PBS's "Wall of Speration" implies we need a Consitutional Amendment for Church/State separation if

[papau]

Justice Scalia's "original intent" overthrowing "settled law" becomes the USSC view.

Talking Point Memo has raised a PBS alarm flag rather than addressing the problem that PBS is pointing out (seems a stupid approach to me to shut down media discussion - PBS discussion - of what is a real - but hopefully unlikely - problem - but TPM is joined by many other sites on the web that are using the fact of a discussion to blast PBS (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014659.php
<SNIP> "Uh oh. This reads a bit like a pamphlet from Focus on the Family. In fact, "Wall of Separation" is a production of Boulevard Pictures, which explained on its website that this PBS special will explain that the Founding Fathers had "a radically different definition" of religious liberty than what we have today, and that "the modern understanding of the role of religion in the public square is exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended." ...If this is starting to sound to you like religious right rhetoric, we're on the same page...As my friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State found, there's reason to be skeptical about this new PBS special and those who put it together"<SNIP>).

A believer in Original intent would ask what is the problem, since if we don’t like what the Constitution says (and if this NO WALL is the conclusion then I do not like what it says), we change the Constitution, and not pretend there is a different meaning to the words. Our justice system depends on no creative interpretations of words so that a Court can not suddenly decide a law means something other than what was intended.

The fact that their may be a case for the original intent interpretation of NO WALL is the fact of state constitution for North Carolina, admittedly written before the Constitution, not being shot down by the Federal Courts despite being explicitly Christian and requiring Christian principles be incorporated into government - indeed with restrictions - allowing only Christians to run for public office - that have only recently been struck down by individual states or the Supreme Court because they were found to be a violation of what the First Amendment stands for.

Now this movie is propaganda -when quoting from Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson, a dark, minor key melody plays in a low register, but when Rhenquist criticizes Everson, a hopeful pentatonic scale sounds on a bright clarinet. But it is informative and PBS should be applauded for bring the problem, if there is to be a problem via GOP appointments to the USSC, into view.

The narrator reads from writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et alia. Jefferson's letter with the word WALL becomes more interesting when it is pointed out that Jefferson wasn’t involved in writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The writings of Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington and other founding fathers seems to indicate they were OK with the states doing all kinds of religious endorsements. Jefferson himself wanted Moses on the US seal, ordered Bibles for DC schools, wanted Native Americans converted to Christianity, had Chaplins in Congress, church services for the Military, invoked God in speeches, and issued days of thanksgiving and fasting while governor. Are these the actions of a man who believes in a impregnable wall of separation.

I believe the Constitution grows with the country without a need for constant amending - and that the Declaration of Independence is also part of our legal system.

But if I am wrong and original intent becomes the rules of the day, we will need an amendment to restore the WALL - and PBS should be applauded for pointing this out.

[Cassandra]

1. If we tell the RWers that the Wall of Separation...

will be built along the Rio Grande, do you think we could get them to vote for it? ;-)

[LiberalFighter]

2. Twisting words in the wind

[TwilightGardener]

3. I saw this program last week--very interesting and thought -provoking.

Religious beliefs were inherent in the founding fathers' crafting of our Constitution and government, according to this program, in that our basic rights (which they sought to define and uphold) are granted by God, not another human being, such as a monarch--thus forever protected from the whims of kings, Presidents, Congress, or SCOTUS.

[madison]

4. Scalia is DISHONEST about "original intent"

James Madison, widely credited as being the Father of our Constitution, was certainly the main proponent in the First Congress of amending the Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion and freedom from the intermix of religion with government.

He wrote frequently on the topic of keeping religion and government separate:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state”

“Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government”

More from Madison at: http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/james_madison/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I think James Madison knew far more about the "original intent" of the framers than the very dishonest Justice Scalia does.

[papau]

6. Madison says what I want - but he was but one of many - albeit a frequent debater and

often emphatic, he did not write the Federalist Papers by himself - Alexander Hamilton and John Jay carried a great deal of the load. When in his later years others referred to him as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands."

The documentary has a point - but not enough of one to change the WALL approach we started to use in the 1960's after having the wall concept discussed for two centuries - IMHO. And I hope the USSC does not feel the need to change the current interpretation.

As an aside - I agree with you that Scalia is dishonest about what he is doing with "original intent".

[madison]

5. More on Madison and taxpayer-funded chaplains . . .

In a detached memorandum, James Madison wrote:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative."

http://classicliberal.tripod.com/madison/detached4.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

More on Madison and taxpayer-funded chaplains at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200412160006

[Jim Warren]

7. .

[HumanBeast]

8. Christians Need Church/State Separation Too

Infidels should not be the only ones worried, all the non-Protestant denominations need to think abou this.

[mac2]

9. Don't fool with my Constitution with this leadership.

They need 2/3rd of all the states' citizens to ratify it. At the last minute you know Bush will do a "signing statement" as is his "executive privilege".

Bush wants Fascist government with theocratic rule (by his chosen religious groups and clergy).

[Exilednight]

10. Here's the problem when people always look back to the Founding Fathers....

The FF were rarely in 100% unison on any given subject.

The Constitution was often left vague on purpose, and what was actually written is often a compromise between several people with varying opinions.

[Hunter Muir]

11. The union of church and state is an unholy alliance, and it produces bad offspring.

If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that Christians reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.