Book Review: "The 5,000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen

[_EAllusion]

The ACLU's position is less strict that Madison's by allowing some "equal access" accommodations Madison wouldn't. Otherwise, they are essentially the same. Earl Warren and Barry Lynn's views likewise closely track Madison's. Chances are you've bought into the myth of the ACLU et. al. as some great offender of religious liberty when in reality they are a fierce advocate, but in any case, Madison did not simply view the establishment clause as a means to prohibit a single national Church as you intimated up thread.

[_Droopy]

A few months ago I cut and pasted an article from Heritage and Droopy didn't realize I had. He didn't like what it said so he went on a rant accusing me of leftist mentality, etc etc etc...

Actually, I believe it was from the Von Mises Institute, but no matter, as I exposed your whole juvenile prank for all to see at the time. It was an attempt to pit conservatism against conservatism, as if conservatives and libertarians always agree on everything in some kind of lockstep way.

I even pointed out the differences of opinion then between Thomas Sowell and Thomas Woods, on the CRA matter, but its of really no consequence as Kevin doesn't even really understand the issue or the underlying economic and political dynamics invovled, and likely has no interest in doing so.

In reality, Ronald McGraham fell face first into his own trap, which only went to show, as I mentioned then, that he really has no idea what conservatism or libertarian philosophy actually are, that different schools of thought and nuance of argument exist within them, and can see no farther than his the limits of his Romper Room Marxism.

[_Droopy]

The ACLU's position is less strict that Madison's by allowing some "equal access" accommodations Madison wouldn't. Otherwise, they are essentially the same. Earl Warren and Barry Lynn's views likewise closely track Madison's. Chances are you've bought into the myth of the ACLU et. al. as some great offender of religious liberty when in reality they are a fierce advocate, but in any case, Madison did not simply view the establishment clause as a means to prohibit a single national Church as you intimated up thread.

Now, you've just outed yourself again as either a bold liar, or a knave, and anyone with the slightest actual historical Knowledge of what Madison's original beliefs were on this subject, would call you out in the same terms. Look at the link I posted to a scholar who actually knows what he's talking about, and then go back and look at what I've already written.

Let's recap: the "separation of church and state" is a modern, secular leftist invention that has no presense in either the Declaration of the Constitution. Secondly, neither Madison, who actually wrote the Constitution, or any other of the key Founders and any intention beyond preventing state privileges to a singled out religion, or the creation of a state church. That is where, according to the historical record (your deadly enemy), the First Amendment ends, regarding religious liberty and free religious speech.

The ability of leftists to lie, and then lie again and again and again to cover up and support the previous body of lies, is truly astounding, but the core premises and morality of leftism as a worldview all but make such behavior unavoidable.

[_Chap]

Let's recap: the "separation of church and state" is a modern, secular leftist invention that has no presense in either the Declaration of the Constitution. Secondly, neither Madison, who actually wrote the Constitution, or any other of the key Founders and any intention beyond preventing state privileges to a singled out religion, or the creation of a state church.

So, if there is to be no state church, and if no particular religion is to be singled out for state privileges ... how can any given church (in the sense, presumably, of 'institutional religious structure') not be separate from the state?

[_EAllusion]

Now, you've just outed yourself again as either a bold liar, or a knave, and anyone with the slightest actual historical Knowledge of what Madison's original beliefs were on this subject, would call you out in the same terms.

Again, it's worth noting that I've actually provided extensive sourcing to Madison's own words that validate the position I'm taking. And, in the meantime, I've pointed out where you've repeated a distorted version of a David Barton lie in this thread. It's like you have a pathological need to accuse your interlocutors of what you are most guilty of.

Look at the link I posted to a scholar who actually knows what he's talking about, and then go back and look at what I've already written.

If you are referring to think link I commented on, it doesn't in any way contradict what I just said.

[_EAllusion]

So, if there is to be no state church, and if no particular religion is to be singled out for state privileges ... how can any given church (in the sense, presumably, of 'institutional religious structure') not be separate from the state?

Presumably he thinks they could all be singled out for privilege. This incidentally could've been allowed for in a weaker draft of the clause before being clarified.

[_Kevin Graham]

Again, it's worth noting that I've actually provided extensive sourcing to Madison's own words that validate the position I'm taking. And, in the meantime, I've pointed out where you've repeated a distorted version of a David Barton lie in this thread. It's like you have a pathological need to accuse your interlocutors of what you are most guilty of.

LOL!

[_Darth J]

Let's recap: the "separation of church and state" is a modern, secular leftist invention that has no presense in either the Declaration of the Constitution. Secondly, neither Madison, who actually wrote the Constitution, or any other of the key Founders and any intention beyond preventing state privileges to a singled out religion, or the creation of a state church. That is where, according to the historical record (your deadly enemy), the First Amendment ends, regarding religious liberty and free religious speech.

Oh, look at this: the ACLU is representing a Mormon girl who claims that prayers before high school football games are violating the Establishment Clause because it promotes one religion over her own.

http://www.skeptictank.org/pinschl.htm

Isn't it just like a Mormon to further her leftist agenda by running to the ACLU, instead of letting such things be resolved in the marketplace of ideas, and trying to hide behind this secular fantasy that the Founders intended there to be a separation of church and state?

Droopy should contact this misguided Mormon girl and set her straight so her leftist ACLU agenda does not get promoted any further.

[_Droopy]

Let's take a look, with some emphasis on the salient points, at what Madison really said, and forget for a moment, about all the leftist/neo-Marxist voodoo:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.

Notice that the above dumps almost the entire body of post Warren leftist jurisprudence on separation issues into the crapper, and flushes it down, not once, but repeatedly. The presence of general religious observance, speech, and belief, religiousness and religious conviction, within the public square, was never contemplated my Madison at all.

What did Madison really believe about the scope and limits of the First Amendment?

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a l[b]egal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.

What was Madison's definition of "establishment," as used in the Constitution - its original intent?

* Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, 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 Alexander, 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 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'

The late constitutional scholar Leonard Levy ( past Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and Chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History at Claremont Graduate School) comments on this apparently odd misquoting of the actual First Amendment text:

"His use of "religious establishment" instead of "establishment of religion" shows that he thought of the clause in the First Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law touching or "respecting" religious institutions or religions

http://books.google.com/books?id=4ysL0l ... he&f=false

One immediately notices the lack of concern for creches, crosses, Christmas trees, representations of the Ten Commandments, or menorahs publicly displayed on government property. There is no logical extension of Madison's views to prayers said in school buildings or praying around flagpoles before a ball game.

Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (here again, Madison alters the text of the First Amendment to emphasize its relation to religious sects, not religious sentiment and philosophical/political positions grounded in religious concepts, as the scope of the amendment).

What about religion and the public schools?

I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.

A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

Notice, carefully, that the problem for Madison is not the expression of religious belief or presence of religious symbolism on a campus, but only the problems that would result from the clash of rival sects and rival ecclesiastical bodies on such a campus.

And so much for this, and we could go on and on and on and on and on.

[_Darth J]

More ACLU leftists imposing their agenda on the public:

In Louisiana, the ACLU represented a Mormon inmate who was being denied access to LDS reading materials and services by the Department of Corrections.

https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm

Someone needs to tell all these damn leftist Mormons who run crying to the ACLU that the First Amendment only speaks to the prevention of any one particular state church, and nothing else.

Right, Droopy?