tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post4989089083487801865..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: My reply to Doug Indeap on the constitutional separation of church and state.mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44093495980164499732011-12-13T11:27:41.279-05:002011-12-13T11:27:41.279-05:00Doug, be careful what you wish for.Doug, <a href="http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-question-for-doug-indeap.html" rel="nofollow">be careful what you wish for</a>.Modusoperandihttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Modusoperandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23389660868086818662011-12-04T19:40:10.908-05:002011-12-04T19:40:10.908-05:00Mike,
I understood from your October 31 comment t...Mike,<br /><br />I understood from your October 31 comment that you planned a substantive response to my comments. Have I missed it or did you change your mind?Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89680252522796524632011-12-01T17:49:37.165-05:002011-12-01T17:49:37.165-05:00Liz:
Thank you for your kind comment! It means a ...Liz:<br /><br />Thank you for your kind comment! It means a lot to me.<br /><br />Mikemregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87183062478114475942011-12-01T11:06:20.267-05:002011-12-01T11:06:20.267-05:00Way to go Michael from one Catholic Conservative t...Way to go Michael from one Catholic Conservative to another! VERY well said. Doug has visited MY blogspot as well this week & has pretty much cut & paste his exact same argument there. I couldn't agreed with your sentiments more & you have an EXCELLENT knack of how you express them. WELL DONE! I'll be sure to follow you. -LSLiz Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76213773974740903532011-11-20T11:03:24.164-05:002011-11-20T11:03:24.164-05:00Doug, makes good sounding arguments, then ignores ...Doug, makes good sounding arguments, then ignores other facts that prove him wrong, then he leaves before he's pinned down to face the facts.Countryboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952451883239935681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33224977651433915822011-11-07T16:21:34.301-05:002011-11-07T16:21:34.301-05:00There is a thing in the U.S. called compulsory edu...There is a thing in the U.S. called compulsory education. (Think of it as your compulsory love for jesus).<br />Meaning, by law, that the federal government maintains, that all children of certain ages (which is left to the states) must attend school. Now correct me if i'm wrong, but if a government makes education a LAW, and the constitution says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, then why should ANY prayer or religious symbol appear in any public school? Seems like a conflict of interest to me.<br /><br />And as far as the government handing out money to churches, didnt your boy Bush jr. start a 'faith-based initiative' program a few years back? You mean to tell me the U.S. citizens dont pay the difference of all the lost tax revenue from the 70,000+ churches, and all that they own?<br />Hell, even the cult of $cientology pays no tax. And they're like billion-dollar cult-scary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7148567262188891102011-11-01T12:12:34.374-04:002011-11-01T12:12:34.374-04:00I can understand, though, that you provincials wou...<i>I can understand, though, that you provincials would have a tough time grokking simple American Constitutional principles.</i><br /><br />Bachfiend seems to have a better grasp on them than Egnor does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20974701697692969572011-11-01T06:33:19.635-04:002011-11-01T06:33:19.635-04:00Alt Numlock,
I'll bring up Michael Egnor'...Alt Numlock,<br /><br />I'll bring up Michael Egnor's erroneous definition of 'imaginary' until he admits that he got the definition wrong.<br /><br />And anyway, Australia has states, not provinces.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28420724611156157082011-11-01T00:32:08.571-04:002011-11-01T00:32:08.571-04:00Bringing up the 'imaginary' thing again an...Bringing up the 'imaginary' thing again and again is kind of retarded and childish, Bachfiend.<br /><br />Oh, yes, and tiresome.<br /><br />I can understand, though, that you provincials would have a tough time grokking simple American Constitutional principles.Alt Numlocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46951016451503305022011-10-31T19:26:15.518-04:002011-10-31T19:26:15.518-04:00Michael,
Or better still, why don't you just ...Michael,<br /><br />Or better still, why don't you just wait until the Federal Court hands down its decision, then you can post again on this topic with something new to add. I trust your interpretation of American constitutional law as much as I trust your definition of simple words as 'imaginary'.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-727642289303419872011-10-31T18:57:55.350-04:002011-10-31T18:57:55.350-04:00@Doug:
Your comments warrant more detailed reply ...@Doug:<br /><br />Your comments warrant more detailed reply than I can give in a comment box. I'll reply to them in posts over the next week or so. <br /><br />Mikemregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84956506693304144152011-10-31T17:45:23.010-04:002011-10-31T17:45:23.010-04:00The little ghouls and ghosts have started arriving...The little ghouls and ghosts have started arriving at our door, and I thought I would just hop on and wish everyone a Happy Halloween! Have a fun and safe one folks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20228400686388634142011-10-31T12:25:26.916-04:002011-10-31T12:25:26.916-04:00@Doug: it is pretty clear that Egnor has been parr...@Doug: it is pretty clear that Egnor has been parroting Kenneth Gutzman's revisionist interpretations of the Constitution and doesn't actually understand the legal implications of the position that Gutzman takes. Hence, he doesn't understand how taking such a reductionist view of the Constitution to allow for wedging religion into the public sphere would negatively affect all of the other liberties he holds dear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-814511822307788102011-10-31T11:58:47.051-04:002011-10-31T11:58:47.051-04:004. In any event, the very fact that evidence and...4. In any event, the very fact that evidence and arguments can be advanced in support of both sides of issues like this is one of the reasons we have courts and call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court has done just that--decisively, authoritatively, and, in the most important respects, unanimously. In its jurisprudence, the Court has, in effect, followed Madison’s advice, though not his suggested legal theories. The Court has confirmed the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state, while also giving a pass to the appointment of chaplains for the house of Congress and army and navy and the issuance of religious proclamations, as well as various governmental statements or actions about religion on one or another theory. Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx As that paper serves to show, notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric by courts and commentators about an impenetrable wall of separation, as maintained by the courts, that wall is low and leaky enough to allow various connections between government and religion. Indeed, the exceptions and nuances recognized by the courts can confuse laymen and lawyers alike, occasionally prompting some to question the principle itself, since decisions in various cases may seem contradictory (e.g., depending on the circumstances, sometimes government display of the 10 commandments is okay and sometimes not). In any event, the Court's rulings confirming the Constitution's separation of church and state have long since become integral to the law and social fabric of our nation--not the sort of decisions to be overruled lightly.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32937414529670304532011-10-31T11:58:11.524-04:002011-10-31T11:58:11.524-04:003. You make much of the First Amendment's ref...3. You make much of the First Amendment's references to "Congress" and "law." By your literal reading, are we to suppose the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of one or more religions? Nonsense. First, Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President's veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are "made" by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. By the literal reading you suggest, it would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion--a manifestly silly result. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.<br /><br />In any event, watch what you wish for. Any such crabbed reading of the First Amendment would mess with the free exercise clause as well. Anonymous correctly warns of the mischief the government might do that falls short of "prohibiting" the free exercise of religion.<br /><br />Finally, you note that the government does sometimes take actions on religious matters, e.g., hiring chaplains for the houses of Congress and the army and navy. Madison discussed just this point in his Detached Memoranda, excerpts of which I quoted earlier. As it happens, he not only stated plainly his understanding that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion by such acts as appointing chaplains for the houses of Congress and the army and navy or by issuing proclamations recommending thanksgiving, he also addressed the question of what to make of the government’s actions doing just that. Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions inconsistent with the Constitution be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].” Basically, he recognized that because too many people might be upset by reversing these actions, it would be politically difficult and perhaps infeasible to do so in order to adhere to the constitutional principle, and thus he proposed giving these particular missteps a pass, while at the same time assuring they are not regarded as legitimate precedent of what the Constitution means, so they do not influence future actions.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83963518003357951192011-10-31T11:56:53.744-04:002011-10-31T11:56:53.744-04:002. Your suggestion that the primary purpose of th...2. Your suggestion that the primary purpose of the establishment clause was to strengthen and protect state established churches is partially true, but largely off. While some of the founders no doubt aimed to limit the federal government in this arena in order to leave it free to the states, others undoubtedly were motivated by the political "disestablishment" movement then sweeping the country. The First Amendment was largely an accomplishment, at the federal level, of that movement, which also succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term "antidisestablishmentarianism," which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.<br /><br />This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).<br /><br />While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision ("no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is not a recent invention of the courts. (Nor, by the way, is separation of church and state an atheist concept. Enough said about that silliness.) In keeping with the Amendment's terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86397616620456632332011-10-31T11:55:53.166-04:002011-10-31T11:55:53.166-04:001. You observe that the Constitution founds the g...1. You observe that the Constitution founds the government on the power of the people and says nothing about god(s), but fail to recognize that that is a reflection of the very separation of church and state you otherwise deny. As I said earlier (and you largely ignore in your post), separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.<br /><br />That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.<br /><br />To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80819935922317608702011-10-31T11:55:22.482-04:002011-10-31T11:55:22.482-04:00@anon & troy
That prayer has been hanging on ...@anon & troy<br /><br />That prayer has been hanging on that school wall for 50 years, for goodness sake! Why all the atheist fuss now? What's the atheists’ secret agenda? Why are they only realizing NOW how offending to them that little prayer is?<br /><br />As Dr Egnor said, references to God are all over the place. Are the atheists going to sue the US into oblivion because the are offended each time they ear the word God.<br /><br />I would suggest atheists take an aspirin or two and try not to think about it…<br /><br />@troy<br /><br />What's your beef with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morona" rel="nofollow">Morona</a> river?Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27797109761776638452011-10-31T11:52:22.970-04:002011-10-31T11:52:22.970-04:00I win, because I've reduced you to gibberish.
...<i>I win, because I've reduced you to gibberish.</i><br /><br />You lose because you started with gibberish. And when actual constitutional jurisprudence is brought up, you confuse it with gibberish.<br /><br /><i>Everson and Lemon were based on the doctrine of "wall of separation of church and state" which is not Constitutional.</i><br /><br />1. No they weren't. They used the language as a rhetorical flair. They were rooted in solid Constitutional precedents - which is why <i>Everson</i> garnered unanimous support for its interpretation of the Establishment clause. <i>Lemon</i> was an 8-1 case - and the "dissent" concurred with the majority's interpretation of the Establishment clause.<br /><br />2. Your "powerful movement" is a fringe group of wishful thinkers who have no hope of ever impacting actual jurisprudence. There is effectively no chance that <i>Everson</i> or <i>Lemon</i> will be overturned in your lifetime or mine. You need to stop lapping up dominionist bullshit and come back to reality.<br /><br />3. You still don't get it. Your narrow interpretation of the Establishment clause when applied to the Free Exercise clause leads to the conclusion that the government may do anything it wants to <i>restrict</i> the exercise of religion so long as Congress doesn't <i>prohibit</i> it. Like most "originalists" you are only an originalist when it is convenient for your political goals, and happily toss originalism aside when it gets in the way of your pet issues. Your "originalism" is essentially "unprincipled opportunism". Which makes you a hypocrite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57296536015595462732011-10-31T11:39:48.696-04:002011-10-31T11:39:48.696-04:00@anon:
I win, because I've reduced you to gib...@anon:<br /><br />I win, because I've reduced you to gibberish. <br /><br />Everson and Lemon were based on the doctrine of "wall of separation of church and state" which is not Constitutional. <br /><br />Like other decisions outside of the Constitution (Dred Scott, Topeka, Buck v. Bell, etc) they will be overturned. <br /><br />There is a powerful movement among honest Constitutional scholars to do so (http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674013743). This movement has the support of several Supreme Court justices.<br /><br />We'll get this "separation" fraud out of our law, hopefully soon. <br /><br />It will probably remain in the KKK Creed, but you can bring that up at your next Klavern meeting.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50907609891100914332011-10-31T11:11:35.730-04:002011-10-31T11:11:35.730-04:00@mregnor: Restricting freedom is prohibition of th...@mregnor: <i>Restricting freedom is prohibition of that aspect of freedom that is restricted.</i><br /><br />Oh, so now we add interpretation to the clause you want interpretation added to it? How very nicely self-contradictory of you.<br /><br />A restriction isn't a prohibition. It is a restriction. Since we are limited to the explicit text, restrictions are fine, because they are not prohibitions.<br /><br />Unless you are saying you'd like to revise your "only the explicit text" statements? Because if you do, then "establishment of religion" becomes much more expansive to include concepts like "endorsement", just like you've expanded "prohibition" to "restriction".<br /><br /><i>Courts can decide, based on actual Constitutional law.</i><br /><br />By applying appropriate precedents, like <i>Everson</i> and <i>Lemon</i>. Glad to see you waking up to reality at last.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19888766347006500812011-10-31T10:51:10.462-04:002011-10-31T10:51:10.462-04:00@anon:
Restricting freedom is prohibition of that...@anon:<br /><br />Restricting freedom is prohibition of that aspect of freedom that is restricted. Duh.<br /><br />The test is simple:<br /><br />Is it a law respecting an Establishment of Religion?<br /><br />Is it a law prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion?<br /><br />If yes to either, it is unconstitutional.<br /><br />If no to both, it is Constitutional. <br /><br />Courts can decide, based on actual Constitutional law.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39439320236839874602011-10-31T10:45:44.468-04:002011-10-31T10:45:44.468-04:00That first sentence should read:
The Free Exercis...That first sentence should read:<br /><br />The Free Exercise clause does not bar <i>restricting</i> the free exercise of religion, only the <i>prohibition</i> of the free exercise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76541663547810453242011-10-31T10:44:18.999-04:002011-10-31T10:44:18.999-04:00@mregnor: If the tax were restricted to Masses onl...@mregnor: <i>If the tax were restricted to Masses only, then it would seem to restrict free exercise, and be unconstitutional.</i><br /><br />But the Free Exercise clause does not bar <i>restricting</i> the free exercise of religion, on the <i>prohibition</i> of the free exercise.<br /><br />According to the narrow version of interpretation you've espoused for the Establishment clause, you are limited to the specific words of the Constitution. hence, restricting is okay. Only prohibition is banned.<br /><br />So a mass tax should be just hunky dory in your book. Unless you want to come back to reality and revise your methodology for interpreting the Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53618427763342146442011-10-31T10:38:57.104-04:002011-10-31T10:38:57.104-04:00@anon:
I misunderstood what you meant by a "...@anon:<br /><br />I misunderstood what you meant by a "Mass tax". I thought you meant a tax to pay for Masses. <br /><br />A tax on Masses would have to be judged by the Free Exercise clause. If the tax were restricted to Masses only, then it would seem to restrict free exercise, and be unconstitutional. <br /><br />If it were a tax on ceremonies of all kinds, religious and non-religious, then I don't think that it would be unconstitutional.<br /><br />Stupid, yes. But not unconstitutional, as long as it did not single out religious ceremonies.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com