Something to bash on

[kandrathe]

You are right. We should take the Liberty Counsel, and Mr. Staver's opinions out of the conversation. It was just a handy link to the same argument I was making, and he was the lawyer who argued and won the "Ten Commandments" decision in front of the US Supreme Court about a year ago. So, for those on the forum not familiar with where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from.

Below is the text of the letter sent to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Church when we was sitting as President of the United States. At the time, they were being persecuted because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. Jefferson responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty.

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of
the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God
has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of
those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

Thomas Jefferson's final edited reply was;

Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Later in 1808 when writing to a Virginia Baptist group he further clarified;

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.

But, again, I would argue that Jefferson's intent was that the Federal government should have no role in promoting or discouraging religion within the states. During the early colonial period, before there was a federal constitution, some states had established themselves with a state religion similiar to what was common practice in Europe. Religious minorities within the states, including the Danbury Baptists, wanted an end to repression on account of their religious beliefs.

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

If I attend a legislative session, at any level of government, and the session is opened with a prayer (and don't give me any crap about 'non-denominational' -- anyone who thinks that the way a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Taoist, even a Jew or a Muslim would pray isn't substantially different from how a Christian from any sect would pray is either ignorant or in denial), then isn't my freedom of religion being negated. Aren't I, in effect, being told that anything other than a Christian is not respected here and will not get a fair hearing.

Other than it being tradition, I would concur. I would suspect that any legislator who would attempt to change it would be commiting political suicide, and if they prefer not to hear the prayer would attend the session late as most legislators already do.

Now about a 5000 pound carving of the Ten Commandments that might be sitting outside the court house, or a plaque on the wall... As the minority, you are suffering the tyranny of the majority and your only protections lie within judicial decisions which must be made on careful consideration of law and precedence. The establishment clause is a protection for those who do not want the goverment dictating religious activites, but the question of whether that applies to a prohibition of anything religious in a civic forum remains a bit vague.

Next up? The final verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner";

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Anyway my point is that I think it is more productive as we make new decisions to do that in sensitivity to the diversity the nation embodies. To go back and revise all the sculpture, monuments, money, national anthem is not productive even though it might offend your senses, I would hope you could see them in their historical context.