1st amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."

It seems that it wasn't until the last half of the 20th century did we see
the interests in the courts in reassessing the restraints of the 1st
amendment. 
Your comment
"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."
I am thrilled that we do not have a state religion, but the attacks on the
established religious places, i.e. Wren Chapel just do not strike me as
being correct. I agree that as long as the laws are on the books, we must
obey those laws; however, that is what keeps lawyers busy in trying to find
a way around, under, or over these laws. Many cases have been overturned by
subsequent Supreme Courts and this is why we keep discussions like this in
play. I only ask that we all strive to maintain this great country,
especially since so many of our Virginia ancestors are responsible for this
document and the country we are so proud to be a part thereof.
Thank you all for your commentaries. 

John Philip Adams

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Langdon
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Constitution

"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

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