The scope of the establishment clause

[McCulloch]

You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

[micatala]

You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

I can't see that the clause should be interpreted only to bar the establishment of particular denominations. That doesn't make sense in light of the reason for having the clause in the first place.


The framers were acting in the context of history. Many of the inhabitants of the colonies came their specifically to get away from state sponsored religions in Europe, or were descended from those who did. The Church of England would be one example.

However, the issue is not which church or religion was the established one. The issue was the establishment itself. I think it is ridiculous to assert that the framers would not be OK with the Church of England being established and asserting its will on the populace but would be OK with some larger more ecumenical church or group of churches doing the same thing.

It's like saying "we won't let Virginia dominate Maryland, but it is OK if Virginia, NC, SC, PA, NJ, and DE all get together to dominate Maryland"

[Solon]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

The establishment clause was written by James Madison. (along with the rest of the first amendment) Let's see what he said on the subject...

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't 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 (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Religion, not a specific denomination here.

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Ecclesiastical versus civil matters, very general in scope.

# The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

This also party answers a question asked by East of Eden in another thread about how Founding Fathers felt about states which had established religions.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments 1785)

(full text available here)

This last comes from a document he wrote in opposition to a bill proposed in the Virginia Assembly by Patrick Henry which would have established Christianity in general as the religion of Virginia and the particular sect determined locally by each county. He instead supported Jefferson's bill which did not allow any establishment, of one two or twenty sects.

[r~]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Have you ever considered Christianity ItS as transcending secs and gender and other denominations?

Love your neighbor as your self.
All are bourn with equal right of well-regulated pursuit of peace and happiness.
Render unto Caesar.
Governments are instituted to secure this inalienable right equal for all.
Render unto God.
No law shall be construed to deny this self retained right equal for all.

No government has just right to judge and condemn sins.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
please get all damned religion out of government

ItS
liberty
r~

[McCulloch]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Have you ever considered Christianity ItS [in the spirit] as transcending sec[t]s and gender and other denominations?

Yes, I have considered such a view. Compared to its competitors in the ancient world, Christianity went a long way towards that ideal. However, I believe that Unitarian Universalism surpasses any branch of Christianity in transcending sects, gender and denominationalism.

[r~]

However, I believe that Unitarian Universalism surpasses any branch of Christianity in transcending sects, gender and denominationalism.

How is Unitarian Universalism different from Unitarian ItS and Christianity ItS?

peace
ron

[East of Eden]

You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

CORRECTION: I have not said it would be OK for the US Gov't. to establish Christianity. We disagree on what constitutes the establishment of Christianity. It's my position that government paid Christian chaplains, Madonna & Child Christimas stamps, Moses on the SCOTUS building, etc., do not establish Christianity but are simply a reflection of who we are.

From constitutional expert Joseph Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by James Madison:

§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.


Wikipedia on Joseph Story, for those not familiar with him:

Joseph Story (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845. He is most remembered today for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and The Amistad, along with his magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, first published in 1833. Dominating the field in the 19th century, this work is one of the chief cornerstones of early American jurisprudence. It is the first comprehensive treatise ever written on the U.S. Constitution, and remains a great source of historical information of the formation and early struggles to define the American republic.

[r~]

Please for[e]give. A better spelling might be se[x]. I see a difference between Uni-Uni- and ~ItS . I celebrate birth and holiday and spirit and all saints that freely give to children and others.

You could not be more wrong. Santa is the personification of parental deceit. Santa is a practice god for the younger set. "He knows when you are sleeping; He knows when you're awake; He knows when you've been bad or good; So be good for goodness sake." But it is not goodness sake, but presents' sake that you really should be good for. If you stop believing, you will be punished, so make sure that all the grown-ups think you still believe. (They think it is cute.) Suppress rational analysis and don't admit to your own doubts. These are great practice for the skills necessary for church participation when they have grown up.

I do not engrave mark and evil upon good and innocence and then exalt in the [purported] wickedness of dear old santa.

keep your damning religion out of my just government
All are born with equal right of well-regulated pursuit of peace and happiness.
love your neighbor as your self
Governments are instituted to secure this inalienable right equal for all.
render unto caesar
No law shall be construed to deny this self retained right equal for any.
render unto god
No government has just right to judge and condemn sins.
thou shall not punish sin as crime
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
keep your engraven image of religion out of my own just government

ItS
Peace
r~

Many will hear the Words; only the few and patriot will know and serve in the spirit.
liberty equal in verse all

[McCulloch]

However, I believe that Unitarian Universalism surpasses any branch of Christianity in transcending sects, gender and denominationalism.

How is Unitarian Universalism different from Unitarian ItS and Christianity ItS?

By calling it Christianity ItS you are associating this movement, philosophy, religion with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ and all who have followed him. Unitarian (one God) Universalism (who is the salvation of all) even by its name, transcends the necessarily narrow focus implied by the name Christianity.

[micatala]

You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

CORRECTION: I have not said it would be OK for the US Gov't. to establish Christianity. We disagree on what constitutes the establishment of Christianity. It's my position that government paid Christian chaplains, Madonna & Child Christimas stamps, Moses on the SCOTUS building, etc., do not establish Christianity but are simply a reflection of who we are.

I would partially agree. In my view, people on both sides of this "culture battle" need to take a deep breath and distinguish what is important from what is relatively trivial.

It really should not be a big deal for people to swear oaths in court or congress on the Bible, or to have Moses on the SCOTUS building, or to have Christmas stamps. I understand the symbolism might be upsetting to some, but as long as no infringement on freedoms or implementation of religion as policy is taking place, I don't see that there is a problem. Some of the symbolism is part of our history and if it is not a reflection of "who we are" in a universal sense, it is a reflection of who some of us are and the history of how we got here as a nation.

I would say if we allow such symbolism, we should be tolerant of a variety of symbols. Ideally, such symbolism would be offered in a positive and respectful fashion, not as an attempt to denigrate or degrade others or to manipulate people or government entities or officials. If we allow a depiction of "Moses the Lawgiver" at the capital, we really should also consider symbolism from other religions and non-religious symbolism. In fact, I suppose we do when we use "lady liberty and the scales of justice" as a symbol which goes back to Themis of ancient Greece. We could consider symbols of Roman Law or even the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the Napoleonic Code, even if they had no direct effect on our constittution. We might incorporate Humanist symbolism.

From constitutional expert Joseph Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by James Madison:

§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.


Wikipedia on Joseph Story, for those not familiar with him:

Joseph Story (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845. He is most remembered today for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and The Amistad, along with his magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, first published in 1833. Dominating the field in the 19th century, this work is one of the chief cornerstones of early American jurisprudence. It is the first comprehensive treatise ever written on the U.S. Constitution, and remains a great source of historical information of the formation and early struggles to define the American republic.

I bolded one phrase I thought particularly important.

To me, the symbolism of Moses on the SCOTUS building does not violate the bolded principle.


On the other hand, things like bans on gay marriage, laws saying atheists cannot hold certain offices (which I believe is being debated elsewhere on the forum), and perhaps even in a small way bans on alcohol sales on Sunday would be violations of the intent and letter of the Establishment Clause, in my view.