Misreading the establishment clause

[Andrew J.]

Every time there's a debate over the seperation between church and state there's some fundie that will come out and say "Having the Ten Commandments/funding churches/hanging images of Christ everywhere isn't 'establishing a religion,' so it's not unconstitutional!" And then a secular debater will reply with some weak justification of how it actually is establishing religion. But what does the establishment clause actually say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon..."

The people that think the First Amendment only keeps the government from establishing an official national religion don't read very carefully; they only notice the word "establishment," and assume it means "the act of establishing." However, it is clear to anyone that actually pays attention that it's meaning in this case refers to a group or organization, rather than an act.

So remember: the next time a fundie says something doesn't establish a state religion, don't play his game. Tell him to brush up on his reading comprehension.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

is having the ten commandments on a building an act of congress, though? I don't know. Do they make a law that puts it on?

[Miles Teg]

This is something I have to point out on a regular basis, and when I do it usually shuts said fundie up, for a while. Sadly, willful ignorance is something that is not easily curable.

Miles Teg

[Mobiboros]

I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say there. The full clauses on religion are:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I fail to see how it's weak to refute the idea that hanging the ten commandments is a clear establishment of religion. The ten commandments are clearly a religious document. Placing them into a government building is a clear endorsement of said religious idea.

It really should be a cut and dried thing, however it get very convoluted. In fact, I think TX is trying to argue the commandments aren't a religious symbol. Which, if it wins on those grounds carries a bigger detriment than they realize. it means the government can take authority over Christianity in the US since it's 'not religious'. This then clearly violates part 2 of the clause because the government then has the power to prohibit the free excercise of the religion.

The most equal thing for all people (and the fundies will never see this) is to have a clear division of church and state. Establishment means control, that means no freedom to practice as you will. That's something most people miss in the drive to make their religion number one.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It really should be a cut and dried thing, however it get very convoluted. In fact, I think TX is trying to argue the commandments aren't a religious symbol.

Which is a ludicrous pile of shit. Trying to claim that a direct quotation from a holy book isn't a religious symbol makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the argument that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments is equally stupid. Why don't I see any monuments to English Common law or the Code of Justinian laying around?

[Mobiboros]

It really should be a cut and dried thing, however it get very convoluted. In fact, I think TX is trying to argue the commandments aren't a religious symbol.

Which is a ludicrous pile of shit. Trying to claim that a direct quotation from a holy book isn't a religious symbol makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the argument that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments is equally stupid. Why don't I see any monuments to English Common law or the Code of Justinian laying around?

Didn Justice Scalia even go so far as to say that our government derives it's authority from God? Has he even read the constitution or any philosophy on democracy? How does he fail to see that the government derives it's authority from the will of it's people to vote for it's representatives?

I'm also not sure why Christians aren't pissed. I'd be pissed if the government hung up a plaque with the 8-fold path on it. It demeans the entire religion to have it's most sacred documents be treated like some chap decoration and to be used as a tool to further political agendas. I'd be protesting on the grounds that the government is actively demeaning my religion by such gaudy displays.

[Andrew J.]

I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say there. The full clauses on religion are:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I fail to see how it's weak to refute the idea that hanging the ten commandments is a clear establishment of religion. The ten commandments are clearly a religious document. Placing them into a government building is a clear endorsement of said religious idea.

Some people won't think anything less than an act of Congress declaring an official state religion is establishing one.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

what does it really mean though. I always get confused on this. If congress isn't making a law respecting religious institutions, then it's not a breach? SO what if a county decides to put up a giant jesus balloon on top of the county municipal building. That's not involving congress.

[Pablo Sanchez]

what does it really mean though. I always get confused on this. If congress isn't making a law respecting religious institutions, then it's not a breach? SO what if a county decides to put up a giant jesus balloon on top of the county municipal building. That's not involving congress.

Supremacy clause.

From Article VI, clause 2, emphasis added:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Although the letter of the constitution says "Congress" it goes for everybody.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Although the letter of the constitution says "Congress" it goes for everybody.

According to the Supremacy Clause, judges and States have to abide by constitutional law and they cannot contradict it. Yes. This is true, but there isn't a contradiction. If you take the establishment clause, it specifically states: "Congress shall establish no law respecting religion." Therefore, a Judge cannot say that it's constitutional for the Congress to do so.

States must also abide by the Constitution, but not everything a State can do applies. A state is not congress, therefore it would never have the chance, as Congress, to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion.

What is the definition of Congress? As follows:

This is the definition of Congress

# The national legislative body of a nation, especially a republic.
# Congress

1. The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2. The two-year session of this legislature between elections of the House of Representatives.


Congress applies only to the Federal Level, because it is both the National Sentate and the House of Representtives. The state legislatures are not Congress, and if only COngress is forbidden from respecting an establishment of religion, then this does not apply to the states, and there is no contradiction between state/federal law.


Now, the Federal government is given express and inherent powers. The States cannot override these. Then there is a contradiction. Congress not respecting religion through it's laws is a power denied to the Federal Government, but no such power is denied to state governments. If no power is denied to the states, but is forbidden for the National Government, there is no contradiction.


Fromt he above establishment clause, the writers make it very clear that there can be no national law respecting any religion or prohibiting free exercize of individuals (unless they harm others). This doesn't mean that States cannot make laws on it, unless it is forbidden by each individual constitution.


There are many things throughout American history that have been forbade by the constitution, but only to the Federal Government. The Bill of RIghts was one such example. Establishment clause is the same deal. It specifically mentions what the Federal Government cannot do, not what states cannot do.

The bill of rights establishes the limits of Federal power, not the State powers. They could ingore the bill of rights just as they could ignore establishment clause, since it didnt apply to them.

The Bill of rights, however, changed hands and became one with state and federal government, because of the constitutional amendments, which specificially mentioned the States.

Grammar and syntax are very important in Constitution and American Government, because the Founding fathers, despite their hatred of religion in real, were intentional vague in their texts. WHere they wanted to be specific, they were.





Now. I agree with you that they shouldn't use taxpayer money and that the government shouldn't make any laws or that the government shouldn't be supporting religion in any way, regardless of congress or laws, but I don't see the Supremacy Clause as being important here.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Now. I agree with you that they shouldn't use taxpayer money and that the government shouldn't make any laws or that the government shouldn't be supporting religion in any way, regardless of congress or laws, but I don't see the Supremacy Clause as being important here.

Well, SCOTUS tends to disagree with you on that point, but have fun with your ultra-narrow reading of it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Addition: for a state to make a law contrary to the establishment clause which only restricts the federal legislature, then the States would have to have some law/constitutional requirement that states: Congress may respect an establishment of religion.

Then it would contradict, but you cannot have a contradiction if a state constitution allows for the state and only the state to respect relgion, while the Federal Constitution forbids only the Federal Congress from doing the same.

The important issue is that one is a denied power and that at the same time, it's not denied to states, which means it's their domain.

Now, if a State tried to restrict Freedom Of Religion, due to the 14th amendment, i believe, there would be a contradiction between state and federal law. SInce it's in the bill of rights, which is now applied to the states, that no state can violate it.

For instance, before the addition of the 14th amendment, Main had a law banning catholics from state government. This is not allowed anymore. However, if the state were to make a law saying that it's ok to have moses masturbating on the county courthouse, then it's ok. IT cannot, however, force people to go to church, decorate their homes, or restrict the freedom of individual religion.

It's sad, but true.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, SCOTUS tends to disagree with you on that point, but have fun with your ultra-narrow reading of it.

I am glad they disagree, because I disagree with it as well, but my opinion of it being wrong isn't relevant. The grammar of the sentence, the definition of congress, and the total lack of contradiction according to the supremacy clause, due to inherent powers and state's rights, is the problem.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

arent some members of scotus saying that the powers of government stem from God?

Well, SCOTUS tends to disagree with you on that point, but have fun with your ultra-narrow reading of it.

I tend to disagree with teh Justices on that one as well.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

grammar of the sentence and the meaning of words is very important, not just for this clause, but for the bill of rights as well. This is the same reason why people deny that people have the right to bear arms. The opposing argument is based off of "collective rights" and militia, but it's not correct gramatically and linguistically.

People use a "narrow" view of the constitution all the time. Other's use a loose view. If you wanted to use a loose view of the second amendment, that's what the collective rights argument is. It's not following realy what the constitution's bill of rights says.

[Pablo Sanchez]

arent some members of scotus saying that the powers of government stem from God?

Which is why I said "SCOTUS" instead of "the members of SCOTUS." There's a rather important distinction there. Antonin Scalia can stew about it all he wants in his minority opinion, but the group makes the law, not the individual.

It's very nice that you've found a semantic hole in the constitution, but it doesn't carry one iota of significance. We have a system of judicial review to take care of these concerns, and they have said that there is no problem there. End of story. You may also note that this particular power of SCOTUS is nowhere in the constitution, but it exists nonetheless.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: it's not the 14th amendment, but then agian.


You could be right and my poly scie book could just be lying to me.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

This is what my book says:


With the establishment of the 14th, the Bill, or at least parts of it, is made to apply to state law, too.

Parts of the bill of rights apply to the state now. Most of it does, and this is 100% correct on your part, but the parts that apply to the states can only be those which can physically be done by the states.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's very nice that you've found a semantic hole in the constitution, but it doesn't carry one iota of significance. We have a system of judicial review to take care of these concerns, and they have said that there is no problem there. End of story. You may also note that this particular power of SCOTUS is nowhere in the constitution, but it exists nonetheless.

That's a great thing, and I am glad the system works that way, but the fact that I have found a loophole in the Constitution does matter if they use that to win. I don't want them to, but if they do, there really isn't squat anyone can do about it.

IT just does carry significance. Grammar, what parts of the bill are applied, do matter. Unless you want to say that the loophole that might allow collective rights for gun ownership doesn't matter. The facts are there, the political interpretation behind the decision is what matters, however. HOpefully, they will ignore the loophole and therefore smite the people who want to use it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Personally, I think that the Bill of rights and the 14th amendment apply in this case, and that the states ought not make laws respecting religion. Don't shoot the messanger. I don't AGREE with the idea ok? I am presenting a theory of WHY they are saying what they are saying ok? Understand?

I am not condoning teh silly belief or saying i agree.

[Xenophobe3691]

Well, doesn't "respecting an establishment of religion" also mean "dealing with a certain matter, that matter being religion"?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

States Right's advocates are the problem, in that they believe that the 14th amendment doesn't apply for everything, and in some circumstances, it doesn't. This leads to the confusing and eroneous believe that the states don't have to abide by the "no respecting establishment."

since 1897(?) the bill of rights has been slowly adapated to the States, and I am not sure where they ended, but they ended at 1978, I believe. I think that the States, according to 14th, cannot make laws respecting a religion, but State's Rights advocates will try to, as the above guy said, exploit loopholes and vague language.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: I would agree that respecting a religion does mean dealing with , but then State's rights people will focus on the second part of the phrase, "law." As long as no one makes it a law that the ten commandments must be put onto the building...

It goes on forever. They always think of new ways to circumvent the system.

[RedImperator]

The Texas argument is not that the Ten Commandments aren't religious, but that the statue in question is part of a "history of law" display similar to the one carved inside the Supreme Court building. It IS legal to display the Ten Commandments in that context--the freize in SCOTUS has the Moses, Hummurabi, John Marshall, Napoleon, Confuscius, Mohommad, and a bunch of others. I'd have to see the Texas display to make up my mind on this one.

Now the Kentucky case is much more cut and dry. The Ten Commandments were placed in courtrooms out of any kind of secular or historical context, basically in defiance of court rulings in other states barring religious Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.

[Patrick Degan]

Didn Justice Scalia even go so far as to say that our government derives it's authority from God? Has he even read the constitution or any philosophy on democracy? How does he fail to see that the government derives it's authority from the will of it's people to vote for it's representatives?

Mr. InJustice Scalia has a peculiar habit of reading things into the Constitution which patently don't exist while ignoring the plain meaning of clauses which contradict his authoritarian leanings.