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 (41568)	6/22/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

The fact is that the principle of separation of church and state has been under attack ever since it was first formulated. Many states restricted religious freedom, despite the clear intent of the disestablishment clause and of the First Amendment. Keep in mind that the Constitution bound the Federal government only. It did not apply to the States or state government actions until after the 14th Amendment was passed and interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend 1st Amendment limits to state governments also.

To: jbe who wrote (41568)	6/22/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Thank you, Joan, for a well-researched and written report. I noted one thing while I was collecting URLs Sunday, someone, and I don't really feel like re-reading everything this minute, stated that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, only two states permitted non-Trinitarian Protestant Christians to hold public office. I know you mentioned a few that did not allow deists, Jews, Catholics, and so on to hold public office, but this site said all but two prohibited members of these religions from holding public office, probably Maryland was one? Which is why the U.S. Constition doesn't allow a religious test for eligibility for public office.

To: jbe who wrote (41568)	6/22/1999 7:17:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The debate over whether the founding fathers intended church and state to be separate has always left me a bit uneasy. I don't think the founding fathers intended to have the last word on this, or on most other subjects; I think they envisioned a government that would grow with its people and change to reflect their changing views, and I think that this is the main reason why the government they created has lasted as long as it has. I'm less concerned with the vision of the founding fathers than with the vision that we - modern Americans - have today. Do Americans want church and state separate? I would say the answer - evidenced by the electoral performance of fundamentalists - is a pretty clear yes. Given the declared intent of fundamentalist Christian cultists to take over the government and establish a "Christian State", I can see why. I certainly don't want a bunch of sour-faced bible thumpers telling me what I can and can't do, say, or think, and I don't think very many Americans do.

To: jbe who wrote (41568)	6/22/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Krowbar	Respond to of 108807

Good post Joan, it saved me the work. I also bookmarked your link. Del

To: jbe who wrote (41568)	6/22/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Joan, I started to do a little legal research on the issue of posting the Commandments in public schools, and discovered that the United States Supreme Court essentially ruled against this concept back in 1963! I will research further to see if this case has been limited in any way, but I don't think it has. So unless there is a constitutional amendment on the issue, the law would be unconstitutional. More later. I am posting an excerpt, if you want the whole thing let me know. * * * EXCERPT FROM: ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. V. SCHEMPP 374 U.S. 203 ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP 374 U.S. 203 374 U.S. 203 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. SCHEMPP ET AL. No. 142. Argued: February 27-28, 1963 Decided: June 17, 1963. /* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. /* [Page 203] Together with No. 119, Murray et al. v. Curlett et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, argued February 27, 1963. Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day --even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227. 201 F. Supp. 815, affirmed. 228 Md. 239, 179 A. 2d 698, reversed.