[Vision2020] Supreme Court on the Establishment Clause

Wed Aug 17 11:46:41 PDT 2005

Thomas Jefferson:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every
person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches
that use government power to support themselves and force their views on
persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state
support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people
and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation
between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free
society.

     We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom
of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the
laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results
from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of
religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious
convictions of his own inquiries."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use
of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury
Baptist letter. 

This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate
description of the Establishment Clause: 

Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879)

Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947)

McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Justice Hugo Black:

"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation' between church and state."

-- Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Enough said.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sunil Ramalingam
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:20 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on the Establishment Clause

Those decisions are hiding out along with your explanation of why we went to
war in Iraq.  A team of archivists are busy searching for them.

Sunil

  _____  

From:  "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
To:  "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject:  Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on the Establishment Clause
Date:  Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:51:05 -0700
>What happened to all the decistions used before that to say that it was OK
>to say prayers before public meetings??
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Melynda Huskey" <melyndahuskey at earthlink.net>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:04 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on the Establishment Clause
>
>
>Kai,
>
>In Abington v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court held (in an opinion
written
>by Justice Clark):
>
>"Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the
>Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion
>over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said
>that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
>Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
>one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed:
>
>" 'There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the
>religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of
>propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or
>indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in
>part at taxpayers' expense.... This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights
>because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in
absolute
>terms, and its strength is its rigidity.' Id., at 26.
>
>"Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and
>Burton, declared:
>
>" 'The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official
>establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal
>relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies.
>Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was
>broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to
>create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious
>activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of
>public aid or support for religion.' Id., at 31-32.
>
>"The same conclusion has been firmly maintained ever since that time, see
>Illinois ex rel. McCollum, supra, at pp. 210-211; McGowan v. Maryland,
>supra, at 442-443; Torcaso v. Watkins, supra, at 492-493, 495, and we
>reaffirm it now.
>
>"While none of the parties to either of these cases has questioned these
>basic conclusions of the Court, both of which have been long established,
>recognized and consistently reaffirmed, others continue to question their
>history, logic and efficacy. Such contentions, in the light of the
>consistent interpretation in cases of this Court, seem entirely untenable
>and of value only as academic exercises."
>
>Clark also wrote, on the question of letting some people "excuse
themselves"
>from participation:
>
>"But we held in Speiser that the constitutional vice of the loyalty oath
>procedure discharged any obligation to seek the exemption before
challenging
>the constitutionality of the conditions upon which it might have been
>denied. 357 U. S., at 529. Similarly, we have held that one need not apply
>for a permit to distribute constitutionally protected literature, Lovell v.
>Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, or to deliver a speech, Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.
S.
>516, before he may attack the constitutionality of a licensing system of
>which the defect is patent. Insofar as these cases implicate only questions
>of establishment, it seems to me that the availability of an excuse is
>constitutionally irrelevant. Moreover, the excusal procedure seems to me to
>operate in such a way as to discourage the free exercise of religion on the
>part of those who might wish to utilize it, thereby rendering it
>unconstitutional in an additional and quite distinct respect."
>
>Read it all at:
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=374&invol=203
>
>Melynda Huskey
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050817/0e74396e/attachment-0001.htm