Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (41557)	6/22/1999 3:54:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I did read some so-called scholars on the net who claimed that the term "separation of church and state" never appeared in our Constitution (which is quite true), but, rather, first appeared in the Soviet Constitution - which is untrue - De Toqueville certainly applied the term to the United States government in 1825, although of course he was a mere historian. I wonder where the term originated. Perhaps you came across that in your studies?

To: jbe who wrote (41557)	6/22/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, actually no. It was to keep the state from establishing any given religion as a state religion. England had, of course, had its share of wars over which church would be estalished as the official state religion. Other European countries had fared equally as badly, if not worse. The King was, of course, the official head of the Church of England and as I recall appointed its Bishops. Citizens could be forced to tithe to the official church. Many of those who settled the New World were escaping this establishment of a church by government. And, of course, this prohibition only applied to Congress initially; the States were free to establish religions if they wanted, unless their State constitutions forbid it. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment (post Civil-War) that the Bill of Rights was construed to contstrain the state, and the first case applying the free exercise clause to the States was in 1940. Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., pg. 1156. As Tribe points out, the two clauses of the Establishment Clause, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof, are in a certain tension; "either [clause], if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other." Tribe at 1157. Tribe discusses at some length the Framers intent (starting pg. 1158), saying "The historical record is ambiguous, and many of today's problems were of course never envisioned by any of the Framers." He identifies three views: the evangelical view, which was to protect the churches against worldly corruption (interesting that here the purpose was to protect the churches, not to protect the state!); the Jeffersonian view, to safeguard secular interests against ecclaistical depredations and incursions; and the Madisonian view, to advance both religious and secular interests by diffusing and decentralizing power so as to asure competition among sects rather than dominance by any one. I can't get into the full discussion here, but if you are interested n the topic it's a good discussion by a well regarded (if quite liberal) scholar. I wish I had time to contrast his views with those of Gunther and other constitutional scholars on my shelves, but I am supposed to be working! <g> And of course even today there is indeed not a full separation of church and state. The Army pays chaplains from various faiths. The House and Senate pay chaplains and open their sessions with prayers. The President entertains, at public expense, numerous notable religious leaders. There was or is at least one Jesuit Brother in Congress. Churches get special tax breaks, as do their ministers. During the civil rights era there was close cooperation between the black churches and the federal government. Various forms of state and federal aid are given to parochial schools. And now the welfare system is moving toward using faith based organizations as a formal part of the welfare distribution system. A fascinating topic, but not nearly as simplistic as you suggest.