The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm saying that the US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion. Is this confusing to you or something?

Sorry but you're the confused one in all of this.

 

[VanceMack]

I dont think the language is all that ambiguous. Congress cant establish a religion, congress cant restrict the free practice of religion. Since is expressly addressed in the Constitution it also applies to the states...the states cant establish an official religion nor can they deny the free practice of religion.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I dont think the language is all that ambiguous. Congress cant establish a religion, congress cant restrict the free practice of religion. Since is expressly addressed in the Constitution it also applies to the states...the states cant establish an official religion nor can they deny the free practice of religion.

All that and they cannot promote religion in general or a particular religion either (respecting).

Basically, its a neutrality clause.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Which is literally one of the worst things one can do to promote the good news.

The best argument for atheism is American Christianity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The best argument for atheism is American Christianity.

Sadly, yes, and I say that as a Christian.

I would have never accepted evangelical Jesus, he’s a hyprocritical bastard.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Got to page 2 and have up. If it hasn’t happened already, will a moderator please step in?

 

[mrjurrs]

I've been hearing this from multiple right wing radio talk shows/hosts; they're all basically claiming the same thing, that the US Constitution says that congress shall establish no religion. That's not what it says in the US Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment.

Here's what the 1st Amendment does say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress exists to make laws & perform other legislative tasks, not to establish anything, unless the US Constitution says otherwise & it doesn't include establishing any religion.

Shapiro's not the only radio talk show host saying this, but it's interesting that he's a Harvard law school graduate, yet he's getting this totally wrong; you can hear him say this for yourself starting at around the 4:10 mark:

I disagree. Imo it clearly says that Congress has no business in the establishment of a, or all, religions.

 

[neil]

Establish and establishment mean 2 different things.

 

[neil]

Thats what it means though,

You disagree with me.

so whats the problem?

It's not correct & spreading false information is dishonest.

The founders didnt want govt having a defacto national religion like Britain did.

IDK about "de facto" (their monarch head of state is also the head of church, there), but yeah I essentially agree.

Nor for govt to favor any religion over another.

It's more than that; they didn't want it to favor any religion at all, not just not one over another.

 

[Bear5131]

I read it as "government shouldn't pass any law compatible with an established church" but you seem to be saying ... what? That it doesn't mean anything at all?

It's Congress

 

[Bear5131]

The "no religion" thing is a red herring. Its a fiction made up in the minds of those who want to dismantle the first amendment.

That would be the clowns who insist its FROM

Not of

 

[Slartibartfast]

That would be the clowns who insist its FROM

Not of

Inherent in freedom of region is a choice of a lack of religion.

Of and from are the same thing.

 

[Bear5131]

Inherent in freedom of region is a choice of a lack of religion.

Of and from are the same thing.

No it's not

Congress shall make no laws OF religion

Not congress shall make no laws from religion

A huge difference in meaning, you're welcome

 

[Slartibartfast]

No it's not

Congress shall make no laws OF religion

Not congress shall make no laws from religion

A huge difference in meaning, you're welcome

Yup. Which means congress is neutral on the matter and just treat all religions equally, even the kooky ones.

So it’s either a lack of religion or every religion including the spaghetti one.

Because of that neutral stance of and from are the same thing in any practical sense. It usually turns to a no region stance once people begin putting in bahamut statues in courthouses. If you want prayer in school it’s gonna have to include all religions that the students may have, which will resemble something out of a Unitarian church I suspect.

 

[Bear5131]

Yup. Which means congress is neutral on the matter and just treat all religions equally, even the kooky ones.

So it’s either a lack of religion or every religion including the spaghetti one.

Because of that neutral stance of and from are the same thing in any practical sense.

Nope, it means only congress can not make any laws, it says nothing about state and local, Regean Jr started this nonsense of FROM are you aware of that?

That kid sure turned out wrong

 

[Slartibartfast]

Nope, it means only congress can not make any laws, it says nothing about state and local, Regean Jr started this nonsense of FROM are you aware of that?

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment echoes that of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, however, applies only against the federal government. After the Civil War, Congress adopted a number of measures to protect individual rights from interference by the states. Among them was the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

When it was adopted, the Clause was understood to mean that the government could deprive a person of rights only according to law applied by a court. Yet since then, the Supreme Court has elaborated significantly on this core understanding. As the examples above suggest, the rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can be understood in three categories: (1) “procedural due process;” (2) the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, “incorporated” against the states; and (3) “substantive due process.”

Unless this Reagan junior person has the power to change that, this is the law.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I have never seen so many people who all agree on something talk past each other so much.

In the video linked in the OP, Ben Shapiro makes the claim that there is no constitutional basis for the separation of church and state. Rather, Shapiro argues that the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the first amendment are only one clause, and only prevent Congress from establishing a national religion.

@neil appears to disagree with Ben Shapiro on this point, by claiming that the establishment clause and free exercise clause do not merely prevent the establishment of a national religion, but also prevent any law respecting an establishment of religion, or free exercise thereof, thereby creating what Jefferson called a "wall of separation between the church and state."

As far as I can tell, everyone involved in this thread agrees that Ben Shapiro is wrong, and that the establishment and free exercise clauses do more than just prevent Congress from establishing a national region.

 

[Bear5131]

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment echoes that of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, however, applies only against the federal government. After the Civil War, Congress adopted a number of measures to protect individual rights from interference by the states. Among them was the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

When it was adopted, the Clause was understood to mean that the government could deprive a person of rights only according to law applied by a court. Yet since then, the Supreme Court has elaborated significantly on this core understanding. As the examples above suggest, the rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can be understood in three categories: (1) “procedural due process;” (2) the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, “incorporated” against the states; and (3) “substantive due process.”

Unless this Reagan junior person has the power to change that, this is the law.

Exactly, you just proved my point that Thomas was right an baby's have a right to be born, now prove states and local governments have no right to establish a religion

 

[Slartibartfast]

Exactly, you just proved my point that Thomas was right an baby's have a right to be born,

That’s not the topic of the thread.

now prove states and local governments have no right to establish a religion

Was the quote I posted too long for you to understand

 

[Bear5131]

That’s not the topic of the thread.

Was the quote I posted too long for you to understand

You were coping and pasting gibberish and again you didn't prove state and local can't establish religion, remember we have the Supreme Court and this one if we try hard enough will delete all the nonsense from the past 100 years, so there's that

 

[Slartibartfast]

You were coping and pasting gibberish and again you didn't prove state and local can't establish religion, remember we have the Supreme Court and this one if we try hard enough will delete all the nonsense from the past 100 years, so there's that

Interesting that you think something on a roughly sixth grade reading level is gibberish.

If you can’t get basic legal concepts, I may not be able to help you.

 

[Bear5131]

Interesting that you think something on a roughly sixth grade reading level is gibberish.

I am a realistic, not interested in past fantasy

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am a realistic, not interested in past fantasy

So the 14th amendment doesn’t exist in your world then?

 

[neil]

This is what the 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that the state/government is prohibited from imposing any religion on anyone.

The 2nd clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the state/government is prohibited from preventing anyone from religion.

Together, both of these clauses mean that you and I and everyone else can choose any religion we want to choose, or choose no religion at all. It also means that our taxes cannot be used to fund religion, which includes establishing and operating some official or state religion.

 

[neil]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion",

Is this just your way of saying that you stand corrected? Fine with me; I'll take it.