|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2001 : 10:37:35
|
Poll Question:
Are public schools displaying “GOD BLESS AMERICA” on their marquees violating the legal provisions regarding establishment of religion?
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/26/2001 10:41:31
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 11:17:41 [Permalink]
|
Probably.
But in the current climate, nay-sayers are being shouted down. A school board member or other school administrator who voices objections may find their tenure cut short. Parents who object will get the cold shoulder.
It's all in the timing. As a nation we have to wait a respectful amount of time before returning our whining, litigious, don't-give-a-crap-about-anyone-but-me culture that adorned the American landscape prior to Sept. 11th. In short, it will take a while to get back to "normal".
(:raig |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 13:03:51 [Permalink]
|
You are saying that challenging violations of the constitution are whiny(don't-give-a-crap-about-anyone-but-me culture)?
quote:
But in the current climate, nay-sayers are being shouted down. A school board member or other school administrator who voices objections may find their tenure cut short. Parents who object will get the cold shoulder.
This was true before the attacks of Sept. 11th. Now you might get shot, too.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 13:57:14 [Permalink]
|
Well said. I heard someone tell me that they should bring back sedition laws. They're the first people to tell me how many people died to give me free speech.
I don't think these breaches of the Constitution are small either. I'm not going to kill anyone over it, but a "Day of Prayer" is as big an insult from a President of the United States to me as the use of some racial or ethnic slur would be. He has no business setting himself up as High Priest of America.
quote:
You are saying that challenging violations of the constitution are whiny(don't-give-a-crap-about-anyone-but-me culture)?
quote:
But in the current climate, nay-sayers are being shouted down. A school board member or other school administrator who voices objections may find their tenure cut short. Parents who object will get the cold shoulder.
This was true before the attacks of Sept. 11th. Now you might get shot, too.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 14:12:39 [Permalink]
|
www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr5078.htm
www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html
”The object of the First Amendment was to prevent the national government from choosing one Christian sect over another and establishing a single national denomination.”
The absolute separation of church and state is a 20th century legal doctrine, with no support whatsoever in the Constitution. The framers left the matter of religious liberty in the hands of the state legislatures, which in turn followed their constituents in their desire for disestablishment. The legal rights respecting establishment of religion derived not from U.S. Constitutional jurisprudence or the protections of the Supreme Court, but from the people via the state representatives. The various official state churches were not disbanded by the bill of rights, but by the non-establishment clauses of the various state constitutions, many of which were passed well after the Bill of Rights.
This is why I wanted to separate the question of “It is legal?” from “Is it right?” There is significantly different evidence and reasoning involved.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 16:55:44 [Permalink]
|
I'm fuzzy on this, but aren't there enough Supreme Court decisions for Precident (Precidence?) with regards to separation of church and state? As in, the Supreme Court has ruled on it enough, that it has become an enforcible law of the land?
I'm no lawyer, so I may be completely off here.
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 04:27:25 [Permalink]
|
I think the precedent here is that the word 'God' doesn't really mean anything, so it's okay to use it, such as in the case of "In God We Trust." It's just a saying, so they're not promoting religion. I'm not sure that the Supreme Court would agree with my assessment, but that's my idea of what they said.
quote:
I'm fuzzy on this, but aren't there enough Supreme Court decisions for Precident (Precidence?) with regards to separation of church and state? As in, the Supreme Court has ruled on it enough, that it has become an enforcible law of the land?
I'm no lawyer, so I may be completely off here.
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 04:29:48 [Permalink]
|
Not so far off Tokyo. Added some comments/statements from founding fathers too.
"The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten then, that while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting non-believer, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: "[E]perience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of main- taining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation."
Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee vs. Weisman
"In religious debate or expression the government is not a prime participant, for the Framers deemed religious establishment antithetical to the freedom of all. The Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels in the speech provisions of the First Amendment, but the Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 92-93, and n. 127 (1976) (per curiam). The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed."
Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee v. Weisman
"The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as the 18th Century when it was written. One timeless lession is that if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people,"
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy for majority, Lee v. Weisman, 1992
"It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise..."
Justice Kennedy, lead opinion, Lee v. Weisman, 505US 577 (1992)
"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (citation omitted); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
The "Lemon Test", from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971
"Madison observed in criticizing religious presidential proclamations, the practice of sponsoring religious messages tends, over time, -to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.- Madison's -Detached Memoranda,- 3 Wm. & Mary Q. 534, 561 (E. Fleet ed. 1946)"]P>
Justice Souter, concurring opinion in Lee Vs. Weisman
The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133
The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out--echoing Jefferson;--is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)
Chaplainships of both Congress and the armed services were established sixteen years before the First Amendment was adopted. It would have been fatuous folly for anybody to stir a major controversy over a minor matter before the meaning of the amendment had been threshed out in weightier matters. But Madison did foresee the danger that minor deviations from the constitutional path would deepen into dangerous precedents. He took care of one of them by his veto [in 1811] of the appropriation for a Baptist church. Others he dealt with in his "Essay on Monopolies," unpublished until 1946. Here is what he wrote: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment ... ?" The appointments, he said, were also a palpable violation of equal rights. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? "To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor." The problem, said the author of the First Amendment, was how to prevent "this step beyond the landmarks of power [from having] the effect of a legitimate precedent." Rather than let that happen, it would "be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [the law takes no account of trifles]." Or, he said (likewise in Latin), class it with faults that result from carelessness or that human nature could scarcely avoid." "Better also," he went on, "to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion." ... The deviations from constitutional principles went further: "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers." (Irving Brant, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965, pp. 423-424. Brant gives the source of "Essay on Monopolies" as Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], pp. 554-562.)
At age eighty-one [therefore, in 1832?], both looking back at the American experience and looking forward with vision sharpened by practical experience, Madison summed up his views of church and state relations in a letter to a "Reverend Adams": "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government f |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 06:25:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are saying that challenging violations of the constitution are whiny(don't-give-a-crap-about-anyone-but-me culture)? [@tomic]
No, I'm not. They are perfectly legitimate forms of democratic expression. But, again, I emphasize the timing issue. You can very well pursue the issue in court and the justices will put the pleading on the court docket FAR into the future. No sitting magistrate wants to appear to be a complete jack-ass in public given the current emotional climate.
I would add that legal issues concerning hate crimes and revenge, targeting of minorities, racial profiling and privacy issues are probably going to take precedence.
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 08:59:29 [Permalink]
|
I have a better idea. The president keeps to the real world since he is a secular leader and leaves the preaching to the priests. Then there's no problem.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 09:02:43 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
Your extensive quoting of the Supreme Court decisions above supports my earlier claim that absolute separation of church and state is a 20th century legal doctrine. Before those radical reinterpretations of the establishment clause, the idea of absolute separation existed only in the writings of enlightened folk such as Madison, Jefferson and Paine, rather than as part of the canons of law. I challenge you to find any judicial interpretations building an absolute wall of separation prior to the 20th century.
I think you will find the early interpretations radically different than those of Kennedy and his comrades. Consider this tidbit from the man considered the father of American jurisprudence, “The real object of the Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)
While I agree wholly with Madison that “entire abstinence” of the government from religion is the best moral course of action, I disagree with any interpretation of the first amendment which states that this doctrine was intended therein. The principal authors of the First Amendment were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Madison (or Jefferson. Here is the finalized actual wording of the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The clause thus prevented Congress from passing any laws which either (1) establish an official religion or (2) prevent anyone from practicing religion as they please. That all that the amendment says, and that is all that it meant until the Supreme Court unilaterally expanded the meaning. State and city government endorsement (or even establishment) of certain religions is not forbidden, and indeed the official state churches of several states were not disbanded until well after the Constitution was passed, as a result of establishment clauses being amended into state constitutions.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/27/2001 09:04:26 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 09:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Point well take tergiversant. Though I think the promotion of a god belief (theism) is potentially (can be argued to be) a promotion of a belief system. I would be woefully underqualified to even suggest I try proving it tho.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 08:39:24 [Permalink]
|
I could go back to that site, there was something regarding separation of church and state when we signed a treaty after Tripoli on the Barbary Coast.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 11:53:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could go back to that site, there was something regarding separation of church and state when we signed a treaty after Tripoli on the Barbary Coast.
I think it went "America is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion" or something very like that. I like to think that is true, that it was founded by Enlightenment thinkers promoting a secular government deliberately separated from the church establishment. Very well and good, but remain a far cry from "no tax dollars can be used to promote any religion whatsoever" which is what I would prefer to have on the books.
As mentioned above, a somewhat strict separation is the de facto law of the land since the relatively recent supreme court decisions, but that is not nearly enough for me given the high court's several dubious reinterpretations of straightforward constitutional law. I want to see something stronger than the Lemon test put in the highest laws of the land. While I'm dreaming I also want to win the lottery and have a houseful of concubines. 
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 12:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As mentioned above, a somewhat strict separation is the de facto law of the land since the relatively recent supreme court decisions, but that is not nearly enough for me given the high court's several dubious reinterpretations of straightforward constitutional law. I want to see something stronger than the Lemon test put in the highest laws of the land. While I'm dreaming I also want to win the lottery...
One can always dream. However, the concubines must be replaced by something else in my case.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2001 : 12:02:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While I'm dreaming I also want to win the lottery and have a houseful of concubines.
Take some of my concubines. I have too many to feed with the current economic conditions 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
