HELP! I'm arguing with a right-winger on facebook...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to fight back. I'd given the link to Wikipedia about the topic of the separation of church and state. I cannot answer him...

Has Congress ever made a law establishing a state religion? NO. Does the Constitution have the phrase "separation of church and state" in it? NO. This part of the Constitution (not Wikipedia) was meant to prevent Congress from creating a national religion (like the Church of England). I suggest you study the original document and not just rely on things you've heard from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Including a past, activist Supreme Court.

[napi21]

1. Try this.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

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."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson's draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Try this:

Stop.

[BEZERKO]

3. A good starting point on the Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which starts the whole thing:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. You could start with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

And then there's the Supreme Court's holding in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

This should help. You might remind them that it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution -- and it's not up to them (your right-wing correspondents) to blow off the Court's interpretations because they don't like "liberal" judges. Under our system of government, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, whether they (or we) like it or not.

[napi21]

5. Here's Jefferson's letter.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[Hannah Bell]

6. tell the person to review the history of supreme court decisions on the matter &

remind him that the constitution was early on deemed to mean whatever the supreme court said it meant.

marbury v. madison, 1803

remind him that the constitution was early on deemed to mean whatever the supreme court said it meant.

marbury v. madison, 1803



as for court activism, can't get more activist than the present court. just in the opposite direction.

pretty clear what you're arguing with.


some more references for your team:

The Jefferson quotation cited in Black's opinion is from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be "a wall of separation between church and state."

Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist) have argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter.

However, Madison himself often wrote of "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston),

"line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and

"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

[H2O Man]

7. In 1978, Congress

passed the Native American Freedom of Religion Act. This was because, in the past, Native Americans had religions "outlawed." If the Constitution were followed, of course, the '78 Act would not have been necessary.

The ban on gay marriage can only be viewed as a religious policy backed by the state. It favors some people's religious views. There is no other possible explanation for it. Hence, it is a form of state religion that denys millions of religious and non-religious people their human rights and constitutional rights.

I could go on and on. But those two examples should do.

[blue neen]

32. This is why I love DU...

Your explanation of the ban on gay marriage (religious policy backed by state) is SPOT ON.

There are many reasons why gay marriage should be legalized, but your reasoning gives a whole new and important perspective on the subject.

Thanks. :)

[tigereye]

43. those are very good examples!

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Your subject line should be a t-shirt. :) n/t

[gratuitous]

9. The language dodge is a dodge

And the First Amendment is indeed the bulwark of the separation of church and state. Which is to say, that government can not endorse one religion - or any religion - over another or none.

As for studying "the original document," this isn't some fundamentalist Bible class, with an instructor who barely understands English, let alone ancient Hebrew or Greek. The United States Constitution is a living document used to guide the governance of a society in the 21st century. If your correspondent wants to park his kiester in the 18th century and stubbornly fold his arms and pout, he's welcome to do that, but the rest of us prefer to govern ourselves.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Wow, thanks everybody!

I'm overwhelmed at your knowledge, and embarrassed at my lack.

Thank you so much...

[ejpoeta]

15. i hope you realize that no matter what you present this person with, they are not in fact actually

interested in facts. you could present him or her with a letter signed by all the founders saying we don't want religion and the government to mix and they would not believe it. i have my arguments with people on facebook and the fact is that they want attention. if they really want to know then that's fine. but i haven't met one yet who actually does. they want to believe what they want to believe and nothing you say or do or proof you provide them will change that. but good luck trying. in some ways you feel compelled because letting it go would be like agreeing or letting them spread lies. but in the end it doesn't seem to stem the tide of idiocy and willful ignorance out there.

[NuclearDem]

11. A few things you can say

1. As if an activist court is a BAD thing. If it weren't for an activist court Southern schools would still be segregated.

2. Separation of church and state is meant to keep the state from mandating or regulating religious practices; hence, the establishment clause. When Congress proposes legislation based on religious beliefs (gay marriage bans, blue laws), it more or less endorses the Christian religion.

3. The original writer of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was just as much a proponent of the separation of church and state as Jefferson. Some quotes:
"perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters"
"line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government"
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States"
Ask him if he's just mindlessly reading the Constitution, or actually considering any historical context or the spirit and intent of the writers of the Amendments.

[UTUSN]

12. Bwah-ha-HAH, I can't help appreciating the humor of the thread title

on multiple levels: 1) The wingnut fool doesn't know he's messing with CA-P for starters, besides that he's messing with a DUer. 2) The piquancy of the Emergency of a dispute with a wingnut is sweetly hilarious!1


Let him HAVE it, CA-P!1

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. He seems pretty sharp to me, alas...

He is wrong, but he's done some thinking about this. Of course, he doesn't know I have all these very intelligent friends...

Thanks!

[BalancedGoat]

31. I've swayed a few people on this subject.

Alas, some people, however, will never be swayed.

Does It Matter that the Constitution Never Uses the Phrase "The Separation of Church and State"?

A good read about why it doesn't really matter that the phrase isn't in the constitution.

I've found that the best way to try to sway someone on this issue is to use the reasoning that is used by the courts. That reasoning is essentially this: An act of congress that puts one religion or set of beliefs above others, or puts others below another is, in essence, the de-facto establishment of a national religion, even in absence of a formal declaration.

Some rightwingers seem stuck on the idea that as long as we don't actually have a "Church of America" or whatnot, that everything else is all good. The best chance is to get them to see that the effect is the same whether or not the government formally endorses one religion.

Best of luck to you.

[elleng]

13. Sorry you're stuck with this, CalPeg!

Perhaps start here, First 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.

Note Hannah Bell's comment, followed by

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1

Lots to read. Have fun!

[Luminous Animal]

16. Tell him to take it up with James Madison (aka Father of the Constitution)

who, when vetoing a bill passed by Congress in regards to government meddling religious organizations faced similar criticism in the national religion vein.

VETO MESSAGE From President James Madison, Thursday, February 21, 1811:

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

http://apexaminer.com/research/american_foundations/founding_fathers/james_madison_establishment_clause.htm

[Bigmack]

17. These clowns want no separation ....

as long as the religion is Protestant Christian.

Hence the Sharia Law paranoia.

I always liked this "letter" about prayer in the schools.
- - - - -
Dear John,
    As you know, we've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back
in the schools.  Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led
prayer with the children participating at their own option.  Children not
wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during
the prayer time.  We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to
the Supreme Court and get that old devil-inspired ruling reversed.
    Naturally, we were all excited by the school board's action.  As you
know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more, though) is now in the
second grade.  Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the
other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.
    After the first day of school, I asked him, "How did the prayer time go?"
    "Fine."
    "Did many kids go out into the hallway?"
    "Two."
    "Excellent.  How did you like your teacher's prayer?"
    "It was different, Dad.  Real different from the way you pray."
    "Oh? Like how?"
    "She said, 'Hail, Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"
    The next day I talked with the principal.  I politely explained I wasn't
prejudice against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to
a non-Catholic teacher.  The principal said it would be done right away.
    At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings.  He slipped
out of his chair, sat cross-legged on the floor, closed his eyes, raised his
hands palms up and began to hum.
    You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning.
"Look," I said.  "I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices and older, more established religion.'"
    That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.
    "I don't think your going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer, either, Dad."
    "Out with it."
    "She kept calling God 'O Great Budda...'"
    The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot.
"Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever or to Buddha.
I want him to have a teacher that prays in Jesus'  name!"
    "What about Bertha Smith?"
    "Excellent."
    I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer.  I was standing on
the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.
"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.
    "Okay."
    "Okay what?"
    "Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus name, amen - just like you."
    I breathed a sigh of relief.  "Now we're getting some place."
    "She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.
    I beamed.  "Wonderful.  What was the verse?"
    "Let's see..." he mused for a moment.  " 'And behold, they began to pray;
and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.'"
    We had reached the car.  "Fantastic," I said, reaching for the door handle.  Then I paused. I couldn't place the scripture.  "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"
    "Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."
    "Third what?"
    "Nephi," he said, "It's in the Book of Mormon."
    The school board doesn't meet for a month.  I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway.  I plan to be at that board meeting.
If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue.  I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to.  I don't need the schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.
    Give my love to Sandi and the boys.
                                    Your buddy,
                                               Juan

[CaliforniaPeggy]

18. Great story!

I love it!

Thanks...

[JoePhilly]

23. As an add on ... ask the fool this ...

Most of the folks demanding prayer in public schools also want to END public schools.

SO simply ask them, why they would want teachers that they don't trust to teach math or reading, to teach RELIGION?

Most of the folks who demand teaching prayer in school are also against public schools in general.

[tigereye]

44. that's wonderful!

thanks.

[Xicano]

19. CaliforniaPeggy my dear, show him the Treaty of Tripoli

Read Article 11

[texastoast]

24. +1

Ask him what about the words "As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion" he doesn't understand and ask him to look up how deeply devout a Christian John Adams was forced to be by his wife.

Then really piss him off. Continue to point out that the U.S. has no enmity again Muslims.

[Sheepshank]

20. The O'Donnell re-interpretation of what the courts have found

and deliberated on for years, isn't going to work.

The Pilgrims left England and the persecution of their freedom to be "churchified" the way *they* wanted to be "churchified".

Church of England was not only rule and law makers of the land but also the head of the legally required religion of the era. Disregarding the CoE status, rule and doctrines were considered treasonous since it was the Crown that was the head of the CoE. Disobeying one was tantamount to disobeying the other. Religion and governance were bound together completely. The sad fact was that England was beset by rulers that demanded the entire population change back and forth from Church of England to Catholocism...at the doctrinal whim of whomever wore the crown at that moment.

Soon after the Pilgrims landed, they started doing the same crap they ostensibly left behind. Faith based political organizing and rule making. Establishing a religion that people were encourage to follow or be shunned or excluded from the community. Freedom to start up new religions didn't happen until quite some time later. There were business and political and personal perks for belonging to one religion and a detriment for everyone else.

It was almost like politics and religion as a paired circumstance were so ingrained in the psyche, the Pilgrims didn't know and realize they were doing just what they hated so much in England.

Those who discussed and authored the Constitution surely had seen this very thing and wanted to establish that separation of church and state. The letter by Jefferson, clearly established what the Constitution intended.

[OHdem10]

21. This gets a little confusing back in the day. I had never truly

intellectualized this until the recent series by PBS on Religion
in the early years in our country.

The first settlers came to this country searching for a place
to be free from persecution over Religious Beliefs.

This is where it gets a bit hairy. Because they had
come here for Religious Freedom---Religion was important
to people. In very beginning the churches were supported
by the Government--the Ministers were paid or supported monetarily
by the Government. As time went by the Lutherans in VA became
quite powerful and began to create problems for the Baptists
the more fundamentalist and evangelical. This is the basis
for Thomas Jefferson's getting involved in assisting the
Danbury Baptists. Separation of Church and State.

[NoGOPZone]

22. Send him this book

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Jefferson-Madison-on-Separation-of-Church-and-State/Lenni-Brenner/e/9781569802731

and make sure the gift card says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". :rofl:

[texastoast]

25. And do tell him that I demand my day of prayer in school

I mean if the Christians get one . . .



:rofl:

[Jim__]

26. This is the first amendment to the constitution:

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.

His claim of what this is meant to prevent is just his interpretation; and the Supreme Court has consistently given it a more strict interprtation than he does - the government can not support religion. The Supreme Court is the recognized interpreter of the Constitution. He can disagree; but his opinion carries no weight.

[Trajan]

27. ANYBODY who resorts to political nonense in FB ...

Get's ejected after 3rd offense ...

Ask my dear sister about that ....

[Kali]

28. Peggy, Peggy, Peggy

de-friend, block or ignore - whatever the procedure is on Face-book - arguing with right-wingers is a hugh!!1! waste of time

[sammytko]

40. exactly! facebook is for light chatter, pictures, fun

I de-friended an old classmate cuz I got tired of her politics. No one, not a single other person ever brought it up.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

41. He asked me to be his friend because he wanted someone

with the opposite POV ...

We haven't talked much, actually, until today.

:shrug:

[av8rdave]

29. The founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation put it very simply:

What does the first Commandment say? Thou shalt not have any Gods before me.

What does the first Amendment say? In essence, "oh yes you can."

As Mr. Weinstein says, "there's your separation of church and state right there."


I also like to point out something to those against separation of church and state: eroding the wall between church and state is great as long as it's YOUR church. I always advise people to research what the fastest growing churches are. Odds are, it's not theirs.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. RWers selectively edit our Constitution to pervert it's meaning

the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion

this is different than saying that congress shall not establish a state religion


there were earlier drafts of the first amendment with different language that would have done just that, that wording was rejected


it is clear that the intent was to insure that there was no overlap of religion and politics


try a search on supreme court decisions on the subject if you need to, this guy is just making crap up and accusing you of doing what he is guilty of

[gort]

33. Thomas Jefferson quote

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[treestar]

34. The Supreme Court decides the law

Right winger does not get to just dismiss the case law of the US Supreme Court and "people who have no idea what they are talking about."

Right winger obviously objects to some case - ask him which one it is - then tell him gee that's too bad, as the Constitution provides for the Supreme Court in Article III and Marbury v. Madison is the law of the land. Right winger does not get to reinvent the entire case history of First Amendment Jurisprudence.

Also ask RW what the hell he wants - they never quite say - since they have freedom of worship and the government does nothing at all to stop them from what the hell do they want from the government? Creches in front of the courthouse? Prayer in public schools? WTF for? They can pray at church. They have the First Amendment right to talk about their beliefs all day and to try to get others to believe, too. WTF do they want? The President to use the bully pulpit to tell people to follow their religion?

[azureblue]

35. My fave

start with, "OK, then what did Jesus say about this?" Wasn't Jesus friends with people of other religions besides Judaism? He was, wasn't he? Did he not say to judge his followers by their works? OK, then, you are saying you know more than Jesus? OK, then read Matthew 7:1-5. You know the "clean up your own backyard before you worry about somebody else's.

[Terra Alta]

36. point them to Matthew 6:5-6.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

:hi:

[Bill Bored]

37. For a right-winger, that's not so bad.

It seems like a discussion of what would constitute a state religion might lead to some kind of agreement. Would prayers in public schools be an example? If not, why not? How about taxing the churches? Or taxing non-believers to support the churches? And if so, WHICH church or churches would be involved and why wouldn't it be better to have e.g., a moment of silence in school instead?

Just my 2¢. At least he's not claiming it's a "Christian country." If he is, then he's coming close to declaring a state religion which he admits the Constitution does not allow.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

38. Since He's Such A Stickler For What The Constitution ACTUALLY Says...........

..........let him know that you'll be expecting him to give up all of his guns ASAP.

You see, nowhere in the Constitution can you find the word "gun," therefore the Constitution, according to HIM, says he has no right to own a gun.

That one always stings them right down to their icy, black hearts.

[Sheepshank]

39. reminds of a little joke or two

just plopped into my mind, what I think of the right to bare arms. Which of course means to cut off your sleeves and go gloveless.

Q...what are armies?


A....the appendages that hold on your handies.

[elleng]

42. ...

:rofl:

[Nevernose]

45. The phrase "right to a fair trial" isn't there verbatim either

But we all understand what they meant in the Bill of Rights. It's not even something that serious people would question.

Kind of like, until about thirty years ago, no one seriously questioned the meaning of the Establishment Clause (although people violated it all the time).