Simple question: 47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?

I think that the answer to this depends on whether or not the United States Constitution applies to the states or not. If not, then it's perfectly OK for a state to declare anything it wants.

If the United States Constitution applies to the states as well, then the answer to this depends on how narrowly you apply the First Amendment:



If you take this in the most literal sense, then anything is OK as long as Congress doesn't do it. That means that states can do it, and the President can do it, and so on.

If you don't take this in the most literal sense, then you have to decide how far the separation of church and state should go. As far as I am concerned, the separation should be absolute.

It's a moot point, since the chance of changing the state constitutions to make them religiously neutral is zero. Church and state have become snarled like a nest of vipers in this nation. Trying to keep people from adding even more snakes to the pit takes all the work that the Good Guys can do.

If you take this in the most literal sense the mention of God does not "respect an establish establishment of religion." Which religion is named God. I not the "creator" equal to God. And do not all of our constitutional rights come from the Creator according to the constitution? I know of no religion named God so no religion was established.

One factor here are the original reasons the first Amendment wanted to prevent Congress (lawmaking power of federal government) from making any laws regarding the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof. Foremost was probably not wanting the federal government to get entangled in the kind of religious debates and oppression that occasionally happened in Europe.

But the secondary reason was to keep the US government out of how the states were handling religion-- the same men who passed the first amendment had drafted state constitutions and laws invoking the Christian God and allowing churches and synagogues to meet in state-owned buildings. By their actions, it would seem that the original intent of religious protections in the first amendment was more a states-rights issue, preventing the central government from overruling anything the states wanted to do with regard to religion.

Also, the phrase "impenetrable wall of separation between church and state" is not in the Constitution, but in a letter Jefferson wrote in support of the idea that governmental bodies should be able to meet in church buildings, and church groups should be able to meet in government buildings, so long as the business of the church and the business of the state were not conducted simultaneously or allowed undue influence over one another. By his own actions, Jefferson did not seem to mind governmental bodies being frequently led in prayer during the course of their deliberations.

If any modern viewpoints think the separation of church and state should be something stricter than Jefferson's original context of that phrase, then they should own up to the fact that their viewpoint is something modern and new that the founding fathers would have steadfastly opposed. Many of the founding fathers supported slavery, so obviously they weren't perfect in light of modern values, and it would be a legitimate argument that the founding fathers were as wrong about infusing government deliberations with prayer as they were about continuing the tradition of slavery in America.

What I object to is this trend in revisionist history that attempts to imply the founding fathers would not have approved of politicians quoting from the bible or placing religious symbols in prominent places in public buildings-- in fact, the founders loved that sort of thing, even placing bibles in every desk-- whether they were right or wrong by doing such things is a separate issue, probably discussed in a separate thread.

Whether state constitutions are "unconstitutional" in this regard would depend on the interpretational philosophy.

A strict constructionist might argue that it would not be unconstitutional even if the state of Vermont were to declare all its citizens must become Catholic or move away, because the first Amendment limits the Congress (federal lawmakers) and not the states-- to overrule such a measure would be making "a law respecting [on the topic of] the establisment of religion" and thus unconstitutional.

A textualist might begin with the text and see how tradition has changed it over the years, and would not support a state actually forcing people to accept partiticular religious beliefs, but so long as there is no punishment prescribed against those who choose to abstain from invokations of religion by state documents or state officials, then no establishment has taken place, and the "free exercise thereof" must be preserved.

A "living Constitution" promoter could say anything they wanted to, because the words and meaning of the Constitution is completely irrelevant to them, and if they are Supreme Court Justices, then they see their role as benevolent dictators of law-- the Constitution says whatever they say it says, not what it actually says. So, such justices could go to one extreme to give primacy to free exercise of religion such that nothing qualifies as establishment, or they could go to the other extreme and say every hint of spirituality qualifies as establishment and nothing qualifies as free exercise with regard to public officials. They can interpret the word "Congress" as "states" willy-nilly when such an interpretation suits their whims, and then also say that sometimes "Congress" really just means "Congress," and some powers granted exclusively to "states" in the Constitution are really granted to the Supreme Court.

In my own opinion, I don't think official prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court says I'm wrong because I actually read the Constitution instead of reading the minds of SCOTUS. I think the original intent of the First Amendment was to allow state legislators to do whatever they saw fit regarding the establishment of religion without interrerence from Congress (federal lawmakers), so I don't see any problem with state constitutions mentioning God, but that also comes from actually reading the Constitution-- were I to try to read the minds of SCOTUS instead of the Constitution, I have seen them overrule God so often that seem to think their word is more important than God's. A guy named Lucifer tried that once. Didn't turn out too well for him, as I recall.

Simple question: 47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?
Reference to a creator does not explicitly establish a state religion. Also, while the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states, I don't believe a constitutional reference itself is sufficient to prove a violation. There would have to be legislation codifying a practice related to it in (ie, school prayer) order for it to violate the establishment clause.

Doc

I agree with those that said that the constitution can't be read to have been intended to mean that any reference to God must be excluded from state constitutions. It does not establish a religion and it is not a law of Congress. That said, other things have been found to be unconstitutional that don't fall within that definition, I think.



The other thing that strikes me as interesting about this is that the debate is about whether the references to God are constitutional or not, rather than whether they are a good thing in themselves or whether they are harmful. The latter question is obviously more important, because it goes straight to the heart of the issue, whereas discussing constitutionality deals with the issue from a step removed. That's why I think the UK is very lucky not to have a written constitution. We can avoid clouding the issue with discussions over what the founding fathers would or would not have wanted, or what they really meant. Our constitution is still alive and breathing, and evolving. I don't mean that to be a criticism of one of the greatest documents ever put together, but I think that constitutions do need to be treated as what they really are, which is tools for the regulation of the society in which people live today. They aren't sacred.

"Creator" does not necessarily mean God. Atheists, for example, believe that human beings were created by natural processes.

But the term "endowed by their Creator" implies that the creator is not a natural process, wouldn't you agree?

Now to the question a la main...That's at hand for all you uncultured types

No, because stating God does not:

1. Establish any specific religion nor promote any one specific religion.
2. Abridge the practice of a religion.

There is essentially no legal case to be made that one could make against these Constitutions.

CP

Well, the 1st states that "Congress shall make no law..." etc. concerning religion. Since another part of the Constitution says that all Federal laws must be passed by Congress (and signed by the Prez), that means the Fed govt can't make a law respecting an establisment of religion or prohibiting free exercise.

And it says nothing about what the State or local govts can or can't do. Meaning, no, it is not unconstitutional for the States to mention God in their own constitutions or other state laws.

In fact, when the U.C. Constitution and the BOR were enacted, several states had official state religions - Massachusetts, Maryland, and I believe Connecticut to name a few. The 1st amendment was deliberately worded as to not upset this - to let the states keep or abolish their religions as they wished.

Well, since there seems to be pretty much unanimous consent that the state constitutions don't "establish religion", under the logic at hand, how does the LA county seal establish religion? How does a posting of the 10 Commandments establish religion? How does the Pledge of Allegiance establish religion?

Some of these constitutions charge the citizenry to seek God's guidance, and one declares it to be the citizen's duty to treat one another with "Christian forbearance, charity and love"

That seems to be pretty explicit to me. None of this namby pamby "supreme being" stuff, that's Christian, and it is an explicit directive contained within the state's Constitution to behave in a fashion defined by a specific religion.

The original litmus test for establishment was punishment. If there was no law saying the state would lock you up, flog you or fine you unless you abide by religious practice X, Y, or Z, then there was no establishment of religion, by its original and reasonable definition. Everything short of punishment was protected by the free exercise clause-- if you didn't like other people praying in front of you, you were free not to participate and to express your displeasure in any proper forum, so long as you didn't actively try to stop it or to get government to stop it on your behalf.

But courts these days dictate law, as a result making establishment mean whatever suits their fancy-- particularly if it turns a traditional interpretation on its ear. If you look at recent court rulings, we can see how the courts are defining establishment v. free exercise...

( 1 ) a religion is not to be considered established unless that religion is Christianity. For example, schoolteachers are allowed to wear symbols of Judaism, Islam and Hinduism to school, but not a Christian cross. The idea that any other religion might be "established" is completely riddiculous and must be laughed at.

( 2 ) on-duty employees of any government institution (or any business that contracts with government institutions) cannot express anything resembling Christianity (including the ten Jewish commandments) without running afoul of the establishment clause-- but if they are exercising any other religion on the job, it is protected by the free exercise clause.

( 3 ) if an alleged action or symbol typical of Christianity makes at least one person "feel" oppressed enough to complain, that action must be considered either establishment or hate speech, but certainly not free exercise, regardless of whether or not actual oppression is taking place. It is not important whether anyone is actually forcing someone else to actively participate in religion under penalty of punishment-- what is important is whether someone "feels" victimized-- unless of course the alleged victim is a Christian complaining about some other religion, in which case the alleged victim is one of the oppressors anyway and as such her allegations cannot be taken seriously-- she must "buck it up" and stay after school to write "sticks and stones" on the chalkboard a hundred times until they learn some religious sensitivity.

( 4 ) if the ACLU has not already gone to the trouble to trump up charges against something that might seem to qualify as establishment under #1-3, then it is only a matter of time until they do-- and as soon as the ACLU does allege establishment, the courts get out their rubber stamps, so you might as well not fight it at that point.

( 5 ) the only exception is when there are holes in the case so obvious that there might be other implications to the decision beyond restricting the free exercise of Christianity-- for example, if the charges are brought by a father who does not have custody of his daughter, and the daughter and her legal guardian do not actually "feel" offended, then the courts will tell the ACLU to come back with a better plaintiff, preferably before the ink on the rubber stamp dries up.

all said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Not only are state constitutions subject to our constitution- federal law trumps state constitutions as well.

Getting away from the religious argument- in Alaska- federal law dictates rural preference for game permits. Alaskan constitution, provides for equal access to all Alaskan citizens- equal access to all game resources.

Our portion of the state constitution that provided for equality was challenged by a native lady in Katie John Vs State of Alaska

So, anytime the feds want to challenge a state constitution, it can be done and the state is subserviant to the feds.

So I guess it is just a matter of IF it is challenged, and IF the USSC decides it is uncontitutional.

Unless the U.S. Constitution says otherwise. Which it does.

Congress can make no law about religion. Says so right there in the 1st amendment. And the 10th says that the states can exercise any power not assigned to the Fed by the Const. Unless the Cosnt also forbids the states to have it, which is DOESN'T for religion laws.

So, states (in their constitutions or in state laws) can make laws about religion, and the Fed is powerless to stop them.

To my knowledge, no states currently do that. The minor mentions of God etc. obviously don't count. But if a state wanted to, it could even declare that "The official religion of Utah is Mormon" or something like that. I doubt Utah will say that, of course, but it's not illegal. Keep in mind that, when the 1st amendment was ratified, several states back then DID have official state religions. And the 1st was carefully worded so that they could go on having them. It's just the Federal government that's forbidden from assigning an official religion to the entire country or any part of it; or prohibiting free exercise etc.

Frozny, your attempts to "neutralize" the texts of the states' constitutions fails. "Almighty God", "the Creator", "Providence" are all both proper nouns (meaning that they refer to either specific people or places, or events) and derive specifically from Judeo-Christian terminology. If Lord Baltimore had referred to the Blessed Mother, I know from simple history that he ain't talking about Gaia, he's talking about the Virgin Mary. Historical and cultural context leave no other reasonable option, especially when other writings of the period are considered, and the same can be said for the references to God in the states' constitutions. The only state constitution that is ambiguous is Hawaii's, because it was adopted so recently, and Hawaii has maintained some of its own indigineous religious heritage. Thus, "Divine Guidance" could be interpreted either to refer to the Judeo-Christian God, aka Almighty God, or it could refer to any of the myriad of Hawaiian gods.

Ol' Sarge, the endowment of our inalienable rights by our Creator is addressed in the Declaration of Indpendence, not the Constitution.

No. Many, if not all State Constitutions include a Declaration of Rights that includes an Establishment Clause of sorts. Utah, for example, has a Religious Liberty Clause that is much more explicit in its separation of Church and State:

Utah State Constitution: Article I, Sec. 4 - Religious Liberty


This is why Texas can't display the Ten Commandments at a Capitol Building:

Texas State Constitution - Bill of Rights: Article I, Sec. 7


There is, however, nothing in the Kentucky State Constitution that prevents them from posting copies of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

For starters, Texans usually pass about 5-10 constitutional amendments per election, so even if what you said were true it is no big deal.

Second, your interpretation of this is odd. Name for me the specific sect, group, society or seminary that beneifits from posting the Ten Commandments to the exclusion of all others? There is none. Judeo-Christianism does not fit into any of those categories-- a specific sect, group, society or seminary of Judaism or Christianity might, but not the whole shebang.

The portion you italicized simply means that neither state money nor state property can be given to benefit a specific religious institution or denomination. What is really at issue here are institutions like Baylor University, TCU and ACU. They have to get their own land, facilities and funding without help from the state because they are run by particular sects of Christianity.

Even if you are right and I am wrong about this, most proposed amendments to the Texas constitution pass when they are seen as benign. The following state constitutional amendment would pass in Texas in a heartbeat:

"The Governor's office shall determine which religious displays are appropriate on state property, and the cities shall have the right to display religious decorations and symbols deemed appropriate to the season, provided no state money or property is used in trade for said decorations and no punishment is prescribed for failure to participate in decorations."

Such an amendment would not even require striking the other one, this one just makes it clear the other one can't be inappropriately used to banish generic religious symbolism fundamental to the heritage of our state and nation. We elect a Buddhist Governor, we get Buddhist decorations. Elect an atheist governor, get no decorations, or some kind of modern art scuptures. Most often, elect a Governor interested in giving the people what they want, and you get menorahs and nativity scenes in winter months, and everybody is happy.

Oh, I see I must've been missing the part where it says specific sect and exclusion of all others. Sorry, my confusion. Oh, wait. It doesn't say specific sect... it says any sect and it doesn't say to the exclusion of all others. And while Judeo-Christianism may not be a sect in and of itself, but it is comprised of sects. If any of these sects are benefitted -- and it doesn't have to be just one, the display violates this article. There is no mention that the benefit has to be preferential to a particular sect.

While it may be no big deal in the future, it is a big deal now. So the Texans will pass an amendment, who cares? I just stated that the display, as the Texas Constitution exists at the moment, is unconstitutional.

True enough-- you took the bait. My inserted phrases are implied-- if not, then certain tax-exemptions are unconstitutional, and to go to an extreme, even the clean air act is unconstitutional because sectarians breath air, so any anti-pollution act benefits sects and must therefore be declared unconstitutional. Unless my inserted qualifications are assumed, the measure is either a non-sequitur or makes any law unconstitutional that is beneficial to the people, certainly an unintended consequence. Therefore, a tighter interpretation must be implied.



That you did. And I just stated your opinion is not the predominant one here in Texas, that it is not the only interpretation of the measure you quoted, and if a state court agrees with you, the people can easily overrule the court's assertion, so the point with regard to Texas is mostly moot. I assume your simultaneous points about Utah and Kentucky are probably right on the money, as far as I know-- I'm not so familiar with those states.

Of course, I am beginning to divert from the larger issues of whether state constitutions currently defy the federal constitution with regard to establishment of religion, or which measures would constitute an establishment of religion. On that point, I believe, in the abstract, that where there is no punishment there is no establishment (even if such defies the current body of law on the issue). Anyone disagree, or is that also a topic for another thread?

Of course. As I said, the states are free to enact such a thing if they desire. And they are also free to enact a law mandating a certain religion if they desire.

The fact that most states don't do it, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it if they ever change their minds.

My point is (in reply to the original debate question), that if a state had a constitution that said, "Southern Baptist is the official religion of this state", it would not be unconstitutional. And states that actually do mention God or The Creator or etc. in their Constitutions, are also not in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Some tax-exemptions might be unconstitutional and without specifics I don't see how it applies to this subject. Why would the clean air act be unconstitutional? No one sect or group of sects gain more from clean air than any others would, nor is that the motive behind the clean air act. It benefits people not religions.

Bait... I see. You got me alright... and when exactly did the air we breathe become State property? I understand the idea of airspace... if the Government started flying banners on the backs of planes stating, "Jesus is your savior!" I could see your point and, yes, that would in fact be unconstitutional; but the air itself does not belong to the State. Your example is completely absurd. You'd have to give me an example regarding the tax-exemptions, because I'm not familiar with exactly what you are referring to here.



I see... yes, the Federal Government can't do anything to stop the States from making laws regarding religion (unless such a law violates the 14th Amendment). But, my point is that State Governments are not allowed to simply enact any law regarding religion that they want, they have their own Constitutions to contend with. You stated that Utah could establish the Mormon Church as the State religion if it wanted to, but this simply isn't true. It violates the State's Constitution. Yes, the citizens of the State could vote to remove the establishment clause, but the State can't just bypass it, if it wants to. The citizens of the United States could also push to get the establishment clause repealed from the US constitution as well, but the Feds couldn't just decide to get rid of it if it felt the desire to do so.. That was the point I was trying to make.

My point is this. The Texas measure limits things that benefit specific sects, etc., not large categories of citizens that don't qualify as anything the measure listed, but simply contain many groups that might qualify as something from the list. There are people who are not religious but who understand that the Ten Commandments are part of the heritage of western civilization. In addition, the general population contains sects, so anything that benefits the general population benefits sects-- just because something is perceived to benefit a segment of the population that contains sects is not the same thing as directly benefiting a sect.

The point might be made with a Venn diagram or set theory. If you draw circle A representing the general population, within it a circle B representing those who consider the Ten Commandments to be part of the historical tradition of Texas as a product of western civilization, and within circle B, more circles (X,Y,Z) representing various religious groups, the question is which circles are prevented from benefitting from government activities? The Texas constitution says, in effect, that no one who is a member of X, Y, or Z can get direct benefits from the government based on their membership in those circles... Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are implying that to avoid benefitting X, Y, or Z, we also can't benefit any circle containing X, Y, and Z-- particularly circle B (people to think Ten Commandments are important to heritage of western civilization). I am pointing out that circle A (the general population) also contains X, Y, and Z-- so at some point it presumably becomes unreasonable to exclude all supersets containing X, Y and Z from benefiting from state funds/property. In the absense of clear definitions of which sets outside of X, Y, or Z are reasonable to exclude from access to state funds or property, it would seem (to me) that the only reasonable thing to do is to exclude ONLY X, Y and Z directly, and let everything else be open to receiving access to state money or state property, including the members of set/circle B.

The examples I cited (tax exemptions, protections against pollution) were just random examples from the category of "things that benefit everyone, including sects," and might be unconstitutional under a broad interpretation of the language of the Texas measure you cited. Going into any detail on such examples would be way off-topic and beside the point.

Let me see if I can explain my position without sounding like a hayseed from WV. Background of the “creator” as it applies to our constitution is as follows: There was “The Church” (Catholic Church) and then one day, actually 31 Oct. 1517 this guy Martin Luther decides “the church” is charging admission to heaven and causes the creation of a bunch of Protestant denominations. If you have traveled to Germany you will know that Martin Luther is a heck of a lot better known than Martin Luther King Jr. is here in America. Another point of fact is the Catholic Church was in partnership with the government in the collection of taxes to build the place the US President is visiting as I write. So to put things in perspective if it were today the same you would pay all the taxes you now pay plus be assessed tax for “the church”. “The Church” and “the churches” created by Luther had all “the books”. You could not get an education outside of the church period. So this church educated guy John Locke created a writing based “Of the State of Nature.” http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm You only have to read a few paragraphs of his writings to see the religious secular guy talks about God, the Lord Almighty as the basis for “nature’s law” of man’s rights. These words are mirrored in the Declaration of Independence and are said to be the basis of the Bill of Rights. So I say the “Creator” is the base of our civil rights even though a religious secular guy offered up the idea. I compare the secular thinking to a scholar seeing the impact of “the church” pairing up with government and the fighting Luther caused with the break up and see the philosopher actually believes in “God” as a base for rights but thinks it just isn’t wise to choose to have “either church choice” inside of the government. The guy likes the community moral values the collection of “churches” brings but the fear of history restricts acknowledging any trunk or branch on the tree. Yet, God is the basis for the Bill of Rights and the moral values in our Christian Nation.

Texas Constitution - Article 1 - Section 7

What are you talking about Jack22? The Ten Commandments are part of western history and are shown during history in public schools. But hanging the Ten Commandments up in a court room, which is the example offered earlier in this debate, clearly respects one group over another. I do agree that this part of the Texas Constitution isn't meant to exclude any group that contains members of a religion, it just makes sure no religion can gain state resources.

Entspeak,

Perhaps you could clarify how the posting of the 10 Commandments "benefits" any sect, religious society, theological or religious seminary? Furthermore, does benefit to the public as a whole have any weight? This is important, because if I read your logic correctly, it is unconstitutional in Texas for the fire department to respond to a fire at Dallas Theological Seminary, because doing so would specifically benefit that seminary.

Putting a fire out prevents it from spending and hurting people. This isn't a matter of what type of building it is in. And posting the Ten Commandments benefits a certain sect by showing that it of all the religions out there is the one allowed on the courts walls.

Let me see if I can explain my position without sounding like a hayseed from WV. Background of the “creator” as it applies to our constitution is as follows: There was “The Church” (Catholic Church) and then one day, actually 31 Oct. 1517 this guy Martin Luther decides “the church” is charging admission to heaven and causes the creation of a bunch of Protestant denominations. If you have traveled to Germany you will know that Martin Luther is a heck of a lot better known than Martin Luther King Jr. is here in America. Another point of fact is the Catholic Church was in partnership with the government in the collection of taxes to build the place the US President is visiting as I write. So to put things in perspective if it were today the same you would pay all the taxes you now pay plus be assessed tax for “the church”. “The Church” and “the churches” created by Luther had all “the books”. You could not get an education outside of the church period. So this church educated guy John Locke created a writing based “Of the State of Nature.” http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm You only have to read a few paragraphs of his writings to see the religious secular guy talks about God, the Lord Almighty as the basis for “nature’s law” of man’s rights. These words are mirrored in the Declaration of Independence and are said to be the basis of the Bill of Rights. So I say the “Creator” is the base of our civil rights even though a religious secular guy offered up the idea. I compare the secular thinking to a scholar seeing the impact of “the church” pairing up with government and the fighting Luther caused with the break up and see the philosopher actually believes in “God” as a base for rights but thinks it just isn’t wise to choose to have “either church choice” inside of the government. The guy likes the community moral values the collection of “churches” brings but the fear of history restricts acknowledging any trunk or branch on the tree. Yet, God is the basis for the Bill of Rights and the moral values in our Christian Nation.

The problem is you are reading more into the measure than is there. I don't know what you think taking money from the Treasury to benefit religious organizations has to do with tax exemptions or protections against pollution and I certainly don't know what it has to do with land belonging to the State. It seems your interpretation is the broad one. You can draw as many diagrams as you like, it doesn't change the language of the amendment.



Whoa! Is there some language in this amendment I am missing here? You'll have to explain this one to me. How exactly, does this situation (reading my logic correctly) violate this amendment?

Simple. Government resources have been expended that benefit only that religious seminary. If Negative2K99's perspective was correct under your interpretatin, the fire department would simply show up and "monitor" the situation, attacking the fire only if it threatens non-seminary property. How much you wanna bet that's not what happens?

What's even worse is that the seminary pays no property taxes to fund the fire department...

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to appropriating money from the Treasury in order to fund the Fire Department -- whose job is to put out fires. Seems to me the money was appropriated to fund the Fire Department... not to "benefit any sect, etc." The benefit to the religious seminary comes out of the Fire Department doing its appointed job -- putting out a fire -- and not as a direct result of the appropriation of funds from the Treasury.

Closest thing I can think of as a precedent for this distinction off the top of my head would be the US Supreme Court case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. It dealt with school vouchers and the Establishment Cause. It may not fit perfectly for this argument, but the reasoning is close enough to make the distinction clear.

Here, let me requote my reply: "The examples I cited (tax exemptions, protections against pollution) were just random examples from the category of 'things that benefit everyone, including sects,' and might be unconstitutional under a broad interpretation of the language of the Texas measure you cited. Going into any detail on such examples would be way off-topic and beside the point." There's my answer. Maybe I haven't done the best job of explaining why the words you quoted are completely irrelevant with regard to posting the ten commandments, but I gave it my best shot.



Fine. The language of the amendment means exactly what it says, therefore it does not make displaying the Ten Commandments unconstitutional because the ten commandments have interest beyond the types of religious organizations mentioned. We have explained our opinions and apparently we disagree. I'm okay with that.

Hey... If the monument only displayed commandments 6 - 10 (possibly 5), I'd agree with ya. But it doesn't. The US Supreme Court has, in the court room itself, a statue of moses holding the tablets without text at all. Sitting in there among the other statues, it is clear that it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.

However, in Texas you have a monument on State land which has the Judeo-Christian words, "I am the Lord thy God... Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." -- at a State Capitol Building. That clearly violates the State Constitution.

It clearly does not. To revisionist historians, maybe your distinction is important. If the ten commandments have any historical significance, it clearly comes from what they say-- censoring the words reduces them from being historically significant to being relatively meaningless artwork. Might as well start a book-burning drive against history books that mention religion.

Does the state's constitution say there will be no mention of God on state land? Nope. Says the state can't give property or money to a religious sect, group, seminary, etc. Nothing in there about writing words on monuments or actively censoring any hint of religion out of history.

Wow, first we're adding language... now we're subtracting language. Appropriating State property or State funds from the Treasury for the purpose of benefitting any sect, now merely means that they can't give property or money to them. That's rich. And as long as the State only leases cars for ministers of Judeo-Christian faiths to drive, it isn't unconstitutional because the cars don't belong to the state and they aren't giving them money.

Well, something good is coming out of this exchange: I am actually beginning to understand how Bush got re-elected.

At least you're admitting to it.



Giving need not imply a transfer of ownership complete with deed or TTL. You apparently don't understand the Texas Constitution the way it's worded, so I was summarizing it for you in other words. Fairly common technique.



Well, this is starting to get personal. Are you accusing me of being a Bushie? I voted Libertarian, not that it matters-- Bush had Texas electoral votes locked up anyway. And anonther good thing coming out of it is proof of slippery-slope arguments-- pass an amendment to prevent the state from sponsoring religious organizations, and next thing you know, fascist atheist extremists are using it to censor history.

Where there is no punishment, there is no establishment. Any other interpretation violates the free exercise clause.

Perhaps, I should've used an emoticon, because when I said we, I meant you.


I am learning that it is common here on AD. That doesn't mean that it's valid here or anywhere else. Your interpretation allows for the appropriation of State property for the benefit of a sect, just so long as it doesn't "punish". What exactly in the language allows that?

Sorry, my final statement switched constitutions-- I was referring to the first amendment of the US Constitution, hoping to help guide conversation back to the idea of whether religious measures in state constitutions are violating the US Constitution.

And my interpretation of the Texas constitution does not allow for the appropriation of State property for the benefit of a sect, unless of course that benefit is a side-effect of benefitting non-sectarian interests, such as history.

I don't think the Texas constitution as it is worded (see the legal definition of "appropriation") can be stretched to presume censorship of history or words on monuments. You disagree. Fine. Let's move on, as others have suggested, to which activities permitted by states might violate the US Constitution, which has an establishment clause and a free exercise clause with regard to religion-- my assertion is that where there is no punishment, there is no establishment-- to interpret establishment otherwise tends to violate the free exercise clause. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, as I am sure others do.

Perhaps we can move past the side issue over specific measures in the Texas constitution, and talk about the more general case of how the US Constitution should be applied to real or hypothetical state constitutions or laws that touch religious issues and might run afoul of the First Amendment.

By way of transition, let's assume that there is some state (state 1) whose constitution very specifically prohibits any hint of religion on state monuments, regardless of any perceived historical significance. Let's also assume for the sake of debate that there is some other state (state 2) whose constitution mandates that a removable plaque of the ten commandments be posted in every state courtroom, but that a judge may temporarily hide it or cover it at her disgression. Is either of these hypothetical states in violation of the US Constitution? Are they both in violation? Is neither in violation?

Applying my assertion that "where there is no punishment, there is no establishment," then even if one interprets the 14th amendment such that makes the terms "Congress" and "States" interchangeable (I don't, BTW), the second state is not violating the establishment clause because it doesn't prescribe any punishment for failure to participate in religion-- therefore the free exercise clause kicks in to prevent state 2's constitution from being declared unconstitutional on grounds of establishment.

If the 14th does not make the words "States" and "Congress" interchangeable, then neither state's constitution runs afoul of the First Amendment-- states can do what they will with regard to religion, so long as they don't prevent people (including politicians) from exercising their religious beliefs-- removing references to God from public property violates no religion that I'm aware of-- only when done against the rule of law for purposes of censorship does it become a problem-- a secular "free expression" problem, not a religious one.

If the people of a state really want their state to be completely sanitized of any references to religion, even in historical context, and they make it happen voliciously through participatory democratic processes, no problem-- so long as liberty is preserved for every individual, including people in public roles, to continue to exercise their religious beliefs, including evangelism, to the same extent all other free expression is protected, without fear of punishment by the state.

More specifically, hypothetically speaking, if entspeak's interpretation of the Texas constitution is accurate enough that everyone in Texas (except me) agrees that it means what he says it means and adopted it with the explicit intention of removing all possible references to theism from state property, then I really wouldn't have a problem with that-- the will of the People would have spoken. I only take issue with entspeak's interpretation because it seems to stretch the language to imply something that Texans have routinely voted against whenever given the chance, so I suspect any explicit "thou shalt not post the ten commandments on state property" amendment would be as soundly rejected in Texas as gay marriage, and that the Texas constitution does not mean what entspeak thinks it means-- but I could be wrong.

Still, I think most federal declarations of unconstitutionality under the establishment clause, such as the forced removal of the Alabama monument from public view, are at the very least unwarranted violations of the free exercise clause, and probably also of the part of the First Amendment that prohibits Congress (federal lawmakers which now includes legislating jurists and promelgating bureaucrats) from interfering with (making no law respecting) the establishment of religion, which was a state's rights issue at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Nonetheless, if my hypothetical state 2 still exists and its constitution challenged in court, then I believe the current Supreme Court would find such a state constitution in violation of the establishment clause, not because the US Constitution really says or means that religion should be censored from government property, but because the current Supreme Court believes they have the authority to dictate, rather than interpret, the meaning of the Constitution, even in violation of what the US Constitution really says and means.

No argument from me here, although John Calvin and all them Swiss might be annoyed with being left out of your history, along with a slew of others who participated in both the Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation. I was simply pointing out that the origin of our rights is not addressed in the Constitution. Of course, why should they be, if they're "self evident"? (BTW, unlike some around here, I hold that the Declaration of Independence is our founding document, our "title", the Constitution is simply the owner's manual.)

They do mention a god, there's no doubt about that. I suppose that in a strict sense, the wording of "God" or "creator" in itself is unsonstitutional and is something that should be recognized as being as such. The founders did not create the perfect government at one time(slavery was legal) and we should perhaps see that references to "god" are imperfections of a people whose societal attachments blemish the principle of a neutral government religion wise, and it's our duty to make sure the referee of society, that being government, is not partial towards those who are religious as opposed to the unreligious.

From the Alabama Constitution's preamble:


Arizona's:


Arkansas:



Connecticut:



Apparently, Alaska's constitution has it right and this is how they should read to be constitutional IMHO.


I would be in favor of a legal challenge on the grounds of the establishment clause and just about every state's preamble. In my opinion, they do violate the federal constitution. I would like to see other states rewrite theirs to resemble Alaska's.

If the state constitutions are unconstitutional for mentioning God, then isn't the Declaration of Independence also unconstitutional for mentioning God-- even more specifically, invoking "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as being higher than the laws of government?

But there's one huge problem with declaring the Declaration (and documents echoing it) unconstitutional. In the legal code, the Declaration is higher than the Constitution. Why? It lists the circumstances under which even a constitutional government can be dissolved, for violating higher laws that exist whether or not nations choose to recognize them.

Thus, any challenge to the state constitutions for echoing the Declaration are doomed to fail, because if such challenges were to succeed, they would begin to create that awful situation in which the Declaration, rather than the Constitution, would indicate the more appropriate course of action-- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"-- the situation that the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent, at least on the level that was implied in 1776.

Ask yourself this question before assuming that the first amendment prevents state or local governments from establishing religion-- if the pilgrims were in the Mayflower sailing toward America today seeking religious liberty, would they stop at Plymouth Rock, or would they pass up the U.S. and try Brazil, instead? In the US, it would be illegal for them to protect the rights of unborn children to live, so the US no longer offers the kind of religious liberty they were seeking.

The pilgrims' idea of religious freedom was the liberty for local communities to establish their own moral standards without interference from a central government (beyond minimal protection from harm). That concept gave birth to our broader concepts of liberty, human rights, independence from Britain, federalism, democratic-republicanism, and more.

Attempting to rip the Declaration (and all state constitutions that echo it) out from under American government would be like attempting to rip a tablecloth out from under an elaborate setting of dishes-- perhaps some folks have faith that it is possible, but more likely than not, it would result in far more harm than good.

Oooookay.
Well, first... The Declaration of Independence was written well before there was a Constitution, and therefore, could not be considered unconstitutional.

Second, it is a historical legal document with no current legal effect. This is not to say that it is irrelevant; I mean only to say that it was created with a very specific purpose: to declare independence from Britain. That done, the document becomes precedent and that is all. State Constitutions, however, have a continuing legal effect, they are currently viable legal documents. As such, they are subject to the 1st Amendment.

Do these state constitutions violate the 1st Amendment by simply mentioning God? Not unless the intention is to respect the establishment of a religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thanking the Almighty, or Almighty God, or God, or Mickey Mouse in a State Constitution is certainly not respecting the establishment of a religion, nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of a religious belief.

The Declaration has two parts-- the first part voices general principles, the second applies those general principles to a specific situation. The application of general principles to a specific situation does not nullify the general principles as soon as the specific situation is past. Make no mistake-- all the general principles mentioned in the Declaration remain in full effect, and no government has the right to strike them down.

In this we are agreed.

Aside from members of the ACLU I cannot imagine anyone who would think so. The word "God" does not entirely endorse any one religion or sect over the other. Notice that they do not cite the Christian God Jehovah, the state Constitutions say the word "God". It does not say Allah, it does not say the Force, it does not say Mother Earth, it simply mentions an entity with power mortals do not. Religion is a focus of one of these figures. "God" is broad-termed and does not violate the First Amendment.


How about I say "people should be thrown in prison"? Should the question arise about my intentions toward one type of people, say African Americans or Asians? "People" is meant under the same similar wording that "God" is. Billions of people, dozens of religions, no clear cut one, no violation of the amendment.

If you're agnostic or atheist, it does establish a belief, a belief contrary to yours.

Where there is no punishment there is no establishment. Is there a legal penalty prescribed for atheists or agnostics who choose to disagree with the sentiment that a god exists and motivates law? Nope. Therefore, there is no establishment of religion in the cited passages.

Okay. Principles... are not laws. While the principles remain in effect, they have no legal effect. There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that even closely resembles a law.



A belief does not a religion make. While I do not agree with Jack22's assessment that where there is no punishment there is no establishment, there is no establishment here. The thanking of a "creator" in a constitutional preamble in no way establishes or gives preference to a particular religion. There is nothing mentioned regarding deities that shows the State's preference for one religion over another. The mention reflects the belief of the majority, not the legal establishment of the majority's particular religion.

Simple question: 47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?[/quote]
I would say that, yes, these state constitutions certainly violate the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment; however, I would immediately add that this is not an issue requiring the expenditure of much energy. Given the myriad flaws in our government, I am happy to let this one be until after we have disposed of the more important ones -- which will likely never happen.

By merely using the word "God"? How?

I mean, I prefer Virginia's constitution... very direct and to the point. Granted, it does mention a Creator, but "creator" is an extremely ambiguous term. It also mentions "Christian forbearance, love and charity to each other," but one could argue that these values are more universal and not limited to Christianity or to religion for that matter, so while reflecting a specific belief system, it doesn't establish a particular religion.

Well, perhaps this side issue is worthy of its own topic. I suggest everyone read the official transcript of the Declaration of Independence and decide for themselves whether its general principles place restrictions on government in much the same way that the Constitution and other laws do. I call your attention to a passage I quoted above, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". This gives clear authority over government to the people. It empowered the switch from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, among other things.

The Declaration is part of the U.S. legal code, and describes the circumstances under which a government is no longer valid. I believe we remain relatively far away from those conditions, because...Yet, the conditions which no government has authority to violate are clearly discussed, as are the appropriate remedies, just as in most other law.

For example, if the Constitution were amended so as to violate the general principles in the Declaration, then the Constitution would be invalid even though it remains the governing law of the land-- but after a long period of time, if the abuses are not corrected, the People retain the right to alter or abolish the government, by the self-evident authority described in the Declaration, no matter what the Constitution says (right now, we still have a means of amending the Constitution, so altering government can happen peacefully). Of course, we all hope things will never again come to the sitations that happened in 1776 or 1861, but if we ignore the Declaration by pretending it has no effect, we will take no steps to prevent government from violating it, and thus by our inattention bring about its invocation in the future. As George Santayana warned, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

"God" is a religious concept. I read the spirit of the First Amendment to be essentially the same as the spirit of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."