New talking point: 1st Amendment was written to protect the church from the state

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Acyn
@Acyn
·
Follow
Scott: We must tell the story of our constitution that the first amendment was written to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church


Watch on Twitter
5:51 PM · Apr 22, 2023

They're just rewriting history whole cloth now

[multigraincracker]

1. I'm not buying it.

Too much history about the problems in Europe they were escaping.

[Zambero]

2. One slight problem with that premise

The drafters of the first amendment forgot to include it.

[Zeitghost]

20. Last I checked

They included the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

[Lovie777]

3. Point............

why they wanted religion from state. Why, look at the red states..........

The US SC six sucks.

[Bristlecone]

4. What a gaslit crock of shit

[In It to Win It]

5. I heard Lauren Boebert making this ridiculous point several months back

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. When you look at all the special treatment religions get, kinda hard to disagree with.

We are all subsidizing some pretty foul, sick, dangerous, belief systems that get to rake in all the money they can from the suckers they prey on without having to pay a cent in taxes on their obscene income and properties.

So maybe the First Amendment wasn't written to protect religion from the state but that's sure the way it seems to work anyway.

[anciano]

7. A logical inconsistency...

They are claiming that based on what?

[keep_left]

8. This is exhibit A, B, C, ...Y, and Z in why we need civics education back in the schools.

Not to mention real (non-bowdlerized*) courses in American and world history.
* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bowdlerization

[Zeitghost]

21. Very true

Many in this thread seem to have never heard of the free exercise clause.

[FBaggins]

9. Not at all new - and pretty close to correct

More precisely - it was to protect all the other churches from whichever one would otherwise exercise the power of government against them.

That is - most countries at the time had a national church and often persecuted all others.

But at the same time - many of those governments were to a greater or lesser extent control themselves by that national church.

1A works in both directions

[DFW]

25. "Most countries" in Europe of the 18th century meant something different from what it would today

Except for a few, like France and Spain, there were dozens of Principalities and Duchies, always joining up and then de-coupling. Wars were constantly fought over religion from Ireland to the Balkans. There was no such place as "Germany" or "Italy." They were only geographical regions. England, too had its sects, some of whom went overseas to able to practice their oppressive beliefs on their own communities in "peace."

Jefferson, in articular, would have gagged at the notion of the state being required to protect religion. If he had heard that put forth after writing the Declaration of Independence, he might have said, "that is NOT what I had in mind!"

[FBaggins]

27. You're misreading the OP

would have gagged at the notion of the state being required to protect religion.

The OP is not about the state protecting the church. It's about all churches (and those not in churches) being protected from the state.

Yes - 18th century Europe was different from current-day (though I'm not sure why you think that today's Europe is relevant to what a founding document meant at the time). But those shifting lines/governments brought with them their own controls on what religions were acceptable.

[DFW]

28. I must be missing something, indeed

The Op had in its title:
"1st Amendment was written to protect the church from the state"

You say:
"The OP is not about the state protecting the church"

If there is a difference between the church being protected from the state and the church being protected by the state, I submit that it is a very small one. Either way, religion gets protected, and usually one religion above all others. Not every place is Singapore or Switzerland.

Today's Europe is relevant being the successor to a different situation from that which caused the mass immigration to North America in the 18th century, something which is no longer the case. Granted, there have still been armed conflicts in Ireland and the Balkans, but nothing continent-wide since National Socialism was defeated.

[former9thward]

10. This is law school Constitutional Law 101.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals from restrictions by government. They certainly were not written to protect government from anything. I did not watch the video so I have no idea what was said. But the tweet text is what is taught in law school.

[f_townsend]

13. Did they teach you about the 10A in law school?

And the original proposed 1A and 2A, which respectively would have expanded House representation and prohibited Congressional salary changes prior to an election?

What "individual rights" did those deal with?

[former9thward]

18. In law school they teach (hopefully) the real world.

Not wanta be amendments. There were all sorts of things discussed before ratification in 1789. So what?

[f_townsend]

30. Did they also teach to ignore key components of questions?

And to play dumb? Such as when I asked you if they taught you about the 10A and you instead ignored that part of the question?

[former9thward]

31. If you have a point to make about the 10A, make it.

This thread is about the 1A -- specifically the section on religion. I am not going to randomly talk about other matters.

[f_townsend]

32. You stated that "the BOR was written to protect individuals from restrictions by government"

But not every amendment deals with individual rights. The 10A, for example, deals with state rights -- the right of states to exercise heretofore unenumerated powers.

[FBaggins]

33. You should read the rest of 10A

Like the rest of the BOR, it restrains the federal government.

Any powers referenced in 10A as reserved to the states are constituted by the people of those states and exercised on their behalf. And, of course, 10A concludes with “or to the people”.

[f_townsend]

37. "or to the people"

simply means the "will of the people". Which, as far as the states are concerned, is expressed by the elected officials -- officials elected by the "people". What did you think it meant?

Does the 2A restrain the federal government? It restrains them from disarming the state militias. But it also strengthens the federal government, because it guaranteed that the federalized state militias -- answerable to the federal government when "called up" -- could be sufficiently armed and made ready. Those federalized state militias were constitutionally-required to enforce the federal law of the land and to protect the federal gov't and the nation. At least, that was true for as long as we had a federalized state militia system.

[former9thward]

34. I don't really know the point you are trying to make in these replies.

The first ten amendments were added as a restriction of the powers of the federal government over individuals. Originally they did not apply to the states. In fact a Supreme Court decision in 1883, Barron v. Baltimore, stated exactly that. Then starting in 1925 the Supreme Court started a process called incorporation where they said that certain sections of the Bill of Rights -- and even certain clauses -- were fundamental liberties and state governments would be restricted from depriving individuals from their rights. Incorporation began with Gitlow v. New York where the Court incorporated First Amendment restrictions to the states.

There have been many other posters on this thread stating the core of what I have said probably with better words.

[Sympthsical]

15. Yeah, this is kind of embarrassing

Like no one ever read Lemon v Kurtzman up in there. It has some big, "I looked up three Jefferson quotes on Google" energy to it.

I do wish the Internet's knowledge of history and law was a mite higher than "I'm a college freshman and this is deep" level, but alas. You go into flame wars with the army you have.

(Fun fact, for a period of time that got farther into adulthood than it should have, I thought the Lemon Test was something to do with making sure cars worked. Like an emissions test. To make sure you didn't have, you know, a lemon.)

[Funtatlaguy]

11. Gilead is what they want us to be.

[Ms. Toad]

12. It is not just a talking point.

It is accurate.

Many who were persecuted for their religious beliefs and practices came from England, where there was a state church. My religious forefathers were persecuted and incarcerated because they followed their own religious beliefs regardless of the consequences.

For this reason Quakers were advocates for the First Amendment - to ensure their/our freedom to worship as we beleive we are told to was guaranteed and safe from state interference. One of the most famous First Amendment cases (Tinker v. Board of Education)was brought by a Quaker friends of mine. Although not explicitly framed as such, it was at its core for the Tinkers, speech driven by their faith.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1374/quakers

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Yes and no.

Was the 1st Amendment written to protect against a state religion? Yes, by way of a secular government.

Are the Republicans talking about protecting their churches against state religion? No.

Have the Republicans been establishing a de facto state religion? Absolutely.

They are making an intellectually dishonest argument. Full stop.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Simply put, a primary goal of the First Amendment was to protect the church from the state.

So it is not just a talking point. It is one of the main reasons for the first amendment. And not just by making the government secular - but by prohibiting it from favoring one (or no religion) over another.

And - establishing a state religion - de facto or otherwise - was intended to be prohibited by the first amendment.

I was addressing the "talking point," (the subject of the post) which is factually correct.

[BigmanPigman]

17. Our new reality?

Down is up. Black is white. Good is bad. Bizarro World, 2023 edition.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

19. Doesn't the First Amendment protect church and state from each other?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Respecting an establishment of religion means no state religion.
Prohibiting the free exercise thereof means the state can't impose on churches.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Yes; his "protect the church from the state" is fine, it's the "not the state from the church" that

gets it wrong. The dodgy phrasing of their argument goes back to 996 at least: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lcrzaxz9OoQC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=%22protect+the+church+from+the+state+not+the+state+from+the+church%22&source=bl&ots=8II-msw_db&sig=ACfU3U1CqIPbLumZ6eOdK_eRU7lUBKoQOQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0heqPpMD-AhVYilwKHXZQBEgQ6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22protect%20the%20church%20from%20the%20state%20not%20the%20state%20from%20the%20church%22&f=false

and has been made a fair amount since then:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22protect+the+church+from+the+state+not+the+state+from+the+church%22

[Phoenix61]

22. This is why they want to trash public education.

Without it they could push this bs.

[NYC Liberal]

23. It goes both ways.

[Kid Berwyn]

26. Written to protect We the People from tyranny.

Kings. Autocrats. Mobsters. Mobs. Etc etc etc.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. I actually agree to a point

I think it was to protect both (church & state) from each other.

[sarcasmo]

35. The church is in a full court press to take over the country.

[Mad_Machine76]

36. That's.....

Quite a take.