H
HagiaSophia
Guest
The “wall of separation of church and state” was the central theme of the “The Supreme Court and Religion: A Colloquium,” which was sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture and the Department of Political Science that took place on Thursday, February 24th in the Rehm Library.
The focus of the evening was a talk between Professor James Hitchcock, a member of St. Louis University’s history department, and Bishop Thomas J. Curry, Ph.D., bishop of Santa Barbara in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Each discussed his central argument brought forth in his new book; Hitchcock’s The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (2004) and Curry’s Farewell to Christendom: The Future of Church and State in America (2001).
Professor Hitchcock’s central contention was that the idea of separation between church and state, which is commonly perceived as the ideal in the Americn justice system, has little historical reference and is not stated in the Constitution.
Bishop Curry attempted to counter Professor Hitchcock’s position, claiming that he agreed there is currently crisis in the interpretation of the 1st Amendment, but he believes the reason is because we have lost sight of the original conception of the United States government. Curry asserted that the 1st Amendment makes “explicit what’s implicit” in the Constitution; that is, the government has no jurisdiction over religion.
According to Curry, the 1st Amendment states that American citizens should be free of government interference involving the natural right to religious freedom. This would mean that the government and the Supreme Court do not have control over the possession of religious rights, but that having freedom of religion does not mean we have the right to do w
thehccrusader.com/news/2005/03/04/News/Coloquium.Offers.Opposing.Views.On.Religious.Rights.The.Role.Of.The.Government.A-894138.shtml
The focus of the evening was a talk between Professor James Hitchcock, a member of St. Louis University’s history department, and Bishop Thomas J. Curry, Ph.D., bishop of Santa Barbara in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Each discussed his central argument brought forth in his new book; Hitchcock’s The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (2004) and Curry’s Farewell to Christendom: The Future of Church and State in America (2001).
Professor Hitchcock’s central contention was that the idea of separation between church and state, which is commonly perceived as the ideal in the Americn justice system, has little historical reference and is not stated in the Constitution.
Bishop Curry attempted to counter Professor Hitchcock’s position, claiming that he agreed there is currently crisis in the interpretation of the 1st Amendment, but he believes the reason is because we have lost sight of the original conception of the United States government. Curry asserted that the 1st Amendment makes “explicit what’s implicit” in the Constitution; that is, the government has no jurisdiction over religion.
According to Curry, the 1st Amendment states that American citizens should be free of government interference involving the natural right to religious freedom. This would mean that the government and the Supreme Court do not have control over the possession of religious rights, but that having freedom of religion does not mean we have the right to do w
thehccrusader.com/news/2005/03/04/News/Coloquium.Offers.Opposing.Views.On.Religious.Rights.The.Role.Of.The.Government.A-894138.shtml
