Was George Washington Against Separation of Church and State?

[Dubayoo]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

Quote

 

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...

...Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Dubayoo

[ComradeMilton]

Whatever Washington believed, we're in nowhere near a time he'd be able to comprehend and have asserted quite firmly in documents and treaties that the United States is not a Christian nation.

[Dubayoo]

Eh... I'm not sure it quite works like that. 

It's more like the founding fathers didn't anticipate the future of the country taking a certain turn, so they instilled no bulwark against that turn.  They presumed certain things were too ridiculous to consider no differently from say instilling something to protect against an alien invasion from outer space.

The future we live in today is so far-fetched that defending against it didn't even cross their minds.

[ComradeMilton]

That's okay, it does. Listening to dumb shit from one of our early presidents has no relevance to the Constitution as a living document.

[Caecus]

3 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Eh... I'm not sure it quite works like that. 

It's more like the founding fathers didn't anticipate the future of the country taking a certain turn, so they instilled no bulwark against that turn.  They presumed certain things were too ridiculous to consider no differently from say instilling something to protect against an alien invasion from outer space.

The future we live in today is so far-fetched that defending against it didn't even cross their minds.

 

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

That's okay, it does. Listening to dumb shit from one of our early presidents has no relevance to the Constitution as a living document.

What Milton is trying to say in his nicest voice possible is that George Washington is as relevant in today's politics as King George III or Catherine II or James Madison. Do debates then have an impact on our country today? Of course, practically all issues today were raised in the first 10 years of the republic. George Washington is a figure of respect, a person with genuine faults and character flaws that are outweighed by his devotion to the "romanesque" republic. Milton is merely suggesting that despite commanding such gravitas and auctoritas 300 years past his death (and a thousand more to come, I hope), George Washington was still a man with faults and his words should not be read into like the bible. Instead, the Constitution which persists and evolves with the times as a perpetuation of high-minded ideals (of which the Washington contributed to) deserves that level of devotion and worship. 

Worship. lol. Get it? Cause, church and state? 

...

Don't judge. 

[Dubayoo]

The problem with any "living document" argument is there's no natural standard that defines how language should evolve over time.  

[ComradeMilton]

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

 

What Milton is trying to say in his nicest voice possible is that George Washington is as relevant in today's politics as King George III or Catherine II or James Madison. Do debates then have an impact on our country today? Of course, practically all issues today were raised in the first 10 years of the republic. George Washington is a figure of respect, a person with genuine faults and character flaws that are outweighed by his devotion to the "romanesque" republic. Milton is merely suggesting that despite commanding such gravitas and auctoritas 300 years past his death (and a thousand more to come, I hope), George Washington was still a man with faults and his words should not be read into like the bible. Instead, the Constitution which persists and evolves with the times as a perpetuation of high-minded ideals (of which the Washington contributed to) deserves that level of devotion and worship. Yes. I obviously didn't word my response properly. This is the essence of what I was getting at, though. The people who wrote the Constitution made it adjustable for a reason...it's a living document and the federalist papers or remarks from the founding fathers is mostly irrelevant short of things written so early into the document that reading them helps figure out what was meant. They made is extreme clear that the US is not a Christian country (going so far as to forbid us becoming a theocracy in the very first amendment.

Worship. lol. Get it? Cause, church and state? 

...

Don't judge. 

 

3 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

The problem with any "living document" argument is there's no natural standard that defines how language should evolve over time.  Hence a Supreme Court to determine that. (Itself an example of the ever-changing nature of the Constitution. 

 

[Dubayoo]

Yea, but the Supreme Court still needs a standard to adhere to.  

If anything, "living document" interpretations mean outsiders aren't entitled to learn from experience about how people interpreted literature.  You end up discriminating against the socially unfamiliar, outcast, and incompatible.  It actually ends up reinforcing traditionalism because of how traditions change over time such that traditionalists can say, "That's how we used to practice traditions, but we don't practice them that way anymore.  If you were in touch with how we changed, you'd know that."

[ComradeMilton]

5 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Yea, but the Supreme Court still needs a standard to adhere to.  Not really, no. It's a lifetime appointment and its own branch of government's ultimate office. They can and do change their precedents over time.

If anything, "living document" interpretations mean outsiders aren't entitled to learn from experience about how people interpreted literature.  You end up discriminating against the socially unfamiliar, outcast, and incompatible.  It actually ends up reinforcing traditionalism because of how traditions change over time such that traditionalists can say, "That's how we used to practice traditions, but we don't practice them that way anymore.  If you were in touch with how we changed, you'd know that." There's a reason lawyers go to law school, which is to follow stuff like this. You might as well argue people who can't install their own pacemaker keeps outsiders out of the medical field.

When the Supreme Court decided it had its power: "

"Judicial Review ( http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about )

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated."

[Auctor]

I don't think he could possibly have anticipated just how much the state has taken on the roles that churches once had. Regardless of what George Washington may have felt, church and state aren't themselves remotely the same thing they were at the time.

[Dubayoo]

9 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

When the Supreme Court decided it had its power: "

"Judicial Review ( http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about )

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated."

The problem is you still haven't explained how judicial review should be carried out.  You might as well say everything's a matter of opinion which makes "the law" irrelevant compared to people just acting out their emotions in a state of nature.

[ComradeMilton]

9 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

The problem is you still haven't explained how judicial review should be carried out.  You might as well say everything's a matter of opinion which makes "the law" irrelevant compared to people just acting out their emotions in a state of nature.

There's no problem. The judiciary can basically decided on its own. As far as the judicial branch it IS a matter of opinion. Their's matters; ours do not.

[Dubayoo]

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

There's no problem. The judiciary can basically decided on its own. As far as the judicial branch it IS a matter of opinion. Their's matters; ours do not.

I mean if that's the case, then "the judiciary" is meaningless.  It's just a random group of people.  You're arbitrarily assigning whose opinions matter versus whose do not.

[ComradeMilton]

The reason they have lifetime appointments is to avoid political influence on them. There's no reason that makes the judicial branch meaningless. It's never a random group of people. If you're not a member of the Supreme Court it's not me that's deciding whose opinions matter, it's the entire branch of government. You can be against banning ammunition from sale (as well as supplies to make it on your own) and if the Supreme Court ruling on that matter is supportive it may or may not be that as a matter of law. Random peoples' opinions have no special effect on the judiciary. It's meant to be a check on the two other branches and it does it well.

[Dubayoo]

Right, but then it's just randomness of randomness of randomness.  It's random opinions electing random officeholders to randomly appoint judges.

You still haven't established a meaningful process.

[ComradeMilton]

I don't need to, ours works well enough.

[Phoenix2683]

There is a lot of confusion of Sep of Church and State vs. Freedom of Religion (not from religion).

The 1st amendment gives freedom OF religion, which means that everyone can freely practice their own religion. The state will not have a mandatory religion that they enforce upon everyone. The free practice of your religion will not be infringed upon. This is not freedom from religion, this does not mean that a politician can't be religious or a public school teacher can't talk about their religion, in fact preventing them from doing so does infringe upon their free practice of their religion.

So where does separation of church and state come in? It wasn't in any founding document. The term is first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Connecticut Baptists. 

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“

"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 & State."[1]

”

Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

“

"[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

”

This has been used as an argument in the Supreme court throughout the years to look at the 1st amendment differently than it is really written.

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."^[2]

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.^[3][4][5][6]

I tend to be on the side that believes everyone should be allowed to freely practice their religion. If a teacher wishes to lead a group of christian students in prayer they should be able to, a muslim teacher can do the same. No student should be forced to participate in practices they are not comfortable with. I believe in freedom of religion the state shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't practice or express their religion. Nor should the state impose any religion. I think it is dubious to take one letter from one founder and to color the entire 1st amendment with it. I disagree with Jefferson on many things and it is unfortunate that this has become a principle in our country when it in no way is in any of our founding documents.

[ComradeMilton]

7 hours ago, Phoenix2683 said:

There is a lot of confusion of Sep of Church and State vs. Freedom of Religion (not from religion).

The 1st amendment gives freedom OF religion, which means that everyone can freely practice their own religion. The state will not have a mandatory religion that they enforce upon everyone. The free practice of your religion will not be infringed upon (Depends). This is not freedom from religion, this does not mean that a politician can't be religious or a public school teacher can't talk about their religion (in-class? yeah, it does.), in fact preventing them from doing so does infringe upon their free practice of their religion. And the students' theirs which would mean the bigger victim of this violation is the students, not the teacher.

So where does separation of church and state come in? It wasn't in any founding document. The term is first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Connecticut Baptists. 

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“

"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 & State." Jeffersom was kind of a moron among the founding fathers. He left assuming we'd be redoing another Articles of Confederation with a minor federal level. They let him think that and leave and then created what we have now.

”

 

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of r eligion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."^[2]

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate. No, every religion aside from Protestants are perfectly capable of not violating laws regarding separation, the absence of religious usage of public buildings for religious purposes and the continual promotion of Christianity in the form of Alabama's Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court is continually violated against the relevant Supreme Court precedents and tons of Christians get really annoyed that other religions want equal representation, including Satanists in places where Christian symbols are erected. .^[3][4][5][6]

I tend to be on the side that believes everyone should be allowed to freely practice their religion. If a teacher wishes to lead a group of christian students in prayer they should be able to (infringes on others rights and if in a public school is a violation of the precedents you've been discussing).  No student should be forced to participate in practices they are not comfortable with (They have in each instance its been attempted). I believe in freedom of religion the state shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't practice or express their religion. Nor should the state impose any religion. I think it is dubious to take one letter from one founder and to color the entire 1st amendment with it. I disagree with Jefferson on many things and it is unfortunate that this has become a principle in our country when it in no way is in any of our founding documents. Founding documents are more or less irrelevant since the founding fathers that created it wrecked it so thoroughly they had to do an entirely new document that works. properly.

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

The separation of Church and State is stupid easy: The State cannot impose laws which enforce religious doctrinal law. The end.

You can pray in schools, at government facilities, express your faith, etc. but no law or enforcement of a faith/practice is legal. This is why there is a prayer allowed at the beginning of every congressional gathering. This is why there were prayers said at the beginning of every school year practiced until the late 60's/early 70's. People only started interpreting that separation of Church and State meant that there was no religious affiliation or association with anything governmental/public until the 1970's when oppressive atheists demanded a change in university practices on college campuses, then it hit the US like wildfire.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Doc Martini

[ComradeMilton]

6 hours ago, Doc Martini said:

The separation of Church and State is stupid easy: The State cannot impose laws which enforce religious doctrinal law. The end.Not at all

You can pray in schools, at government facilities, express your faith, etc. but no law or enforcement of a faith/practice is legal. This is why there is a prayer allowed at the beginning of every congressional gathering. This is why there were prayers said at the beginning of every school year practiced until the late 60's/early 70's. People only started interpreting that separation of Church and State meant that there was no religious affiliation or association with anything governmental/public until the 1970's when oppressive atheists demanded a change in university practices on college campuses, then it hit the US like wildfire. Are atheists excluded from Constitutional protections?

James Madison: https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC : Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[23] " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[24] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[45] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[46] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

Edited July 25, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Doktor Avalanche]

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

James Madison: https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC : Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[23] " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[24] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[45] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[46] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

You posted nothing which argues against what I stated.

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Doc Martini said:

You posted nothing which argues against what I stated.

Miss the prohibition on school prayer?

[Doktor Avalanche]

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Miss the prohibition on school prayer?

It is not against the law to pray at a school. It is however not allowed to be organized by the school itself but clubs and individuals. As I said, you posted nothing which argues against what I stated.

[ComradeMilton]

You did say that, yes. Its irrelevance was more what I was getting at.

[Auctor]

The founding fathers would not have anticipated the school system becoming a federal responsibility or that education generally would be administered and executed by the state on a near universal basis. It was still largely left to conscience and often to churches at the time.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Auctor