• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.[W126]

Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Great - Thomas is yet another far right zealot wallowing in the mental delusion that we are still in the 1700's and nothing has changed since then.

Thomas is an idiot IMO.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

WOW!!!!! You have to wonder how that gigantic secret has been kept all these years?

this shows you have no understanding, i shall translate:

i have never heard of the 14th in relationship to the same talk as the 16 and 17 not property ratified, ...and you said you were a teacher?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Thomas is - wrong of course. The US Constitution overrides state laws on the issue.

jet57 as usual you got it wrong

there is no context in what Thomas is saying, is he talking about original constitutional law AS IT IS WRITTEN?

because the bill of rights states "congress shall make no law"......it does not say..states shall make no law.

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war, and states had state religions until 1818
 
Last edited:
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

I have a funny feeling that Judge Thomas is going to have a real go around trying to put those viewpoints through SCOTUS--in other words: getting his colleagues to agree with him.

If you think that this is constitutionally correct than why don't states implement this practice? What's stopping them? :shrug:

I think you might wish to re-read what I wrote more carefully and you wouldn't get what I wrote so wrong when you comment on it.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

jet57 as usual you got it wrong

there is no context in what Thomas is saying, is he talking about original constitutional law AS IT IS WRITTEN?

because the bill of rights states "congress shall make no law"......it does not say..states shall make no law.

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war, and states had state religions until 1818

Actually, I believe it was 1833? (working from memory here) that Massachusetts officially disbanded its state religion. But for all practical purposes, the little theocracies that existed in the colonies were defunct by the turn of the 19th Century and all were dissolved voluntarily by the people of those states. Liberty does promote liberty. The important thing is that the Constitution restricted the federal government from dictating or interfering with religion in any way, something that it has increasingly done since it assumed rights it was never intended to have. But in the time frame that Thomas was referring to, it did not restrict the people from forming whatever sorts of societies they wished to have, even if those societies were theocracies. And ultimately it would be the people, and not the government, who rejected the theocracies and did away with them.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

...

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war, and states had state religions until 1818

After ratification of the Bill of Rights -- only two states.

And it was done away with in short order.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Actually, I believe it was 1833? (working from memory here) that Massachusetts officially disbanded its state religion. But for all practical purposes, the little theocracies that existed in the colonies were defunct by the turn of the 19th Century and all were dissolved voluntarily by the people of those states. Liberty does promote liberty. The important thing is that the Constitution restricted the federal government from dictating or interfering with religion in any way, something that it has increasingly done since it assumed rights it was never intended to have. But in the time frame that Thomas was referring to, it did not restrict the people from forming whatever sorts of societies they wished to have, even if those societies were theocracies. And ultimately it would be the people, and not the government, who rejected the theocracies and did away with them.

i was sure it was 1818, but that is not 100% ..

is that what you gathered from Thomas, that he is talking about original constitutional law....and not how the law is judged today?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

After ratification of the Bill of Rights -- only two states.

And it was done away with in short order.

well if its 20 years, that not short order, but if they ended it was because the people ended them, not because the federal government did because they had no say-so in the matter.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

i was sure it was 1818, but that is not 100% ..

is that what you gathered from Thomas, that he is talking about original constitutional law....and not how the law is judged today?

Massachusetts did lag behind the other states in adopting a policy of religious tolerance. (You made me look it up. :)) There is a pretty good mini history of that here:
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3331

But yes. Clarence Thomas is the most conservative of all the justices and the most silent most of the time. But having just a wee bit of a personal glimpse into the High Court, he is known to be the most beloved by his law clerks and other staff. He is a Constitutional originalist but admits that original intent is too often in the eye of the beholder depending on the personal opinions of who is doing the interpreting. He does know and tries to follow what he knows is the original intent of the Constitution and is also guided by the Declaration of Independence and its basis on natural rights of humankind. And because he is of the firm conviction that the Constitution was to limit the federal government and was not intended to govern the people, there is no way he advocates a state religion these days. He was absolutely speaking of the way it was at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were signed and ratified.

If you ever have the privilege of hearing Justice Thomas speak, take it. He is amazing.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion (Go to link.)

This was wrote on May 7, 2014, so I could not find if this was discussed.

Apparently Judge Thomas believes that the individual states have the right to establish a state religion; however, the gentleman is ramming straight on in to the fourteenth amendment and his hurting himself.

I guess in a sense, Judge Thomas is right. The First Amendment restricts the federal government from establishing a national religion. However, I'd suspect the States would come up against this segment from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

So, for example, if I were a California resident and their legislature enacted a law that made Buddhism their State's religion Buddhism, my religious privileges would be abridged since I'd prefer to remain a practitioner of the Christian faith. Which would mean I'd either have to move out of state or fight the infringement on my religious rights.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Massachusetts did lag behind the other states in adopting a policy of religious tolerance. (You made me look it up. :)) There is a pretty good mini history of that here:
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3331

But yes. Clarence Thomas is the most conservative of all the justices and the most silent most of the time. But having just a wee bit of a personal glimpse into the High Court, he is known to be the most beloved by his law clerks and other staff. He is a Constitutional originalist but admits that original intent is too often in the eye of the beholder depending on the personal opinions of who is doing the interpreting. He does know and tries to follow what he knows is the original intent of the Constitution and is also guided by the Declaration of Independence and its basis on natural rights of humankind. And because he is of the firm conviction that the Constitution was to limit the federal government and was not intended to govern the people, there is no way he advocates a state religion these days. He was absolutely speaking of the way it was at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were signed and ratified.

If you ever have the privilege of hearing Justice Thomas speak, take it. He is amazing.

i bow to your knowledge of state religion here..you are correct.

if he was speaking about the constitution in the time it was ratified then he is correct.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

jet57 as usual you got it wrong

there is no context in what Thomas is saying, is he talking about original constitutional law AS IT IS WRITTEN?

because the bill of rights states "congress shall make no law"......it does not say..states shall make no law.

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war, and states had state religions until 1818

If you had any idea what you were talking about Texas would be a sectarian state by now. But once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so that settles that.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Here it is:
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.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.

The amendment begins, "congress shall". Last time I checked "congress" was not part of state government. Although, practically speaking federal tentacles reach into every facet of state business, any distinction is meaningless at this point.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

I guess in a sense, Judge Thomas is right. The First Amendment restricts the federal government from establishing a national religion. However, I'd suspect the States would come up against this segment from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

So, for example, if I were a California resident and their legislature enacted a law that made Buddhism their State's religion Buddhism, my religious privileges would be abridged since I'd prefer to remain a practitioner of the Christian faith. Which would mean I'd either have to move out of state or fight the infringement on my religious rights.

Out of curiosity, why? I could understand your point if California tried to enforce that religion on others, but them having Buddhism as their state religion by itself doesn't mean that you would have to give up your religion or your practice of it.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

If you had any idea what you were talking about Texas would be a sectarian state by now. But once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so that settles that.

Actually he is mostly correct. Pre-Civil War the BoR's did not apply to the states and several states did have state sponsored religions. IE: The BoR's did not over ride the State laws. The reason was because the BoR's were originally restrictions on the just Federal government, not restrictions on the States. In fact that is why many States demanded that the BoR's be put into the Constitution despite many of the Founders being against the idea of a written set of Rights. So that the Federal government would not be allowed to interfere with certain things that the States believed to be solely with in their (and their peoples) discretion.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the BoR's finally applied to the States also.

Think about it...why would States have needed a State Constitution with their own written in Rights if the BoR's originally applied to them?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Actually he is mostly correct. Pre-Civil War the BoR's did not apply to the states and several states did have state sponsored religions. IE: The BoR's did not over ride the State laws. The reason was because the BoR's were originally restrictions on the just Federal government, not restrictions on the States. In fact that is why many States demanded that the BoR's be put into the Constitution despite many of the Founders being against the idea of a written set of Rights. So that the Federal government would not be allowed to interfere with certain things that the States believed to be solely with in their (and their peoples) discretion.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the BoR's finally applied to the States also.

Think about it...why would States have needed a State Constitution with their own written in Rights if the BoR's originally applied to them?

Someone actually knows a bit about history, but I believe it was Marbury v Madison that resulted in ending State sovereignty...
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Out of curiosity, why? I could understand your point if California tried to enforce that religion on others, but them having Buddhism as their state religion by itself doesn't mean that you would have to give up your religion or your practice of it.

True, but it would mean that your taxes would support a religion you don't believe in. A state religion would have special privileges which your faith would not enjoy. Read what was happening in Connecticut which caused the Danbury Baptists to write to Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

a quote from the Danbury Baptist letter to Jefferson
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 . . .
my emphasis
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Out of curiosity, why? I could understand your point if California tried to enforce that religion on others, but them having Buddhism as their state religion by itself doesn't mean that you would have to give up your religion or your practice of it.
It all depends. If Buddhism was the state's religion, than that state could possibly show favoritism of it's religion over other religions in that state. Sooner or later a line is going to be crossed and that can of worms will be eventually opened.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Actually he is mostly correct. Pre-Civil War the BoR's did not apply to the states and several states did have state sponsored religions. IE: The BoR's did not over ride the State laws. The reason was because the BoR's were originally restrictions on the just Federal government, not restrictions on the States. In fact that is why many States demanded that the BoR's be put into the Constitution despite many of the Founders being against the idea of a written set of Rights. So that the Federal government would not be allowed to interfere with certain things that the States believed to be solely with in their (and their peoples) discretion.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the BoR's finally applied to the States also.

Think about it...why would States have needed a State Constitution with their own written in Rights if the BoR's originally applied to them?

No, he is not correct and neither are you. Religion as a state supported "activity" or mandate, dates to 1602... Only 29 years elapsed from the time of the signing of the constitution until we had 20 states in the union: there was a lot going on. It takes a while to deal with The Bible.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

No, he is not correct and neither are you. Religion as a state supported "activity" or mandate, dates to 1602... Only 29 years elapsed from the time of the signing of the constitution until we had 20 states in the union: there was a lot going on. It takes a while to deal with The Bible.

a complete failure to discredit his argument or Justice Thomas's for that matter
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Actually he is mostly correct. Pre-Civil War the BoR's did not apply to the states and several states did have state sponsored religions. IE: The BoR's did not over ride the State laws. The reason was because the BoR's were originally restrictions on the just Federal government, not restrictions on the States. In fact that is why many States demanded that the BoR's be put into the Constitution despite many of the Founders being against the idea of a written set of Rights. So that the Federal government would not be allowed to interfere with certain things that the States believed to be solely with in their (and their peoples) discretion.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the BoR's finally applied to the States also.

Think about it...why would States have needed a State Constitution with their own written in Rights if the BoR's originally applied to them?

well put!
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

If you had any idea what you were talking about Texas would be a sectarian state by now. But once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so that settles that.

you have a great track record of being wrong all the time.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Actually, I believe it was 1833? (working from memory here) that Massachusetts officially disbanded its state religion. But for all practical purposes, the little theocracies that existed in the colonies were defunct by the turn of the 19th Century and all were dissolved voluntarily by the people of those states. Liberty does promote liberty. The important thing is that the Constitution restricted the federal government from dictating or interfering with religion in any way, something that it has increasingly done since it assumed rights it was never intended to have. But in the time frame that Thomas was referring to, it did not restrict the people from forming whatever sorts of societies they wished to have, even if those societies were theocracies. And ultimately it would be the people, and not the government, who rejected the theocracies and did away with them.


Religion in the Original 13 Colonies - Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org

some info
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

this shows you have no understanding, i shall translate:

i have never heard of the 14th in relationship to the same talk as the 16 and 17 not property ratified, ...and you said you were a teacher?

That makes no sense and is a very senseless response to the post of mine you reproduced as your lead in. What I did for a living has NOTHING To do with claims about amendments NOT being properly ratified.

Attacking me is a very pathetic and poor substitute for facts.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Someone actually knows a bit about history, but I believe it was Marbury v Madison that resulted in ending State sovereignty...

I don't remember which case it was but Marbury v Madison was the case in which the courts set up judicial review.

And yeah, I like American history. My favorite is the Lewis & Clark expedition. As a kid I used to picture myself following the same route as them. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom