Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

1 Merging
2 Philosophical discussion
3 First Amendment Fails to Pass Popular Muster?
4 James Madison
5 Other direction
6 Letter to Virginia Baptists
7 Clarification
8 Background
9 Stub Section "Federal Court Decisions"
10 Religion in the state constitutions
11 Thanksgiving
12 founding fathers were deists?
13 Thumbing nose at NPOV
14 Controversy section
15 Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage
16 Interpretive controversies
17 Discussion of the early disputes over church and state
18 Rename proposal
19 Merge proposal
20 reliability of anonymous sources
- 20.1 Practices of the Jefferson and Madison administrations
21 Former state churches in British North America
22 Hutson is not a reliable source
23 Get rid of the "Controversy over the intentions and views of America's founding fathers" section?
24 Blasphemy laws and the Establishment Clause
25 Merger/Renaming Proposal
26 source
27 Summary
28 Flags image?
29 Example removed
30 George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state
- 30.1 American Atheist a reliable source?
31 Merge 'George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state' to American Atheists
32 Move debate to 'Discrimination against atheists'?
33 'Eminently' and 'coined'
34 cases
35 Controversies
36 Treaty of Tripoli

[edit] Merging

I think it is a bad idea to merge this article with the Separation of church and state because the events around this in thie United states have so much information and is so specific to the creation of the United States of America that the merged article would become to lenghty, would be hard to maintain and citation/referencing would become a nightmare section in itself. Speaking of which the article lacks sufficient referencing. Lord Metroid 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a bad proposal, if that was what was proposed. But as far as I can gather, this was to merge a section from that article into this one (see "Merge proposal") below. The discussion petered out, though, so you can safely remove that tag if you like. Lewis Collard 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical discussion

Dropped this from the head of article:

"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 in blood for centuries." —James Madison

s This appears to be a misattribution or a conflation of a Madison statement with Jefferson. It's undisputed that Jefferson was the one who originated "separation of church and state" - Madison's non-use of the phrase is significant because he (not Jefferson) is regarded as the principal "author" of the First Amendment. Ellsworth 15:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As much as I love this country, I think separation between church and state is wrong. If we kept our Christian values we would have fewer problems altogether. If a couple of people got a bunch of people riled up, that isn't everyone's opinion. We just don't feel it necesary to go protest and go crazy for every little thing. the Ten Commandments aren't hurting anybody, so they should have stayed. This Christmas without Christ is bothering me. He is the reason for the season and if some people dont like it well they can leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.215.80 (talk • contribs)

What a bigotted statement. First of all Christmas isn't a real christian holiday to begin with. It is a pagan holiday that christian organized authority replaced with what they seemed more fit because otherwise people would have been more resisting to christianity. For every christian that doesn't celebreate christmas, because their are many different branches of all religions that practices their religion in different ways. This is why the seperation of church and state exists. So that no one needs to be forced by the point of a gun from the government to worship and practice religion in a state-decided way. That is what many of the citizens of the colonies had fled from in the first place. If you like to have a state religion, may I suggest moving to teh Arab-emirates? And you'll see how fun it is to have a state-religion! Lord Metroid 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though Christian values might make America better, you can't force that upon someone. This country was founded upon freedom of conscience: that's why we're here. You can't force someone to have Christian values, even by government. However, I think that some court cases have been a little extreme in their rulings. I think that the way this amendment is used is not always how our founding fathers would have intended it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawest217 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Amendment Fails to Pass Popular Muster?

Does anyone know if it is true that one of the major polling organizations, perhaps Gallup, acutally polled a representative sample of the American public a few years ago and presented the First Amendment as a proposed new law and found that the majority of those polled (at least a plurality if not a majority) found it unacceptable, even somehow subversive? I could see this being an urban legend, but, sadly, somehow I could also easily see it as being true.

Rlquall 18:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] James Madison

Although Thomas Jefferson is normally the Founding Father cited when the topic of Seperation of Church State is raised, James Madison is largely responsible for drafting the United States Constitution, not Jefferson. Because of this often overlooked fact and the abundance of writings that we have from Madison to examine, many historians feel that he is the superior choice when trying to detangle the original intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the U.S. Constitution, religion and state's rights.

What did Madison have to say about the Separation Clause? Nothing at all as it was not a term that the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with in their time. Madison did however also pen the Virginia Consitution, and has left us clear personal opinions on his views of religion and it's place in state and federal government.

"For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment - I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to out-number or depress the rest."

Clearly Madison was quite concerned about the preservation of religious freedom, and felt that America's diversity would ensure that no single sect would ever dominate the new American government. Rather than using a term that he was unfamiliar with (seperation of church and state), Madison gave us the term exclusive establishemnt.--67.78.7.190 18:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two of the 12 original Amendments which Madison proposed pertained to religious liberty.

One proposed Amendment was to constrain the federal govenrment. It passed (with some changes to the wording) and was subsequently ratified by the States and became our First Amendment. Neither Madison nor anyone else intended for it to constrain the States.

The other proposed Amendment was to constrian the States. It was defeated in Congress. It read, "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It would have restrained the States to a lesser degree that the federal government is (supposed to be) constrained by the First Amendment, and it would have not gone so far as to prohibit official State establisments of religion. Nevertheless, it was defeated by those who thought it encroached upon the proper role of the State constitutions, inasmuch as the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to define the scope, powers & duties of the federal government, not those of the States.

So the bottom line is that Madison thought that the Constitution should constrain the States by guaranteeing a "right of conscience" to U.S. citizens, but knew that it did not, because the Amendment which would have done so was defeated. Also, he did not advocate the much more radical step of a federal constitutional provision to force disestablishment of the official Christian churches which then were law in many States and towns. 71.70.174.75 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that James Madison is considered 'father of the constitution' because he introduced the majority of the material for the constitution. And Thomas Jefferson, (although not part of the constitional delegation at the time) was an influential leader. What I don't understant is why are thier personal thoughts and writings seem to be held above the U.S. Constitution. Using this logic, couldn't the current president write a 'new' letter to the Danbury Church to superceed the old one written by Jefferson? Or maybe we should ask Nancy Erikson's the opinion of recently passed legislation. She is the current secretary for the 110th Congress (James Madison's old job). --Uwops 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We are constantly trying to interpret different founding father's interpretations. The fact remains, regardless of their beliefs or intent, the material contained in the constitution is what they agreed upon. It was the compromise of the delegate's various opinions on the subject. Those who continouslly attempt to divert attention away from the actual content of the constitution is using 'smoke and mirrors' to get you to not analyze the constitution. The only true interpretation of the first ammendment is the actual ammendment itself. Analysis on the individual words are valid, any other opinion that is introduced is just that, an opinion.

The best example of this is the first word of that ammendment. Congress. The ammendment is a limitation on what congress can do. Not the president, not the court systems, not the school systems. To see how far out of hand this has gotten, you need to ask yourself; when the govenor of Alabama puts the 10 commandments in a courthouse, what law did congress pass? For those who propose that the 14th ammendment makes the bill of rights applicable to the states, I then ask the question; what law did the Alabama state legislature pass? --Angncon 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the limitation of the first amendment originally only applied to Congress, it also applied to the other branches of government, since Congress was the decision making branch. Therefore, the President can express his religion, and many have and do. The courts, however, are required to declare any law that Congress passes to be unconstitutional if it promotes any particular religion. Similarly, the public schools cannot promote religion because they are created by the Congress (or the State Legislatures), so if the school promotes religion, then Congress has passed a law promoting religion. Note, private schools can promote all the religion they want.

[edit] Other direction

This article contains no information about separation of church and state from the other direction, such as the tax-code bans on what ministers may preach or state participation in religious weddings. -Acjelen 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to Virginia Baptists

The actual letter does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state"; it was in a comment by the editor of Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government, a collection of Jefferson quotes. See [1]. The actual letter is available at [2] and is entitled "TO THE GENERAL MEETING OF CORRESPONDENCE OF THE SIX BAPTIST ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED AT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA. WASHINGTON, November 21, 1808." --Wasabe3543 03:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1802 "building a wall of separation between Church and State"--JimWae 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

What does the following mean?

It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation - which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle by which the protections and restrictions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states - they could not be reestablished today.

Could someone clarify it for those amongst us who aren't U.S. constitutional experts? For instance, what is the "Due Process" clause of the 4th amendment? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a Wiki article that addresses this exact subject: Incorporation (Bill of Rights). Maybe we could integrate some of the content of that article here, or at least link to it. Thoughts? David 09:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Incorporation (Bill of Rights) link was already added; I'm not sure if it was there all along. I went ahead and also added links to the articles on Due Process and the Fourteenth Amendment in the text. David 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't "commonly accepted" at all. It has been recently (just over 40 years ago) accepted by the SCOTUS. For nearly a century, the notion that the Due Process clause somehow transformed the First Amendment into a prohibition against State and local establishments of religion was unheard of. More importantly, it was unheard of until the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment were all safely in their graves (along with most of their grandchildren).

It was unheard of because it is absurd. The plain language of the First Amendment explicitly limits its scope to the federal government, only. "Congress" is the federal legislative branch, only.

In fact, the Establishment clause is a prohibition against federal interference with State and local official religious establishments: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon." The word "respecting" meant then exactly what it means now, which is "having to do with." The establisments of religion referred to were the existing official church affiliations which most States (and many towns) then had established. The prohibition is a prohibition against federal interference with those establishments of religion.

Since the very first sentence in the body of the U.S. Constitution gives all federal law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, a prohibition against Congress making a law is simply a prohibition against that federal law.

In other words, the activist SCOTUS of the last half of the 20th century turned the meaning of the Establishment Clause upside down, and ruled that it means almost precisely the opposite of what the plain language says and the intended meaning is.

71.70.174.75 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not activist SCOTUS in the last half of the 20th c. In the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S., for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."--Vidkun 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S. debated the 'free exercise' clause. They used Jefferson's idea that the doctrines of religion were not above the law. For instance, I can't have human sacrifice simply because my religion requires it. However, the 'establishement clause' was not debated in SCOTUS until 1947 (Everson case); after all the established churches were long disestablished.--Uwops 10:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

I'm changing back the edits made by 12.178.96.81, with a few changes I hope will satisy that person. The reason, if the editor would like to discuss it here, is that the remainder of the paragraph goes on to discuss people and events of the 17th and early 18th centuries, so it's apprpriate to keep those centuries as they are. I edited the sentence to make it clearer that this occurred before the United States was its own country. David 09:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub Section "Federal Court Decisions"

Howdy All,

I just noticed that the section "Federal Court Decisions" under this article is marked as a stub. I'll be working on it soon, and would appreciate suggestions that someone might have. I guess I'll start by:

Adding much more Federal Court Cases relating to Separation of church and state in the United States
(Your suggestions here)

Also maybe the whole article could use a whole lot more in-depth information concerning the Separation of church and state debate. (Like the two opposing sides and what info backs up each side???)

Thanks - and your ideas are (in advance) greatly appreciated, --EChronicle 00:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The 19th century Supreme Court decisions such as Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892) and Mormon Church v. U.S. (1890) that took a more accommodationist view of Christianity and the state are missing. Taken within the context of the developments in Church state jurisprudence since the 1790s, I think they are relevant.

Also, state supreme court decisions from the early years of the American republic and their interpretations of the establishment clause also is relevant. It shows how the states viewed the establishment clause. --Pravknight 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in the state constitutions

I also think examining the role of religion in the constitutions of the 50 states after the ratification of the federal establishment clause should be looked at too. Unlike the federal constitution, the majority of them are explictly theistic, and some are even explicitly Christian. --Pravknight 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanksgiving

This may be slightly trivial, but why is "the annual holiday of Thanksgiving...clearly [a] violation if strict separation is implied"?

I was under the impression that the holiday has no history with religious affiliation (besides the significance of Puritans being the first group) and its page even cites it as a cultural holiday as opposed to a religious one. I didn't edit it because I could be horribly naive and would like someone more knowledgeable to clear it up. Thanks.--Yourmotherisanastronaut 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] founding fathers were deists?

This assertion is not supported by the link. Jefferson may have not been a religious person, but that does not mean he opposed organized religions like deists. Furthermore, the wording uses weasel words claiming that the founding fathers were deists...not some but MOST! Find a link that says the founding fathers were deists and opposed organized religion and the sentence stays. If not, it goes. ER MD 08:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) A couple of them from what I have seen being mentioned on various sites on the internet(Not a reliable source) were deitist. Many branches of religion was represented by other founding fathers though. Lord Metroid 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbing nose at NPOV

"They are monitoring the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party and the movement among popular evangelicals to transform the United States into a theocracy."

Is it possible to be more blatantly POV-biased than that? Is this an encyclopedia article or a Michael Newdow blog? 71.70.174.75 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that ER_MD has deleted that sentence [3]. But merely deleting the description and leaving Kkinder's link[4] does not make this article less POV-biased. It just makes the bias less obvious. Kkinder's sentence is an accurate description of the claimed purpose of that extreme Left fringe web site. 71.70.174.75 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

We don't have a Controversy section, and this is a very controversial law. So why don't we add a section here? Falconleaf

[edit] Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage

Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage heavily involve separation of church and state, but they are nowhere in this article. Separation of church and state has more information than this, the main article.

[edit] Interpretive controversies

I've reverted changes made in these three edits (which, oddly, were all tagged as minor). I think the old wording, rather than containing 'weasel words', was careful to provide the facts neutrally, without trying to play up one standpoint or the other. The newer revision, however, clearly attempts to make too much of references to a god - for example, rewording to imply to the casual reader that all four references to a creator actually used the word 'God' and calling the use of the phrase 'The Year of our Lord' 'Christian language' - it was a common term at the time, as that's what Anno Domini (or AD) means in English. I know plenty of Atheists who use the terms BC and AD. -- Vary | Talk

[edit] Discussion of the early disputes over church and state

Jefferson and Madison may get all of the press; however, they faced strident opposition to their interpretation separation of church and state in their own lifetimes. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stood as both men's nemesis for close to 20 years.

This should be discussed too. [5] [6] [7] --Pravknight 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename proposal

I know exactly why in the US "seperation of church and state" is used as meaning "sep. of religion and state", but I feel that the current title show a clear systemic bias and is weaselly. It is eurocentric to claim that "church" is used figuratively, in that case why don't we rename it to "seperation of mosque and state", while claiming that mosque is used figuratively in the same way? :)) It really does sound weird to talk (or plan to talk) about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism under "seperation of church and state". I believe the use of "church" is not appropriate and shows systemic bias. I am atheist, so it is not because I am particularly offended or anything, it is just logical and rectifies the systemic bias that I mentioned. Just because that's how it was written in the US Constitution 200 years ago doesn't mean we have to do so today in Wikipedia. :))) The current title should be a redirect to "Relations between religions and state in the US", or if that's too wordy "Secularism in the US". I will be starting an article named "Secularism in Turkey" in the same way. Of course with such a rename, it will be talked about, most probably in the intro, how the US Constitution refers to it as "seperation of church and state". I am not proposing this not to favor or minimize a religion or anything, it is just to give it a more contextual approach since this is a constitutional term and not just the general history of the relation between churches and state in the US. Baristarim 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's called that because non-Christian religions in the United States were almost completely insignificant from a political point of view until at least the early 20th century -- and also because several of the British North American colonies and early U.S. states in fact had official government-established Churches. The word "church" does not actually appear in the United States constitution, so that has nothing to do with it... The role of Wikipedia is to reflect the terms which are used in the real world, not to apply abstract logic to produce new terminology that we think should theoretically be used instead. "Secularism in the US" would be an interesting article, but it wouldn't be quite the same as thbis article. AnonMoos 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Secularism in the US"
Support
Oppose
"Relations between religions and state in the US"
Support
Oppose
Comments

[edit] Merge proposal

There is a whole section in the article Separation of church and state that was copied from this page. That section should be here. Jcbohorquez

Which one? Collard 06:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reliability of anonymous sources

The section copied from the Library of Congress webpage is unsigned and unsourced. It shows heavy POV as well, and does not refer to ANY of the massive number of books and articles on the subject written by experts. Therefore it fails the criteria of a reliable source written by experts. Rjensen 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. Displays at the Library of Congress are subject to political pressure, and are therefore not preferable to printed sources. This is in any case unreasonably extensive quotation from a source without any evidence that it is in the public domain. I subjoin it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You people are really stretching for reasons to hate this LOC verified and sourced information, aren't you? Well, the facts remain as they are, and are very well sourced if you'd only care to open your minds....and maybe READ the LOC source documents. --Mactographer 08:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mactographer on this one. Yes, the Library of Congress may be an "anonymous source", but that does not make it a non-credible one. The Library of Congress is a respected institution. That "[d]isplays at the Library of Congress are subject to political pressure" means nothing; show me an organisation on the planet that claims to have no political biases whatsoever and I will show you a pack of liars.

By the way, regarding "unreasonably extensive quotation from a source without any evidence that it is in the public domain", it is a work of the United States' Federal government, and therefore, it is in the public domain. Even if it were copyrighted, quoting an entire paragraph almost certainly qualifies as fair use, if properly attributed.

If you think that the LOC's exhibit is contrary to any other evidence from credible sources, then please feel free to cite that other evidence. If not, then you have no reason for rejecting it.

(BTW, Mactographer, try to calm the rhetoric a little. :))

The upshot: I've restored the disputed snippet, with some minor changes that should make it more acceptable. Lewis Collard 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

...And the edit got reverted without explanation. I fail to see what is so objectionable about the new wording (diff here). It doesn't fail the POV test anymore since it merely states what the LOC have to say, and it is as good as any source which anyone else has cited in response (which is to say, none). Oh well. Lewis Collard 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing the rant about "Despite what contemporary sources have to say..." was an improvement. However, the long quote about the state becoming the church on Sundays is POV-pushing nonsense; the evidence amounts to Jefferson attending worship services at the Capitol; there are still services at the Capitol nowadays. Jefferson's biographers would disagree that he "consciously and deliberately [was] offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government"; this is as bad logic as it is grammar: he was going to church. Madison certainly deplored worship on national property, as no service either to the functioning of government or (more importantly) to religion (see the link to his memoranda in the article); and Madison's version of the Bill of Rights opposed religion established by the States as well as by the General Government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but since when is saying, "Oh, to the contrary" considered a "rant?" --Mactographer 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a quadruple negative is a good start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

??? --Mactographer 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You say Jefferson's biographers would disagree. In that case, as I've hammered into the ground several times in the discussion below this: cite them as an opposing view, rather than deleting the material in question. As for "POV-pushing nonsense", accurately describing a particular POV (which was all the revised piece did: it accurately reported what the LOC had to say, and attributed it to them) is not the same as "pushing" it. Lewis Collard 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph was POV-pushing when originally written; quoting it in extenso still is. (POV-pushing exists outside WP; part of the judgment of finding a reliable source consists of recognizing it.) Quoting is also giving undue weight to a minority view, unsupported by the evidence it cites. As for the fact asserted, it's in our article now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you buried it as much as you could. BTW, how can a fact be considered a minority view? The facts are what they are ... which is that multi-Christian denominational church services were held on and inside federal property from the 1800’s toward the civil war era. And by extension we can assume that this practice was in full support of the public and state officials since there is no written record to the contrary. I repeat, there was NO PUBLIC OR STATE objection to this practice as observed by the contemporary record. This is NOT a viewpoint -- minority or otherwise -- this is supported by the many historical documents the LOC site displays on the site. BTW, I see we've lost all argument to the "anonymous sources" issue now. How many more arguments will we "find" to bury this extremely pertinent data regarding the mindset of the "authors" of our hotly debated "modern interpretation" of this concept? --Mactographer 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's chill a little. This has gotten a bit uncomfortably heated for me. I've edited in the LOC claim about "the state became the church", but not to as great a length as before. Is this edit acceptable to people? diff is here! Lewis Collard 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. This is not a reliable source; this is a nameless writer of partisan figments, and describing him as "the Library of Congress" is an insult to an honorable institution. This is not the first exhibit in Washington to produce nonsense, and doubtless won't be the last. As for the point being made, it is also nonsense; there have been religious services on Federal property quite often; this one, not three years ago, was in the Senate Office Building, and was covered (and so notable enough to find a reference to it) not as unconstitutional, but as weird. I believe there are Baptist services every week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so the LOC is an "honorable institution" now. Glad we agree! Or do we? After all, you added "unnamed hireling of the Bush administration". Were it not for WP:POINT, I'd be tempted to take this to its logical conclusion and delete every single statement on Wikipedia sourced from a government agency becuz teh bushitler hirez them!111

Anyway, I've put "the Library of Congress website". Lewis Collard 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Public exhibits in Washington yielded to political pressure long before Bush was in office; I suspect they did so when Jefferson was president; as long as I have Malone to hand I may check. But this is an isolated crank; find the same opinion in genuinely scholarly literature, and it may stand. It will probably have two advantages this does not: it will have more evidence than "Jefferson attended services at the Capitol", and it will be expressed more moderately.

"Hireling" replaced "employee"; as long as I'm reading Jefferson. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. :) Lewis Collard 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, in case you missed the link in the edit summary: Nameless, schmameless. I guess we're also meant to believe that although the people named wrote it and put their names behind it, someone from the Bush administration added everything that you disagree with. Step 1) hax0r loc.gov. Step 2) ???? Step 3) World domination! Lewis Collard 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sarcasm; but it really is no excuse for citing a text so lacking in evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the sarcasm: any time! ;) Anyway, if nothing else, it can be cited as a POV that can be refuted. Lewis Collard 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And that is not a list of authors. It may include them, but no-one on it has credits for writing, much less for writing anything in particular. This text is nameless - and shameless.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're rather opinionated for someone who slaps POV notices on sections. Bark. Lewis Collard 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were grading a paper that based such a conclusion on such evidence I would flunk it. It is more than biased; it's dishonest; and I would object to it whatever its bias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But you'd give them a good grade if they claimed that everyone who works in a government institution and disagrees with PMAnderson is a plant of the Bush administration. So that's okay. :) Lewis Collard 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. ;} I conclude it's been leaned on because it's such a bad article, not the other way around. Do you really think its conclusion follows from its data? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Lewis Collard 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, furthermore to the above, it's now "author on the Library of Congress website". I guess this is a reasonable compromise, though a strange one. :) Lewis Collard 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone chooses to take out the trash, I will support them.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pft. Lewis Collard 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The explanatory comment by the editor mixes the site content with his comment - and the use of "only" does not appear at the site. The site itself has had to make changes due to messages from editors of this article. The site is a slanted presentation - it presents only one side of the issue & omits any significant mention of evidence that does not support its agenda --JimWae 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The editor here chooses not to include the last sentence in the section below - "In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government." - a statement that at least slightly tempers the issue--JimWae 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
the LOC's use of "apparently" is weasel-wording. Adding "only" to that compounds the POV --JimWae 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "weasel-wording" when it comes from a source that is qualified to say such things. Exactly the same thing goes for explanatory comments. The Library of Congress is not staffed by Wikipedia editors, or people trying to force some kind of political agenda (or at least, no more than any other institution; "itz biased!11one" would disqualify ANY source from use in Wikipedia -- everyone is biased to some degree, and the truth is always biased). The Library of Congress is staffed by well-qualified librarians and historians who are in a position to put forward a POV on an historical matter. It is our job, as Wikipedia editors, to accurately cite credible sources. The LOC is one.

And bear in mind that we don't even have to agree with the LOC. If it is a credible source -- and it is (let's hammer that point into the ground some more!) -- then our job is simply to cite it. If there is any dissent on the matter, then it's our job to cite that as well.

Regarding your edit summary: I've already addressed the "anonymous" bit above, and you've put no response to it. If someone writing on behalf of a respected institution, it is the institution that matters. And if you want to dismiss a source as "agenda-driven", then you'd better damned well show some evidence that they are driven by an agenda, and demonstrate with real evidence what agenda they are driven by (and sorry, dismissing it just because it's biased does not count, as outlined above). If there are critiques of what the Library of Congress has on their website by equally-or-nearly-as-credible-sources, or any historians that address the same data and come to different conclusions, then please point to them! If there is not, then there is NO good reason to dismiss this evidence. You might not like it (and I don't, and when this issue first came up in the sister article, I originally deleted it without thought as well. I'm as ardent a separationist as any, though I'm not from the US). But whatever our opinions are, we're not entitled to our own historical facts. Lewis Collard 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the credits, they are easily discovered right here with a link from the home page of the LOC exhibit site. However, it seems painfully obvious that the credits issues is a straw man. I am well aware that it is extremely distasteful for some to have to admit that church services were held on federal and state property during the early administrations of the US government, and that no one objected to this practice at the time. In fact, it is apparent that this practice was enthusiastically received. However, the facts are the facts, and they deserve a showing here to illustrate the mindset of the founding fathers regarding the topic as discussed. I have done nothing to subvert the other data or inject a POV into other information as provided on this article. I have simply added a couple of paragraphs which are supported by credible and very well researched data. To simply deny its entry is to be intellectually dishonest regarding HOW and WHAT was practiced during the founding years of our republic regarding religious practices and how they related to the state. The LOC exhibit has provided multiple sources of diary pages and the like which are presented on the web site exhibit to support the claims that are made in my two paragraphs. I am only asking that you accept the facts as they are and stop deleting relevant material based on the "modern" concept of Separation of Church and State. Collard’s rewrite doesn’t flow as much as my original because it doesn’t set up the relevancy for the data that doesn’t support the modern interpretation, but I will go with his rewrite or any well crafted rewrite that doesn’t "bury" the facts. ------------ Bottom line folks, I am not rewriting history. What I've presented did in fact happen. Intellectual integrity demands that modern interpretation of ANY historical topic or concept take in to consideration all relevant data. The facts are the facts... Church services were held on, with full support by, the government on federal grounds. Will you allow this historical and extremely relevant information to have its rightful place within this article, or will some of you continue to censor it with various excuses for its erasure?--Mactographer 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the rest of this campaign, this is a battle with a straw man. Congressmen worship on Federal property now, and always have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, I appreciate your efforts. And I salute you for being the ONLY intellectually honest "separationist" willing to defend historical precedent. I don’t understand how the secular progressives can look themselves in the mirror and call themselves the educated elite. They are grasping at straws in every effort to deny the truth of the historical facts. More over, they are ignoring the documentation presented on the LOC exhibit with digital scans of the contemporary written records which demonstrate that regular church services where held on federal property, and that with full approval of all state and private parties. Any nominally motivated parties would also find such reports as:

“

Another Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
Congress set November 28, 1782, as a day of thanksgiving on which Americans were "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."

Morality in the Army
Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States."

Northwest Ordinance
In the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: "Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

Christianizing the Delawares
In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.

”

All found here (emphasis added.)

But apparently, on Wikipedia, any evidence that supports the historical demonstration of a strong Christian faith being prevalent and promoted in early US government is "clearly" POV.

--Mactographer 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line:

Many of the Founders disagreed with Madison and Jefferson, and did not follow their advice in their own states, or before 1791. But it was Madison's Amendment they enacted.
- But most of these dissenters, like Henry, didn't disagree very much; they felt that the evils of favoring one sect could be overcome by favoring all sects. This didn't work very well, and was abandoned; in all cases but Massachusetts, by the 1810's. (This last detail is not in the article; but I'm not sure we really need 13 subarticles; it is enough that MA was the last). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Madison's Amendment did not bind the States; and some of them did not, and do not, bind themselves. But he proposed that they should be, and the Fourteenth Amendment does bind them.
Madison's Amendment does not, and has never been held to, prohibit Congressional chaplains. But he thought they were a bad idea.

The article now says all these things. Please stop pushing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It does? Lewis Collard 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of them do you see as missing? It should be added. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And, most important: Wikipedia is not a vehicle to Enlighten the Multitude, and Bring to Light Forgotten Truth (anybody's forgotten truth; there are so many); it is a catalogue of the errors which presently possess mankind. If you want to send a message, get e-mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is a place to present the historical evidence fairly. As far as I saw (and see) it, that was the issue at hand here, nothing else. Lewis Collard 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is citing an isolated, poorly evidenced, and widely condemned remark as though it were supported by scholarship presenting the historical evidence fairly? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me the sources for scholars "widely condemn[ing]" that quote and I'll start listening. Though, I'm pretty much done with this issue. I hate fighting. :/ Lewis Collard 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above; I only just noticed the section on Hutson below. Sorry! Lewis Collard 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s only isolated because secular progressives are doing their level best to isolate it. And truth be told, the evidence is not isolated, it comes from many various diary entries and personal letters and eyewitness accounts and existing printed records ... as presented in this exhibit and, you very well know, elsewhere. The same kind of evidence as any other historical documents coming from sources like Geo Washington’s personal letters and such. You are just “choosing” to stick your head in ... somewhere ... let’s say the ground. Same applies to the “poorly evidenced” canard. And as for “widely condemned,” I’m only seeing YOU doing the condemning ... and maybe one or two others who have been quiet lately. Let’s face it, you DON’T want to believe the evidence to the contrary of your belief system, so you choose NOT to believe it. In fact as late as the 1950’s they ADDED “under God” in the pledge ... why? Because there were precious few secular progressives in power at the time trying to rewrite the religious history of the USA. --Mactographer 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. So much for your bottom line. This debate ain't bottom lined by a long shot. --Mactographer 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practices of the Jefferson and Madison administrations

A copy of a sermon on the Second Coming of Christ, and on the Last Judgment. This sermon was delivered by John Hargrove on December 25th 1804 before both houses of Congress, at the Capitol in the city of Washington.

Despite the contemporary claims that Jefferson and Madison were strict proponents of the concept of separation of church and state as it is currently presented in modern debate, it is a common misconception to assume that religion was not associated with the practice of politics in early American life. The Religion and the Founding of the American Republic website exhibit at the Library of Congress states,

“

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. ^[1]

”

[edit] Former state churches in British North America

Colony	Denomination	Disestablishment	Founder(s)
Connecticut	Congregational	1818	Thomas Hooker
Delaware	free -Christianity for office	--	William Penn
Georgia	originally free (except for Catholic), then Anglican	by 1791	James Oglethorpe
Maryland	Roman Catholic then Anglican	after 1791	Lord Baltimore
Massachusetts	Congregational	1833	Pilgrims, then Puritans
New Hampshire	Congregational	1819	John Mason
New Jersey	Dutch Reformed, then mixed Protestant	-
New York	Dutch Reformed, then (incompletely) Anglican	by 1791
North Carolina	Anglican	by 1791
Pennsylvania	free -Christianity for office	--	William Penn
Rhode Island	free	--	Roger Williams
South Carolina	Anglican	1790
Virginia	Anglican	1786	London Virginia Company
Canada
Lower Canada(Quebec)	Roman Catholic
New Brunswick	Anglican
Newfoundland	Anglican
Nova Scotia	Presbyterian
Prince Edward Island	Anglican
Upper Canada(Ontario)	Anglican

Vermont - 1807

http://www.dinsdoc.com/cobb-1-6.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm

The first constitution to prohibit religious tests was the United States Constitution written in 1787

The treatment of religion in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is notably different from the provisions in state constitutions; not only are the national clauses noticeably shorter in both number and length, but the completeness of their prohibitions is unprecedented--no religious tests, no establishments, no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In all state constitutions there are some limits placed on these religious liberties. But the national government under the U.S. Constitution is prevented by clear and bold language from any power to control religion. Even the Preamble lacks the common reference to God which is even found in most current state constitutions.

Many states kept religious tests & other restrictions - 7 states still have some http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, that's wrong for NJ, in which the Anglican church was never established, and a test of Protestantism for office only was permitted, not required, by the New Jersey Constitution of 1776. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will check the sources I have provided re NJ before the revolution - what I saw before was that in both NJ & NY the establishment of Anglicanism existed but was not complete in every county --JimWae 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Your sources are being misleading. The Duke of York required that every parish support some church; but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. He also ordained that the tax-payer was free, having paid his local tax, to go to some other church. The first Anglican minister in NJ arrived in 1700; Anglicanism was more popular in (wealthy, posh) NY. Whether this counts as an establishment at all (it would fail modern constitutional tests) is debateable; it certainly wasn't an establishment of Anglicanism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And this statement is unsourced, and is false for Connecticut and Rhode Island: Before the American Revolution, the Church of England was the established church in every colony from New York to Georgia, except for Pennsylvania and Delaware (which had no state church, but did require office-holderes to be Christian). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you consider CT & RI being between NY & GA? --JimWae 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - My apologies, I swear I saw "Maine"; but it's not true for NJ either; and MD is a matter of dating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reviewing the sources, it seems the establishment of religion in NY & NJ was quite incomplete - with the requirement for Anglicanism being parts of NY & perhaps East Jersey only, though Protestantism was a requirement for office. To be on firm ground, the extent claim for established Anglicanism should be from MD to GA --JimWae 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Requirement for office should get a section of its own, since a Test Act was clearly compatible with the most fervent language on liberty of conscience. The East Jersey charter required that members of the Assembly be Christians; the inclusion of Catholics is not surprising: the chief proprietors of the Perth Amboy, New Jersey settlement were Scotch Catholic peers. There was a militia oath of 1756 which required the officers to abjure the pretensions of the Pope; but it is purely negative and a Muslim or a Jew could take it. I'm not sure this was required during the Revolution; there were Irish militia officers, and a new oath, requiring only fidelty to New Jersey, had been enacted by 1799. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph is wrong on its dating, and also wrong on New Hampshire.
- The Puritan movement remained strong in New England states, where the Congregational Church was and continued to be the state church in every state except Rhode Island. Anglican parishioners in New England became Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. By the 1840's only the New England states aside from Rhode Island had established churches.
  - so 1840s (which was there when I got there) needs changing. What info do you have on NH? --JimWae 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Just the New Hampshire constitution of (IIRC) 1792; shortly after the First Amendment anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I suppose the most we could salvage from that sentence would be that New England states were the last to disestablish - MA, CT
  - http://www.dinsdoc.com/cobb-1-9.htm
    - In New Hampshire the constitution of 1776 made no provision in regard to religious matters. A state convention in 1779 submitted another constitution to the people, which was not adopted, but its utterance on the rights of conscience may be noted here as indicating the growth of sentiment. The section read: “The future legislation of this state shall make no laws to infringe the rights of Conscience, or any other of the natural, unalterable Rights of Men, or contrary to the laws of God, or against the Protestant religion.”(New Hampshire Historical Society, V, 155.) Another convention in 1781 adopted a Bill of Rights similar to that of the Massachusetts convention of 1780, and in an address thereon remarked: “We have endeavored to ascertain and define the most important and essential rights of man. We have distinguished between alienable and unalienable rights. For the former of which men may receive an equivalent; for the latter, or the rights of conscience, they can receive none: The world itself being wholly inadequate to the purchase. ‘For what is a man profited, though he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?’ The various modes of worship among mankind are founded in their various sentiments and beliefs concerning the Great Object of all religious worship and adoration . . . therefore, to Him alone, and not to man, are they accountable for them.”
    - This seems to reach far enough, but in spite of it, the constitution of 1781, as also that of 1784, left unchanged the old colonial law which made the Church a town institution and its support a matter of public tax, and discriminated also in favor of the Protestant religion. (New Hampshire Historical Society, V, 175.)
- it appears that many states considered - & some passed (or kept) - legislation that did not establish any one denomination, but did support & establish Protestant Xty. Another section --JimWae 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Not just Protestants (see Pennsylvania); New Jersey may well have had a narrower Test than most. IIRC it was a last-minute compromise intended not to scare the conservatives; the British were on Staten Island when it was written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hutson is not a reliable source

He is an isolated and irresponsible crank. To quote him against the consensus of scholarship is to give undue weight to the unsupported opinions of a solirary extremist; if he is to be discussed at all, his tempest in a teapot should be discussed as a recent and unfortunate development.

The clearest denunciation is reprinted here; please note that the signers include the editor of the Madison Papers. Hutson himself describes the cause of the offense as the claim that "Jefferson's principal motive in writing the Danbury Baptist letter was to mount a counterattack against his political enemies.: Without the word principal, this thesis would not have been controversial; indeed, it would not have been publishable, lacking any element of novelty. All of the argument that it was, in part, an attack (and the strategy of that attack) can be found in the standard biography of Jefferson (Malone Jefferson 4;109); what Nutson omits is that it was (as Jefferson's utterances usually were) a statement of principle also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hutson's evidence for his revisionism consists of the deletion of a portion of the proposed letter which deprecated offically announced thanksgivings. Since the fact that Jefferson planned to say this and did not (after consulting a New Englander) is also in Malone, this is another novel and unsupported interpretation of long-known evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Review of the resulting book in Wm. and Mary Q (59,4) calls it "a selective survey"; I see this exact criticism was made, and dismissed, above.

The Baptists, the Bureau, and the Case of the Missing Lines,] by Isaac Kramnick; R. Laurence Moore The William and Mary Quarterly; 56,4, p. 817-822 points out one of these omissions; there were only two churches in Washington before 1809, both very small.

Okay. You were right that someone in the LOC really is a crank on this matter, and for that reason, the LOC exhibit is not to be trusted. Thank you for bringing this to light; if you had done this earlier we could have avoided the very ugly discussion above. :/ Lewis Collard 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me? atheists.org is a NPOV source!!!!--Mactographer 07:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. atheists.org have just reprinted it. (It's okay, my eyes almost popped out too when I first saw that.) Lewis Collard 07:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they are the only ones who printed it. I can't find any other source of this report with a Google search. Where else is this "A Letter of Concern from Scholars" printed and signed by 22 ostensibly NPOV professors? For that matter, I can go to a dozen or so Bible colleges and find 22 professors who would come up with a POV I liked too. I have no proof that this "Letter of Concern from Scholars" wasn’t generated by the rank and file members of Atheists.org since I can’t find it anywhere else. ----------- And further more, the points they rangle with regarding the interpretation of Jefferson vis-à-vis the Danbury Baptists and what he meant, STILL doesn’t remove the early American contemporary sources of information regarding my original premise that church services were held frequently, if not every week, ON federal property. Dr. Hutson could by a puppy kicking, coke snorting, wife beater, but the original source material from eyewitnesses to the events remain… as seen on the LOC site. Not to mention the congressional decrees as I’ve listed above previously but for some reason was edited out by Pmanderson. So I will repeat them here:

“

”

--Mactographer 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I admire Mactographer's diligence in selective quotation of a selective source; however, if he found no more than this, he has no case.
- All these are actions of the Continental Congress or the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Neither was, of course, bound by the First Amendment.
- It is not clear that some of these, if done nowadays, would breach the wall of separation. It is fairly clear that several of them would not.
- The view of the wall that Mactographer is attacking is a caricature; the High Federalists and Hartford Wits sounded like this; but I have only met this view (within living memory) among village atheists; I regret that the self-appointed defenders of Christianity should have been persuaded by them
  - Our article should of course do what it can to dispell this error.
The Appeal was made nine years ago; the website on which it was originally posted has long ago been taken down. Nevertheless, it is repeatedly quoted in the literature; Hutson does so himself in his 1999 paper ("Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists: A Controversy Rejoined," by James H. Hutson; The William and Mary Quarterly 56,4)
As for Mactographer's claim I have edited his post, it is a falsehood, or rather a confusion. The original list can be seen three sections up.

That's only because I returned it. Or as you call it, vandalized your reply. --Mactographer 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

- In fact, Mactographer has deleted (and ignored) my response.
  - This vandalism has removed the following quotation from Mr. Jefferson:

In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.(To Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822:

It is fairly common on WP for responses to lists to be posted next to the individual items; it makes the discussion much easier to follow. (But those who do should always indent to make authorship clear.)
- It is civil for those who have strong feelings whether or not this happens to say so, just like where user-talk responses go.
- I have only met this sort of emotional attack about interposting once; that was also a single-purpose editor. I shall however bear Mactographer's feelings in mind, if I ever find it useful to reply to him again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I vandalized nothing. In between a couple of Pmanderson's edits, my text had disappeared and was replaced by the following, "Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks." That's what I saw on my Firefox browswer. I don't use IE. Yet, when I look at the diffs now, I see some other edits made by Pmandersonin the middle of my quote marks. I honestly don't know what happened. But whatever Pmanderson did, it made my text disappear ... at least that's what I saw on my browser. But despite all the gleeful accusations, I would never purposely vandalize a reply. But something Pmanderson did, didn't do what he thot it was going to do ... at least on MY browser ... because it my it look like MY original post was vandalized. So I changed it back to what I had put in there originally to restore my text in-between the original quotes. As for replying to the rest, it's going to have to wait till later. Speculate about or character assassinate me as you please. But I plan to take this back up when I have the time. --Mactographer 10:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, this is getting really ugly. Please, can both of you chill out? Mactographer is a good contributor who has done a lot of very good work (which causes me to object to the implication that he is a "single-purpose editor"; you'd only need to check his user page to know that it is untrue), and so is PMAnderson, who has done some great work in refactoring this article. It does, therefore, quite sadden me that this has almost degenerated into throwing insults around at each other. Both of you, leave out the invective and have a reasonable discussion about historical facts. (Yes, I'm guilty of this too (above), and I feel bad about it too.) And BTW, I'm positive that Mactographer would not intentionally vandalise an article. WP:AGF. Lewis Collard 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he simply does not understand how to read a diff. The diff on which he complains that I removed content is this one (see my talk page). The only material removed by that edit was the unnecessary <br /><br /> he had copied from his source; and they were replaced by equivalent blank lines.

(Mactographer: in diffs, the original text is on the left; any changes to it are backgrounded in yellow. It may also be that, as on my machine, the left hand column formats paragraphs long and thin; the righthand column wide and short, leaving white space. This may have caused your personal attack; but does not excuse it; diffs do that sometimes - you have to actually look at it and see what's been changed.)

In undoing this, he removed the substantial text I had added. I am prepared to accept, now it is explained, that this was incompetence rather than malice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Figure #1.

Figure #2.

How kind of you to call me incompetent, and earlier your refered to my edits as trash, and yet, you refer to me as making personal attacks. Go figure.

Okay, this is as simple as I can make it, Pmanderson. When YOU made this edit, when scrolling down the page to see the previews, a viewer could still see and read my addition, as seen in figure #1. However, when you made your NEXT edit, all that remained of my original entry read as is seen in figure #2. So as far as I can tell, something you did, messed it up because there is no record of anyone else making any edits when my text was lost. Before you did your thing, it was there. After you did your thing, it was gone. Scroll down for yourself and you will see.

So after noticing that my original text was gone due to one of your edits, I simply returned my original text, or as you call it, vandalized your edit ... which vandalized MY original edit as far as I could see. I was only trying to return my text which disappeared after you did whatever it was you did.

These are simply the facts as I see them, but you may call my remarks here a personal attack again if that pleases you.

--Mactographer 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This would appear to be a bug with your computer and {{cquote}}. I would recommend not using it on talk pages; it's purely decorative. (It is not recommended for articles either; use a box.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for a bug on my computer, I tried both IE and Firefox on my PC and Opera and Safari on my Mac. It happens the same way everytime. So, call me a skeptic, but I'm kind of wondering if you took the time to scroll down to see if it happened that way on your computer. Because I doubt both my computers have the same bug using 4 different browsers. As for {{cquote}}, I'm only using the tools Wikipedia provides. They wrote it, not me. But I will try to use something different next time for these purposes. In fact, this looks like a human generated error message. Something tells me that the Wikicoders don't allow for the type of edits you employed to be added to text between {{cquote}}. Thus it appears that this message was intended to be generated after such an edit. I can sleep nights now knowing this unfortunate situation appears not to be a result of my incompetence. --Mactographer 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of the "Controversy over the intentions and views of America's founding fathers" section?

Would anyone have any objections to nuking this section in its entirety? This section was originally moved here from the sister article, at a time when this article did not (as far as I can I recall from when I moved it) contain as much well-sourced historical discussion as it does now. It seems to me that, while it's appropriate to discuss various points of view about historical matters by non-historians, avoiding doing so altogether by just stating the known historical facts on the issue is far more appropriate. Lewis Collard 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The fewer "supporters say ...critics say..." cruft magnets on Wikipedia the better; but the actual quotations should be moved here (and checked out). (The one from Patrick Henry appears to be spurious; the one from Jay is poorly sourced.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I really like that term "cruft magnet". :) Lewis Collard 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to have some of Barton's unconfirmed quotations in a section of their own, clearly labelled; we don't want poor researchers adding them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. But it'd hardly pain me to hit the "undo" link on a diff every now and then. :) Lewis Collard 15:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also reader service; if someone comes to this page to check out claim X, and we say "David Barton admits that X was never said", we have served the reader well. But it would be a job to decide which, so I jsut added the link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But this deplorable booklet contains most of them, as well as the words attributed to Jay.

Among the text removed was:

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said: "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."<:ref> West, Martha. ACLU: American Christian Loathers Union. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.<:/ref>
- Jay may have said this, especially in the heat of the 1800 election; but I would prefer a better source than the personal website now used; and this wording seems to rest on the authority of James Dobson, as this book (one of the very few scholarly hits on the phrase) attests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Found, although I think the half-sentence Dobson apparently quotes could use context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nuking the section. It was the right thing to do. Lewis Collard 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blasphemy laws and the Establishment Clause

The entire 19th century is missing in this article, especially as it has to do with how courts construed the Establishment Clause. There are plenty of 19th century primary sources that could be cited via [books.google.com Google Books]. Courts throughout the 19th century routinely upheld blasphemy laws as constitutional and interpreted the Establishment Clause as only barring the creation of a national Church. Left or right, these 19th century books predate our current fight over the meaning of the Establishment clause, and are thus useful in providing nonpartisan sources.

A famous Pennsylvania Supreme Court case[8] Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824), which is still on the books in Pa., states that Christianity is part of the common law of Pennsylvania.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and Christian people. Infidelity was then rare, and no infidels were among the first colonists. They fled from religious intolerance, to a country where all were allowed to worship according to their own understanding, and as was justly observed by the learned Chancellor of the associated members of the Bar of Philadelphia, in the city of Philadelphia, in his address to that body, 22d of June, 1822, the number of Jews was too inconsiderable to excite alarm, and the believers in Mahomet were not likely to intrude. Every one had the right of adopting for himself whatever opinion appeared to be the most rational, concerning all matters of religious belief; thus, securing by law this inestimable freedom of conscience, one of the highest privileges, and greatest interests of the human race. This is the Christianity of the common law, incorporated into the great law of Pennsylvania, and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. Here was complete liberty of conscience, with the exception of disqualification for office of all who did not profess faith in Jesus Christ. This disqualification was not contained in the constitution of 1776; the door was open to any believer in a God, and so it continued under our present constitution, with the necessary addition of a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. On this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist. Under the constitution, penalties against cursing and swearing have been exacted. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury. The indictment must state the oath to be on the holy Evangelists of Almighty God. The accused on his trial might argue that the book by which he was sworn, so far from being holy writ, was a pack of lies, containing as little truth as Robinson Crusoe. And is every jury in the box to decide as a fact whether the Scriptures are of divine origin? Let us now see what have been the opinions of our judges and courts. The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this state to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth, to ascertain and determine how far any British statutes extended to it, and to prepare bills containing such alterations and additions as the code of laws, and the principles and forms of the constitution, then lately adopted, might require." He had just risen from his seat in the convention which formed the constitution of the United States, and of this state; and it is well known, that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures, 3d vol. of his works, 112, he states, that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is in vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation, because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

The following early 20th century textbook protests that the courts of that era and before (1918) intended to establish Christianity as the national religion, although not a particular church or set.

Also, this 1859 book dealing with the Bible and Politics in the mid-19th century is enlightening. --FidesetRatio 23:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger/Renaming Proposal

Having looked through this article and its sibling articles in some detail, I'm concerned there needs to be some better attempt to organize the various articles on this general subject. I'd like to offer a proposal, but first my observations:

"Separation of Church and State," as I understand, is really a distinctly American phrase, based primarily in Jefferson's interpretation of the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. If one is discussing this principle in France, for instance, I believe the phrase is Laicite (similar, but slightly different). Meanwhile, both Secularism and Secularization also offer more universal discussions of the idea of non-religious public life, along with the more specific Secular state. Turning "Separation of Church and State," into an international discussion, then, seems problematic, since the idea of "separation" is so specific to Jefferson and his characterization of the First Amendment.
Second, our article here on Separation of church and state in the United States is long, but in fact offers very little discussion of the actual principle enunciated by Jefferson, his contemporaries, the Supreme Court, or other commentators. Instead, it seems to provide a very thorough discussion specifically of the history of the phrase. Useful and relevant, surely, but also seemingly incomplete.
Meanwhile, much of the general article on Separation of Church and State is specifically about interpretation and discussion in the U.S., while it seems to have a difficult time getting an international discussion going, since internationally, the discussion tends to come in at a different angle. Much of the discussion, then, comes under the banner of Secularism and theocracy, both of which have their own articles anyway (along with Secular state).

That said, I'm not sure the current division makes sense, with one article on the phrase in the United States and another on the phrase internationally. I'd propose the following:

Turn this article, Separation of church and state in the United States into History of Church and State in the United States or History of the Religion Clauses in the United States or something catchier, since that is mostly what the article discusses.
Turn Separation of Church and State into the main article on that subject, which would then clarify that it is primarily an American phrase. The lead, then, would be basically what we currently have in this article, while the body would incorporate some of the history here, but also then provide a broader discussion, including some comparisons to similar principles such as Laicite and secularism.
At the same time, leave most of the international discussion on these principles to their own articles, including secularism, laicite, secular state, etc., with appropriate links between them all.

I see mergers have been rejected before, but it seems like one way to get all of this material better organized. Actually one of the benefits of this is that it wouldn't be a merger, but simply a renaming of this article to "History of X," and then a slight refocus of Separation of Church and State. That way we don't actually have to lose material. Responses or other suggestions welcome. Mackan79 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Relationships with Laicite and secularism should be sourced, which will not be easy to do fairly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] source

I removed a repetitive and POV paragraph. It is possible, however, that this is the POV of the source, which is Schaff, Philip. Church and State in the United States: Or, The American Idea of Religious Liberty and Its Practical Effects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since, however, this appears to be Philip Schaff (1819-1893); and the book appears to be a form of his 1855 lectures, some datedness on the Fourteenth Amendment is only to be expected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

So, according to this article, to sum up "separation of church and state" is (in a historically accurate intention as deemed all along) "no religion shall rule the government, and no government shall rule religion"? I just wanted to make sure I got that right, because that's how I read it. But it does not in fact mean what the common public perceives -- "religion and government should not be mixed" such as prayer in school? Really, it sounds more to me like religious freedom within government. Colonel Marksman 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's what the article says at all. Tempshill 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags image?

The Christian flag displayed alongside the flag of the USA next to the pulpit in a church in California. Note the eagle and cross finials on the flag poles.

What exactly is the point of including this image of two flags (the "Christian," which is used primarily in Protestant environments, and the American)? They're in a church. The church is not, based on this use of flags alone, advancing any particular political perspective, nor, I'd argue, would most people involved in the C&S debates say that its transgressing any certain line. If this were a court room, yes, that would be different, but churches have the freedom to fly whatever flags they want, as long as they are not misusing their privilege to tax-free property by airing support for specific candidates, etc. So why's this here? Maxisdetermined 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It is without context and is meaningless. I removed the photo. Tempshill 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example removed

I removed this line:

For example, in 1854 the State supreme court of Maine declared that the local school board had the right to expel a 15-year-old girl for refusing to read aloud a portion of the King James translation of the Bible to her class due to her family's religion requiring her to read only the Douay Catholic translation.^[2]

because it was given as an example of a practice common during the passage of the Bill of Rights that would be ruled unconstitutional today. The latter was ratified in 1791, not contemporaneous with 1854. Tempshill 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state

I think this section should be deleted because it comes from a single source published years after it was supposedly made. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant, because Bush never espoused any anti-atheist policies or overtly acted on this supposed belief. --The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Only thing is that this quote lingered for probably over a year in the article Historical persecution by Christians, where it rather did not belong at all, an no one seemed to care. To make an end to the POV-Forking I merged it in here. If I had though that the sources (there are 2) would not be reliable, I would deleted the quote, but to me they seem ok. I think the point that not necessarily every US-politician completely embraced the separation of church and state in the United States is clearly relevant for the article. If you find a better way to include this, please edit the article accordingly, but otherwise I think this quote should stay in there. Zara1709 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The conversation only has one source because Rob Sherman is the original source for both articles. Anyway the conversation is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article "American Atheists". If you want to show that US presidents do not completely embrace the separation of church and state, there are numerous well-documented examples of presidents referring to religion and forming alliances with religious leaders --The Four Deuces (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'one source' issue is a valid one, though. It does seem odd that the comment, which Sherman says was made at a campaign event in front of many members of the press, wasn't reported by anyone else at all. I'd think that at least one person other than the guy who posed the question would think something like that was worth mentioning. The proof on his web site is also rather shaky, I'm afraid: so much so that I think this qualifies as a BLP concern. I've removed the quote from this article and a few others. I have left it in American Atheists, as it's an important part of that article's section on the overall controversy of which this incident was a part, and I think it's handled very appropriately there. -- Vary | Talk 08:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't care that much about it if anyone had deleted that quote in the Historical Persecution by Christians article. But merging it to another article and deleting it then there is somehow pointless. If there are "numerous well-documented examples of presidents referring to religion and forming alliances with religious leaders" please add them, and then you can for my part deleted that quote. I am going to revert to the previous version, make a note about the current discussion and link American Atheists there. Zara1709 (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not my fault it was moved from another article. I didn't request the merge, and if I'd have seen it there, I would have removed it there. But I don't see what that has to do with anything. The fact that nobody has deleted problematic information before is no reason to continue violating policy by including it.

The sourcing for the quote is extremely dubious. It can not be proven that Bush ever said such a thing. The evidence provided by Sherman is a single letter sent by a member of GHW's staff in reply to a letter of complaint that makes only the vaguest reference to the alleged statements. Because the letter does not explicitly and categorically deny the incident (which is never specifically mentioned), Sherman takes it as an acknowledgment of the incident from the Bush camp. He ignores the several other similar letters, written in response to more specific complaints by others who read his article, which refer to 'alleged quotes' or 'comments attributed to the President'. Therefore, per WP:BLP. The 'alleged' wording is appropriate to the article on American Atheists - it's notable there because they're the ones who said it - but the info is so dubious it really doesn't belong here. -- Vary | Talk 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then give me some time to get the wording right and I merge it myself. This quote was present in the article Historical Persecution by Christians for probably over a year, so another week won't hurt anyone. If have other things to do besides etiding Wikipidia, so I just couldn't spent the whole afternoon on this, today. You apparently seem to know more about this than what is currently included in the article. Make your ressources accessible and we see then. Zara1709 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how it works. This is not a content dispute, it's a policy violation, and WP:BLP requires that possible violations be removed as soon as they are discovered, regardless of how long they've been on wikipedia. It needs to come out now; if you feel that you can use this information in a way that does not violate policy elsewhere on wikipedia, you may do so at your leisure; be aware, however, that we can not state this information as fact, as your most recent revision does, without much better sourcing.

I don't have to give sources showing that the information is unreliable. It works in the other direction. Are you saying that without a specific source saying that the story is not true, we must assume that it is? That's more or less the same logic Sherman is using, in fact; the information I provided above comes from Sherman's web site, currently the only source that the statements were actually made, where Sherman quotes picks one letter from this document which fails to explicitly deny comments that were not even directly mentioned in the letter to which it was a response.

The second source you added only says that Sherman claims that Bush made those statements, so that doesn't really help us here. -- Vary | Talk 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Atheist a reliable source?

This claim was made long ago, but I'm still not sure if it's reliable for a BLP claim.

... Standing in front of the White House with a small American Flag in his suit pocket, Mr. Sherman demanded that President Bush acknowledge the citizenship and patriotism of atheist Americans.

"It's similar to Nixon and China," he said. "Nobody questioned Nixon's hard stance on communism. Nobody questions whether George Bush is a God-believer. But it's time to recognize that atheists are citizens."

Mr. Bush said otherwise in a press conference in August in Chicago when Mr. Sherman asked him how he would win the vote of the atheist community.

"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community," Mr. Bush replied. "Faith in God is important to me."

"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" Mr. Sherman continued.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," said Mr. Bush, as reported in the November issue of American Atheist magazine.

Outraged, American Atheists President Jon Murray sought a retraction from Mr. Bush after the election and a meeting with the new president. White House Communication Director David Demarest said yesterday, "I guess they did ask for a meeting and we turned them down."

But the atheists did get a response in February from C. Boyden Gray, counselor to the president.

"As you are aware, the president is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the govern- ment," Mr. Gray wrote. "You may rest assured that this administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as well as others with whom the president disagrees."

— Jennifer Spevacek. "Atheist drops by to wave the flag", Washington Times, 1989-07-27.

I think it's notable that even the Washington Times doesn't flatly say that Bush said this: they attributed the quote to American Atheist (Nov. 1988, presumably). I think it's at least a little interesting that the Times couldn't find a more reliable source for the quote. It seems like we're taking them at their word. I think this fails BLP. Cool Hand Luke 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is disagreement over when this event took place. Many sources say 1987, but the above and other sources say 1988. Seems so airy to me. A 2005 American Atheist article describes it as occurring in a Chicago airport (and doesn't mention a press conference: "And the President's Daddy, George Bush Senior gave us an edict when he bumped into that hell-bound nine-com-poop, Rob Sherman at the Chicago airport back in 1987 when the President said, 'I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God!'" American Atheist, June 22, 2005). Makes me wonder if this was a private exchange. That would explain why no one else seems to have reported it at the time. It also means it's probably just Murray's word. Seems very dubious to me. Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge wp:blp, but I don't think that it is a free ticket to kill controversial content. If there is a Times article that says that the ONLY source for this is Rob Sherman himself, then add it this to the article, merge it to American Atheists, and I'm fine with it. You don't need to tell me how Wikipedia works: I did not just remove one POVFork to create another! If the source is reliable, then this belongs into this article. If you have other sources that say that the first source is not reliable, then you need to give them, and at best add them to the article. After you have done this, then we can merge this to American Atheists. I did not want to start another edit controversy, I was only concerned about Historical Persecution by Christians not conforming to Wikipedia's policies. Now, Rob Sherman has actually an explanation why there wouldn't be another source for this: "The entire Chicago political press corps was there, along with members of the White House press corps and national news reporters, but no reporter thought that this anti-atheist bigotry was sufficiently newsworthy to do anything with it, other than me." [9] Zara1709 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a self-published source. We can't use it to comment on a living person, period. I'm afraid that BLP does not allow us to throw in random allegations from people. Your understanding of BLP—that we can get around it by sourcing the statement to Sherman—completely guts it. Otherwise, we could always verifiably say that "Crackpot X accuses Y of child molestation." We don't attribute statements to small minority POVs per WP:WEIGHT, and I think this shaky source is a variation on that theme. It should go. American Atheist already covers the alleged remark, and that's good enough. Cool Hand Luke 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could you give me a break here. I did not want to take Sherman's self pubslished source as a reference for the article, but I felt that it was important that he himself gives a reason why no one else is likely to have reported that case. Anyway, I am going to sort this out now. If will reduce this to a sentece that Bush allegedly said this. If independent newpapers have picked up the case (that he allegdly said it) that should be notable. And don't tell me that this would be a violation of wp:blp. I am not going to insist that he actually said it. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did find sources in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere that say Bush did give a press conference at O'Hare on Aug. 27, 1987. These reports are focused on his meeting the with the DuPage Republicans and the flooding that nonstop rain had brought to Chicago. No one else said anything about atheism, though. Sherman's report, published in the American Atheist at least 3 months (or possibly 15 months) later seems to be the only source for this quote. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge 'George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state' to American Atheists

Oppose. I have reworded the paragraph to take into account that this case is unclear. User:Vary seems to be of the opinion that this should only be debated in the article American Atheists. I am of the opinion that this case, regardless of what Bush (Snr) actually said, should be debated in this article. If even the Washington Times mentioned it, it should be notable, and I would consider it a POV-Fork no to debate it in THIS article. However, if you can reach a broad consensus that it should not be debated in this article (but at American Atheists) I won't care. The sociological debate on this is more interesting, anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, Wikipedia articles are not a place for 'debate'. And as Cool Hand Luke pointed out to you, weasel words like 'allegedly' do not allow you to do an end-run around blp. The other sources that mention Sherman's claim mention them in articles about atheist activism. It's more relevant to articles like American Atheists, because it's used there as an example of that group's activities, but the fact that a reliable publication has acknowledged that he made an unsupported claim about GHW - especially one that, if his account was accurate, should have been reported in every major newspaper in the country - does not make the claim appropriate to this article.

Why are you proposing a merger that you yourself are opposed to? And I'm not sure what POV forks have to do with it; a pov fork is a near-duplicate article created as a haven for pov pushing. An example would be creating two separate articles on the anti-abortion movement, one titled "Pro-Life" and one "Anti-Choice".

At any rate, there's no merging required; last I checked, American Atheists already covers this information. But that doesn't mean it shoud stay here. -- Vary | Talk 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to centralize debate here to avoid WP:MULTI, but the alleged comment does not belong in this artice. I dug up the Washington Times ref because it seemed to be more reliable than the other sources, but it's an article about Sherman, not Bush. I think the appropriate place for such comment is in the articles on American Atheist and Sherman (if one existed). To avoid BLP issues, it needs an explanation of its provenance, and that would be off-topic in any article not about Sherman. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think there should be an entire section on this comment here, a brief mention would certainly not be superfluous. It is highly notable to the topic to quote an US president (alright, a "special" US president) who appears to have no practical knowledge or perception of the legal principle. Try to find a constructive compromise. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a paragraph to explain the quote's origin. A passing reference implying the Bush in fact said this would be a BLP violation. Cool Hand Luke 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We would need a line quoting the clarification made by the President's spokesman. Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I commented some time ago when a report on this was filed at the BLP noticeboard, whether or not he actually said it, it is notable that he did not apparently deny it once reports circulated that it had been said. It certainly seems notable enough from that standpoint. Plus it was reported - or the controversy was covered - in several unimpeachable sources. If many RSes are "teaching the controversy", to borrow a phrase, then so might we - in the context of controversy, which is how it should be phrased. Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So in an article on Separation of church and state in the United States we want to cover a controversy over whether the president might have said something? "Sherman claimed... published in American Atheist... president's spokesman did not deny..." This really isn't so notable here. It has a few dozen cites to it over the years, and the preponderance are editorials. I think the material might have a place in other articles (maybe even Bush), but this is an overview on a large subject, and I don't think SYNthy comments on a "controversy" about not denying a statement should have a home in this article. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that the fact that a former President found that denying that religious faith is essential for civic virtue to be difficult or politically unwise is more than relevant; the fact that this point is regularly brought out in op-eds seems to indicate notability. Perhaps an RfC? I certainly think there are no BLP issues. Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, because Bush has apparently not denied of having made that statement, or at least found it politically unwise to admit that "atheists can be patriots" in the US, this is notable in THIS article. But since this seems to such a controversial issue for some people here, i think there needs to much more said here. Most likely I will have the time to write a LONG statement on this discussion page tomorrow. Zara1709 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The statements don't appear to have received any serious coverage in the mainstream press at the time, and what coverage since has been in articles about Sherman and to atheist activists in general, not about Bush. When a quote has that low a profile, and when it's being carefully treated by the mainstream press as an 'alleged' quote, explicitly denying it or issuing a press release about it would be counter productive; it would suddenly be all over the news. So it's not surprising that the Bush camp never bothered with a categorical denial. But those letters coming from his office in response to letters from citizens which mention the quotes more specifically all refer to them as 'quotes attributed to the president.' I think what's more notable than the lack of an official denial is the fact that the quote was supposedly made in front of many members of the mainstream press, and not one of them thought it was worth mentioning, or has come forward since with stronger evidence. Right now all we have is one man's word out of an entire roomful of people.

What mainstream coverage there has been has been of the quote has been about the fact that Sherman claimed Bush said these things; not about the quotes themselves, which does affect where the quote is or is not appropriate, I think. Those unimpeachable sources were careful not to state the incident as fact, and have mentioned it in the context of Sherman's activities, not on its own. That makes Sherman's claim notable, but not the statement itself. I think we should be treating this quote the same way the press seems to be treating it; as more notable to the person who claims it was said than to anything else. -- Vary | Talk 14:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Vary. Bush might have said it, but your argument that we must find a source showing that he didn't say it shifts the burden to the wrong side on BLPs. It's a notable quote for Sherman and American Atheist, and is often reported in relation to them, but op-eds and other sources using the quote might just be perpetuating a well-known legend. I agree that the lack of official denial doesn't mean anything. If I claimed that the current Bush said something dreadful, his staff probably wouldn't respond unless it had been reported in a mainstream publication, which this quote was not. Sitting U.S. Presidents don't usually have time to tackle fringe claims made in specialty magazines. In any case, I would welcome an RfC. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.

What does WP:BLP actually say? If you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you will see in the 2nd sentence that it does only supplement and emphasize the three main Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (the last of which is not an issue here). You, Vary, are of the opinion that we would need to verify whether Bush actually said the statement to include is in this article. I should point out here, that I never explicitly was of the of the opinion that one could verify it. After I took a look at the sources that I gathered largely myself, I would actually say that one can't verify it. Nevertheless, even if the statement was actually wrong, it would not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to include it in the article George H. W. Bush in this case, if one would make clear that he did not actually say it. A search on the Internet turns up enough pages on this to make it notable. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid;" This is to be included because it was part of a public discussion, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid that would decide for the reader wether he actually said it or not, unless of course, either one of the viewpoints could be reliably sourced. I mean, I don't care about the issue that the American public has with atheism. But some people are likely to look up Wikipedia to see if we have something on the rumour about Bush having said something against Atheists, and it would be better to say that it is not clear whether Bush actually said it than to say nothing.

How does Wikipedia really work? I would otherwise rest it here, but Vary was determined to tell me how it [Wikipdia] works. On the right side you can find a flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process. If you disagree about something, you should usually discuss it first. I had intented the merge propasal to give the room for the discussion.

The claim that the material needed to be removed because of WP:BLP is nonsense. If you take ANOTHER look at the last revision that was removed, you will see that I did not say anything about whether this statement was true or not. But I was referring to the Tucson Weekly saying that it would be "one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society." That Newspaper (that should be a reliable source) also does not say whether Bush actually said it, but it mentions that "Atheistic journalist and activist Robert Sherman attributed the statement to him". Of course, one newspaper article is not enough to establish notability, but one could easily find some more references , and you know that there are other reliable sources for the point that Shermann HAS ATTRIBUTED this statement to Bush, too. So you removal was not covered by wp:BLP and I consider it quite offensive. But I will assume that you acted in good faith.

On the actuall issue: Anyway, if this was an issue for wp:blp, it needed to be removed from American Atheists, too. But this is not the case, and a removal there would clearly be a violation of wp:NPOV that mandates that all significant viewpoints need to be included. The only real question here is, whether the attribution of this quote to Bush is significant enough to included in this article. That would be probably a question for a Requests for comment, but I still think that we can solve the other issues here with common sence. Again: Nobody is insisting that Bush actually said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." What I am insisting on is that it has been alleged by Bob Sherman that he said it. Naturally, the use of the word 'alleged' does not violate wp:NPOV, since this has in fact been alleged. Similarly, the use of the word 'eminently' is not POV. The phrase "it has been eminently been argued by" is like a standart phrase for summarizing academic discussion. Only that this topic is here not considered to be an academic question which one can discuss in a relaxed atmosphere, but a political topic in the bad sense of the word political. Here a discussion means complelety denying any other point of view. Zara1709 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for any spelling error, but I ran out of time during writing (For technical reasons, I have to relog every hour). Currently I am conducting a websearch to get more sources. Most stuff I have found so far are atheist's and other webforums. This one is interesting [10]: "Did George H W Bush really say "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God"? - No one knows but George H W Bush and Rob Sherman. Bush isn't talking, and Sherman's story has changed over the years." Another interesting page is [11]. Anyway, it you know some newspaper articles that are accessible online, it would be helpful if you have the links. Zara1709 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move debate to 'Discrimination against atheists'?

I found another newspaper who reported on it. Washington monthly: [12], [13]. This should be a reliable source. There also is a statement in a forum, that even CNN and the New York Post reported on this. [14]. But anyway, I also found out that Wikipedia already has an article Discrimination against atheists which says: "In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, [the statement]". I'd guess Vary and Cool Hand Luke will object to the way that this is currently written there, so I propose that we just move the debate there an settle here with another sentence in the section that does not mention the statement by Bush, but links Discrimination against atheists instead. Zara1709 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Worded appropriately, I think it would absolutely belong in that article, as would a reference to that topic here (presumably in the recently added section? But given that it's so uncertain that he even said it, I still think the statement itself off topic an inappropriate here.

And as for your complaints about my statements on 'how wikipedia works', that comment was in response to your request that this revision stay in place until you had a chance to address the blp violation. The "is believed to have" bit notwithstanding, I don't think that there can be any question that the unqualified statement 'In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, he, at that time Republican presidential candidate, said: "blah, blah, we all know the quote by now"' violates blp. As I said in the comment I linked to, blp violations should be removed and then addressed on the talk page, not left in place until someone gets around to discussing how to go about correcting them. -- Vary | Talk 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You just had to completely remove it, instead of rewording it accordingly. You are familiar with the article American Atheists, where there is a reference to the Tuscon Weekly, which is a reliable source for the allegation that Bush said it. I am still somehow irritated. Why didn't you just take the time to move that paragraph to American Atheists, reword it, and make an appropriate link to it here? Zara1709 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source that he said it. Besides, I thought your point is that it doesn't matter whether he said it or not. I wouldn't mind if the articles said that only Rob Sherman reported it (for the American Atheist), that it was not taped, and that no other reporter at the press conference ever confirmed it. That way, we would put this almost-urban-legend quote on solid ground. That second Washington Monthly source is very nice and explicit. Thanks for your work. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did 'just have to completely remove it.' The version that was in the article at the time needed to go, whether the topic was appropriate or not. But as I said, I don't think it belongs here in any form, and it's already covered at American Atheists, so any rewriting and/or merging would, from my perspective, have been a waste of time. Why should I do something I don't think needs doing just because you disagree? -- Vary | Talk 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is a reliable source for THE ALLEGATION that he said it. (I don't have to write in a highlighting style all the time, do I?) And I consider it somehow reckless to delete a paragraph if you can rewrite it. Anyway, I moved the stuff to Discrimination against atheists; the Washington Monthly source is already included. Zara1709 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckless? Sorry, but no. I am under no obligation to rewrite problematic material that I do not feel belongs in the article to begin with. I'm under no obligation to rewrite it even if I don't have any specific objections to the content itself. With a problem like this, getting the unsourced material (and here I mean the statement that GHW said these things, not that Sherman said he said them) out of the article is the first priority. And anyway, what was I supposed to do, rewrite it so that it doesn't state an unproven story as fact and then remove it as not germane to the article? -- Vary | Talk 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Eminently' and 'coined'

The word 'Eminently' is inherently pov, and the way it's being used here does not add anything to the article itself. It effectively says "I think this guy knows more about this than anyone else and you should listen to him." That's not what an encyclopedia should do.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau coined the term 'civil religion' a good hundred and fifty years before Bellah was born, so saying that Bellah coined the term is problematic.

And the statement that The article Civil Religion won't get any better if you delete the 'eminently' here puzzles me, as I don't know what one has to do with the other. -- Vary | Talk 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, it says that about Rousseau in the the current version of Civil Religion. But no one took up the term before Robert N. Bellah, so I consider it legitimate to say that he coined the term. Anyway, about a year ago I made a presentation on the topic in a course at the religious science department at my German university. I used, Thomas Hase: Zivilreligion : religionswissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu einem theoretischen Konzept am Beispiel der USA, Ergon-Verl. : Würzburg 2001, ISBN 3-935556-98-5, as a reference then. I would consider rewriting the article Civil Religion, but currently I am at a French university and it is somehow difficult to get the corresponding literature here. You can believe me that I referred the academic debate to the best of my knowledge, and that Bellah's research badly needs to be included in the English article on Civil Religion. Otherwise, you might want check out the German article de:Zivilreligion. Zara1709 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His research is included in the current article, but it still says that Rousseau coined the term, because he did. In the 1700's. And Bellah, in his paper "Civil Religion in America", states "The phrase 'civil religion' is, of course, Rousseau's." So even he doesn't appear to claim he coined it. -- Vary | Talk 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, but no one USED the term between Bellah and Rousseau; that it is used now again is ONLY due to Bellah. But disputing ONE WORD is really not worth it. Zara1709 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Popularized $\ne$ coined. So no, it's not. -- Vary | Talk 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cases

Shouldn't there be cases in this article? Supreme court cases, like Wallace against Jafree, I mean.204.147.20.1 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

This section contain only the views of critics of the mordern concept of church and state. It should include views from the other side too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Tripoli

I want to create this section quickly. I will discuss in more detail in a few minutes. Pooua (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to explain why the following sentences are inappropriate in this or most other Wikipedia articles. I removed the words,

However, Article 6 of the United States Constitution provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it, are "the supreme Law of the Land" and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

1) As I recently learned when I was editing the Treaty of Tripoli article, the quoted words are WP:SYNTH. That automatically means they cannot be used.

2) The quoted words are misleading. The fact that treaties are considered "the law of the land" has no bearing on the separation of church and state, or even on the phrase in Article 11 that states that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." The reason it is irrelevant is, no treaty could retroactively change the historical facts of the founding of the U.S. government, no treaty is superior to the U.S. Constitution or of federal law and the phrase in Article 11 was an observation, not a regulation.

3) The quoted text does not apply to the Treaty of Tripoli because the Treaty is not "the supreme law of the land," having been broken and replaced by a new treaty (and the new treaty also is not in force).

I know, you want to argue that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli somehow made it a law that the U.S. government is not Christian, but that was never possible for this treaty, and it is all the less possible now that the treaty is nothing more than an historical artifact. Pooua (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot a point.

4) By international law, copies of treaties are only valid inasmuch as they are accurate translations of the original. Article 11 is not an accurate translation of the original, and so has no weight in law.

Most treaties for the last few centuries have been written in French, because the French language allows for many subtle shades of differentiation. However, the Treaty of Tripoli was written in Arabic, because the men who wrote it primarily spoke and wrote in Arabic. It was translated into English for Joel Barlow and James Leander Cathcart. As far as I can find, Barlow did not have any formal training in Arabic, though he undoubtedly picked up some in his time in the Barbary nations. Cathcart probably knew Arabic well, as he had spent several years as a slave in the Barbary nations, eventually becoming chief Christian clerk to the Dey of Algiers. In any event, the English translation that was given to Barlow is crude, and the English Article 11 doesn't even exist in the Arabic. The Cathcart translation is more accurate, and also does not contain Article 11. In fact, the only version of the Treaty of Tripoli that contains Article 11 is Barlow's copy.

Now, secularist pundits will point out that Barlow's copy was the copy that was ratified by Congress and signed by President John Adams, and has since then been considered the official treaty. But, legally, it isn't, according to the American Society of International Law:

"National translations are valid only as they are good translations, however official they may be."^[3]

1) You have a fair point. The sentence in question, as currently written, was synthesis which is a form of original research. Also, as I noted earlier, starting the sentence with "however" is tendentious (per WP:WTA) as it implies that this argument is the correct one. Mention should be made of this argument though, as it is a common one. It simply needs to be cited and the language changed to make clear that it's just that; an argument. I don't have time to track down a source at the moment, but I imagine the edit would read something along the lines of "It is argued (insert reliable source cite) that this treaty along with Article 6 of the Constitution which reads....such and such...are evidence that (whatever the cite is arguing)." And then if there is another reliable source countering this argument it can be cited as well.

2-4) these are all interesting points, but seem to be original research. As I noted, if these arguments all came from a single reliable source, then they should be briefly summarized and presented as a counter-argument to the above. Otherwise, it couldn't be included. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, the existence of the paragraph - and the fact that it appears in the congressionally ratified copy of the treaty - does appear to support the argument being made here, which is that the founders of the United States intended for it to be religiously neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.178.220 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia controversial topics