Jim Lindgren Makes Some Points About Separation of Church and State
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
This is an old post but he recently reprinted much of it in light of the O’Donnell debate, and I figured I would pass it on. He passes on several points about the history of that phrase:
6. The phrase “Separation of Church and State,” as Philip Hamburger establishes in his classic book on the subject, is not in the language of the first amendment, was not favored by any influential framer at the time of the first amendment, and was not its purpose.
7. The first mainstream figures to favor separation after the first amendment was adopted were Jefferson supporters in the 1800 election, who were trying to silence Northern clergy critical of the immoral Jeffersonian slaveholders in the South.
8. After the Civil War, liberal Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment to add separation of church and state to the US Constitution by amendment, since it was not already there. After that effort failed, influential people began arguing that it was (magically) in the first amendment.
9. In the last part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, nativists (including the KKK) popularized separation as an American constitutional principle, eventually leading to a near consensus supporting some form of separation.
10. Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed (or was it the Klansman’s Kreed?). Before he joined the Court, Justice Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.” In 1947, Black was the author of Everson, the first Supreme Court case to hold that the first amendment’s establishment clause requires separation of church & state. The suit in Everson was brought by an organization that at various times had ties to the KKK.
11. Until this term, the justices were moving away from the separation metaphor, often failing to mention it except in the titles of cited law review articles, but in the last term of the Court they fell back to using it again
So as Lindgren says more recently, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, “the KKK got its way.”
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
“Separation of Church and State” these days is pretty much a code to assess who is intelligent vs. semi-incoherent mouth-breathers with gun-clingy issues.
It really doesn’t matter what the Constitution says or what various interpretations say about the Constitution or what the courts say about the interpretations.
It’s simply a mantra, in modern terms, to tell everybody to shut up and trust the government.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:07 pmNot sure why it matters to those on the left whether or not the phrase appears in the Constitution. Or, is this the one instance where wording actually matters to those inclined toward a “living” Constitution?
beer 'n pretzels (3d1d61) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:08 pmIt’s simply a mantra, in modern terms, to tell everybody to shut up and trust the government.
nonsense. 🙂 It’s a mantra to keep religion out of the public space – which isn’t the same thing as trusting the government at all.
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:28 pmIt’s that to you. It’s not that to others (such as the man who coined the phrase).
My problem with this mantra is that it is not precise. If we want to amend the constitution to actually ban religion in the public space, there is a democratic process for that. Hugo Black knew it was not possible to win this fight that way (not to conflate your good intentions with his evil ones).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:35 pmDustin: actually, i’m much less concerned about keeping religion out of the public space than I was as a teenager; when I became more religious in my 20s, it changed a lot of my political perspective.
My concern now is to ensure that nobody feels pressure from the government to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs. That’s the essence of the establishment clause, in my mind: that the state shouldn’t be involved in trying to push the citizenry into the arms of one religious sect or another.
Which is why I don’t care about nativity sets on city council chambers but do care about prayer in the public schools, for example.
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:38 pmaphrael
Except that under capital square review, it is clear that religion can be in the public square.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9510136217607691229&q=capital+square+review&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000000002
the phrase “separation of church and state” does not describe our modern jurisprudence. it never truly did.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:38 pmAaron – oh, aye, i’m not describing the actual state of establishment clause jurisdiction, i’m describing what the left uses seperation of church and state as a shorthand for.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:41 pmGood point. My wife and I raised our kids to be spiritual but with the conscious decision to let them pick the denomination as they became adults.
VOR2 (e029d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:52 amWhen we moved to Louisiana the number of times they were told during school that their beliefs had them condemned to hell bothered them a lot. Teachers and staff allowed it to occur and would have public prayer at events, etc.
We had lived in the midwest before and people really seemed to be able to separate their religious beliefs from school.
Since my wife’s faith is Shinto having the kids come home from school to tell her that her choice would have the Baptists and Jesus high fiving one another through eternity as they recited the names of the damned showed me where the separation at school was a good idea.
“It’s simply a mantra, in modern terms, to tell everybody to shut up and trust the government.”
Seems to be more about not trusting the government with religious indoctrination. I guess that’s the divide: those of us who want to institutionalize religion, and those who don’t.
imdw (df0dab) — 10/27/2010 @ 4:36 am“So as Lindgren says more recently, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, “the KKK got its way.””
But not “liberal republicans.” Strange how that gets left out of Dustin’s newfound mantras.
VOR explains what’s so funny about this. People who want more government takeovers of religion invariably think it is their religion that will be blessed. They don’t understand there’s a certain freedom of religion component to this — that your practice of your religion has less interference if you don’t have public policy telling you you’re going to hell for, say, failing to pray to Allah.
imdw (df0dab) — 10/27/2010 @ 4:42 amI would ask dimwit to give us one example of anyone here advocating for a gavernment takeover of religion, or to have any religion institutionalized, but that would be a waste of time.
JD (9bc648) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:44 amaph
ah, i get it. fair enough.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:49 amVOR2: that’s exactly the kind of thing which bugs me. I got it a fair amount during the two years that I was a kid in Texas.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:45 amOK, I gotta argue with this one Aaron.
First of all, while it is technically correct that no “influential framer at the time of the first amendment” argued that the First Amendment created a separation of church and state, the claim is a bit misleading, as the phrase was advocated by James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers (that counts as influential, no?). It just wasn’t described as such prior to its passage.
As for the KKK advocating the separation of church and state, sorry but you’ve lost me. In what way, shape or form would separating church and state benefit the aims of white supremacy and/or segregation of the races.
And as for Hugo Black, he joined the KKK solely to advance his political career. No that doesn’t reflect well on him, but if Lingrin’s argument is correct how exactly does it square with the rest of Black’s jurisprudence? Or is Lingrin arguing that Black’s support of Brown v Board of Education (and almost every other civil rights case brought by the NAACP during the 1940s and 1950s) was also at the behest of the KKK?
Sean P (6f6c60) — 10/27/2010 @ 7:10 amI’m not a lawyer so I don’t know this. Kagan has (rightly) recused herself from a bunch of cases in which she represented the govt as solicitor general.
What happens if there is a 4-4 tie on the court? The
JEA (330886) — 10/27/2010 @ 7:42 amIn the case of a 4-4 tie, the lower court decision stands as to the case in question, and the outcome has no precedential value.
So the effect is as though he court hadn’t heard the case at all.
(One of the happiest days of my professional life was the day that the Supreme Court rendered a 4-4 tie in Lotus’ lawsuit against my employer, Borland; had they reached an adverse decision, the company would have been wiped out).
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 7:51 amAs for the KKK advocating the separation of church and state, sorry but you’ve lost me. In what way, shape or form would separating church and state benefit the aims of white supremacy and/or segregation of the races.
You don’t understand Catholics vs Protestants? Remember that thing that was going on in Ireland for a few hundred years? Or the Thirty Years War?
The Klan of the Twenties was primarily anti-Catholic. They feared Catholic political power.
They also got laws passed in some states that prohibited parochial schools. These laws were aimed at Catholic schools.
icr (a17259) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:10 am“I would ask dimwit to give us one example of anyone here advocating for a gavernment takeover of religion, or to have any religion institutionalized, but that would be a waste of time.”
When people seek to have creation myths taught in school, they’re not seeking to have some pluralistic understanding of creation myths, or to teach kids about Zeus. They’re seeking to have their own version of creation mythology institutionalized and taught as the official doctrine. In the parlance of the times, they’re seeking a government takeover of creation mythology.
imdw (3bf1a8) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:18 amSean P
> the phrase was advocated by James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers (that counts as influential, no?). It just wasn’t described as such prior to its passage.
No it wasn’t. And the fact that you don’t think that Madison was an influential framer suggests you are woefully misinformed.
> As for the KKK advocating the separation of church and state, sorry but you’ve lost me. In what way, shape or form would separating church and state benefit the aims of white supremacy and/or segregation of the races.
The KKK hated many groups besides just black people. Catholics was high on the list.
> And as for Hugo Black, he joined the KKK solely to advance his political career.
That’s what he says. He wrote the decision putting “church and state” into the precedents. He also wrote a little case called Korematsu v. United States, which justified the Japanese internment. Later Black became a staunch advocate of desegregation, but let’s not pretend he immediately shed their attitudes when he put on that robe.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:26 amRight just like Warren was a party to the Japanese internments, which just showed his lack of principle, in the future
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:34 amTeaching Creationism…
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:40 amThe best place, is in a Comparitive Religions class, because you could teach many interesting versions,
as each of the major religions has their own take on how this whole mess came to be.
They probably agree more on how it will end, than on how it began;
but, it would be a great experience if all of our kids were exposed to the World’s great religions –
Christianity (broken down into its major variants), Judaiism (ditto), Islam (ditto), Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, etc –
even to some that don’t exist anymore as “majors”, but are still around if only in the History books.
ian
honestly with warren, i think the logic was like this. when he was a politician, he was “go with the flow.” but give him that lifetime appointment, and he said, “f— it, i am doing what i want.” Which is both good and bad. Brown was the good side of that. but judicial activism was the bad.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:42 amBrown was the good side of that
But…But…He went against stare decisis –
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:51 amwhich everyone knows is a sacred principle?
No, Plessy was an abomination that rightly needed to be repealed, one would have preferred that law
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:57 am(like Marshall Harlan’s dissent) rather than sociology be involved. I was surprised about those
other decisions, Davis and Murphy on the othere thread, which really did violence to the Free Exercise Clause
Well, ian, I think it can be pretty much agreed to by acclamation that Dred Scott, and Plessy, were the low-lights of 19th-Century SCOTUS jurisprudence
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 9:31 am(well, except for the defenestration of the “privileges or immunities” clause in Slaughterhouse/Cruikshank);
but my tongue-in-cheek comment was directed towards all those on the Left who genuflect at the Alter of Stare Decisis,
without any apparent realization that some of their most cherished mile-stones were the result of a disregard of that god.
#17 – So what does that have to do with believing the church and state should be separate?
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:57 pmHey Aaron, how about an apology for calling me “woefully misinformed”?
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 (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
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 (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
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 (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
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. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:59 pmSean, you do sound uninformed. This is a major facet of democrat/KKK ideology at the time the KKK imposed this into constitutional law.
Abolitionists were religious. Much of the reasoning for the laws banning slavery or creating equal justice are theological. Read the declaration of independence, I suppose for the first time, and get back to us.
Aaron doesn’t owe you an apology. He’s right.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:06 pmDustin:
#1) The “woefully misinformed” comment was in response to my claiming that Madison used the phrase “separation of church and state” — which he DID. He was wrong and he does owe an apology.
#2) We weren’t even talking about the Declaration of Independence,we were talking about the constitution, and I don’t particularly appreciate your smarmy condecension.
Now, I AM uninformed about KKK ideology, you got me there, so you want to explain how klansmen figured that eparating the two was essential to Klan ideology I’m all ears.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:26 pmWhere did Madison, make that point contemporaneously with the constitution
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:28 pm#30:
He DIDN’T. And if you read my original post, I ADMITTED that fact.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:34 pmNow, I AM uninformed about KKK ideology, you got me there, so you want to explain how klansmen figured that eparating the two was essential to Klan ideology I’m all ears.
Catholicism was one big church centralized in Rome. American Protestantism was composed of hundreds of completely independent denominations. Apparently many Protestants once believed that massive Catholic immigration could eventually result in the US being controlled by the ´Pope in Rome. For all practical purposes Catholicism would become the state religion of the US.
null
(…)
icr (a17259) — 10/27/2010 @ 1:56 pmThanks for the info icr.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 2:00 pmSean
> how about an apology for calling me “woefully misinformed”?
This is what you said:
> First of all, while it is technically correct that no “influential framer at the time of the first amendment” argued that the First Amendment created a separation of church and state, the claim is a bit misleading, as the phrase was advocated by James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers (that counts as influential, no?).
You didn’t seem to know that Madison was considered actually the father of the constitution. He is not just an influential framer, but the MOST influential framer.
That is why I called you misinformed.
Second, your examples, which appear to be taken from here http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm
I don’t know off hand whether they are genuine or not. People have attributed words to the founders that they didn’t say. I have never heard the Supreme Court or any historian back up the claim that Madison said it, although I admit my focus as a history major has been on the civil war and reconstruction.
The quotes themselves, assuming they are real, betray that Madison didn’t mean those words as literally as some would like.
Anyone who thinks that our constitution dictated anything like a real wall of separation literally don’t know what the constitution actually means, although what I am about to talk to is admittedly a little obscure. For instance Article III refers to cases “in law and equity.” The reference to equity is a reference to the courts of the chancery that grew up in England. You see in a court of law, all you can get is monetary damages. After a while it became felt that wasn’t good enough. So people began to come to the religious authorities in England, who would hear the case and tell a person you must do X or must not do X or you will be sentenced to Hell. Later they changed it to being sentenced to prison, which might or might not have been more persuasive. And over time that system was merged with law so that in most states you can scarcely tell the difference. But when a court rules in equity, they are a moral court, ruling on moral principles, such as whether one side has “clean hands” and the like. They don’t specifically invoke God, but it is a set of principle set down by the clergy centuries ago. So much for separation.
True separation is not even practically possible and has never been tried, not even by the men who supposedly ascribed to the principle.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/27/2010 @ 4:34 pmIndeed, a lot of what was said about Catholics back then is being said about Muslims today.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 10/27/2010 @ 4:39 pmAaron:
“You didn’t seem to know that Madison was considered actually the father of the constitution. He is not just an influential framer, but the MOST influential framer.”
Actually, a more accurate way to say that was, “as I read your comment, I thought you were saying that Madison was considered the father of the constitution.” Re-read what I said, I may have used a lot of parenthesis and a little sarcasm (specifically, the “Madison counts as influential, no?”). Still, I think my point was clear enough.
As to the authenticity, I think if someone was going to fake a Madison quote they’d have it written before 1789 to make it more effective.
And honestly, this doesn’t even raise my main objection with your argument: the merits of the “separation of church and state” reading of the first amendment are irrelevant to what the KKK was doing in the 1920s, just as the merits of federalism have nothing to do with the KKK’s advocacy for “states rights” in the 50s and 60s.
But at this point, I just want the retraction. I didn’t say anything incorrect about Madison, and regardless of whether you agree with me or not I’m hardly “woefully misinformed” about the subject, so be a pal and just retract the comment. Pretty please?
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:14 pmSean, some of your comments just give the appearance you are uninformed by choice.
You seem to want to argue without doing homework. For example, I note the religious nature of the US Government’s entire reason for existence, and how the KKK opposes that sort of ‘all men are created equal’ justification, and you leap at this, saying ‘but I wasn’t talking about the declaration, only the constitution!!!1!!!1’
So what?
You come across something you’re not aware of, such as the KKK’s rejection of abolitionists (AKA Christian Republicans), and instead of considering it, just announce ‘you’ve lost me!’.
There’s more to your discussion, which Aaron is engaging you on and I don’t feel like duplicating much. He wasn’t calling you uninformed, but accurately noting your uncurious nature that seems to reject learning.
Instead of being too wounded at that, just prove us wrong. As I said, read the declaration, and see why the KKK would call for a BS Separation of Church and State (as opposed to Jefferson’s idea of it).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:28 pm“Indeed, a lot of what was said about Catholics back then is being said about Muslims today.”
Too bad we didn’t have fox news back then to tell the truth.
imdw (47a9bf) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:53 pmDustin
“I note the religious nature of the US Government’s entire reason for existence”
You did? When? Who were you talking to? My initial comment (at #14) was directed to Aaron, not you. That’s why I mentioned Aaron’s name in the post and not yours. And thats why I can’t for the life of me understand why you come out with your chest puffed out accusing me of not reading the Declaration of Independence.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:02 pmOh, and regarding this:
“Instead of being too wounded at that, just prove us wrong. As I said, read the declaration, and see why the KKK would call for a BS Separation of Church and State (as opposed to Jefferson’s idea of it).”
Prove you wrong about what? See, I don’t know what the hell point you’re even trying to make, let alone why I’d even disagree. My original argument had ** nothing ** to do with what your talking about here and wasn’t even a response to something you had written earlier.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:14 pmSean
> Actually, a more accurate way to say that was
The way I said it.
> I think if someone was going to fake a Madison quote they’d have it written before 1789 to make it more effective.
People fake quotes all the time. For instance, that Jefferson said “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” He didn’t say it, but to be fair, it sounds about dippy and ill-thought-through enough for him to have said it.
> the merits of the “separation of church and state” reading of the first amendment are irrelevant to what the KKK was doing in the 1920s,
It cuts the legs out from the argument that this separation is an enlightened position, which is what drives liberals to insist that something that is not there is there.
> just as the merits of federalism have nothing to do with the KKK’s advocacy for “states rights” in the 50s and 60s.
Actually on the policy merits of federalism, it is fair game to point out how it can be abused.
> I didn’t say anything incorrect about Madison,
Yes, you did. No retraction is coming.
If you want to dispel the claim that you are misinformed, then prove you know what you are talking about.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:36 pmThe earlier passages comport with the Bill of Rights and the Free Exercise, in that no church
be particularly favored, there obviously have been churches in the Nations capital, so that can’t be it, particularly the National Cathedral, so is that unconstitutional, doubtful.
Now the Klan did pervert the cross from a tool of
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:46 pmmercy into an instrument of fear, presumedly against Catholics, Jews, and their long catalogue
of hate
#41: OK. Here’s wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-18
here’s the quote:
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.”[18] Several years later he wrote of “total separation of the church from the state.
Here’s Wikipedia’s source:
1819 letter to Robert Walsh), Lambert, Frank (2003). The founding fathers and the place of religion in America. Princeton University Press. p. 288. ISBN 9780691088297. http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC .
I’ll be damned if I’m actually going to pull the original manuscript for you, though, I think what I’ve provided is more than sufficient.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:53 pm“It cuts the legs out from the argument that this separation is an enlightened position, which is what drives liberals to insist that something that is not there is there.”
Does the fact that adherents of sharia don’t want the separation make that also not the elightened position?
imdw (f7c69c) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:54 pmThe phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered the smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Doug Indeap (5eb761) — 10/27/2010 @ 10:06 pmStill no correction? All right, how about this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=s1pzTh9oh2gC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Philip+Hamburger+James+Madison&source=bl&ots=EnbB-k6NEM&sig=iFTN9_npj5URqMkU2Sn2-TpJENk&hl=en&ei=lb_JTJCgCZC8sQPk-5CBDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Philip%20Hamburger%20James%20Madison&f=false
The link above is to Phillip Hamburger’s “The Separation of Church and State” (a book you indirectly reference in your own post). Scan to Pages 181-182.
Again, Hamburger was a key rference in Lindgren’s post which your entire post relies on. If Hamburger isn’t reliable Lingren isn’t and if he isn’t your entire post isn’t.
Face it Aaron, I AM right. Madison DID argue that the First Amendedment was intended to create a separation of church and state. This is a fact, and you were wrong when you repeatedly argued to the contrary. A correction is clearly warranted. Furthermore, sincen you impugned my intelligence in asserting your incorrect position, an apology is warranted as well.
Or was there something else I wrote you believe was untrue? If so, please specify.
Sean P (4fde41) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:29 amSean
your first book result is um, apparently google in the phillipines…
ironically my wife might be able to help with that.
the second looks like an english link. i will look at it. honestly i am busy right at the moment but i don’t want you to think you are being ignored.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/28/2010 @ 11:59 amSean, this really doesn’t have to be so personal.
“And the fact that you don’t think that Madison was an influential framer suggests you are woefully misinformed.”
Note how you’re saying this is wrong because “Madison DID argue that the First Amendedment was intended to create a separation of church and state.”
That’s a non-sequitor.
Now, you say “Prove you wrong about what? See, I don’t know what the hell point you’re even trying to make, let alone why I’d even disagree.”
You said this earlier: “As for the KKK advocating the separation of church and state, sorry but you’ve lost me. In what way, shape or form would separating church and state benefit the aims of white supremacy and/or segregation of the races.”
I’m sorry, but the way you express yourself is not very friendly and you weren’t informed of some of the points of discussion. You’ve chosen to focus on something very specific (too specific to be fair, since we’re talking about KKK style separation of church and state, which is probably not Madison’s concept of it).
At any rate, you called attention to a major aspect of the discussion to reject it because you were ignorant of it. I asked you to actually read some of this material, apparently for the first time, to see how it could conflict with the ideals of the KKK.
Your response is to take it personally. There’s no reason to do that. I’m not trying to bash you when I note you’re not informed on some point. But you expressed ignorance and then rejected the idea, and I tried to help you out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:18 pmI probably read too much into what others say, as though I’d said them.
If I had noted I was very uninformed of some major aspect of the discussion, the way Sean noted he was very uninformed of the KKK aspect, I’d actually see that as a request for someone to give me some basic rundown.
I certainly wouldn’t be saying ‘what the hell are you talking about? Let’s talk about this particular thing now!’
I’m not saying I’m nicer and sweeter (I’m not), but I guess I didn’t see where Sean wanted to go with this as exclusive of other topics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 12:28 pmAaron:
The Google link is probably to Google Books.
Also, if you want to do independent research simply google “James Madison separation of church and state”. There are literally thousands of articles on the subject.
Dustin:
This is what you said that ticked me off:
“Read the declaration of independence, I suppose for the first time, and get back to us.”
You want to know why I keep fixating on the Declaration of independance as opposed to the remainder of your argument, that is why. You didn’t tell me to read anything else, you said to read the Declaration of Independence.
Sean P (6f6c60) — 10/28/2010 @ 5:02 pmAh, yeah, except Catholics weren’t flying planes into buildings, attempting everywhere to supplant secular law with the Catholic equivalent of Sharia, and stabbing to death individuals who opposed them as they bicycled down the street…
Other than those minor quibbles, you’re exactly right.
/snark off
IgotBupkis (9eeb86) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:43 pmYes, Sean, I understand that was not a charitable comment, however, if you don’t understand why the KKK wants an absolute separation (probably not the one Madison wanted, and provably not what Jefferson wanted), then your answer is in that document.
And if you really meant what you said about not understanding why the KKK was so opposed to the core principle of our nation’s founding, you did not really grok the declaration.
And we really need to look at what I’m trying to say, which is that Separation of Church and State is vague. The fact that EVERYBODY, barring only a few extreme theocrats, agrees to it, in some form, should tell us that it’s not reasonable to point to its mere endorsement by any character. It matters more what Coons meant (which was that the federal government should bar a lesson from being taught). That’s dangerously close to the KKK ideal, IMO.
O’Donnell has often commented on her view on the constitution, not religion, being a Senator’s guide. She and Coons both support and believe in the Separation to some degree. I like to bring up the KKK example because it shows that we have to analyze support of this principle in more than binary terms.
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:49 pmOh yeah, and I’m Dustin. I’ve commented too much today so I’m poking fun at myself.
Rambles McBlatherstein (b54cdc) — 10/28/2010 @ 10:49 pmHey Aaron, I see you have a post up criticising someone for not correcting an error. How about doing that here? Because, you know, doubling down on your own error is bad.
Sean P (6f6c60) — 11/1/2010 @ 5:17 amSean
I am sorry for not coming back and saying this sooner.
Yes, it appears that madison did say similar things.
Which means you know more than i thought, but you really do need to know some of the more basic stuff, like the exact roles each person had in the founding. you do give a bad impression of the state of your knowledge when you don’t know that madison is credited as being the father of the constitution, and was the original author of the bill of rights. (well, i mean besides the bill of rights we cribbed off of, from england.)
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/4/2010 @ 12:44 pm