Cleo's Mom

Where is the proof that Obama is/was a Muslim - from a reputable source - not some right wing/conservative and/or "christian" website. Also - prove that factcheck.org is a government funded site. Again - with the same type of sources. It's easy to denounce neutral websites that debunk myths and lies when you don't agree with them. Most reasonable people go to factcheck.org or snopes for the truth about internet rumors. If I just started making up lies about bush and found some whacko site to support them and then dismissed any/all sites or information to the contrary - well, that would be easy, wouldn't it? Just dismiss the truth and perpetuate the lies. There are many who are christian who support gay marriage, are pro-choice and who believe in helping the least among us. I am one of them and you are in no position to judge whether I am a christian by your definition or not (and don't say it's God's definition because I can read the bible too, and come to my OWN interpretations/conclusions, just as you have).

My point wasn't that all of the roots of the economic downturn started with Bush. My point was that everything he did made everything worse. He didn't improve this country in any area in 8 years and the people just shrugged their shoulders and gave him a free pass (with a few anti-war demonstrations thrown in). Now, after only 10 months, they want Obama to have solved everything without spending a dime. It's just so phoney. And it's based on their hatred of Obama and their wish for him to fail. I agree that we have to be as outspoken and supportive now as we were before we got him elected. I know I do my part. My two democratic senators hear from me and I do call my congressman but he's in lockstep with the republicans. I write letters to the editor, I attend these forums by my reps, and I am president of my local democratic club. I am very proactive. But people fueled by hate, anger and the party of no who are opposed to everything will always be louder. And get the most media attention. Despite the fact that they are still in the minority. I think there's talk of getting that Glass Steagall Act back (its repeal was introduced by Phil Gramm and Leach - both republicans but Clinton should never have signed it - a big mistake.)

Show me where Obama said he is not a Muslim and then again PROVE that he is. And use legitimate sources, not right wing, conservative, biased sources. Also, this about factcheck.org: Browse > Home / About About Our Mission We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels. The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

rush, as I said before, those democratic congressmen and senators who oppose or are on the fence about healthcare reform represent far fewer people than those who support it. The republicans come from districts who didn't before nor now support Pres. Obama and only want him to fail. They will never vote for any of the president's programs or agenda.

First - thank you. Well said and I agree. My congressman is a republican and is safe, unfortunately. Obama said he didn't care if he was a one term president. That may happen if he doesn't dance with the one who brung him.

Did you used to watch "West Wing"? In one episode the character of Josh, the deputy chief of staff, came across some website/blog that was ripping (liberal) president Bartlet and he wanted to respond back. EVERY staffer warned him not to enter, not to tred there, not to get suckered in, they begged him not to, but against all advice he went on and boy did it backfire. He was in the quagmire and it was too late. Those people were not rational, either. It was a bit of dark humor but I sometimes feel like him. :thumbup:

I bring it up to again highlight the hypocrisy of those who are "suddenly" concerned with the plight of this country and its president when for 8 years they didn't care what the worst president in american history did to bring this country to the brink of ruin. And now we have a president cleaning up his messes and I am supposed to believe their outrage is genuine. NEVER.

I can find nothing that states that Obama said he was a Muslim or actually is one now - from factcheck.org or snopes but I found this: (from urbanlegends) Is it true that "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim?" Once a Muslim? When? Unless I missed it while skimming Obama's two books and sundry news interviews, the senator has never mentioned being a Muslim at any point in his life. Yes, he lived in a Muslim country during part of his childhood and briefly attended a Muslim school there, but he certainly wasn't raised a Muslim and has never been, so far as I have been able to determine, a practitioner of that faith. That anyone, let alone a sitting U.S. senator with designs on the highest office in the land, would conceal being a Muslim for twenty-odd years while going through the outward motions of practicing Christianity (or vice-versa, for that matter) is a bizarre accusation. I would be tempted to dismiss it as paranoid lunacy if it weren't so obviously a crass, politically-motivated smear. Those who adhere to, support and perpetuate the long posting of yours about Obama are well represented in those radical militia groups, American taliban and those, who like Timothy McVeigh come armed to Obama events with signs that advocate the watering of the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. I'm sure Timothy McVeigh thought of himself as some modern day patriot and martyr. People who are mentally unbalanced don't need much provocation to push them over the edge to violence and there is much to push them with all these radical protests, lies and hate filled talk radio.

Let me get this straight. We went to war with Iraq after 9/11 even though it didn't have anything to do with 9/11, we went after phantom WMD's, sent there by a president who admitted he doesn't read. Period. And who didn't know the difference between Sunni, Shite and Kurds. A war championed by dick cheney who never served (5 deferments - "I had other priorities"), funded by money we didn't have (borrowed from China), with troops who didn't have proper equipment (many parents had to buy it), a war predicted as lasting months, not years, where we would be greeted as liberators and whose cost would be under $100 billion. Now what could possibly go wrong? Oh, I know!!! 4000+ DEAD.

Hand over the heart during the national anthem? Pres. Obama has and hasn't done it. It is not required and in modern times a choice. Flag pin? Who cares? McCain doesn't wear one but Jay Leno has since 9/11 and I wouldn't want either one for president. I wish Obama had the powers you credit him. If he were so powerful we would already have a socialist takeover of the healthcare system. That's called Medicare for all and Pres. Obama has not championed for that. He does support a public option. So do I. So does the majority of Americans. Timothy McVeigh thought of the government as the enemy - he was an American Taliban of sorts - setting out to attack and kill innocent Americans to retaliate against the "evil" government. Poplawski, who killed 3 police officers because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns - thought of him and the goverment as the enemy, too. Militias are springing up all over the country. Hiding out in the woods, in camoflage, armed to the teeth, using the military pledge, except eliminating the part where they say they will obey their commander in chief, the president. These people have lost a sense of reality. And they are dangerous. Sarah Palin tried to portray him (and still does) as "not one of us, someone who pals around with terrorists". The unhinged on the right have been spreading lies about Obama since he became a candidate. The sane American people rejected this and voted overwhelmingly for him. Continue to believe what you want, but as the republican party becomes smaller and far more conservative, it has to become louder and more radical to be heard. Sane, rational, thinking people see right through it. And so do I.

THIS IS WHAT IS VERY SCARY AND WHAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA!! Story Updated. "Trawling for assassins": Evangelical nuts want Obama dead by kat68 Share this on Twitter - "Trawling for assassins": Evangelical nuts want Obama dead Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:38:22 PM PST Tonight, Rachel Maddow aired a bonechilling interview with former fundamentalist leader Frank Schaeffer in which Schaeffer accuses evangelical zealots and far-right wing nuts of formenting violence against our president. This new "American Taliban," Schaeffer says, is essentially "trawling for assassins," using coded, Biblical language in hopes of inciting some lunatic to kill the president. Apologies in advance for the quick and dirty diary, but I found this interview so deeply disturbing, I wanted to share it with the Daily Kos community. kat68's diary :: :: Rachel's interview was sparked by a Christian Science Monitor story, "Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister? The story's lead: There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" A nice sentiment? Maybe not. The psalm reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with "1/20/09" commemorated President Bush’s last day in office. But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow." I did some Googling and this slogan is available on t-shirts, on bumper stickers, on coffee cups, on just about any merchandise you can think of. And while some find humor in this, Schaeffer sees grave danger. A partial transcription of Schaeffer's comments: The situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement, for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler...as something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that he's born in Kenya, as brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now it turns out that he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed, who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a direct parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing in which he said the tree of liberty had to be watered occasionly by the blood of tyrants. And that quote we saw again at a meeting at which Obama was present being carried on a placard by someone carrying a loaded weapon. Schaeffer says this Biblical sloganeering, combined with a daily diet of hyped-up scaremongering from right wing outlets like Fox, is tantamount to "trawling for assasins." This is serious business. It's unAmerican, it's unpatriotic and it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right, have coalesced into a group that truly wants revolution and if it turns out to be blood in the streets, so be it. Schaeffer stresses that these messages shouldn't be dismissed, especially in light of the fact the threat level against Obama is 400 percent higher than at any other time in 52 years. This bumper sticker simply says to them, 'It's open season.' Schaeffer notes that no one in the GOP leadership or the evangelical community is doing anything to tamp down on this rhetoric...this from a community that routinely denounces Islamic leaders for not speaking out more forcefully against terrorism. "Where the hell are you?" he asks. "And be it on your head if something happens to our president...Until they speak out, they're culpable." I urge you to watch this interview in full to truly understand what our president is up against, and to heed Schaeffer's final plea: Obama supporters had better start speaking up in support of him and not sniping at him all of the time because he's not moving towards change as fast as we'd like in every area. This is serious stuff. The chips are down, he has real enemies--some of them are violent--and as far as I'm concerned it's time to support our president, stand with him and not only wish him the best, but pray for his safety in the face of these religious maniacs....There are not many steps left on this insane path. When Democrats spoke out about bush the republicans screamed: "How dare you criticize our president at a time of war and when he is on foreign soil. This is un-American and gives comfort to our enemies." But apparently it is okay for cheney and other republicans to criticize Pres. Obama for everything from bowing (as did Eisenhower & Nixon and Bush kissed and held hands with the Saudi prince - the country from which the 9/11 terrorists came) to swatting a fly.

Kartman, thank you for your service. When I was in college, we had a draft during the Vietnam war and even with a draft, the military was still mostly the poor and rural. The rich and connected were able to get deferrments or into the reserves (or Air National Guard) - like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh - who later became chickenhawks. You are right in that the current wars do not impact the American people equally. Many do not have an emotional interest or investment in them. Nor has the public been asked to sacrifice for the wars. Instead, bush gave the rich a tax cut and borrowed for the 2 wars. No one, not one person in 6 years ever asked him how he was going to pay for these wars. As to the spending on military - well, that is the whole guns and butter issue. Those on the right just want more and bigger guns while those of us on the left see the humanity of helping the least among us.

Well, said, Kartman, and to that I would add - stop trying to reach out to republicans who obviously have no intention of working with this president on anything and whose main goal is that he fail so that they can rise to power again. Alan Grayson got it right when he said that if Obama had a BLT, the next day the republicans would try to outlaw pork. Concentrate on kicking some democratic butt - especially those who got into office with the help of progressives. Bush got his huge tax cut to the rich passed four months after he was in office. This and the two wars took a surplus into a deficit. Did you see any protestors, angry mobs at town halls, calls for congressional hearing etc..because of this? .NO. Ditto with the trillion dollar part D drug plan. Just pushed it through, no media debate before or after. And now, all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the outrage has to do with spending and deficits when it really has to do with anti-Obama sentiment and wanting him to fail.

These protestors are those who didn't care when Reagan and Bush racked up the deficit. Reagan's was due mostly to the biggest tax cut to the rich in our country's history and Bush's too, but adding two wars. When asked about the deficits during the bush administration, Cheney (in his typical arrogant self) said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And they didn't matter to these protestors under republican presidents. It isn't the size of the deficit now, or the fact that Pres. Obama is spending money to clean up bush's messes or address the problems ignored by bush, it is because they didn't vote for him, don't like him and want him to fail so that republicans can gain control, power and help out their rich friends and corporations - which is what got us in the mess we're in today. Just today, the same drug companies who said they were going to cut drug prices $8 billion as their part in the healthcare reform have raised drug prices 9% in the last year and are silently raising them again to get ahead of any reform. This is in stark contrast to the CPI that dropped 1.3% this past year. That is why we need a public option that will be able to negotiate lower health care premiums and drug costs. The health insurance and drug companies are corrupt and greedy.

If you advocate for putting christian religion (to the exclusion of all other religions) into the government and its policies then you have to accept the government having influence over religion. You can't have it only one way. Starting with eliminating their tax exempt status. The idea of separation of church and state has been long debated and established and accepted: Separation of church and state in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[2][3][4] Contents [hide] 1 Early history 1.1 Former state churches in British North America 1.1.1 Protestant colonies 1.1.2 Catholic colonies 1.1.3 Colonies with no established church 1.1.4 Tabular Summary [*]1.2 Colonial support for separation [*]1.3 Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation" [*]1.4 Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut [*]1.5 Test acts [*]2 Article 6 of the United States Constitution [*]3 Bill of Rights [*]4 The Treaty of Tripoli [*]5 The 14th Amendment [*]6 Supreme Court since 1947 [*]7 Interpretive controversies 7.1 Politics and Religion in the United States [*]8 See also [*]9 References [*]10 Bibliography [*]11 External links 11.1 American court battles over separation 11.2 Other [edit] Early history Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[5] They included nonconformists like the Puritans and Pilgrims as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge. [edit] Former state churches in British North America [edit] Protestant colonies The colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and New Hampshire were founded by Puritan, Calvinist, Protestants. New Netherland was founded by Dutch Reformed Calvinists. The colonies of New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were officially Church of England. [edit] Catholic colonies When New France was transferred to Great Britain in 1763, the Roman Catholic Church remained under toleration, but Huguenots were allowed entrance where they had formerly been banned from settlement by Parisian authorities. The Colony of Maryland was founded by a charter granted in 1632 to George Calvert, secretary of state to Charles I, and his son Cecil, both recent converts to Roman Catholicism. Under their leadership many English Catholic gentry families settled in Maryland. However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, granting toleration to all Christian groups and enjoining them to avoid actions which antagonized the others. On several occasions low-church dissenters led insurrections which temporarily overthrew the Calvert rule. In 1689, when William and Mary came to the English throne, they acceded to demands to revoke the original royal charter. In 1701 the Church of England was proclaimed, and in the course of the eighteenth century Maryland Catholics were first barred from public office, then disenfranchised, although not all of the laws passed against them (notably laws restricting property rights and imposing penalties for sending children to be educated in foreign Catholic institutions) were enforced, and some Catholics even continued to hold public office. Spanish Florida was ceded to Great Britain in 1763, the British divided Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida continued a policy of toleration for the Catholic Residents. [edit] Colonies with no established church The Province of Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, but the colony never had an established church. West Jersey, also founded by Quakers, prohibited any establishment. Delaware Colony had no established church. The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissenters forced to flee the Massachusetts Bay colony, is widely regarded as the first polity to grant religious freedom to all its citizens. [edit] Tabular Summary ColonyDenominationDisestablished1ConnecticutCongregational1818GeorgiaChurch of England17892MarylandChurch of England1776MassachusettsCongregational1780 (in 1833 state funding suspended)3New BrunswickChurch of EnglandNew HampshireCongregational17904NewfoundlandChurch of EnglandNorth CarolinaChurch of England17765Nova ScotiaChurch of England1850Prince Edward IslandChurch of EnglandSouth CarolinaChurch of England1790Canada WestChurch of England1854West FloridaChurch of EnglandN/A6,8East FloridaChurch of EnglandN/A7,8VirginiaChurch of England17869West IndiesChurch of England1868^Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776;[6] this is the date of permanent legal abolition. ^Note 2: in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows: "Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged. To do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles." ^Note 3: From 1780 Massachusetts had a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members, but forbade any law requiring that it be of any particular denomination. This was objected to, as in practice establishing the Congregational Church, the majority denomination, and was abolished in 1833. ^Note 4: Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion. ^Note 5: The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[7] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. ^Note 6: Religious Tolerance for Catholics with an Established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule. ^Note 7: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule. ^Note 8: In Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, the British ceded both East and West Florida back to Spain (see Spanish Florida). ^Note 9: Tithes for the support of the Anglican Church in Virginia were suspended in 1776, and never restored. 1786 is the date of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which prohibited any coercion to support any religious body. [edit] Colonial support for separation The Flushing Remonstrance shows support for separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century. The document was signed December 27 1657 by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master."[8] Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted. However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne. New York Historical Society President and Columbia University Professor of History Kenneth T. Jackson describes the Flushing Remonstrance as "the first thing that we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens attests on paper and over their signature the right of the people to follow their own conscience with regard to God - and the inability of government, or the illegality of government, to interfere with that."[9] Given the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned (established) religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. George Washington wrote in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state: All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.[10] There were also opponents to the support of any established church even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Thomas Jefferson's influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights. Most Anglican ministers, and many Anglicans, were Loyalists. The Anglican establishment, where it had existed, largely ceased to function during the American Revolution, though the new States did not formally abolish and replace it until some years after the Revolution. [edit] Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation" The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[11][12] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[13] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and 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. Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[14] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7 1801. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme: We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries. Jefferson and James Madison's conceptions of separation have long been debated. Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he did issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia.[15][16] Madison issued four religious proclamations while President,[17] but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment.[18] On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol.[19] Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[20] After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[21] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[22] 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."[23] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [24] Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.[citation needed] Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature.[25] In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.[26] Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;"[27] however, others point to Jefferson’s support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation.[28] Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[29] Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional. [edit] Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that: the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III) Since, in practice, this meant that the decision of who was taxable for a particular religion rested in the hands of the selectmen, usually Congregationalists, this system was open to abuse. It was abolished in 1833. The intervening period is sometimes referred to as an "establishment of religion" in Massachusetts. The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.[30] Connecticut had a real establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue. [edit] Test acts The absence of an establishment of religion did not necessarily imply that all men were free to hold office. Most colonies had a Test Act, and several states retained them for a short time. This stood in contrast to the Federal Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the employment of any religious test for Federal office, and which through the Fourteenth Amendment later extended this prohibition to the States. For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 provides liberty of conscience in much the same language as Massachusetts (similarly forbidding payment of "taxes, tithes or other payments" contrary to conscience). It then provides: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.[31] This would permit a Test Act, but did not require one. The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided: And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 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 Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State. Again, it provided in general that all tax-paying freemen and their sons shall be able to vote, and that no " man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship." [edit] Article 6 of the United States Constitution Main article: No religious test clause Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution. [edit] Bill of Rights The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As 19th century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed: “The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”[32] An August 15, 1789 entry in Madison’s papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government imposition of religious beliefs on individuals. The entry says: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....”[33] Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison’s initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a “national religion”—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general “religion” in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown.[34] During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison’s language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate. Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed language stating that, “Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience.” This raised an uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester of New York, who worried the language could be used to harm religious practice. Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment. The Senate went through several more narrowly targeted versions before reaching the contemporary language. One version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall freedom of conscience be infringed,” while another read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one particular religious denomination in preference to others.” Ultimately, the Senate rejected the more narrowly targeted language. At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833 (Massachusetts), including the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation - which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold the Bill of Rights applicable to the states - these state churches could not be reestablished today. [edit] The Treaty of Tripoli Main article: Treaty of Tripoli In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11: 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 tranquillity, 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.[35] This section of the Treaty has recently been a point of contention on the interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state believe this article confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the "Christian Nation" theory dispute this.[36] [edit] The 14th Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states. The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments.[37] Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994). [edit] Supreme Court since 1947 The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning. Continuing to interpret the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states, Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) held that the Establishment Clause applied to the case (a case which dealt with a state law that allowed the use of government funds for transportation to religious schools). The actual ruling (with four dissents) upheld the state law allowing the funding, but the basic principle had been set. In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. 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. The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[38] Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.[39] In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sparked a substantial controversy in holding that a California law prescribing the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional, 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.[40] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where hearings began in March 2004. It was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2004, but 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, had no standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Many commentators viewed this as a "punt," to avoid resolving the issue in the midst of a presidential campaign. When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[41] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education) The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote. On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[42] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[43] [edit] Interpretive controversies This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (March 2008) This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2009)Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment.[44] Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified. These critics argue that a complete separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers. Examples of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a Creator throughout, though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "creator." These critics of the modern separation of church and state also note the official establishment of religion in several of the states at the time of ratification, to suggest that the modern incorporation of the Establishment Clause as to state governments goes against the original constitutional intent.[citation needed] The issue is complex, however, as the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized. Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modernist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution. Ten commandments monument at a Minnesota courthouse. The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.[45] The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable. While sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation, the appointment of official chaplains for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in U.S. armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase "so help me God" in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion. Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The annual holiday of Thanksgiving, and the national motto "In God We Trust", are violations if strict separation is implied. Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from the mid-twentieth century rulings of the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions - that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious - make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause. Jeffries and Ryan argue that no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life," which sought to confine religion to a private sphere. Further, the ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants, who opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholic at the time. After 1980, however, anti-Catholic sentiment has diminished among mainline Protestants, and the crucial coalition of public secularists and Protestant churches has collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations are more inclined towards strict separation of church and state, much evangelical opinion has now largely deserted that position. As a consequence, strict separationism is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths, even perhaps eclipsing the opposition of Roman Catholics. Critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is untethered to anything in the text of the constitution and is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the Founding Fathers understood it. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law school professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept, which deviates from the constitutional establishment clause jurisprudence, is rooted in American anti-catholicism and Nativism.[citation needed] Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, have argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism.[46] J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee, responsed to Hamburger's claims noting; "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent does not impugn the validity of the principle. Champions of religious liberty have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with anti-Catholicism or desire for a secular culture. Of course, separationists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has sought to tap into the public till to support its parochial schools or to argue for on-campus released time in the public schools. But that principled debate on the issues does not support a charge of religious bigotry"[47] Steven Waldman notes that; "The evangelicals provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart. “Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners,” writes the historian Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. “New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state.”[48] [edit] Politics and Religion in the United States Robert N. Bellah has argued in his writings that although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. He used the term Civil Religion to describe the specific relation between politics and religion in the United States. His 1967 article analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."[49] This is not only the subject of a sociological discussion, but also an issue for atheists in America. There are allegations of discrimination against atheists in the United States. [edit] See also American Center for Law & Justice Americans United for Separation of Church and State American Humanist Association Anti-clericalism The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Ceremonial deism Christian amendment Freedom From Religion Foundation Freedom of religion in the United States Interfaith Alliance Mount Soledad cross controversy Separation of church and state State religion United States church-state separation case law United States religious history [edit] References ^ Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision the high court said Jefferson's observations 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.' In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, 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.' It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state (Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, Robert Boston, Prometheus, Buffalo, New York, 1993, p. 221). ^ See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (“The concept of a ‘wall’ of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.”)[1] ^ Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973) (“Yet, despite Madison’s admonition and the ‘sweep of the absolute prohibitions’ of the Clauses, this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.”)[2] ^ Patrick M. Garry, The Myth of Separation: America’s Historical Experience with Church and State, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475, 486 (2004) (noting that “the strict separationist view was wholly rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.”)[3] ^ The Cousins' Wars, Kevin Phillips, 1999 ^ "Rights of the People: Individual freedom and the Bill of Rights". US State Department. December 2003. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/roots.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-06. ^ Article VI of the North Carolina state constitition ^ "Remonstrance of the Inhabitants of the Town of Flushing to Governor Stuyvesant", Dec. 27, 1657. ^ "Drawing the Line Between Church and State", CBS News, Dec. 23, 2007. ^ Library of Congress. "To Bigotry No Sanction:". American Treasures of the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm006.html. Retrieved 2007-02-07. ^ "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, Volume 1, page 108 (1644). ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 24 ("Williams's metaphor was rediscovered by Isaac Backus, a New England Baptist of Jefferson's generation, who believed, like Williams, that an established church -- which he considered to exist in the Massachusetts of his day -- would never protect religious dissenters like himself and must be opposed in order to keep religion pure.") ^ To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut. January 1, 1802. Full text available online. ^ Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801. Full text available online. ^ Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (Virginia State Library, 1928), Vol. II, pp. 64-66, November 11, 1779. ^ Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Souter, J., concurring)("President Jefferson, for example, steadfastly refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations of any kind, in part because he thought they violated the Religion Clauses.") ^ James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Washington: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), Vol. II, pp. 498, 517-518, 543, 545-546. ^ James Madison's veto messages ^ Religion and the Founding of the American Republic; Library of Congress exhibit website; accessed 7 February 2007 ^ James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments ^ (1819 letter to Robert Walsh) ^ James Madison, Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations—Ecclesiastical Endowments, constitution.org, http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm, retrieved 2008-06-16 . ^ (1811 letter to Baptist Churches) ^ Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822 ^ See Morison and Commager, vol I ^ Jefferson's letter to Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822 ^ Dumas Malone, Jefferson and his Times, 6, 393 ^ Ashley M. Bell, “God Save this Honorable Court”: How Current Establishment Clause Jurisprudence can be Reconciled with the Secularization of Historical Religious Expressions, 50 Am. U.L. Rev. 1273, 1282 n.49 (2001) [4] ^ Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) ^ The story of New Jersey; ed., William Starr Myers (1945) Vol. II, chapter 4 ^ Article XIX, italics added. ^ Paschal, George (1868). The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated. W.H.& O.H. Morrison Law Booksellers. pp. 254. doi:3/23/2007. http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00779089&id=E0D5t1NG_WUC&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22people+v.+ruggles%22&as_brr=1#PPA254,M1. ^ The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 53. The University of Chicago Press, retrieved 8/9/07. ^ Forgotten Purposes of the First Amendment Religion Clauses Gary D. Glenn. The Review of Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1987), pp. 340-367. ^ See Wikipedia article: Treaty of Tripoli ^ http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/christiannation.htm |Mainstream Loudoun A Voice of Moderation ^ Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). ^ Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ^ Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). ^ Senate Pledges Allegiance Under God. Fox News, Thursday, June 27, 2002 ^ 482 U.S. 578 (Text of opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard from Findlaw.com) ^ "US federal court rejects separation of church and state". Catholic World News. 2005-12-22. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=41403. Retrieved 2007-02-07. ^ Onell R. Soto, City has 90 days to remove Mt. Soledad cross, The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 4 2006, p. A1. ^ http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Y4ZmY0MzI1ZjRjNDg4NTQ0ZDc0NGE1MjdmYWRhMDA= ^ "Religious discrimination in state constitutions". ReligiousTolerance.org. http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm. Retrieved 2007-02-07. ^ LOCKE V. DAVEY 540 U.S. 712 (2004) ^ Book Review: Separation of Church and State ^ The Framers and the Faithful: How modern evangelicals are ignoring their own history. By Steven Waldman ^ Bellah, Robert Neelly (Winter 1967). "Civil Religion in America". Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 96 (1): 1–21. http://web.archive.org/web/20050306124338/http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm. From the issue entitled Religion in America. [edit] Bibliography Philip Hamburger, Separation of church and state Harvard University Press, 2002. ISBN 0674007344 OCLC: 48958015 Marci A. Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-85304-4 Mark DeWolfe Howe. The Garden and the Wilderness: Religion and Government in American Constitutional History(U. of Chicago Press, 1965) Daniel L. Dreisbach. Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State(New York University Press, 2003) Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009) Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry Morrison. The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009) John C. Jeffries, Jr. and James E. Ryan, "A Political History of the Establishment Clause," 100 Michigan Law Rev. (2001) online version Mark David Hall, “Jeffersonian Walls and Madisonian Lines: The Supreme Court’s Use of History in Religion Clause Cases,” 85 Oregon Law Review (2006), 563-614. [5] Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Norton, 1996) Philip B. Kurland, ed., Church and State: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment (U. of Chicago Press, 1975) Adam M. Samaha; "Separation of Church and State." Constitutional Commentary. 19#3 2002. pp 713+. online version Anson P. Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and Stare in the United States (reprint, 1964) [edit] External links [edit] American court battles over separation 1947, first case concerning separation of church and state; supporting bussing for children to private religious schools and declaring that states were required to provide the same guarantees of religious freedom as the federal government 1948, banning religious instruction in public schools 1952, allowing religious instruction off school property during regular school hours 1962, banning teacher-led prayer from public schools 1963, banning Bible-reading and the recital of the Lord's Prayer in public schools 1973, allowing state funding for textbooks and teachers' salaries in religious schools; creating the Lemon test 1987, declared the Creation Act invalid, which had mandated the teaching of Creation if Evolution was taught 1989, banning religious displays depicting only one religion 1992, banning prayers given by clergy as a part of an official public school graduation ceremony. [edit] Other "Rights of the People - The Roots of Religious Liberty". U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/roots.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-07. "Rights of the People - Religious liberty in the Modern era". U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/modern.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-07. Christian Science Monitor analysis of George Washington's letter and its implications "The Intellectual Origins of the Establishment Clause" by Noah Feldman, Asst. Professor of Law, New York University, 2002. Robert Struble, Jr., Treatise on Twelve Lights: To Restore America the Beautiful under God and the Written Constitution, 2007-08 edition. Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty Separation of Church and State [hide] v • d • e United States ConstitutionTextPreamble and Articles · Bill of Rights · Subsequent Amendments ArticlesPreamble · One · Two · Three · Four · Five · Six · Seven Amendments Bill of Rights 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 Ratified · Proposed · Unsuccessful · Conventions to propose · State ratifying conventions FormationHistory · Articles of Confederation · Mount Vernon Conference · Annapolis Convention · Philadelphia Convention (Virginia Plan · New Jersey Plan · Connecticut Compromise · Three-Fifths Compromise · Signers) · Federalist Papers (list) · Massachusetts Compromise ClausesAppointments · Appropriations · Case or Controversy · Citizenship · Commerce · Compact · Confrontation · Contract · Copyright and Patent · Due Process · Emolument · Equal Protection · Establishment · Exceptions · Ex post facto · Extradition · Free Exercise · Fugitive Slave · Full Faith and Credit · General Welfare · Guarantee · Impeachment · Ineligibility · Militia · Natural–born citizen · Necessary and Proper · No Religious Test · Origination · Postal · Presentment · Privileges and Immunities · Privileges or Immunities · Speech or Debate · Supremacy · Suspension · Takings · Taxing and Spending · Territorial · Title of Nobility · Treaty · Trial by Jury · Vesting · War Powers InterpretationTheory · Concurrent powers · Congressional enforcement · Double jeopardy · Dormant Commerce Clause · Enumerated powers · Executive privilege · Incorporation of the Bill of Rights · Nondelegation doctrine · Preemption · Saxbe fix · Separation of church and state · Separation of powers · Unitary executive theory Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States" Categories: United States law | First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | Separation of church and state | Religious history of the United States Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from November 2007 | Articles that may contain original research from March 2008 | All articles that may contain original research | Articles with weasel words from June 2009 | Articles with unsourced statements from February 2008 Views Article Discussion Edit this page History Personal tools Try Beta Log in / create account Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Search Interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page This page was last modified on 13 November 2009 at 20:17. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

First of all, don't make presumptions about my faith in God or anything else. I will not debate a political and policy issue with religion. James Madison, founding father, 4th president and considered "father of the constitution" and author of the 1st amendment wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment". You can google it and read it. He did not believe in government interference with religion or religion's interference into government. Here is part of a summary: Madison believed that, under the Constitution, "there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion" and that "this subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The Government has no jurisdiction over it...." Despite this, he promised he would get a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to specifically guarantee religious freedom. Virginia and other states ratified the Constitution partially on the strength of such promises. At no point is Madison more unrelenting than in his opposition to state support or aid for religion. Not even 'three pence' contribution was to be taken from any citizen for such a purpose. "If it were lawful to impose a small tax for religion the admission would pave the way for oppressive levies." Not the amount but "the principle of assessment" itself was wrong. For Madison, his struggle was as much to prevent "the interference of law in religion" as to restrain religious intervention in political matters. He recognized that these were two sides of the same coin. So, when you start talking about founding fathers, don't make it sounds like they were all of one mind who wanted christianity to be the religion of the land and be the driving force behind their establishment of a new government and country.

As usual you reduce everything to some big government plot to take away our rights, our freedoms and control everything in a Hitler-like Germany. This of course is the only thing those on your side has because we have the facts on our side. Factcheck.org is not a governement site, it is non-partisan. But it doesn't matter to those conspiracy, right wing people like you. Civil rights were passed into law. And those laws have to be followed by everyone, including employers. Although there isn't necessarily a dollar cost to civil rights laws, I'm sure it cost employers in lawsuits who refused to follow the law. It is relevant in that these laws were also unpopular to many when passed but now supported by the majority of the American people. What separates us from third world countries is our safety nets for the least among us. Whether it is welfare, subsidized housing, medicare, medicaid, veteran's benefits, etc..these programs make us the great nation that we are. I don't see the republicans trying to undo these programs. Because it would be political suicide because Americans see these programs as necessary and chances are someone in their family benefits from them. Following your logic, then the bush administration took away my rights and freedoms when he took my tax money and spent in on an unnecessary war in Iraq in addition to the money he borrowed from China to fund it (money we didn't have). A war I was opposed to. That is why we have taxes WITH representation. If you don't like it, you can contact your representative. Health care mean life. And we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If living people don't have the right to the healthcare that will continue, improve or extend their life, then a fetus doesn't have that right either. The republicans are generally christians who use the bible to back up what they feel? I almost choked on that analysis. Have you not been keeping up with the moral decline of those in the republican party, not to mention the hyposrisy? I'm sure you thought the bush administration was a great, christian adminstration, especially when using my tax money to give to religious institutions under the guise of "faith based initiatives". Here's how that played out and how they really felt: (this from the book "Idiot America" by Charles P. Pierce) David Kuo, came to DC to work on bush's faith based initiative. In his memoir, "Tempting Faith" he writes: "Every other White House office was up and running. The faith-based initiative still operated out of the nearly vacant transition offices. Three days later, a Tuesday, Karl Rove summoned (Don) Willett (a former bush aide who initially shepherded the program) to his office to announce that the entire faith-based initiative would be rolled out the following Monday. Willett asked just how-without a director, office or plan - the president could do that. Rove looked at him, took a deep breath, and said "I don't know. Just get me a f***ing faith based thing. Got it?" A f***ing faith based-thing? Karl Rove's christianity, bible based approach just overwhelms me. :wink2: We all get your position Pattygreen. Work hard, get a job, buy your own healthcare and if you don't do these things, you are lazy, shiftless and deserve the plight you find yourself in. There can be no other reason. And don't expect any help from anyone. I am no longer going to provide facts against your fear-mongering, heartless right wing rhetoric. It gets tiresome. I know what the truth is and what the right thing is and that is all that matters to me.

You are just plain wrong. I posted the links from factcheck.org and another fact check site that explicitly says that it is not the intent for the goverment to take over all healthcare. But you keep on saying it, even though it is only your opinion and NOT FACT. Please present it as opinion and not fact. The public option would be available to about 2% of the people who currently don't have insurance. I believe they are lowering the income eligibility for medicaid. And the one house amendment would keep children on their parent's policy until age 27. The government does have a healthcare plan that they run. It is called medicare. And the people who are on it are happy with it. They don't want it taken away. When social security, civil rights, medicare and medicaid were passed they were strongly opposed, and heavily criticized but now they are popular government programs assimilated into our society. And health care reform with a public option will be, too, someday. The southern whites opposed civil rights. It turned the souther democrats (dixiecrats) into today's republicans. So, by enacting civil rights, the democrats lost the south. But it was the right thing to do. And if democrats lose seats in the 2010 and 2012 election because they passed healthcare reform, then so be it. Sometimes there is a price to pay for doing the right thing. And I have not seen one freedom or right being taken away by this administration. Under bush, warrantless wiretapping was a violation of my constitutional freedoms, but under Pres. Obama - I still have the same freedoms and rights I have always had. I have freedom of religion, speech, the right to own a gun, protest, a fair trial, vote, etc.. I don't know what freedoms or rights you're talking about. But with these freedoms comes responsibilites, too. Paying taxes is one of them. Being required to have car insurance if you own a car is another. Maintaining your property if you're a homeowner. These are the things we do in a civilized society. And you will never convince me that rush limbaugh who cheered that Obama lost the bid for the Olympics which would have been great for America and who said he wanted Obama to fail doesn't salivate at every perceived slip or failure on Obama's part. Same with that Senator DeMint. The republicans want Obama to fail so that they can get back in power. That is their ONLY goal. They couldn't give a rat's patuty about the American people.

While more black people were motivated to register and get out to vote, black voters traditionally vote Democratic anyway. The white people who voted for Obama, I think, did so as a rejection of bush and his policies. I voted for Obama because he was the Democratic candidate. I would have voted for Hillary, Biden, whoever the democratic candidate was. Race and gender did not matter to me. Those who chose not to vote for McCain did so because they didn't want another term of bush's policies and an air head for VP. Many who voted for him did so as an anti-black vote. No way were they voting for a black person. And I heard many people say that.

When republican Jim DeMint said "If we can stop this healthcare it will be Obama's Waterloo. It will break him." - What did that have to do with the american people or helping them or having any other agenda other than wanting Obama to fail? Ditto when rush limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. It was personal - and that sentiment is echoed with those who only found their voice after Obama became president. What does Obama as Hitler or the Joker or those racists sayings have to do with healthcare, spending or the debt? Nothing. But it has everything to do with Obama. Remember that the republicans aren't just against this healthcare reform. They also voted against expanding SCHIP - the healthcare program for children. Now, regardless of what you think about the parents of those children - the children are innocent and deserve to get healthcare - but the heartless republicans didn't think so. So much for family values!!! Again - I repeat my mantra "If it weren't for hyprocrisy the republicans would have nothing." As to those thousands who die every year from tobacco use and abuse of alcohol - I am not going to shed any tears for those who make a conscious decision to poison their body and refuse to do anything to quit. That is in stark contrast to those, who through NO fault of their own (unemployed, lost job, can't afford...) don't have healthcare insurance and die as a result. That should never happen in a country like ours. Period.

Another link: Government-Run Health Care? | FactCheck.org

The plan being debated is not about a government take over. That is a right wing lie that just keeps being repeated: Check out the facts: PolitiFact | Obama health plan does not call for government-run health care Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't let facts deter you. If the CBO says the plan won't raise the deficit, they are lying, etc.. And I really couldn't care less if the greedy health insurance industry that makes the wall street banking CEO's look like angels goes out of business because it has some healthy competition. Yeah, that's right, lower the premiums, pay for claims and reduce profits. If you can't keep up then go out of business. In many states only one or two companies have a monopoly on the majority of health policies. Where's the competition? That's not healthy for us consumers. We need choice & competition.

Don't you know Larraine about the mindset of those who oppose healthcare reform? Well here it is: 1) There really aren't 42 million people without health insurance there are like maybe 5 million and those are the ones who choose not to buy insurance because they are too busy buying big cars and fancy electronic gadgets. 2) They themselves have insurance but they work darn hard for it and deserve it. Those without insurance don't deserve it. See #1. 3) They believe that those without insurance can just go to the ER - as if the ER were for treatment of chronic conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, COPD, Alzheimers or Parkinson's. 4) Insurance reform is just a big government plot to take over the healthcare industry and put all the poor, private healthcare insurance companies out of business. I mean, a company has the right to make billions in profit by denying care, don't they? 5) If people want health insurance they should get up off their lazy behinds and get a job (this despite the fact that in many poor, rural areas, 80% of the uninsured are working). Well, there you have it. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman all rolled into one. Remember, it doesn't have to make sense or even be true. It just has to be repeated often enough.

Yes, they were left wing and they were radical in that they wanted change and they hated bush. So do I. He was the worst president in history. He was stupid, ill-spoken, unwilling to admit mistakes, responsible for an unjustified war costing 4000+ lives and a trillion dollars adding to out debt, the deregulation of wall street resulting in the financial crisis of 2008 and the rise in unemployment (rose all through 2008 and is continuing), infringing on our freedoms (wireless wire taps), illegal foreign prisons, torture, ignoring Katrina victims, and ignoring clean energy, global warming, and last but not least - healthcare. Now we have brains back in the White House and a president who is willing to tackle all these tough issues - the solutions often being tough but necessary. He has already said that if he is a one term president because he is willing to do what it takes to clean up bush's messes, then so be it. And if people want to protest him, they have that right. But don't tell me it's about healthcare or spending or the deficit. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. Period.