3 ms·

"The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”"

b112 3y ago
Unless you are agreeing with me, I will suspect that you don't get the point of this part of the amendment. It's about hands off. Understand, the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. The church came first, not state. Again, just describing how we got here.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I am not an american, but I understand it as a clear intended separation of state and church. So also no privileges especially for churches.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    no government interference in people's private religious choices or life, so that has been interpreted as no taxation of churches. But churches can't commit ritual murder or anything.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. Henry VIII would like a word.
  - b112 3y ago
    He became the head of both church and state, they were still separate.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      No they weren't! That's what the Americans were rebelling against and specifically wrote the church-state separation to prevent. The result was both Crown control over the appointment of bishops, bishops having temporal legislative power in the House of Lords, and (relevant to this story) the seizure and in some cases destruction of basically all Church property. The UK then spent hundreds more years fighting over this relationship. People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-to-allow-catholics-to-marry-the-monarch-2011-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t... The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)
- mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
  Technically the religious organization in question came after the US was formed and had 23 states.
fsckboy 3y ago
"establishment" means declaring a religion as being "the" state religion, as the Church of England is (or at least was) for the UK, or the Orthodox Church in eastern European kingdoms. it's not about, for example, a charter for a new religion you'd like to found.
solatic 3y ago
"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  So does the prohibition of ritual murder. (Some of the more extreme Asatru for example do feel limited.) When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden. So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.
  - wanttocomment 3y ago
    Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.
      - wanttocomment 3y ago
        Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't. The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.

b112 3y ago

Unless you are agreeing with me, I will suspect that you don't get the point of this part of the amendment. It's about hands off. Understand, the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. The church came first, not state. Again, just describing how we got here.

hutzlibu 3y ago
I am not an american, but I understand it as a clear intended separation of state and church. So also no privileges especially for churches.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  no government interference in people's private religious choices or life, so that has been interpreted as no taxation of churches. But churches can't commit ritual murder or anything.
pjc50 3y ago
> the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. Henry VIII would like a word.
- b112 3y ago
  He became the head of both church and state, they were still separate.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    No they weren't! That's what the Americans were rebelling against and specifically wrote the church-state separation to prevent. The result was both Crown control over the appointment of bishops, bishops having temporal legislative power in the House of Lords, and (relevant to this story) the seizure and in some cases destruction of basically all Church property. The UK then spent hundreds more years fighting over this relationship. People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-to-allow-catholics-to-marry-the-monarch-2011-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t... The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)
mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
Technically the religious organization in question came after the US was formed and had 23 states.

fsckboy 3y ago

"establishment" means declaring a religion as being "the" state religion, as the Church of England is (or at least was) for the UK, or the Orthodox Church in eastern European kingdoms. it's not about, for example, a charter for a new religion you'd like to found.

solatic 3y ago

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.

hutzlibu 3y ago
So does the prohibition of ritual murder. (Some of the more extreme Asatru for example do feel limited.) When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden. So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.
- wanttocomment 3y ago
  Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.
    - wanttocomment 3y ago
      Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't. The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.