“The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither 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. Neither can [it] force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16]   ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 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.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.”  [1879]
   
  The statement above is a transcription of one paragraph of  the Supreme Court decision in Everson V. Board Of Education Of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  This is no recent decision of “activist judges”.   Although Everson is a 1947 decision, it cites dozens of previous decisions and writings of our founders, going back to 1786.  
   
  Nothing limits these restrictions to “only Christian denominations”:  Government can’t show preference for *any* religion over another. The majority opinion and the dissent stated that the wall between Church and state must be maintained.  The dissent also stated that the wall between Church and state must remain high.  The Court, without dissent on this point, declared that: “the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another, but as well those that ''aid all religions.''  The Constitution affirmatively mandates *accommodation*, not merely tolerance, of all religions. 
   
  Chief Justice Rehnquist has advocated limiting application of the 1st Amendment to a prohibition on establishing a national (or state) church or favoring one religious group over another, thus leaving out the prohibition against government preference for any and all religion. Rehnquist has also claimed that Jefferson really didn’t advocate complete separation of Church and State, was in France at the time the 1st Amendment was passed, and was therefore, “disinterested” and uninformed about the true meaning of the amendment.  A letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Church assuring them of his meaning, was just a note written in haste. Rehnquist  also contends that the lawmakers in Congress, at the time the Amendment passed, didn’t really understand the meaning of the amendment and if they had, wouldn’t have voted for it.  Anyone familiar with Jefferson, and the other law-makers of their day, should have a good laugh over that!
   
  Like it or not, this is our law.  It will take ratification by a 2/3 majority of states to change it. However, the 1st Amendment protects us all, no matter what our religion, or absence thereof.  If you do want government to support religion – exactly which denomination would that be? The First Amendment prevents your government and tax dollars from supporting the Christian Church Of Lukumi Babalu Aye, just in case you don’t believe in animal sacrifice.  
   
  Langdon Hagen-Long
   
     
   
   
  Kevin Joel Berland <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
  On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:38:28 -0600 John Philip Adams wrote:

<<…Again, the complaint about "activist judges" springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, which specifically created the Supreme Court as a practical means of keeping legislation in line with Constitutional principles. A brief survey of the history of the Supreme Court will demonstrate that justices have always been activists, in the sense that they have always been involved in interpreting the Constitution and deliberating on the constitutionality of laws…


  Again, the complaint about "activist judges" springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, which specifically created the Supreme Court as a practical means of keeping legislation in line with Constitutional principles. A brief survey of the history of the Supreme Court will demonstrate that justices have always been activists, in the sense that they have always been involved in interpreting the Constitution and deliberating on the constitutionality of laws. It is impossible that we should all agree with all the decisions that judges and justices have made, but the fact remains that this is precisely what the Constitution requires of them. Dismissing them as "activist judges" is nothing more than complaining when the outcome of this fundamentally democratic process doesn't suit one's ideological preference.

Finally, the Constitution IS a living document. The example I gave in a previous message--the expansion of the franchise from white property-owners to a more inclusive body--is the ultimate example.>>

Cheers -- Kevin Joel Berland


   


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html