Nope, sorry, that's a twisted meaning to fit a modern day meme first thought up in 1947 by activist Judge Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education.
Actually, in his letter Jefferson uses the phrase "separation between church and state" to assure the association there would be no establishment of a national religion by Congress because there were fears that the federal government might one day attempt to make religious freedom a right granted by the state.
Sound familiar?
Sure it does. Ask the average Millenial where their rights come from and they will confidently tell you they are granted by the state.
But, we all know that's wrong, don't we?
Especially lawyers, right?
You're incorrect. It was first brought up by Jefferson. He quotes the establishment clause, then simplifies it with his separation statement. Pedantic arguments aside, the 1st Amendment is clear in its meaning. Legal scholars aren't divided on this issue. The establishment clause means, exactly, that there shall be no law promoting, or restricting religion. Congress can't declare a national religion, nor can they restrict a religion. What this means is that Government buildings, enterprises, or most anything funded by the government, can not promote religion in any capacity. As Jefferson put it, Religion is between Man and his God.
The founders took their experience with a state religion and intended to thwart any future attempts at such. Further proof of the separation from church and state can be found in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 wherein they stated, the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. This isn't hard. You have religion. Great! So do I.
I, however, see the wisdom of restricting the state from the business of religion.
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 12-14-2017).]
Different day and age. Happens all the time, folks of today trying to change what the Founders actually meant. Like the armed militia principle central to the 2nd amendment.
Our fore fathers did not envision an absolute separation of church and state. Most of them were religious people. Their model for government was based on separation of powers. In their mind organized church entities should hold no formal position in government but they did not say or imply that the church should have no voice.
As to the letter in question -
James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress concluded that Jefferson regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.
Recall that Jefferson was under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving as Washington and Adams had. The letter was written to reassure Baptist constituents that he was a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign.
Jefferson's wall of separation referred to the difference between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not between the church and civil government. Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of a wall and state governments PLUS churches on the other.
The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
Here is the crux of the whole debate and what many people get wrong. Religious provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion from corrupting interference by the federal government and not to protect the civil state from the influence of religion.
Different day and age. Happens all the time, folks of today trying to change what the Founders actually meant. Like the armed militia principle central to the 2nd amendment.
So then you're not a textualist? You believe in the theory of an evolving Constitution? Based upon your writing, I'm suspicious or your jurisprudence skill set. Combined with the fact that you've opined that Hugo Black was an activist, I'm not sure you're not parroting other's belief without an understanding onto your own.
In any event, I'm a textualist. I believe in what was written. The 1st Amendment is clear - no acknowledgement or restriction of religion. The fact that the founders placed this as the first sentence of the first amendment solidifies that.
Back on topic. Today any male that wasn't gay 5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45 years ago and hit on females for dates, or flirted with them are now ,in todays liberal p/c minds sexual harassment abusers.. Don't think so.. They expect a male to ask if it is ok to stop kissing and ask if it is ok to cop a feel of the bum, or anything else as the passion builds.. Heck soon they'll want a signed doc with every stage checked off, and signed off on, to prove you didn't sexually abuse a woman..
Todays gentlemen that were raised correctly and with morals that say " Good morning Jenn, you look perky today.." would be harassment as todays female doesn't know what a gentleman is or how they speak or act..
The first guy that builds and makes mass produced a sex robot is going to be a might rich man.. As todays 15-30 single guys are going to skip the witches.. as they are to risky to their WHOLE life carrier ..
Back on topic. Today any male that wasn't gay 5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45 years ago and hit on females for dates, or flirted with them are now ,in todays liberal p/c minds sexual harassment abusers.. Don't think so.. They expect a male to ask if it is ok to stop kissing and ask if it is ok to cop a feel of the bum, or anything else as the passion builds.. Heck soon they'll want a signed doc with every stage checked off, and signed off on, to prove you didn't sexually abuse a woman..
Todays gentlemen that were raised correctly and with morals that say " Good morning Jenn, you look perky today.." would be harassment as todays female doesn't know what a gentleman is or how they speak or act..
The first guy that builds and makes mass produced a sex robot is going to be a might rich man.. As todays 15-30 single guys are going to skip the witches.. as they are to risky to their WHOLE life carrier ..
What part of it do you find incorrect? It wasn't long ago a man could walk up to a group and not fear the hr dept if he put his hand on a woman's shoulder, or commented on an outfit, or new hair do,cut.. or god forbid a hug.. Today you'll be told your a sexist pig for holding a door for a woman, or any other things that a gentleman would normally do..
We had a woman that worked with us, and told dirty jokes, and whacked guys on the butts and made comments on packages, I steered clear of her, and glad I did, as she one day decided to report them all for sexual harassment.. Why because she was forced to work a Friday night..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 12-14-2017).]
Originally posted by ArbinShire: Combined with the fact that you've opined that Hugo Black was an activist, I'm not sure you're not parroting other's belief without an understanding onto your own.
How very elitist of you. Seems without knowing a single thing about me, you assume I know less than you do about the law.
Don't do that.
Justice Black, in all honesty, has a pretty good record, if a bit odd. Read his record when you get a chance. It's got quite a few contradictions in it. But I guess they all do, they're only human.
However, record aside, he was most certainly an activist. He was part of the most liberal wing of the Supreme Court. These Justices believed the Court had a role beyond that of Congress, thus rejecting our Republican concept of three equal branches of government.
quote
Originally posted by ArbinShire: In any event, I'm a textualist. I believe in what was written. The 1st Amendment is clear - no acknowledgement or restriction of religion. The fact that the founders placed this as the first sentence of the first amendment solidifies that.
Then as a textualist you must agree that the term "Separation of Church and State" was a blatant substitution of Jefferson's figurative language from a letter he wrote for the literal text of the 1st amendment. There is no TEXT in the Constitution stating "Separation of Church and State".
Rather, the 1st amendment forbids the federal government from designating an official church for the US and equally, forbids interfering with state and local official churches. As envisioned by Jefferson, this prohibition separated church and only the federal government.
Then along comes Justice Black. By combining the 1st amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the 14th amendment, his "wall" separated religion and civil government at all levels, federal, state and local.
By extending federal prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, he upended the 1st amendment An idea originally designed to separate the national and state governments to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities.
Todays gentlemen that were raised correctly and with morals that say " Good morning Jenn, you look perky today.." would be harassment as todays female doesn't know what a gentleman is or how they speak or act..
Its probably because you should not be talking about somebody else's looks. Tell them they seem happy or upbeat. If you wouldn't say it to a man, you don't say it to a woman.
Originally posted by Threedog: Its probably because you should not be talking about somebody else's looks. Tell them they seem happy or upbeat. If you wouldn't say it to a man, you don't say it to a woman.
This is the dumbest thing that I will read today.
I will continue to be me, and you do you. M,kay? You do not, once again, get to tell someone how to act. Whack-a-doodle.
Seriously though, reading your words have gotten quite a laugh from us. The Wife says, "Who the **** says that?"
Originally posted by Threedog: Its probably because you should not be talking about somebody else's looks. Tell them they seem happy or upbeat. If you wouldn't say it to a man, you don't say it to a woman.
You don't even understand the meaning and context of perky, I'll help you, happy and upbeat.. and you claim to teach
