tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7448079214939860113..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Steven Novella on the "separation of church and state"mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28055785974306046422013-08-08T07:25:40.019-04:002013-08-08T07:25:40.019-04:00I had posted a link to Mr Egnor's piece on my ...I had posted a link to Mr Egnor's piece on my blog ... and this leftist-and-atheist troll, Doug Indeap, posted the very same copied-and-pasted "comments" there.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26191787067590154672013-08-08T01:57:55.052-04:002013-08-08T01:57:55.052-04:002. To the extent that some nonetheless would like...2. 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. Some, like Novella, try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Hardly. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is simply wrong.<br /><br />The further notion that the Supreme Court's recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state in Everson is all Justice Black's doing as part of some KKK anti-Catholic conspiracy would be laughable if it weren't contemptible bigotry. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.<br /><br />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). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government. 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.”<br />Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12903201925506980802013-08-08T01:57:13.497-04:002013-08-08T01:57:13.497-04:001. Separation of church and state is a bedrock pr...1. 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 "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), 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 (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), 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 affirmatively 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 mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved 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 />Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66574843577582974212013-08-06T23:51:17.012-04:002013-08-06T23:51:17.012-04:00Anonymouse:
[Bullshit. "Creator" and &q...Anonymouse:<br /><br />[Bullshit. "Creator" and "God" are not synonyms, no matter how much you wish them to be so.]<br /><br />So Creationism is not a reference to God? <br /><br />[Bullshit. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. Madison wrote about it extensively. So did Tyler. Reynolds v. United States used the phrase in 1878. Your pretend version of history is flatly wrong.]<br /><br />We were discussing the role of the phrase "separation of church and state" in Constitutional law, as I recall. The Treaty of Tripoli makes no reference to it, and the only place the phrase appears in US law is a brief mention in Reynolds in 1878. Until Everson.<br /><br />"Separation of church and state" got a lot of use as a nativist mantra, and was immensely popular with the KKK for a century. The hooded fellows managed to get one of their own on the Supreme Court, where he inserted that part of the KKK initiation oath into Constitutional law. <br /><br />Facts are facts. <br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38854505001585540842013-08-06T12:59:18.146-04:002013-08-06T12:59:18.146-04:00"So, one may ask, how did "separation of..."<i>So, one may ask, how did "separation of church and state" become a part of American jurisprudence, given that it originated in the personal letter of a man who had nothing to do with the Constitution ...</i>"<br /><br />Actually, the reptile (*) did have *something* to do with the Constitution ... he opposed both its drafting and its ratification.<br /><br />(*) Jefferson was a cowardly back-stabber, a conniver-in-the-shadows. Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89774650562855466042013-08-05T12:48:12.163-04:002013-08-05T12:48:12.163-04:00Nobody: " "Creator" and "God&q...Nobody: " "Creator" and "God" are not synonyms..."<br /><br />Oh, I see. They meant your Mom and Dad! How sweet.Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82028831264283202702013-08-05T11:33:39.845-04:002013-08-05T11:33:39.845-04:00Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, exp...<i>Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, explicitly attributes our rights to God.</i><br /><br />Bullshit. "Creator" and "God" are not synonyms, no matter how much you wish them to be so.<br /><br /><i>For a century and a half after the ratification of the Constitution, "separation of church and state" had essentially nothing to do with American law, where it was ignored.</i><br /><br />Bullshit. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. Madison wrote about it extensively. So did Tyler. <i>Reynolds v. United States</i> used the phrase in 1878. Your pretend version of history is flatly wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5244926774623738122013-08-05T07:44:15.646-04:002013-08-05T07:44:15.646-04:00Novella's "argument" is simply the t...Novella's "argument" is simply the typical Proglodyte "change the subject" tactic: "Stop looking at the Constitution and look at this letter!"<br /><br />However, Black's application of 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine in <i>Torcaso v. Watkins</i> is another case that is often overlooked in this debate. The Left loves the 14th Amendment, except when they hate it... as in <i>McDonald V. Chicago</i>. :-)<br /><br />They's Amendments what they likes, and Amendments what they don't likes.Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.com