|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2002 : 05:03:26 [Permalink]
|
Displaying a religious message at a public school would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, if that message was displayed by school officials. If students were to display that message, then in consideration of the Exercise Clause, there would be no problems, provided all students are allowed equal access to the marquee.
quote:
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.
Well, like it or not, any president that suggests a "Day of Prayer" is in good company. That company would include the likes of James Madison, himself!
quote:
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.
I whole heartedly agree with the assumption that Establishment Clause litigation is a phenomena of the twentieth century, but there is a Constitutional reason for this. Originally, matters such as this were left to the states to sort out, and only a few decades passed before all existing states added similar legislation to their constitutions. Shortly thereafter, a nasty little conflict broke out which cost the lives of thousands upon thousands of Americans in an attempt to settle the argument of states rights. After this war, a few more Amendments were added to the Constitution, bolstering the power of the Fed. Among these Amendments was the 14th. The Due Process Clause of this Amendment states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Around the 1920's, a few savvy lawyers found this clause useful in forcing the Bill of Rights down the throats of the individual states. The Supreme Court agreed. As a result of all the Constitutional litigation since that time, and especially in the past forty years, the Court is said to have, in legal jargon, 'incorporated' the majority of the Bill Rights against the states. The 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 7th have yet to be incorporated.
Furthermore, I feel that it is important to note that the Constitution mentions nothing about 'a wall of seperation between church and state.' This idea was first expressed in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. It seems these Baptists were rather upset about having to pay taxes to the state of connecticutt in support of the Episcopal church. Mr. Jefferson, in all his benevolence, offered to help, writing "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 and State"
Today, certain members of the religous right use these words to promote their exclusive and accomodationist view of the Constitution. I prefer to use the word from the Constitution itself, which is 'religion', not 'church'. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This word to me is more inclusive, leaving little room for state involvement. Hey, it's just one of my pet peeves!
|
 |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 06:01:16 [Permalink]
|
Please excuse my multible posts, but I have been out of town for a couple of weeks, and find this thread of particular interest. Plus, I work in the oilfield. So, I may not get back here for a long time.
quote:
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 agree. This may apply in the same sense as using the words "in the year of our Lord..." to date formal documents in the past. However, since the 1950's we have used the words "In God we trust" on our money. I'm wondering if anyone has ever found a way to challenge this in court. I have heard of no such case, but would love to force a decision.
Concerning the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the majority would concur. The Renquist Court has been moving away from the position of the Warren and Burger courts which clearly preferred the Establishment Clause to the Exercise Clause. The Renquist court has made little secret of its' accomodationist views, and its' defference to the Free Exercise Clause. Sometimes, I've gotten the idea that Rush Limbaugh writes the opinions for Mr. Renquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. (Ms. O'Conner has her moments.)
quote:
The principal authors of the First Amendment were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Madison
Didn't Madison serve as co-chair to the committee that wrote the religion clauses?
quote:
there was something regarding separation of church and state when we signed a treaty after Tripoli on the Barbary Coast.
The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified June 10,1797. “Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” These words were were ratified by a vote of our legislature, and signed into effect by President John Adams. Therefore, as an official treaty this was the law and the official policy of our gov't for as long as this treaty remained in effect. Article VI of our Constitution supports treaty as law; "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
As far as concubines go, sounds great, but I'd prefer polygamy, (or polyandry), just to piss off those icons of moral superiority. These laws are based only on moralities founded in religion, and have no business in legislation. Reynolds v. United States (1878) should should be reversed.
Okay, I've had my say, and await the wrath of my intellectual superiors.
|
|
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 23:35:31 [Permalink]
|
“GOD BLESS AMERICA”
God I hate this phrase.
Sorry could not help it.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
