USA Constitution and 1st Amendment (questions).

[Yeeek]

Hello CFC'ers. To be more precise, my question is reguarding the Establishment of Religions in the 1st Amendment of the USA's Constitution. Because i'm curious and I believe this is will help me to better understand Americans.

Before starting, you may be wondering why this is bugging me. I am French, therefor the principle of Laicity, separation between the state and church are part of the French Constitution and i dare to say its backbone. I cherish these values and also believe it is what make me love the Republic and its revolutionnaire heritage.

I understand why foreigners were shocked/did not understand when they heared headscarf were banned in public school. For the same reason i am shocked to hear a US President making a relation between God and his country. For instance, the simple words, God Bless America would be shocking everyone here if our President would use that phrase.

Now the question, the term laicity is not used anywhere in the Constitution but in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, it does basically says the same thing as would the principle of laicity. Why then, Religion is so important in US politics.

Also i'm wondering, if Religion has any impact in public school in the US? Prayers and the like. What about in the Army, or even at Work.

FYI: I'm actully reading With God On Their Side : George W. Bush And The Christian Right by Esther Kaplan. Quite alarming. Whats your take on GWB on this matter?

 

[Red Door]

God Bless America has been said by most US presidents, it's not a new thing. Religion was very important in the founding of America.

In Public School, there is no prayer of any such kind. There are infamous cases of kids getting in trouble for praying.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Hello CFC'ers. To be more precise, my question is reguarding the Establishment of Religions in the 1st Amendment of the USA's Constitution. Because i'm curious and I believe this is will help me to better understand Americans.

Welcome to the club. We Americans don't understand it either. Every interpretation of it is controversial - which is not to say there is no such thing as settled law in the area. One of the key tests the Supreme Court has specified is whether a law is primarily intended to promote or suppress one religion, or religion in general. If so it's unconstitutional. On the other hand politicians including the President are allowed to say whatever they want. The first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..."* - so as you can see, only laws are restricted.

*Footnote: If you think the Framers of the Constitution should have stopped after those 5 words, you might be a conservative.

 

[joycem10]

The difference is that while France does have what appears to be a much stronger version of the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," there does not appear to be a corresponding free exercise clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The headscarf thing would be a clear violation of free exercise.

I believe that the difference arise from the fact that the american colonists were concerned with being able to practice in their own manner without goverment intereference while the crafters of the French constitution were more concerned with the formation of a true secular state. Remember that many of the early American colonists were fugitives from the European religious wars and sectarian strife. They were more concerned with protecting their right to religion than from religion.

 

[.Shane.]

I believe that the difference arise from the fact that the american colonists were concerned with being able to practice in their own manner without goverment intereference while the crafters of the French constitution were more concerned with the formation of a true secular state. Remember that many of the early American colonists were fugitives from the European religious wars and sectarian strife. They were more concerned with protecting their right to religion than from religion.

That's well said. Also, keep in mind that within the 13 colonies, there were a wide-variety of religions. Some very intolerant (Puritans), some extremely so (Quakers), so I also think part of the 1st Amend is a reflection of the idea of protecting the religions from each other via government favoritism.

 

[garric]

Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion. The French people are more secular than Americans. Aside from a few loudmouth liberals no one is shocked when the president says "God Bless America", and this is coming from an atheist. I am really disappointed that my fellow atheists are all too much concerned about petty things like erasing "God" from the pledge of allegiance and arguing against Christians instead of trying to give us a better name in America.

When I see stupid things like people being with-held their diplomas for mentioning "God" in their graduation speeches, or people taking down Crosses in funerals not to offend atheists is what really offends me, ironically. No wonder no one trusts us in America.

Moderator Action: One more derogatory comment about 'liberals' and you are going to serve a long ban. You are welcome to argue against their beliefs, but that does not give you the right to call them names. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bhsup]

The intent of the 1st Amendment was not to prevent religion from being involved with politics, but rather to prevent one particular demonination of Christianity from becoming the official religion of the United States.

Remember, we'd just broken away from England, where the Church of England was the official State religion and the King was the "Defender of the Faith" (and still is...though Queen now). Bishops of the Church of England to this day get seats in the House of Lords simply by virtue of being Bishops of the Church of England.

THAT is what the establishment clause was meant to prevent. There was never supposed to be any crazy notion that Christianity as a genetic faith, rather than one specific demonination, couldn't have any bearing on our society, laws, and so forth.

 

[.Shane.]

The intent of the 1st Amendment was not to prevent religion from being involved with politics, but rather to prevent one particular demonination of Christianity from becoming the official religion of the United States.

No, its pretty clear from any simple reading of Madison or Hamilton, etc... that they wanted to exclude religion from political life. That said, they (as do I) have no problems w/ the traditional invocations of god, etc... in speeches and such. They wanted to avoid the real interference of religion into politics and vice versa.

 

[joycem10]

No, its pretty clear from any simple reading of Madison or Hamilton, etc...

Good to see you mention that. Everybody who gets all frothmouthed about constitutional issues should be forced read the Federalist papers.

 

[puglover]

In Public School, there is no prayer of any such kind. There are infamous cases of kids getting in trouble for praying.

Which is quite silly, really. Kids should be able to talk to whomever they want. It's when teachers lead kids in prayer that I cringe.

 

[ybbor]

One interesting note: for a while (decades IIRC) after the 1st amendment was passed, many states had official religions, which were perfectly legal until SCOTUS struck it down. At the time, the 1st amendment was supposed to stop a national church and only a national church.

I'm sure VRWC or someone else can provide a deeper history of this

EDIT: 5000th post

 

[Masquerouge]

I think that the biggest help to understand the differences in the religious question between France and the US is that in France, religion is part of the private sphere, while in the US it is part of the public sphere.
Thus people in France consider religion a private matter, and have for example no trouble banning it from everything that's governemental because for French people (no matter their religion) this is not where it belongs.
And people in the US are much more enclined to bring their religion on the public scene: in politics, in the institutions, in traditions, etc.

But I do not think there is a huge difference between the two countries regarding the freedom to exercise your religion. What is hard, I think, is when you go from one place to the other, like for example when people come to France from places where religion is part of the public sphere (read: muslims). The other side, say a Frenchman going to live in the US, is not a lot easier because of the weird impression to suddenly be in a theocracy.
This requires an adjustment that, like all cultural adjustments, can be painful.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Now the question, the term laicity is not used anywhere in the Constitution but in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, it does basically says the same thing as would the principle of laicity. Why then, Religion is so important in US politics.

There's a whole region of the country (the middle) that is pretty isolated and backward-thinking when it comes to this issue. They ignore the Establishment Clause when it suits them.

Also i'm wondering, if Religion has any impact in public school in the US? Prayers and the like. What about in the Army, or even at Work.

The Supreme Court struck down prayer in schools 50 years ago. It's not technically legal but there have been instances where people have used legal maneuvering to justify it, or some version of prayer. The army used to have active proselytizing on base, until very recently, when it was banned. Work is a bit trickier, because if you work for a private company, they can do anything they want, short of personal intrusion. Some people have sued in civil court for this. In my experience, religion at work is rare.

FYI: I'm actully reading With God On Their Side : George W. Bush And The Christian Right by Esther Kaplan. Quite alarming. Whats your take on GWB on this matter?

Like I said, there's a large section of the country that is very religiously minded, and taken together, amount to a lot of votes. The Republican party has done well for itself to put itself in bed with religious organizations who skate the edge of legality by supporting political candidates. Not that this is the sole reason "W" was elected, but it sure contributed.

 

[.Shane.]

One interesting note: for a while (decades IIRC) after the 1st amendment was passed, many states had official religions, which were perfectly legal until SCOTUS struck it down. At the time, the 1st amendment was supposed to stop a national church and only a national church.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment]This wiki article is pretty good...[/URL]

Yes, you are essentially correct. As is clear, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law..." This also applied to free speech issues as well. But the 14th Amendment affirmed that the federal govt. was the guarantor of civil rights, not the states, and thus, the 1st Amend was broadened in that sense.

 

[Elrohir]

Now the question, the term laicity is not used anywhere in the Constitution but in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, it does basically says the same thing as would the principle of laicity. Why then, Religion is so important in US politics.

More people are religious here than in France - thus religion plays a larger part in our politics.

As for the First Amendment thing, it guarantee's that Congress won't set up a National Church, which you must be part of or pay a penalty for - it says nothing about religious people running for office, using their religious beliefs to guide their decisions while in office, and acting like religious people. (Going to church publically, saying "God Bless America" and so forth) It's Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The 1st Amendment also means that laws cannot be passed restricting religion, so a law against headscarves and crucifixes would be as unconstitutional as a law requiring them.

 

[.Shane.]

The 1st Amendment also means that laws cannot be passed restricting religion, so a law against headscarves and crucifixes would be as unconstitutional as a law requiring them.

Yes and no. I think it would have a lot to do w/ intent and, not sure what the best word is here, obviousness of the garment.

For instance, if a school has a dress code it may well prohibit t-shirts w/ religious slogans. They may prohibit jewelry, etc... I think the point is, does the regulation specifically target or promote religion.

 

[Yeeek]

it says nothing about religious people running for office, using their religious beliefs to guide their decisions while in office, and acting like religious people

Don't you think this is just wrong?

 

[Masquerouge]

Don't you think this is just wrong?

Private sphere vs public sphere... You two are heading towards a culture clash

 

[woody60707]

it says nothing about religious people running for office, using their religious beliefs to guide their decisions while in office, and acting like religious people.

Don't you think this is just wrong?

I don’t, in fact that’s the way it should be. Who says what someone thinks is right or wrong or what the reasoning for their beliefs is when they are in office? If you said the voter, then you are right.

I think that as a voter I think it is wrong for people in office to base there decisions on some blind belief, they should do their thinking for their self, and not try to hind behind God and pray everything works out.

Now also, a person should be able to run on any platform they wish (as is protected under the 1st amendment) I also have the right to laugh at them, call them names, and not vote for them.

So it’s not about church and state, it’s about a person’s right to think and say as he wishes. As voters, if we don’t like what they say or think, we can vote for someone new.