done such an excellent job of setting Flanagan straight (though he doesn't realize it) I haven't had to go into my usual establishment of religion spiel.
16 - debbie
Mac,
"Kudos to the rest of the posters on this thread. You've done such an excellent job of setting Flanagan straight (though he doesn't realize it) I haven't had to go into my usual establishment of religion spiel."
In your opinion what does 'establishment of religion' mean?
17 - Mac Diva
Mark, you're getting it. Nothing can come between a know-it-all far Right Christian like Flanagan and his beliefs. Not even common sense.
Newcomers, I know you are reluctant to read Flanagan's overlong exegesis of Thomas Jefferson's alleged thoughts about separation of church and state. Well, you don't have to. It is irrelevant. Since they did not occur in a situation that can produce legislative history, his thoughts don't matter. What he said to someone in private correspondence, between bouts of illicit lust with women he enslaved, might be of personal interest, but is not of consequence legally.
Mark, particularly, has focused on what does matter: The practices Flanagan is defending are from the 20th century. You would never know it from reading Flanagan's entry, but they arose during the Cold War, when some in the American government were eager to distance the U.S. from 'godless Communism.' So, what is actually occurring if the pledge of allegiance or the religious message on money is outlawed is a return to the government not establishing religion. Mistakes were made and are being corrected.
I must say that some people's God moves them in strange ways.
18 - Mac Diva
Debbie, I believe it means not doing anything to favor religion. That can mean favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over absence of religion. Poor Michael Newdow, who is being demonized, objects to the latter kind of government sanction of religious practices.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what the Flanagans of the world think they lose when state imposed religious practices are outlawed.
The pledge? It can be recited as often as they like at home or in other venues, just not imposed on kids at school.
'In God we trust'? The money can still be spent, which is its purpose, not spreading propaganda of one kind or another. People who like the phrase are free to scribble it as much as they like. Watch out for graffiti laws, though.
The Ten Commandments in government buildings? Again, Christians are free to post them anywhere else and to commit the commandments to memory if they mean so much to them.
What I see is people who want their way for very ill-defined reasons. We all comply with time and place regulations every day. For example, we don't urinate on sidewalks. Nor do we run naked through supermarkets. I'm sure there are people who like to do both. But, we've decided, in the interest of comity, not to disturb our fellow citizens by giving in to such urges. I believe that not imposing religious practices on other people is quite similar.
Drat! You guys made me give part of the spiel anyway.
19 - BB
On the whole I have enjoyed this discussion. I claim no expertise on this subject and dialogue is of great value but I would appreciate adherence to the facts and less of the disparaging comments. For those who would make claim to being experts I recommend holding a seat on the supreme court bench. :-)
20 - Mark Saleski
...as long as you restrain your 'activist' tendencies.
;-)
21 - Mac Diva
Hmmm. Under BB's perspective, Laurence Tribe is not an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he would be shocked (yes, shocked!) to hear that. Personally, I would be willing to wager on Tribe's grasp of the consitution, compared to say, Clarence Thomas,' any day.
22 - Mac Diva
Typo. Constitution.
23 - BB
I suppose what is even more shocking is I had better get my spectacles prescription renewed because I don't see any comments from "Laurence Tribe" :-)
24 - Mac Diva
Nope. But, by claiming only people on the Supreme Court can be experts in con law, you make yourself look pretty foolish.
Not that one even needs to be an expert in con law to shoot down what Flanagan has posted. It is just Right Wing tripe, not based in legal interpretation at all.
25 - BB
Hmmm.. so now I'm blind as well as foolish. Oh well who am I to argue with madame justice ;-)