Constitutional content with regards to separation of church and state.
Offline It is often said that the Establishment Clause was intended to create a separation of church and state, which it may very well have been intended to imply, but the actual text of the clause seems rather vague in establishing that certain separation.
For instance: it states Congress may not make any law that respects a religious institution, but does not mention government funding of a religious institution, nor does it make mention of the executive branch.
Not sure if there's something I'm missing here.
Also, are there other articles in the Constitution that touch upon this topic?
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
- Login to post comments
Nope, you are correct. The portion of the amendment related to separation of church and state is as you stated it. I am still researching this but it explains the funding of the faith based initiative programs. Our current president is certainly not the first president to do this, but it is still annoying.
Can't we get this ratified?
I think it seems vague because it was intended to be very broad. I tend to think that it's subsequent interpretation has made it more ambiguously.
The Constitution also puts essentially all spending power in the hands of Congress, so there are substantial limits on funding of religion, because any funding of religion would have to be done by Congress. I think there is a case to be made that the Constitution would allow for the funding of religious institutions via a mechanism that is generally available without regard to religion, but funding of religion directly and specifically would almost certainly be illegal.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
I always hear about Bush's faith based initiative though and I wonder if he, not being a part of Congress, has a right to pursue that.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
What I have read so far indicates that the faith-based initiative programs must also provide some sort of community service, i.e. crime reduction in order to qualify for the funding.
The money has to be appropriated by Congress, so his ability to do anything is limited. Although this administration has shown a remarkable amount of immunity to the Constitution, I think the most even he could do is rewrite policies on which groups qualify for funds so that they don't exclude religious groups.
I think the whole faith-based initiative crap was more about creating a polarizing political issue than faith. I'm pretty sure Bush didn't give a damn about the issue itself, he just wanted to use it to consolidate the religious right on his side.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Ah alright, thanks for the clarification.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
I agree, it is vague. The vernacular of the late 1700s is not the vernacular of today. I'd be all for a rewrite of the Constitution to clarify some of these points... except not any time soon; you never know what the goons in power now would do to destroy it.
The key word is "establishment." Passing a law "respecting an establishment of religion" is to make a particular religion the de facto "National Religion." That is why we have the clause; the Constitutional Convention goers didn't want a rehash of institutions like the Church of England--an establishment of religion.
The historical revisionists would gladly have a "Church of the United States," but that's not going to happen.
It seems like a loophole, and of course this can be--and is--pointed to as one, but it isn't. Neither the executive or judicial branches are entitled to make laws, even though they do on a regular basis.
Remember that "faith-based initiatives" were not brought about by Congress, but by an Executive Order. This is a misuse of power. [Note that the use of "establishment" in section one of the E.O. is not the same as in the establishment clause.]
There are very few mentions of religion in the Constitution. 1) The establishment/free exercise clauses. 2) The "no religious tests" for office clause in Article six: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's it, unless I'm forgetting something.
There are plenty of sources to get a bead on the mindset of the founders: notes from the Continental Congress and Constitutional Conventions, letters of the founders, The Federalist papers, the "Anti-Federalist" papers... etc. And still... very little is said about religion beyond what is contained in the Constitution. It's very telling. If there were an enormous bone of contention regarding "separation of church and state" it would need to have been talked about at the conventions much, much more than it was. That it wasn't seems to indicate that for the vast majority of them it was a given; they didn't have to debate it. They were unified and firm in their opinion that church and state were to remain separate.
I'd support a rewrite or radical revision of the constitution, but I would leave the first amendment essentially unchanged. I think the major problem that needs to be solved is the nearly unchecked power of the executive branch relative to the others. In fact, I would probably strip the president of power almost entirely and allow the executive offices to be filled by Congress, more like a parliament.
Add in Single Transferable Vote, and we'd just about have a democracy.
Part of the probelm with a Constitutional rewrite, however, is that our political system is so dead right now that I don't think it has the capacity to birth a viable new one.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Do the Treaty of Tripoli or Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists have any legal significance?
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
Damn right. I'd start with a strict definition of "Executive Order" and "state of emergency." The pres isn't supposed to have much power to begin with... except, in particular, in times of war... Is it any wonder that we're almost always involved in global conflicts?
Hey, now there's an idea. I'd even be up for something as simple as a "none of the above" option on the ballot. This faux-two-party system crap has got to go. There's only one party: the Corporate Party.
I thought we were supposed to be voting for individuals?
Agreed. I'd want scholars working on that, not career politicians.
I know they've been cited in church-state separation cases, but the treaty was broken, Jefferson's letters--even though he was president when writing them--are just letters...
I don't know if they qualify as legal precedent... or just corroborative material, or some crap. (Is that the same thing?) (?) I dunno. I'm no law expert.
But they're useful citations when arguing with revisionists and dominionists anyway. Damn their goofy notions of "original intent"; they're wrong.
I like STV particularly for the House of Representatives because it would obliterate the 2-party system, and give American politics a chance to become useful again, instead of 'what kind of emperor do we want this time'.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.