Some interesting historical context to the first Amendment
Claiming that the amendment mandates "Separation of church and State" ignores history
"Under the real First Amendment, the one written by the Founding Fathers, local communities within states were perfectly free to pass laws prohibiting the construction of particular religious buildings or pass laws that banned book burnings.
Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to make clear that the federal government had no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs. The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states' religious activities.
The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists. For decades after the Constitution was written, several states baldly preferred one religion over another.
As author M. Stanton Evans has written, "there remained a network of religious requirements for public office -- typically, that one be a professing Christian of orthodox persuasion. Such requirements existed in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas. For example, the state of Vermont, one of the more liberal states of the era (admitted to the Union in 1791) required the following oath of office: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration and own and profess the Protestant religion.'"
Source
13 comments:
The Constitution becomes like holy books - a matter of interpretation, second-guessing the minds of the authors and disputing with others about it.
At least with the Constitution, it can be ruled upon by a secular authority or even amended, as we don't live in an 18th century society any more, much less one from centuries ago in the middle-east.
It just goes to show that not all religions MUST be treated equally. Some should be shown the the door, Islam being one one of a few that don't deserve the time of day trying to justify their existence. It should also mean that they are not ALL entitiled to a tax break. Those that mix religion and politics should be taxed heavily.
Liberals use history as a replay function.
Tax the churches. Tax the synagogues. Tax the mosques. Denounce the Vatican. No more free ride for these parasites.
There's no reason to denounce anyone, but very good reason to eliminate tax breaks to "any and all" religious institutions who engage in any form of political activity.
The Constitution would still serve us well, yes, even in 2010, if it were not for the politically motivated manipulations, tweeks, and "deliberate" distortions by political hacks. (a.k.a. judicial activists) No judge, no court, no congress, has the right or the legal authority to go against the will of the people. The only reason they do so, and now routinely, is because the people have lost their will.
There's no reason to denounce anyone, but very good reason to eliminate tax breaks to "any and all" religious institutions who engage in any form of political activity.
Which of course, would be a violation of the First Amendment as taxes are a way of squelching protected speech.
Those who claim that churches should not have a role in "politics" simply forget that churches were instrumental in the founding of the country. They were instrumental in the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War and they were and remain instrumental in the civil rights movement.
People seem to think that an individual can separate their beliefs from their actions or "leave your beliefs inside your home and church."
It doesn't work that way and never has.
Well said Anon 10:34.
The power to tax is highly coersive and can be used all too easily as a blunt instrument of control.
Why is it that when people of faith enter the political field they must be silenced? Are their views not valid because they are based on values that have been around for thousands of years?
Not to be contrary, but the First Amendment (and the whole Bill of Rights) became binding on the states and local governments after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yes, the "original" First Amendment was applicable only to the Federal Government, but then so was the "original" Second Amendment. To claim "judicial activism" was responsible is a distortion of facts at best.
Anyone actually read the First Amendment that states, "Congress shall make..." not State governments, County governments, or City governments. THAT point is always overlooked.
Anyone actually read the First Amendment that states, "Congress shall make..." not State governments, County governments, or City governments. THAT point is always overlooked.
No, it is not overlooked but rather it is taken together with the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment together which give the Federal government and the Constitution authority where stated.
"The power to tax is highly coersive and can be used all too easily as a blunt instrument of control."
If I can be taxed, so should religions. What makes them so damn special?
Good point Anon 4:15.
The short answer is that insofar as your activities fall within the definition of charitable purposes - which derive from the Statute of Queen Elizabeth (1601) IIRC - they are not taxed and indeed are likely tax deductible.
Same for Churches. When you spend your time working for the advancement of religion and the alleviation of poverty then you can get similar tax breaks.
Same for Churches. When they engage in commercial activites outside the scope of charity they likewise open themselves up potentially to tax bills. And at least some that I know of do pay taxes on their commercial enterprises.
"No, it is not overlooked but rather it is taken together with the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment together which give the Federal government and the Constitution authority where stated."
I just went back and looked at the 14th Amendment again. I don't seem to see it there. Care to point to the specific clause which actually changes the 1st Amendment?
Here's a link to the amendments for your convenience.
Post a Comment