Why is christianity not the state religion of the USA?

Aug 2019
51
Southwest Florida
To the first point, the Fourteenth is not the issue. I don't have all the cases at my fingertips, but I believe when the federal courts rule - for example - that taxpayer money cannot fund private religious schools, or that a school football coach cannot lead a team in prayer, or that you can't have a display of the Ten Commandments in a government building; these are First Amendment rulings based on the Establishment Clauses (one of them, anyway). These are not handled as equal protection cases.

To the second question yes, I would argue that this was an end to states' rights and the rights of the people as those terms are used in the Constitution, but the US Senate beat me to it. From Senate Report 93-549 in 1973.

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency..."
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
I don't consider it a harsh word. Both the Founders and the post-WW2 generations could not help but be inspired, motivated and have their opinions bounded by the doctrines to which they exposed. That is what indoctrinated means. I went to schools where the government controlled the curricula and I was indoctrinated just like everyone else.

You say that emergency power rule seems like an unimportant thing. That this was not part of my official indoctrination seem a little important to me. That the United States is governed under this authority while officials publicly pretend to be using the Constitution that seems a little important, too.

If nothing else, it matters because it explains what the Federal Courts are doing with the First Amendment - because other than Congress making a law, the courts should have nothing to say.
To the first point, the Fourteenth is not the issue. I don't have all the cases at my fingertips, but I believe when the federal courts rule - for example - that taxpayer money cannot fund private religious schools, or that a school football coach cannot lead a team in prayer, or that you can't have a display of the Ten Commandments in a government building; these are First Amendment rulings based on the Establishment Clauses (one of them, anyway). These are not handled as equal protection cases.

I am not sure you correctly grasp the concept of 'selective corporation'

Each of these Establishment clause cases reached the Supreme Court because of the incorporation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Each case involved a State law and an individual and could only be brought to the federal courts via the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection in the face of State law.

All of the these cases were a product of selective incorporation: Mapp v. Ohio (4th); Miranda v. Az. (5th); Gideon v. Wainwright [FL] (6th), as well as all the Establishment Clause cases you are alluding to: http://www.perno.com/con law/establishment.htm

Also one has to careful how to present those cases; for example that football coach not being allowed to lead his team in prayer (as often stated by the conservative media) came about because a teenager want-a-be evangelist minister, using the school's PA system before games, often giving 20 minute long sermons on the true Christian region, succeeded in offending just about everyone except his own. The actual law suit was brought forth by two mom's, one Mormon and the other Catholic and in effect ended all prayer before public school athletic events. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
I am not sure you correctly grasp the concept of 'selective corporation'
You can be sure I do. But I also know that the court is not being honest. This is why they invent things like doctrine of incorporation and substantive due process, because they don't want their dishonesty to be too obvious.

The court decisions in these religious cases do not vary due to doctrine of incorporation. The decisions vary because the court has chosen to uphold one clause of the First Amendment backwards and not the other clause backwards. And this relates to the opening post, in that, everyone of the 50-or-so who wrote the Constitution, the 1,000+ who ratified it, and the population at large at that time, could tell you the modern court is enforcing it backwards. Hardly anyone today knows that it is backward, because of "indoctrination." That is, one cannot correctly infer what the Founders opinions where by basing them on modern backward misinterpretations of one selected document.

The "coach" I spoke of was metaphorical (had no "cases at my fingertips"). I was trying to demonstrate that the court has reversed the plain language of the First Amendment from a restriction on the federal government, to restrictions by the federal government with unlimited jurisdiction right down, for example, to a sports coach. And second, that this jurisdiction has no limit, because it sustains the emergency power rule described in the pasted-in Senate Report - as power that has no limit. And I'll add, since 1938, when the court adopted new [emergency power] rules, they are only pretending to uphold the Constitution anyway. That precious egalitarianism you are worried about isn't worth much because your citizenship is so degraded that in federal court, you have the same rights as (are in egalite with) a corporation.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
1,329
Monza, Italy
The founders of the U.S.A. were mainly free-Masons influenced by Enlightenment, so the concept of freedom of religion (although the nation as amatter of facts was all Christian) was strictly respected.
 
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
Certainly our "separation of church and state", and French "laïcité" are to be celebrated, all the more when contrasted with the situation in states with names beginning with "Islamic Republic of...".

Freedom is not a trivial pursuit, and a state religion stomps all over peoples' freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duncanness
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
Certainly our "separation of church and state", and French "laïcité" are to be celebrated, all the more when contrasted with the situation in states with names beginning with "Islamic Republic of...".

Freedom is not a trivial pursuit, and a state religion stomps all over peoples' freedom.
Sure, the freedom to invade others and turn their countries into graveyards in the name of the things you mentioned. I remembered you, you're the guy who in Disqus would ramble about US-supported fascism in Latin America, only to turn 180 degrees with Muslims and become a racist bigot who said that the wars against Muslims are almost moral duties and good things that are "civilising" superstitious savages (ala Christopher Hitchens, one of the biggest cheerleaders and propagandists for Bush and the Iraq War). Apparently, it's okay for Christian, White settler-dominated Latin America to oppose another Christian, White-settler-dominated state, but not okay for non-Christian non-Whites to do the same.
 
Jun 2017
601
maine
Sure, the freedom to invade others and turn their countries into graveyards in the name of the things you mentioned. I remembered you, you're the guy who in Disqus would ramble about US-supported fascism in Latin America, only to turn 180 degrees with Muslims and become a racist bigot who said that the wars against Muslims are almost moral duties and good things that are "civilising" superstitious savages (ala Christopher Hitchens, one of the biggest cheerleaders and propagandists for Bush and the Iraq War). Apparently, it's okay for Christian, White settler-dominated Latin America to oppose another Christian, White-settler-dominated state, but not okay for non-Christian non-Whites to do the same.
I'm sure that you are reading far too much into this statement. It could be the "Catholic State of...", or the "Lutheran State of..." or even the "Atheist State of...": anything in the name that indicates one particular belief system is part and parcel of the government. Freedom of religion grants nothing that you mention--it gives people who are not Christian (or any other religion) assurance and legal backing. This is a historical discussion and not an alternative to Disquis. Ease up :)
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
I'm sure that you are reading far too much into this statement. It could be the "Catholic State of...", or the "Lutheran State of..." or even the "Atheist State of...": anything in the name that indicates one particular belief statement is part and parcel of the government. Freedom of religion grants nothing that you mention--it gives people who are not Christian (or any other religion) assurance and legal backing. This is a historical discussion and not an alternative to Disquis. Ease up :)
I was responding to this idea that we should want to be like the US or France, countries that invade and devastate others and kill and maim thousands if not millions and do invoke freedom of religion to do so, and pay propagandists like the atheist Christopher Hitchens to promote their wars. Unless you're seriously going to be this ignorant and not know about the US-led coalition war against Iraq (that included France) in the Gulf War, of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, or the 2013 French invasion of Mali, not to mention the 2015 French bombing of Iraq and Syria and the NATO bombing of Libya.
 
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
Sure, the freedom to invade others and turn their countries into graveyards in the name of the things you mentioned. I remembered you, you're the guy who in Disqus would ramble about US-supported fascism in Latin America, only to turn 180 degrees with Muslims and become a racist bigot who said that the wars against Muslims are almost moral duties and good things that are "civilising" superstitious savages (ala Christopher Hitchens, one of the biggest cheerleaders and propagandists for Bush and the Iraq War). Apparently, it's okay for Christian, White settler-dominated Latin America to oppose another Christian, White-settler-dominated state, but not okay for non-Christian non-Whites to do the same.
You seem confused. I did not advocate "wars with Muslims", but action against violent terrorist jihadis! Big difference. Likewise I advocate action against Christian-right terrorists, not bombing churches! So come down off of your extremist dilettante soapbox and try using reason instead of hyperbole.

I in fact was and am opposed to Bush's war in Iraq. I think Hitchens was wrong about that. I'm glad Saddam is dead, but the USA invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder. Get it? Stop telling me what I think when you haven't bothered to even read it straight.

And where did I advocate colonialism in America? My politics regarding Latin America are very much in opposition to USA or other imperialism, as in the coups which installed dictators (Guatemala, Chile, etc.) and in the economic imperialism by which USA corporations make big profits in sweatshops. If there are any "savages" involved in all this, they are the imperialists who've committed extensive crimes, and I include European, USA, Arab, Turkish and any other imperialists in that condemnation.

Are you really Mayan? In the 1980's I was in support of the Zapatistas. I was active against the USA military aid to Guatemala and El Salvador, and against the Nicaraguan Contras. So how do you construe this as support for white imperialism?

You sound a lot like yet another posing pseudo-radical dilettante trying to get attention. Try engaging in productive action instead, eh? If you think clearly, you'll recognize that not all imperialists are "white" (a bogus designation in any case, if you've read Dr. West).
 
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
You seem confused. I did not advocate "wars with Muslims", but action against violent terrorist jihadis! Big difference. Likewise I advocate action against Christian-right terrorists, not bombing churches! So come down off of your extremist dilettante soapbox and try using reason instead of hyperbole.

I in fact was and am opposed to Bush's war in Iraq. I think Hitchens was wrong about that. I'm glad Saddam is dead, but the USA invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder. Get it? Stop telling me what I think when you haven't bothered to even read it straight.

And where did I advocate colonialism in America? My politics regarding Latin America are very much in opposition to USA or other imperialism, as in the coups which installed dictators (Guatemala, Chile, etc.) and in the economic imperialism by which USA corporations make big profits in sweatshops. If there are any "savages" involved in all this, they are the imperialists who've committed extensive crimes, and I include European, USA, Arab, Turkish and any other imperialists in that condemnation.

Are you really Mayan? In the 1980's I was in support of the Zapatistas. I was active against the USA military aid to Guatemala and El Salvador, and against the Nicaraguan Contras. So how do you construe this as support for white imperialism?

You sound a lot like yet another posing pseudo-radical dilettante trying to get attention. Try engaging in productive action instead, eh? If you think clearly, you'll recognize that not all imperialists are "white" (a bogus designation in any case, if you've read Dr. West).
The term "White" is bogus despite millions of US and Latin Americans identifying as such? Also, calling the US invasion of Iraq a "blunder" is in the same level as calling Cortés's invasion of Mexico or Alvarado's invasion of Guatemala "blunders". These are not "blunders", which implies that there was a correct way to lead what in reality are wars of aggression that lead to the deaths of millions. Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you decry "terrorist jihadis" while being "glad Saddam is dead" when Saddam Hussein was not a "jihadi" even in his more conservative Islamist years and was never allied with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban (indeed, Al-Qaeda only became strong after Bush's invasion, as did other "jihadists") and never financed "terrorism", a term that like "totalitarianism" is nothing but a pejorative used to justify violence and repression especially directed against Third World movements and before the 1990s at least was mostly used to demonise revolutionary Communists rather than Muslims of all political ideologies. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant (and one who could be said to have committed genocide against Kurds), in the same way Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant, but being tyrannical is not the same as being "jihadi" or a supporter of "terrorism" and doesn't justify any imperialist war (for example, I don't think a "humanitarian intervention" led by the West to stop Lucas García or Ríos Montt in Guatemala would have been justified).

And you don't advocate for colonialism explicitly, but your comments about Latin America are fundamentally different than those about the Islamic world, making you an implicit supporter of White settler colonialism in Latin America since it's clear you see it as ontologically superior to the non-White, non-Western Islamic world and its religious "terrorists". Then you come and praise colonial powers like France and their secularism, the same France that like I said has recently invaded and devastated Mali and bombed Syria and Iraq (and, should be added, still owns colonies, including the only remaining continental colony in Latin America, French Guiana). It's what Asad Abu Khalil -himself no fan of Islam as a whole and an atheist who once said there should be a sect against all religious sects- calls colonial secularism.
 
Last edited: