I appreciate your points, but would wish to counter with a couple of my own.
First, with respect to separation of church and state being a guiding principle of the Constitution's application, this does not go to the heart of what was intended. Jefferson may well have intended for the federal government to refrain from appearing to endorse religion, and indeed it appears he did. As president he did not issue any proclamations of Thanksgiving and Prayer, but as Governor of Virginia he did issue them. He drew a line between what was permissible by the states and the federal government. Madison's original proposal for the bill of rights attempted to curtail states' powers as well, but these provisions were rejected outright. Another indication of the Founding Fathers' intent to leave these matters to the states.
Second, with respect to this being a guiding principle for constitutional interpretation, note that it was not until 1878 that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was first cited by the Supreme Court as a justification for outlawing polygamy.
The Bill of Rights concludes with the 10th Amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." At the time of the Constitution's ratification many states themselves had established "state churches" and the Constitution was not seen as contradicting this. If anything, the 10th Amendment would have been construed so as to protect states' rights.
As for the Supremacy Clause, it prohibits states from passing laws that are contrary to the Constitution, thereby establishing the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Selective incorporation forces the states to observe most of the concepts of the Bill of Rights at the state level. However, as the intent was not to restrict religious expression, but to restrict the government's infringement upon it, selective incorporation does not apply in the strictest constitutional sense to free exercise.
I don't endorse a return to teachers leading scripture reading or prayers, as many are simply not qualified. I do always support an individual's right to free expression, speech and practice of religion. I do not see how the Constitution places limitations upon an individual who is a student in a public school simply because the school receives federal dollars. One does not relinquish his rights in public based on association with a government entity, otherwise we would all be shackled because we may one day receive Social Security.
I welcome responses as I am enjoying the lively debate here.
With all due respect to all who have commented here in opposition to these cheerleaders, and have subsequently tried to float the old "federal law," "constitution," "separation of church and state" arguments, you are wrong.
Allow me to explain.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is a limitation upon the federal government, not upon localities or individuals. The establishment clause is irrelevant.
Second, your argument regarding a "separation of church and state" is irrelevant as well, as the Constitution contains no such verbiage. This was derived from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The specific quote said "[b]elieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." This has been wrongfully construed to imply that religion has no place in public life, but in fact the opposite is true. Jefferson's meaning is clear, and that is that the Congress (the legislature of the whole American people) cannot make laws which infringe upon an individual's religious practices. In this instance, no law was passed to do so and this school, created by the State of Tennessee, is not in this instance subject to a limitation under federal law.
The Founding Fathers of this nation were not anti-religion or amoral. If anything they were quite the opposite. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and many others expressed their deepest beliefs in God, though their interpretations of Him may have varied a bit. Nonetheless, they were not atheists or agnostics as so many would prefer to believe. The evidence speaks for itself and the documents are too numerous to refute, beginning with the most important documents of all: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
@bumbul:
I appreciate your points, but would wish to counter with a couple of my own.
First, with respect to separation of church and state being a guiding principle of the Constitution's application, this does not go to the heart of what was intended. Jefferson may well have intended for the federal government to refrain from appearing to endorse religion, and indeed it appears he did. As president he did not issue any proclamations of Thanksgiving and Prayer, but as Governor of Virginia he did issue them. He drew a line between what was permissible by the states and the federal government. Madison's original proposal for the bill of rights attempted to curtail states' powers as well, but these provisions were rejected outright. Another indication of the Founding Fathers' intent to leave these matters to the states.
Second, with respect to this being a guiding principle for constitutional interpretation, note that it was not until 1878 that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was first cited by the Supreme Court as a justification for outlawing polygamy.
The Bill of Rights concludes with the 10th Amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." At the time of the Constitution's ratification many states themselves had established "state churches" and the Constitution was not seen as contradicting this. If anything, the 10th Amendment would have been construed so as to protect states' rights.
As for the Supremacy Clause, it prohibits states from passing laws that are contrary to the Constitution, thereby establishing the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Selective incorporation forces the states to observe most of the concepts of the Bill of Rights at the state level. However, as the intent was not to restrict religious expression, but to restrict the government's infringement upon it, selective incorporation does not apply in the strictest constitutional sense to free exercise.
I don't endorse a return to teachers leading scripture reading or prayers, as many are simply not qualified. I do always support an individual's right to free expression, speech and practice of religion. I do not see how the Constitution places limitations upon an individual who is a student in a public school simply because the school receives federal dollars. One does not relinquish his rights in public based on association with a government entity, otherwise we would all be shackled because we may one day receive Social Security.
I welcome responses as I am enjoying the lively debate here.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
With all due respect to all who have commented here in opposition to these cheerleaders, and have subsequently tried to float the old "federal law," "constitution," "separation of church and state" arguments, you are wrong.
Allow me to explain.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is a limitation upon the federal government, not upon localities or individuals. The establishment clause is irrelevant.
Second, your argument regarding a "separation of church and state" is irrelevant as well, as the Constitution contains no such verbiage. This was derived from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The specific quote said "[b]elieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." This has been wrongfully construed to imply that religion has no place in public life, but in fact the opposite is true. Jefferson's meaning is clear, and that is that the Congress (the legislature of the whole American people) cannot make laws which infringe upon an individual's religious practices. In this instance, no law was passed to do so and this school, created by the State of Tennessee, is not in this instance subject to a limitation under federal law.
The Founding Fathers of this nation were not anti-religion or amoral. If anything they were quite the opposite. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and many others expressed their deepest beliefs in God, though their interpretations of Him may have varied a bit. Nonetheless, they were not atheists or agnostics as so many would prefer to believe. The evidence speaks for itself and the documents are too numerous to refute, beginning with the most important documents of all: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.