smb@ulysses.UUCP (11/03/83)
From: lllenoir@uok.UUCP Subject: Church vs State (??) - (nf) Message-ID: <3669@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Nov-83 23:34:58 EST #N:uok:6600007:000:583 uok!lllenoir Nov 1 11:51:00 1983 Well I just got a suprise.. In a response to a previous note (# 17 res 3) I mentioned the doctrine of the seperation of church and state being in the constitution. I must admit that I spoke without knowing the facts. I was unaware that this doctrine is never stated in the constitution. With all the hubub over it I assumed that it was.. (I am still talking from second hand information. No flames please) SO.. could someone out there please explain to me where and how this doctrine got started. I would appreciate it. Lionel (U. of OK) The First Amendment to the Constitution, says, among other things, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" (this is from memory, but I'm certain of the phrase "establishment of religion"). The Supreme Court, relying on the history of the amendment, has held that the phrase "establishment of religion" means that Congress may not take any action to establish any form of religion or religious practice. Thus, ordaining a prayer is establishing a religion, an act expressly forbidden by the Constitution. This was the basis for their decision in the famous Madalyn Murray lawsuit in 1963; I can give the appropriate case citations for anyone who's interested. Other court decisions have held that the provisions of the First Amendment apply to the states as well, based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The vote on the court was either 6-1 or 7-1 (my reference work is at home -- I looked all this up a few weeks ago when the subject came up on net.religion). Other parts of the majority opinion in this case (and one a year earlier) speak of the need to maintain an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state; they cite appropriate historical records to show that this was indeed a major concern of the Founding Fathers. The dissenting opinion in this case spoke of denying children the right to pray in school; plainly, this is not what the court said -- only that the government may not ask them to do so. So -- the provision Lionel speaks of most certainly is in the Constitution. I commend the original opinions to anyone interested in the subject; they're quite readable and quite accessible. (See any textbook on civil liberties.) --Steve Bellovin
ofut@gatech.UUCP (11/05/83)
We sould also remember the historical reasons for our almost paranoid
seperation of church and state. I don't mean paranoid in a negative
state, I'm really remembering the phrase from a foriegn friend of mine
who said he thought it was alittle strange until he studied some US
history.
A good many of the original settlers of this land came to the
americas because of state oppression of religion in europe at the time.
Having found a homeland "of their own", they wanted to make sure that
their children (us) would not have the same problem. Of course
not allowing any state interference with religion may be called
overkill but is only overkill when the government is TOTALLY trustworthy
as compared with the will of the peopled. It doesn't hurt to allow
for future errors - or a future wherein there are so many people and the
government is so big that the people can't always know what the
government is doing at all.
I hope this obversation is not to far off the point.
--
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet: Ofut @ GATech ARPA: Ofut.GATech @ Csnet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!ofut