home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30 / NN_1992_30.iso / spool / bit / listserv / history / 6119 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-12-17  |  1.3 KB  |  33 lines
  1. Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!CLEMSON.BITNET!DGPAZ
  3. Message-ID: <HISTORY%92121709250391@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
  4. Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
  5. Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:22:00 EST
  6. Sender:       History <HISTORY@PSUVM.BITNET>
  7. From:         DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET
  8. Subject:      First Amendment
  9. Lines: 22
  10.  
  11. It has been pointed out that the phrase "separation of church
  12. and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. This is, of
  13. course, correct. The text is "Congress shall make no law
  14. respecting an establishment of religion." Now, to "establish"
  15. a church is to make it the state church. To "disestablish" an
  16. established church is to separate church and state. As an
  17. historian of Britain, who teaches debates over church-state
  18. relations in the C19, with special reference to the Liberation
  19. (used to be called Anti-State-Church) Society, the disestablish-
  20. ment of the Church of Ireland, and the disestablishment of
  21. the Church of England in Wales, it seems pretty straight-
  22. forward, from both a political and a legal view, that
  23. establishment unites and disestablishment separates.
  24.  
  25. Can we hear from some French and Mexican historians on
  26. the topic of religious establishments and separation
  27. of church and state, please?
  28.  
  29. Denis Paz
  30. Department of History
  31. Clemson University
  32. South Carolina, U.S.A.
  33.