That's in the first amendment?

[Rhinox]

Except that that the entire interpretation of the establishment clause is based on him.

Ah no

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Justice Black just mentioned Jefferson in passing. He didn't base his ruling/opinion on Jefferson writings.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The first ever interpretation was based on Jefferson, and thus subsequent interpretations relied on Jefferson. In your quote he even quotes Jefferson.

[zoobernut]

How is quoting someone because they said a phrase that fits what you are trying to describe relying on them or basing your interpretation on them?

The justice just quoted Jefferson because he said something that pertained to the situation and fit, you cannot deduce from that single quote that he based his decision on precedence set by Jefferson.

[Demosthenes11]

in most cases, a supreme court justice quotes hundreds of people and cases

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because Justice Black, unless he distinguished whatever case Rhino is citing from the first one, is simply following precedent, precedent that relied on Jefferson.

Edit: what case is it?

[zoobernut]

Because Justice Black, unless he distinguished whatever case Rhino is citing from the first one, is simply following precedent, precedent that relied on Jefferson.

Edit: what case is it?

So rather than starting in the middle lets go back, what was the original case in which Jefferson was relied on in order to make a ruling that set precedent for all other cases that followed thereby indirectly making all future cases also rely on Jefferson?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Reynolds v. US. 98 US 164 to be exact.

[zoobernut]

Except that isn't it that had nothing to do with separation of church and state as far as I understand the case. Yes it revolved around 1st amendment rights, no it isn't pertinent to this discussion. The letter from Jefferson quoted in that case had to do with the distinction between religious belief and religious action, the former being protected and the latter not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

Religious Duty argument

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.
The version of Jefferson's Danbury letter which the Court used was in fact a mistaken transcription. While the Court quoted Jefferson as writing, "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions", Jefferson's original handwriting reads "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

Or maybe I am reading it wrong I am not a law student nor a lawyer so I might have interpreted it incorrectly but it doesn't seem pertinent to this discussion, there must be an initial case revolving around the separation of church and state.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

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 man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure [Jefferson, my edit], it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment [***38] thus secured.

Sounds like he relied on Jefferson to me.

I don't think you interpreted it wrong at all. I think you just don't see how it does bring up a 1st amendment issue.

[zoobernut]

Re-read my post. I both say that he relied on Jefferson and how it relates to the 1st amendment but the scope of the 1st amendment is rather large and it talks about a very specific issue that IS NOT the separation of church and state. It specifically talks about how belief systems are protected under the 1st amendment but actions based on those beliefs are not. For example from the court case, the federal government can outlaw polygamy and prevent Mormons from practicing it even though it is part of their religious beliefs because the 1st amendment does not protect those actions just as even if human sacrifice is part of your religious beliefs you cannot go around sacrificing people.

That has no connection in my mind to this thread or the separation of church and state argument, nor was that phrase used in that case.

To reiterate in case you don't read the whole post, that case does bring up A 1st amendment issue it just doesn't bring up THE 1st amendment issue we are discussing in this thread.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't bring this case up in reference to the entire thread. I brought it up in reference to the statement that Jefferson is viewed as not persuasive when it comes to the 1st amendment.

[zoobernut]

The first ever interpretation was based on Jefferson, and thus subsequent interpretations relied on Jefferson. In your quote he even quotes Jefferson.

This is what started the conversation so I have no idea why you went off on a tangent like that. Don't be dense you know that we were talking about how the 1st amendment was interpreted that lead to the idea of separation of church and state and then I asked for the first case where that started and you gave me that so I responded with how it had nothing to do with what we were discussing, now you are trying to cop-out by saying we were discussing how Jefferson influenced the entire 1st amendment? I call BS.

The issue was and has always been in this thread about the phrase and idea of separation of church and state.

So again since you seem to become forgetful anytime anyone asks for real evidence, what was the first court case where the idea of "separation of church and state" was interpreted from the 1st amendment? Or conversely what was the first court case dealing with the "separation of church and state" where the decision was heavily reliant on Jefferson?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

To your last questions I've already answered you and I think aurik did to.

Someone said this: His latter-day interpretations of the Constitution carry less weight as he occasionally contradicted himself, had no legal right to interpret the Constitution as he was not a Supreme Court Justice, and had little intellectual right to interpret it as he had nothing to do with its creation having been in Paris for the entirety of the process.

And I said this: Except that that the entire interpretation of the establishment clause is based on him.

That's where my tangent came from.

[zoobernut]

So you are going back on what you said? The idea of "separation of church and state" which is the whole basis for this thread and all the discussions going on was not based on Jefferson?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Are we reading the same posts, my posts? I haven't contradicted anything I've said.

[zoobernut]

You are so dense sometimes it hurts my brain. Either that or you are just not wording your posts very clearly at all and not even bothering to read mine.

Are you really going to make me quote the entire thread again so you can see it in sequence without the shit posts in between?

You said:

Except that that the entire interpretation of the establishment clause is based on him.

Rhinox said:

Ah no

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."




Justice Black just mentioned Jefferson in passing. He didn't base his ruling/opinion on Jefferson writings.

Then you replied:

The first ever interpretation was based on Jefferson, and thus subsequent interpretations relied on Jefferson. In your quote he even quotes Jefferson.

Just to make sure I am on the same page, we are still talking about the phrase or idea/ruling whatever you want to call it behind "the separation of church and state".

Then I asked how using a single quote was relying on someone.

To which you replied:

Because Justice Black, unless he distinguished whatever case Rhino is citing from the first one, is simply following precedent, precedent that relied on Jefferson.

Edit: what case is it?

So now we have you saying that the idea of separation of church and state was decided by Justice Black based on precedent that relied on Jefferson.

So then I asked well what was the original case where this precedence was set that relied on Jefferson, the court case where the idea of "separation of church and state" was interpreted out of the 1st amendment.

Then you went on to quote a random ass court case that was related to the 1st amendment and related to Jefferson but did not set any precedence or have anything to do with the idea of "separation of church and state" and now here we are at present time.

I hope you are all caught up now.

So there without all the garbage posts in between is a direct contradiction between what you were saying and what you are saying now.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't understand, you put everything in the correct order and context yet it doesn't make sense to you. I suppose someone could write the alphabet of a foreign language and have no clue what it means.

That is no random ass case. I'll try and simply it for you.

1) That was the case that first laid out the idea of "separation of church and state."
2) The cited quote clearly shows the court relied on Jefferson.
3) Justice Black, unless relied on something other than precedent, thus relied on Jefferson.

If you really think that first case had nothing to with SOCS then I'm afraid this discussion is above you.

[Feedmenow]

This article makes much more sense of this debate:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-6527-christine-odonnell/

[zoobernut]

I don't understand, you put everything in the correct order and context yet it doesn't make sense to you. I suppose someone could write the alphabet of a foreign language and have no clue what it means.

That is no random ass case. I'll try and simply it for you.

1) That was the case that first laid out the idea of "separation of church and state."
2) The cited quote clearly shows the court relied on Jefferson.
3) Justice Black, unless relied on something other than precedent, thus relied on Jefferson.

If you really think that first case had nothing to with SOCS then I'm afraid this discussion is above you.

Ok stop talking down to me. You obviously fail at reading comprehension. I clearly asked in my post following how that court case laid out the idea of separation of church and state and you did nothing to explain that. I even showed that while the case did involve the 1st amendment and Jefferson it did not mention nor have anything to do with the separation of church and state. It set precedence on what type of religious related things were protected under the first amendment. I clearly laid it out for you yet you chose to ignore my posts.

Why are you being so dense?

And then when I disagree with you, instead of addressing the points I brought up you went off on some random tangent and said that wasn't what you were saying in the first place anyway, and then now you are saying it is what you were saying?

stop being schizophrenic and stick to one story.

You said:

I didn't bring this case up in reference to the entire thread. I brought it up in reference to the statement that Jefferson is viewed as not persuasive when it comes to the 1st amendment.

To which I replied, then why the hell did you bring up that court case?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So rather than starting in the middle lets go back, what was the original case in which Jefferson was relied on in order to make a ruling that set precedent for all other cases that followed thereby indirectly making all future cases also rely on Jefferson?

That's why I brought up the case.