• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'Shall make no law respecting...'

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Not being a constitutional lawyer, or even an American, or even being to America (I plan on doing that next month however, so it's a point in my favour), I can't profess to being that educated on the constitution, so forgive me.

But what is the meaning of 'respecting' in 'Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'? I know, obviously, this is perceived to be about the separation of church and state, but it doesn't seem to be clear here, at least to me. Does it literally mean that no law shall have respect for religion?
 
Just means they/we cannot make a law disallowing a religion or one making a/any religion your only option. This does not preclude making certain aspects of religious practice illegal ( i.e. human sacrificing will get you arrested for murder, honor killing will get you arrested for murder, killing apostates will......etc. as will torturing or doing anything else that violates the not religiously based laws of the country!!!!!) Could also make you a target of non-law persons. Especially if things were to be done to children.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Not being a constitutional lawyer, or even an American, or even being to America (I plan on doing that next month however, so it's a point in my favour), I can't profess to being that educated on the constitution, so forgive me.

But what is the meaning of 'respecting' in 'Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'? I know, obviously, this is perceived to be about the separation of church and state, but it doesn't seem to be clear here, at least to me. Does it literally mean that no law shall have respect for religion?
Click to expand...

What the phrase means is that there are not supposed to be any laws which state that one religion is somehow favored over other religions.

For example, Christian religions would be provided with a tax exemptions while Muslim, Hindu and other religions would not be provided with a tax exemption.

I hope this helps.
 
I have also seen debate over the word "establishment" in that amendment.

1) One meaning of "establishment" is "a public or private institution". Meaning that Congress can make no law regarding an institution of religion. Usually interpreted to mean that the law must not legally specifically favor one religious establishment/institution over another. We can't pass a law saying that Baptists are cool, but Catholics suck, for example. That is the usual interpretation.

1a) In the widest interpretation of that interpretation of "establishment", congress cannot pass laws that affect religion at all. That's not a mainstream view, but has some traction among those who would like to see total religious freedom to beat their wives, not immunize their kids, strangle wayward daughters, and so on. Again, not mainstream but believed by some in society. the Supreme Court does not interpret it (1a) that way, so this interpretation carries no legal weight.

2) The other interpretation is the idea that "establishment" means "the act of establishing". This is interpreted to mean that the Congress cannot establish/create a religion or church. Under this interpretation, Congress could pass a law specifically favoring Baptists over Catholics, but cannot make the Baptist faith the official state religion, nor create an official government sponsored version of the Baptist religion.

This too, is not mainstream but has a lot of traction in certain circles. Under this interpretation, we could say that the founders favored Christianity, but just didn't want a state-sponsored religion like the way the British have the Anglican church and the French monarchy had the Catholic church. The SC does not agree with this interpretation either.


When one gets really into the specific interpretations of the Constitution, one is reminded of "The Life of Brian", where anything Brian says is immediately interpreted in myriad ways and those interpretations taken to the extreme. There are as many ways to interpret the U.S. Constitution as there are ways to interpret the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious document. Writing is never as clear as the authors intended, and the lack of clarity grows over time.

If we wanted to, we could have a rousing discussion of the placement and meaning of the commas in the Second Amendment. Lots of fodder for argument there.
 
Last edited:
Going by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which IMHO is the best dictionary to use when interpreting pre-20th century US English texts.

Respecting definition #2, with respect to, concerning is a synonym.

So the 1st Amendment fragment can be re-written as:

Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

or

Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
 
Last edited:
It is using the term "respecting" the way it was used in the 18th century,and is still often used in legal terminology: it means "Concerning".
THe way words are used often changes over time. The term Suffer as it was used in Elizabethan English and Shakepeare is a good example:it meant "Allow" or "Permit".
 
Crossbow said:
What the phrase means is that there are not supposed to be any laws which state that one religion is somehow favored over other religions.

For example, Christian religions would be provided with a tax exemptions while Muslim, Hindu and other religions would not be provided with a tax exemption.
Click to expand...
Or, to put it in historical context: favor one brand of Christianity over other brands of Christianity. Up into the 1830s, several states had laws on the book that favored their dominant Christian denomination over others (as well as over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc.). Until the passing of the 14th Amendment, in the wake of the Civil War, the 1st Amendment only applied to federal laws and institutions, not state or lower level.
 
ddt said:
Or, to put it in historical context: favor one brand of Christianity over other brands of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Except that doesn't put it in historical context at all. If they wanted to protect Christianity from government meddling, they would have said Christianity. Catholicism was known to them. Islam was known to them. It's significant that they privileged all religions equally with their wording.
 
theprestige said:
Except that doesn't put it in historical context at all. If they wanted to protect Christianity from government meddling, they would have said Christianity. Catholicism Judaism was known to them. Islam was known to them. It's significant that they privileged all religions equally with their wording.
Click to expand...

FTFY (at least I assume it was a mistake because everyone should know that Catholicism is a branch of Christianity).
 
theprestige said:
Except that doesn't put it in historical context at all. If they wanted to protect Christianity from government meddling, they would have said Christianity. Catholicism was known to them. Islam was known to them. It's significant that they privileged all religions equally with their wording.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Various of the colonies had been founded by specific religious groups who fled Britain because they were not tolerated there. New England colonies were mainly Puritan, with tinges of theocratic rule. Southern colonies were mainly Anglican. Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers. The risk that one denomination would try to impose their brand of Christianity on the Union to the detriment of other denominations - as well as all other faiths - was far more real than that Muslims would try to institute Islam as state religion. That does not mean I try to deny the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to state the First Amendment in terms of all religion, but I just wanted to highlight what the actually existing risk was at the time of its enactment.
 
crescent said:
I have also seen debate over the word "establishment" in that amendment.

1) One meaning of "establishment" is "a public or private institution". Meaning that Congress can make no law regarding an institution of religion. Usually interpreted to mean that the law must not legally specifically favor one religious establishment/institution over another. We can't pass a law saying that Baptists are cool, but Catholics suck, for example. That is the usual interpretation.

1a) In the widest interpretation of that interpretation of "establishment", congress cannot pass laws that affect religion at all. That's not a mainstream view, but has some traction among those who would like to see total religious freedom to beat their wives, not immunize their kids, strangle wayward daughters, and so on. Again, not mainstream but believed by some in society. the Supreme Court does not interpret it (1a) that way, so this interpretation carries no legal weight.

2) The other interpretation is the idea that "establishment" means "the act of establishing". This is interpreted to mean that the Congress cannot establish/create a religion or church. Under this interpretation, Congress could pass a law specifically favoring Baptists over Catholics, but cannot make the Baptist faith the official state religion, nor create an official government sponsored version of the Baptist religion.
Click to expand...

None of these appears to me to be the correct interpretation of "establishment", which I suspect is actually the key word in this amendment. In the UK, the word "establishment" has a very specific meaning in regard to religion: it refers to the status of the Church of England as the official state religion of the UK. In this context, then, the amendment is quite clear and simple: no religion may be designated as the official state religion of the USA.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom