No lo digo yo, lo dice un amigo de la casa, que la primera enmienda (entre otras cosas) establece la separación de la Iglesia y el Estado:
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing 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, & 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 & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Establece pero no lo dice con esas palabras, que es exactamente lo que sostuvo O'Donnell.
ReplyDeleteShe interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."
El Primer Amendment dice que el Estado no puede imponer religion alguna, ni prohibir el ejercicio de religion alguna. Y ese es el muro de separacion al que se refirio Jefferson, la inabilidad del Estado para decir en que tenemos que creer o dejar de creer. Es por eso que, en un juicio, o una asuncion de mando, etc., uno no esta obligado a jurar sobre un libro religioso especifico, como tampoco el estado puede prohibirte jurar sobre un libro religioso especifico.
ReplyDeleteMuchoa quienes hoy en dia, en los EEUU, abogan por la separacion entre estado y religion, dicen que, la presencia de un simbolo religioso en un edificio publico, es el estado queriendo imponer una religion especifica (la gran mayoria son simbolos asociados con el Cristianismo, la cual ha sido la forma religiosa prevalente en los EEUU). Por ejemplo, un crucifijo en una Corte puede influenciar el voto de un jurado, etc.,etc.
A mi, estas cosas, no me preocupan mucho. Yo se que a todos aquellos que no creer, cuando se mueran, Dios los va a agarrar del forro del culo y los va a cagar a patadas.
Me parece de perogrullo. Son dos discusiones distintas. Efectivamente no aparecen las palabras "church" y "separation" pero esos son los efectos que se desprenden de la primera enmienda y es el "espíritu" de la norma, lo dice Jefferson en su carta.
ReplyDeleteTodo lo que quieras, Murray, pero O'Donnell estaba en lo correcto al hablar de la LETRA y no de la INTERPRETACION del texto constitucional. Esto no es obstáculo para que la prensa trate de hacerla quedar como idiota, es el mismo trabajo sucio que hicieron con Palin.
ReplyDeleteFijate el análisis de Ann Althouse sobre el tema.
si che, sumando a la referencia de Mike, agrego link a otro blog adonde elaboran el punto que quiso hacer Pacha O'Donnell. Quiza uno pueda decir que la mina le quiso poner un palito al otro y le salio mal, pero el spin que le dieron es que la mina es bruja y bruta
ReplyDeletehttp://neoneocon.com/2010/10/20/5951/
Vieron que NPR echo a Juan Williams por los comentarios sobre los musulmanes en los aviones en el programa de O'Reilly el lunes? esta en lo de Malkin