The First Amendment, Whats the Interpretation?

[Neoma]

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.

Basically this person (TROLL) on another forum is talking about, how Religion has the freedom to be in the government. Saying church and state should not be separate and that atheists has no right to take god out because of our beliefs.

How would you Interpret/Respond?

[lazarus]

1. The troll is an idiot

Jefferson clearly stated repeatedly that he intended a wall of separation.

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn 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..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

[trotsky]

2. Have him take a look at the Lemon test.

Established judicial precedent.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.

The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

[progressoid]

3. OK - but that's not what s/he really wants

What s/he wants is XIAN religion in our gov't (probably protestant xian to boot). If this person is truly OK with blending religion and gov't, then they would have to accept quotes from the Koran carved in marble monuments in our public squares. How about allowing Wiccan rituals in public schools? Maybe we could teach the Raelian version of the creation of the universe in our science classes?

Do they really support religious freedom or just religious freedom for their flavor of religion?

Ignore the atheist comment. It becomes a quagmire argument. Atheists have become a diversion - a scapegoat even - from the real issue their agenda to rewrite history and remove civil rights of the rest of us non-xians.

[fshrink]

4. I drink a glass of wine

look at Saturn and search for the Whirlpool galaxy. Hold my baby girl when she falls asleep. And help the poor minds who suffer from pathogenic beliefs and reminiscences at the office.
As to the constitution, it is an old piece of paper, vague enough to be interpreted in any way you like. Just like the bible, although shorter.
Separation of church and state is not a theoretical question. When and where it is implemented it is a practical achievement: it has been imposed by revolutionary forces on the ruling class, for which it is a central instrument of control. It'll happen again, hopefully with more strength.