Separation of Church and State - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

Mick Jagger · #21 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Meaning? Hey, I believe in a living constitution.

What are the rules and principle of that method of interpretation?

Quote:

So, it's entirely possible for the First Amendment to have a different meaning to us than it meant to the guys who wrote it because the circumstances have changed.

The meaning of the Constitution is the will of the lawmakers at the time the instrument was made.

Quote:

Now, it means that people can write, say and believe what they please. Then, it was a promise from one government to another.

Huh?

Mick Jagger · #22 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Mick
In New England, the Congregational Church (the Puritan church) was tax supported as late as 1833

markedixon
It's not a good idea to make declarative statements about issues on which you're not informed. Briefly...

The Establishment Clause did not apply to the States. An establishment of religion, i.e. direct tax aid to churches, was the situation in nine of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the American revolution.

Dude, the issue is whether the Congregational Church (the Puritan church) was tax supported as late as 1833 in New England. Where in that information, about the Church-State situation in 1775, is there evidence of tax support as late as 1833?

Quote:

Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania had never had an establishment of religion.

The issue is whether the Congregational Church (the Puritan church) was tax supported as late as 1833 in New England.

Quote:

After the Declaration of Independence, the new states began writing constitutions, usually abandoning state-sponsorship for a particular religion or sect, and by approximately 1791, nine of eleven states that ratified the amendments of 1789 had disestablished.

If state-sponsorship for a particular religion or sect was abandoned at the commencement of the Revolution in the mid 1770's, how could a particular Protestant sect, the Congregational Church (the Puritan church), have been tax supported as late as 1833?

Quote:

In the New England, however, the process went on well into the 1800s: Connecticut in 1818

How does that prove that the Congregational Church was tax supported as late as 1833?

Quote:

New Hampshire in 1819

How does that prove that the Congregational Church was tax supported as late as 1833?

Quote:

Massachusetts disestablished in 1833.

Tax support exclusively for the Congregational Church was terminated in Massachusetts long before 1833, dude.

Quote:

...after "disestablishment", some states persisted in tax-support for religion, by "general assessment" meaning the proceeds were available to all denominations.

If there was "general support" for Protestantism, then there was no "preferential support" for the Congregational Church.

Mick Jagger · #23 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

Remember precedent. Our previous (English) government had a state church.

Where did you flunk Constitution 101?

Where did you get the silly idea that the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from whether or not the English had a state church?

Quote:

Most of the states had state churches.

Where did you get the silly idea that the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from whether or not some of the colonies once had state churches?

Quote:

So, those precedents would strongly imply that the new U.S. (federal) government would also have the power to create and maintain a state church.

Where did you get the silly idea that the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from precedents?

Quote:

With the First Amendment, however, the government explicitly gave up that right.

It never had such a right, dude.

Mick Jagger · #24 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

At that moment, the First Amendment assured states with privileged denominations (nine of 13) that the feds would not be stepping on their turf.

Nine of the states weren't granting privileges to particular Protestant denominations when the First amendment was being made.

Eight of the states had no concern whatsoever about the government having power over religion, because they knew it had none.

The five states that were concerned that the Constitution might be interpreted to grant the national government authority over religion expressed their concerns in the amendments they proposed. Not one of those proposed amendments says anything about protecting the state's civil authority over religion.

PS: The "reason and spirit" of a law should only considered when the first four rules of construction fail to resolve the ambiguity.

Phillybud · #25 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 08:49 PM

For the record, I am in support for the complete, total, and unequivocal separation of "church" and "state."

Democracy, NOT Theocracy.

tbdiscovery · #26 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillybud

For the record, I am in support for the complete, total, and unequivocal separation of "church" and "state."

Thank you. In this day and age, freedom from religion should be an obvious solution.