Establishment Clause 101
The house passed the “Public Expression of Religion Act,” a bill intended to restrict the ACLU and other group’s ability to sue localities into submitting to their version of the Establishment Clause. The ACLU, drive-by media and liberals everywhere will no doubt respond by promoting their leftist interpretation of the one of the Constitution’s simplest statements. So, why don’t we review the Establishment Clause?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This sentence says two things:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and
- Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
As with every sentence of the Constitution, this clause limits the power of government, NOT the power of individuals. So, where does the ACLU get off using the power of the government to limit an individual’s “free exercise of religion?”
Email This
Posted by Stop The ACLU Special Contributor on September 27, 2006 3:56 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
10 Responses to “Establishment Clause 101”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The way I read number two, it prohibits the government from spending my tax dollars on religious causes that I don’t support and from forcing me to listen to religious speach that I don’t agree with. Please explain how that limits your rights?
Where did you learn to read?
“S: (n) constitution, establishment, formation, organization, organisation (the act of forming something) “the constitution of a PTA group last year”; “it was the establishment of his reputation”; “he still remembers the organization of the club”
S: (n) institution, establishment (an organization founded and united for a specific purpose) S: (n) administration, governance, governing body, establishment, brass, organization, organisation (the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something) “he claims that the present administration is corrupt”; “the governance of an association is responsible to its members”; “he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment”
S: (n) establishment (a public or private structure (business or governmental or educational) including buildings and equipment for business or residence)
S: (n) establishment (any large organization)
S: (n) establishment, ecesis ((ecology) the process by which a plant or animal becomes established in a new habitat)
S: (n) establishment, validation (the cognitive process of establishing a valid proof) “
Out of curiosity which definition of establishment is the ACLU using since I do not see one that agrees with their doctrine. There is the word “an” which is referring to singular object and not plural. Then there is respecting which probably means regarding. It sounds to me like the writers were saying that Congress should not make a law showing favoritism to and one organized religion. The Anglican Church is an organized religion and so is the Roman Catholic but the Christian religion is not organized as it is not all one organization with one doctrine. On the other hand at the time of the Revolution War The Church of England was the established religion of England and the Catholic Church was the established religion of France.
camanintx -
1. No one’s ‘forcing’ you to listen
2. No one has the right not to be annoyed
3. I’m FORCED to pay taxes, so government can pay for a little of what I want
4. As long as government subsidizes art and speech that degrades religion, then it can also support art that respects religion
5. The bottom line is that there’s too much government, so more and more of what we do is ‘public domain’ rather than a matter of individual rights.
“1. No one’s ‘forcing’ you to listen”
Show me one case where the ACLU argued against religious speach that didn’t involve someone being forced to listen.
“3. I’m FORCED to pay taxes, so government can pay for a little of what I want”
Not if it violates my rights.
> Not if it violates my rights.
Your ‘rights’ argument could stop anyone’s free speech. You don’t have the right to be free of annoyance or disagreement. One’s rights and one’s whiny, namby-pamby preferences are 2 different things. Get over yourself.
> Show me one case where the ACLU argued against religious speach that didn’t involve someone being forced to listen.
The ACLU helped ban the 10 Commandments sculpture. No one’s ever been forced to look at a statue. or a painting of Moses or Jesus or Mohammad. Free speech is free speech.
“our ‘rights’ argument could stop anyone’s free speech. You don’t have the right to be free of annoyance or disagreement. One’s rights and one’s whiny, namby-pamby preferences are 2 different things. Get over yourself.”
I never said I have the right to be free of annoyance, that was a straw man you created to make your point. Just as your right to free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a theatre, it also does not allow you to prostylize in a forum where I am not free to leave.
“The ACLU helped ban the 10 Commandments sculpture. No one’s ever been forced to look at a statue. or a painting of Moses or Jesus or Mohammad. Free speech is free speech.”
If the sculpture is on prominent display in a courthouse and I am ordered by the state to be in that courthouse, then I could say that I was forced to look at it.
…then I could say…
you’re still looking for reasons to justify why others should adhere to your personal preferences. Practice tolerance for others’ beliefs or don’t look at the religious object.
Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is illegal — not because some may disagree with whether the fire really exists or whether fire is harmful — but because causing a panicked stampede would likely result in physical harm to others — not quasi emotional distress.
Camanintx,
Until the ACLU supports tearing down the Statue of Liberty and The statues of the Lady Justice I am sure they are full of garbage. I am forced to look at those false idols every time I go to a court house. While we are at is there is a sect of Islam that believe than any depiction of a human or animal which means all the statues and pictures that are on government property must be removed as we would not want the government to impartially support the law. I wonder how a teacher will teach when she can not show a picture of the event if it has either a animal or a person in it. Then there is the Jehovah’s witnesses that believe the flag is an idol. We better get rid of all the flags on government property too.
These are all items that are symbols of other religions according to some people. If we are going to eliminate one kind then we should remove them all.
One of the basic intentions of the founders of our country was that the Constitution would be interpreted by the courts over time, making the Constitution actually a framework for present US laws. This has evolved into a strong and lasting custom of separation between the church and state in our country. The writings and opinions of early US statesmen have been used by the Supreme Court and other courts to formulate their decisions. Statements such as “…the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” by Thomas Jefferson and “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” by James Madison have been even more influential than the Constitution itself. These ideas clearly show an intention by the founders of the US to maintain people’s individual rights to practice the religion they choose, or to have no religion at all, while preventing the Federal Government or any other US governmental agency from sponsoring a particular religion over others.
Case law over years then becomes the law of the land. The principal of “stare decisis” was created and requires courts to respect precedents established be previous court decisions. This will make it harder for right-leaning courts to overturn church state separation achievements as well as other important protections such as found in Roe v Wade
Crosses and Ten Commandments displays placed on public lands are a government sponsorship of religion, they are perfectly acceptable being displayed in private locations, just not on government property.
Forcing school children to pray in public is coercive. Even the Christian prophet mentioned:
“Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” – Matt. 6:5-6 Implying that even the Bible itself favors people praying in private rather than in public.
Teaching of religion in any form such as Creationism in public schools is a form of government sponsorship of religion and is coercive, therefore not allowed by our Constitution or its long legacy of decisions.