The Establishment Clause

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - Wikipedia

What I'd like to zero in on are all these lawsuits against almost anything Christian in government, public schools, and in other areas.

A typical case recently was a former Marine football coach getting sacked by a school for having a voluntary prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game. It appears the school considered this an act that militates against the establishment clause.

In this and in many other cases, the argument against these acts are that they are considered "a violation of the First Amendment," or a 'violation of Church and State,' or an infringement of the 'Wall of Separation,' which was never in the Bill of Rights.

So my pointed question is, "Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be. Where's the law by Congress IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE???

Logicman said:

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - Wikipedia

What I'd like to zero in on are all these lawsuits against almost anything Christian in government, public schools, and in other areas.

A typical case recently was a former Marine football coach getting sacked by a school for having a voluntary prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game. It appears the school considered this an act that militates against the establishment clause.

In this and in many other cases, the argument against these acts are that they are considered "a violation of the First Amendment," or a 'violation of Church and State,' or an infringement of the 'Wall of Separation,' which was never in the Bill of Rights.

So my pointed question is, "Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be. Where's the law by Congress IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE???

Click to expand...

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Logicman said:

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - Wikipedia

What I'd like to zero in on are all these lawsuits against almost anything Christian in government, public schools, and in other areas.

A typical case recently was a former Marine football coach getting sacked by a school for having a voluntary prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game. It appears the school considered this an act that militates against the establishment clause.

In this and in many other cases, the argument against these acts are that they are considered "a violation of the First Amendment," or a 'violation of Church and State,' or an infringement of the 'Wall of Separation,' which was never in the Bill of Rights.

So my pointed question is, "Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be. Where's the law by Congress IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE???

Click to expand...

If your study of constitutional law ends with the bill of rights, then you've got a 200+ year gap in your knowledge. Under its original intent, it was still perfectly valid for states to have official churches and pass whatever manner of laws they wanted for or against whatever religions they wanted; thus how the Mormons were driven into exile in a manner that raised no constitutional objections. This changed with the adoption of the 14th amendment.

Here is some information that gives further details on contemporary interpretations and the relevant case law: Establishment clause overview | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

In a nutshell, due to the 14th amendment, there is no longer a requirement that there be a specific law. You may not like that as it applies to the establishment clause of the first amendment, but aren't you glad it applies to the free exercise clause? Because if it weren't for the 14th amendment, or if we didn't interpret it the way the justices have, you would have no recourse if the government decided to muzzle your speech or break up your pro-life organizations or tea party or whatever. It would be just like you want it to be, if you can't show that congress was passing a law restricting the tea party, there would be no violation of the first amendment if your local government dismantled your tea party group.

CrabCake said:

If your study of constitutional law ends with the bill of rights, then you've got a 200+ year gap in your knowledge. Under its original intent, it was still perfectly valid for states to have official churches and pass whatever manner of laws they wanted for or against whatever religions they wanted; thus how the Mormons were driven into exile in a manner that raised no constitutional objections. This changed with the adoption of the 14th amendment.

Here is some information that gives further details on contemporary interpretations and the relevant case law: Establishment clause overview | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

In a nutshell, due to the 14th amendment, there is no longer a requirement that there be a specific law. You may not like that as it applies to the establishment clause of the first amendment, but aren't you glad it applies to the free exercise clause? Because if it weren't for the 14th amendment, or if we didn't interpret it the way the justices have, you would have no recourse if the government decided to muzzle your speech or break up your pro-life organizations or tea party or whatever. It would be just like you want it to be, if you can't show that congress was passing a law restricting the tea party, there would be no violation of the first amendment if your local government dismantled your tea party group.

Click to expand...

so you're talking about a State government violating the first amendment rights.. correct? ( i won't bother to address you confusing free speech and freedom of religion)



while you point is valid in a federal court ( before incorporation), it's false to claim state governments could do any of the things you say they could.. provided they have protection in the State Constitution for those rights ( i'm not aware of any State that doesn't)

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

That's bizarre. There's been tons of these anti-establishment cases against people of faith. It has nothing to do with sinners, but with our First Amendment rights.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

There is a little more to the question that the Constitution itself. There are a whole raft of laws, presidents, interpretations, rules and regulations based on the principles (or modern interpretation of the principles) of the Constitution which impose greater restrictions on government (and related organisations, such as public schools) than the literal wording of the Constitution. People may refer to "the First Amendment" and “separation of Church and State” in commentary or casual conversation but the legal or regulatory structures actually being applied in these cases aren’t necessarily formally based on them.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

That's bizarre. There's been tons of these anti-establishment cases against people of faith. It has nothing to do with sinners, but with our First Amendment rights.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

Click to expand...

Actually, RabidAlpaca was spot on. By design, the Constitution is a limitation device for government. Also by design, the Bill of Rights is a designed method to identify and then protect individual liberties from any majority.

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."

The "establishment clause" has been consistently Constitutionally tested to mean that government cannot establish an official religion. Even recently interpreted to mean prohibit the government from favoring one religion over another, and tell us the government cannot design any benefit for those of religion over those without religion.

These individual cases, varying on merit I will stipulate in advance, test the lines between individual's "free exercise" of religion and a government even by default or passively establishing some official religion or official religious practice. Where it gets complicated is the Supreme Court has also ruled consistently on "Congress" as mentioned in the 1st Amendment, means any legislative body for any level of government. So now the State nor a local municipality can endorse a religion (even though some still clearly do.)

Bottom line is the "Separation of Church and State," or the so-called "Wall of Separation" decision, tells us that any level of endorsement of any religion on any public property becomes a potential problem Constitutionally speaking.

You 1st Amendment rights do not allow you to drown out some minority, in fact the entire intention of the Bill of Rights was to protect the individual from any "faction." A word used throughout the period to mean the will of any majority removing basic rights from any individual or minority. Confirmed by preamble to the Bill of Rights...

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Or, a designed way to ensure the Bill of Rights protects the Individual from "Congress," the States, or any other level of government.

Logicman said:

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - Wikipedia

What I'd like to zero in on are all these lawsuits against almost anything Christian in government, public schools, and in other areas.

A typical case recently was a former Marine football coach getting sacked by a school for having a voluntary prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game. It appears the school considered this an act that militates against the establishment clause.

In this and in many other cases, the argument against these acts are that they are considered "a violation of the First Amendment," or a 'violation of Church and State,' or an infringement of the 'Wall of Separation,' which was never in the Bill of Rights.

So my pointed question is, "Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be. Where's the law by Congress IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE???

Click to expand...

One does not have to look far to find a law by congress that establishes Christmas (Christ mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?) which has extremely close ties to specific religions. If that national law is consttutional then clearly individuals praying should be considered the free exercise of religion even if done in public places and on the government payroll.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

What folks choose to do at halftime during a football game whether it be play/sing a song, do a dance, have wiener dog races or say a prayer does not establish anything - it is the very definition of free exercise of first amendment rights. When we make Christmas (Christ mass?) a paid holiday (holy day?) for all government workers that may, indeed, cross the establishment line but, since we allow that, a simple optional prayer by a few folks at a HS football game is not even close.

Thrilla said:

so you're talking about a State government violating the first amendment rights.. correct? ( i won't bother to address you confusing free speech and freedom of religion)

Click to expand...

I didn't confuse the two. I drew attention to the second clause of the very same amendment logicman cited. He wishes that the first clause were treated a certain way and I'm pointing out that if it worked that way, the same applies to the second clause.

Thrilla said:

while you point is valid in a federal court ( before incorporation), it's false to claim state governments could do any of the things you say they could.. provided they have protection in the State Constitution for those rights ( i'm not aware of any State that doesn't)

Click to expand...

Sure they could. They could just amend their own constitutions if that's what it took.

More importantly for this discussion is the fact that you would have no constitutional argument against a local police force who took action against your tea party group.

OrphanSlug said:

Actually, RabidAlpaca was spot on. By design, the Constitution is a limitation device for government. Also by design, the Bill of Rights is a designed method to identify and then protect individual liberties from any majority.

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."

The "establishment clause" has been consistently Constitutionally tested to mean that government cannot establish an official religion. Even recently interpreted to mean prohibit the government from favoring one religion over another, and tell us the government cannot design any benefit for those of religion over those without religion.

These individual cases, varying on merit I will stipulate in advance, test the lines between individual's "free exercise" of religion and a government even by default or passively establishing some official religion or official religious practice. Where it gets complicated is the Supreme Court has also ruled consistently on "Congress" as mentioned in the 1st Amendment, means any legislative body for any level of government. So now the State nor a local municipality can endorse a religion (even though some still clearly do.)

Bottom line is the "Separation of Church and State," or the so-called "Wall of Separation" decision, tells us that any level of endorsement of any religion on any public property becomes a potential problem Constitutionally speaking.

Click to expand...

That's the spin. But the fact is that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote about a 'wall of separation' in his Danbury letter to the Baptists, attended church services in government buildings throughout his presidency and even after that. So what the 'establishment clause' meant to those back then is a great deal different than what it's construed to mean today.

OrphanSlug said:

You 1st Amendment rights do not allow you to drown out some minority, in fact the entire intention of the Bill of Rights was to protect the individual from any "faction." A word used throughout the period to mean the will of any majority removing basic rights from any individual or minority. Confirmed by preamble to the Bill of Rights...

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Or, a designed way to ensure the Bill of Rights protects the Individual from "Congress," the States, or any other level of government.

Click to expand...

I still go back to the OP: Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these court instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

The USA is secular, by design, like India.

The USA is not Catholic like Mexico or Spain.

The USA is not Muslim like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The USA is not Anglican like England.

The Founding Freemasons foresaw what happens if the Anglican Church runs things, and enough of them were Scottish and absolutely did NOT want that to happen here.

Those are the real reasons.

The rest is idealistic spin.

danielpalos said:

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

Click to expand...

or Muslims, who are now being targeted for bans on entry into the US?

calamity said:

or Muslims, who are now being targeted for bans on entry into the US?

Click to expand...

they are not the same Thing; we have a Commerce Clause.

Logicman said:

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - Wikipedia

What I'd like to zero in on are all these lawsuits against almost anything Christian in government, public schools, and in other areas.

A typical case recently was a former Marine football coach getting sacked by a school for having a voluntary prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game. It appears the school considered this an act that militates against the establishment clause.

In this and in many other cases, the argument against these acts are that they are considered "a violation of the First Amendment," or a 'violation of Church and State,' or an infringement of the 'Wall of Separation,' which was never in the Bill of Rights.

So my pointed question is, "Where is the required LAW by Congress" in each of these instances? Because the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say a darn word about the acts of private individuals saying prayers here or there, or whatever the case may be. Where's the law by Congress IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE???

Click to expand...

actually that same coach just filed a discrimination suit against the school because they didn't do the same thing to the OC who says hindu prayers or similar
during the same time or before or after he did.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

tell that to the coach that has been suspended for doing just that. I think he would disagree with you.

HonestJoe said:

There is a little more to the question that the Constitution itself. There are a whole raft of laws, presidents, interpretations, rules and regulations based on the principles (or modern interpretation of the principles) of the Constitution which impose greater restrictions on government (and related organisations, such as public schools) than the literal wording of the Constitution. People may refer to "the First Amendment" and “separation of Church and State” in commentary or casual conversation but the legal or regulatory structures actually being applied in these cases aren’t necessarily formally based on them.

Click to expand...

the constitution is pretty clear it is the distortion of what it says which has muddled the waters.

See, here's what I'm talking about:

Coach Suspended for Post-Game Prayers Files Religious Discrimination Complaint | Fox News Insider

This is a prime example of the pathetic idea that Joe Kennedy's action violates the establishment clause.

This is an establishment of religion? Which religion? And when the offensive coordinator does a Hindu prayer, has a 2nd religion been established? Where's the act/law of congress in these two examples?

I'm glad the coach has filed a complaint. He may well have a civil suit against the school also.

HonestJoe said:

There is a little more to the question that the Constitution itself. There are a whole raft of laws, presidents, interpretations, rules and regulations based on the principles (or modern interpretation of the principles) of the Constitution which impose greater restrictions on government (and related organisations, such as public schools) than the literal wording of the Constitution. People may refer to "the First Amendment" and “separation of Church and State” in commentary or casual conversation but the legal or regulatory structures actually being applied in these cases aren’t necessarily formally based on them.

Click to expand...

But laws passed restricting or regulating what can and cannot be done are always--that is ALWAYS--done under theory of First Amendment protection. And almost all are corruption of the intent of the First Amendment establishment clause. The Federal government was ordered via the U.S. Constitution to never establish or interfere with practice of any religion. It was not given authority to have any say in what laws or practices are implemented in any state, county, or local community regarding religion or dictate what policies or displays or prayers or traditions are implemented in any school or court or public function. The First Amendment says that the U.S. government cannot require, reward, punish, or be influenced in any way by what the people believe, profess, or practice re religion.

For the ACLU or anybody else not in the federal government to use the federal courts and the Constitution to file suit against religious symbols or art or traditions or practices of anybody is a violation of the very U.S. Constitution they use as justification for it. And the federal government and the federal courts have aided and abetted them and lined their pockets with serious money when they do it .

danielpalos said:

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

Click to expand...

I would hope so.
An individual has freedom of speech and there is no religious speech exclusion. Of course, a public employee engaging in Satanic or Christian speech may lose his job due to community standards or whatever. But freedom of speech overrides almost everything. And there is no consensus what is religious speech and what is not. Don't believe that government could make that decision without violating the establishment clause. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, were real people and one can discuss them in the same way they can discuss Plato.
People should be able to understand that one person's speech does not imply any establishment of that speech by some governmental entity. Just one person speaking.

danielpalos said:

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

Click to expand...

That's not the question.

The question is whether or not the establishment clause includes the authority to punish the free exercise of Religion.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

So prayer that results in the lose of a job is not hinderance?

ludin said:

the constitution is pretty clear it is the distortion of what it says which has muddled the waters.

Click to expand...

The Constitution isn't all that clear - how else could there be so many arguments about what it means and how it should be implemented? How could there be things long considered constitutional and acceptable in the past wouldn't even be considered today (and vice versa)? A literal interpretation of the Constitution simply wouldn't work. Reality is muddy water - practical law just has to wade through it.

Logicman said:

See, here's what I'm talking about:

Coach Suspended for Post-Game Prayers Files Religious Discrimination Complaint | Fox News Insider

This is a prime example of the pathetic idea that Joe Kennedy's action violates the establishment clause.

This is an establishment of religion? Which religion? And when the offensive coordinator does a Hindu prayer, has a 2nd religion been established? Where's the act/law of congress in these two examples?

I'm glad the coach has filed a complaint. He may well have a civil suit against the school also.

Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out to you, no act or law of congress is necessary. You need to catch up on your constitutional law. You're still citing the way the law worked 200 years ago and acting as if that is still how it works. You're ignoring the changes that were ratified in 1868 and the relevant legal opinions since then.