It seems to me the majority hasn't ruled in quite a while. It's absolutely amazing how a minority opinion is the one appeased...

Raena, This country was founded as a Jesdao-Christain country. It is the others who are not Jewdao-Christain who are trying to change our country. In Iraq, Iran or any other Arab nation they put Christians and Jews to death if they even speak of anything other than what comes from their qu'ran. In this country we are surcoming to the wishes of all other minority nations, we have become a nation of two languages because the minority Hispanic immagrants don't wish to speak english. It's OK to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse where all the laws of the land are bassed on the Ten Commandments, It quite fine to encourage the arts to the extent of funding with Christains Tax Dollars pieces of so called art like "PISS CHRIST" a degrading slap in the face to all Christains of Jesus Christ, our Savior on the cross being soaked in a mason jar of urine. That's OK Raena, but you obviously see us as being one sided. Well let me give you a little lesson in UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HISTORY 101.
Here is what true Separation of Church and State is.

The following are excerpts taken from an facts compiled by David Barton

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. (Not from The Bill of Rights or any other documentation agreed upon from our founding fathers).

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . We have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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 legislative 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. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

I hope this mis-interpretation of Separation of Church and State isn’t a lead in for the thoughts and statements of Bill Clinton on Sex not being sex if it is not done in the normal way as a inalienable right going back to the Bill of Rights. That would be the same type of mis-interpretation.

God Bless America.... Oh the way the story ends... God wins.....

Francis, I don't see you as a polar opposite to me, or anything like that, so knock it off with the mouthy attitude. You're clearly unaware of (or unwilling to entertain the idea of) my own Christian belief, also, so I'll thank you not to judge my thoughts based on that comment or assume that I'm in favour of things like Piss Christ.

Also, I won't expect you to have realised that I've studied this topic in depth or that I'm familiar with all the sources you've cited, as well as relevant case law. (You'd be surprised what we get up to at universities here in Australia.) Thanks for the little 101, but I've read it.

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that people can't seem to decide what they want. You've adequately pointed out that the intent of the 'no law respecting an establishment' amendment is one that requires the government to butt out of the citizens' spiritual lives, neither promoting one belief system over the other, nor disallowing. This is absolutely an admirable thing.

Yet you're unwilling to look at the effect of something like the Alabama momument. It's a PUBLIC building. Everybody is subject to the law's requirements and benefits from its protection, yet you claim that the faith-based rules of a particular faith are an appropriate addition to a building that is supposed to be for everyone. Sorry, but the fact that the majority of people are Christians in the United States means diddly: the law is for the public good, not just for a subset of the public.

Oh yeah. And as the daughter of a European migrant, I find it particularly hurtful that you see no value in easing the transition for people who don't already speak English. I'd like to see you try and learn another language in no time flat while working your butt off to get off the ground in a brand new country.

Joel,

So, then, do you support the right of a Muslim judge to display the Koran in a justice building lobby or foyer? Should a public school teacher have the right to lead his/her students in a witchcraft prayer?

The Constitution doesn't specifically ban the requirement for registration of firearms, but many interpret the Constitution to allow people to not only own/possess firearms but to keep their ownership a private matter. Then those same people say the Constitution provides for no right of privacy.

The Constitution didn't say anywhere that women didn't have the right to vote, but for a good part of our history it was assumed that the right of suffrage could be limited to men, even just white, male property owners. The constitution must be interpreted. The doctrine of separation of church and state is one such reasonable interpretation.

Joel T.

Xavier,

My comments were directed toward Joel Comm, not you. Where do you get off saying that I'm connecting you to a school teacher giving a witch craft prayer? I think you need to read my posts more carefully.

As a lawyer, I'm simply saying that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom to all, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. So, if a Christian judge has the legal right to put up the Ten Commandments, a Muslim Judge would have the right to put up the Koran. If a Christian teacher can lead a Christian prayer in school, then a teacher who believes in witchcraft would legally have to be afforded the right to lead a "witchy" prayer. It all has something to do with a thing known in the law as "equal protection under the constitution."

One of the reasons I oppose President Bush's faith-based initiative is that it requires that government funds now be available to Muslim organizations. Well, I don't want my tax dollars going to Muslim religious groups.

As for John Ashcroft, I could say more, such as the fact that he is a self-righteous prude for ordering a covering of Lady Justice's breast. Yes, I think Ashcroft is a fascist, and I make no apologies for my views.

Just because one has the consitutional right to bear arms doesn't mean the government can't require us to register those arms.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to privacy. (There is the right to be free of unreasonable search, but no specific use of the word privacy.) But I think privacy is an implied right.

Joel

Thank You Joel,
For all your comments, I guess Joel dosn't need my defence of support and yes I did jump in where I perhaps wasn't invited, However, I did see issues that we have not discussed yet and I wanted to imput my thoughts on them. Sorry, if I ruffeled your feathers. You proved my most important point, That Separation of Church and State was not derived from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It was manufactured later, by what I mentioned about Thomas Jefferson and his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury Connetticut and Touchet, you are correct about the Privacy issue, it is not a right. I accidently slipped it in there as I was typing so quickly. You leave me confused, I though you told me that you were a Minister, now you tell me you are a Lawyer, you wouldn't be an Astronaught too, would you?
Blessings
Francis Xavier

Joel T.

And again, you are somewhat correct about the Supreme Court on Interpreting Law, that is exactly why the Court was established, to interpret not to manufacture laws according to their bias. The Liberals throw is the Liberal Judges and the Conservatives throw in the Conservative Judges all serving their own special interest, not the peoples. Unfortunatly, most people are self serving, self centered and driven by money! We need to step out of the world!
God Bless...
Francis Xavier

You know, the more I read through these comments, the more I realize that we as a race really are in need of some serious help. All people want to do is fight and disagree over their beliefs, all the while drawing the gap between them wider, instead of bridging it. We are ALL important to this planet and to each other, no matter what religion. Blacks, whites, hispanics, arabs, Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists - ALL are equal. In America, we live under FREEDOM of RELIGION - which means that to have the Ten Commandments on a building should be just as legal as having the Koran written there. Christians claim that liberals tout anti-God rhetoric - but guess what - Christians also aree intolerant of those who do not believe in their God. Everybody - ALL OF YOU LISTEN - from every ethnicity and every religion - WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!! LET'S ACT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL HUMANITY - despite you beliefs. CHRIST IS NOT THE ONLY WAY, but neither is BUDDHA or Vishnu or Mohommed - ALL RELIGIONS ARE PARTLY TRUE AND ALL ARE PARTLY FALSE - let us work together for the best interests of HUMANITY, before we destroy ourselves.

Because of Judge Moore and his positive stand for the commandments, I have written a new poitically correct 21st century version of them, that I beleive instills it original values, and will stand up to any court test. See my blog at
http://www.jerryscommandments.blogspot.com/