Completely uncontroversial benign topic

[c53x12]

Some folks down the road from here just raised 150, 000 dollars to fight the folks trying to get the white guy looking JC painting taken off the wall at the local high school.

Is the beef that it's JC, or that he's white?

[Analogman]

Is the beef that it's JC, or that he's white?

 

 

JC

 

 

http://www.wvmetronews.com/index_forsub.cf...p;storyid=16162

 

http://blog.au.org/2006/08/bridgeport_batt.html

 

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/newsview.asp?c=182576

[Atticus]

From a brochure published on Americans United for Separation of Church and State's website (brochure):

 

"The constitutional principle that ensures religious liberty is the separation of church and state. The First Amendment says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….' That means simply that government cannot promote religion or interfere with its practice."

[emphasis added]

 

No, no it does not. That's what so many people wish it meant. It means what it says--that Congress can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. If the law (constitution) does not reflect the will of the People, then the law should be changed. That doesn't give judges license to change it on their own.

[EL the Famous]

From a brochure published on Americans United for Separation of Church and State's website (brochure):

 

"The constitutional principle that ensures religious liberty is the separation of church and state. The First Amendment says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Elixir Sue]

If the law (constitution) does not reflect the will of the People, then the law should be changed. That doesn't give judges license to change it on their own.

There's a big difference between changing the law and interpreting the law.

[Atticus]

There's a big difference between changing the law and interpreting the law.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree, but please explain to me how moving from "congress shall make no law" to complete separation of church and state is a mere "interpretation."

[bjorn_skurj]

I say we get rid of that freaky pyramid / eye thing on the U.S. dollar while we're at it.

French Canadian Bean Soup! Adam Weishaupt! Ewige Blumenkraft!

[Elixir Sue]

I wholeheartedly agree, but please explain to me how moving from "congress shall make no law" to complete separation of church and state is a mere "interpretation."

I'm not a strict constructionist, and clearly you are. That phrase ^ is by no means the only example of a clause of the Constitution not being taken absolutely literally. Look at how Fourth Amendment protection has been broadened and interpreted - that's a good thing.

[Atticus]

I'm not a strict constructionist, and clearly you are. That phrase ^ is by no means the only example of a clause of the Constitution not being taken absolutely literally. Look at how Fourth Amendment protection has been broadened and interpreted - that's a good thing.

 

I'm not a strict constructionist. But I find the leap with regard to church and state to be insupportable.

 

Good Lord, look what they did with the Commerce clause...

[bjorn_skurj]

Personally, I don't care if kids pray in school, but I would much prefer that the "official" curriculum be secular in nature.

If you take that part of Amend. 1 literally, what it means is that the U.S. is not to have a state religion, like the Church of England is back in Old Blighty or like Islam is in many parts of the world. And there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution. It's a difficult mechanism, and justifiably so, as to make The People THINK about what they're doing before they do it.

[jhc]

I'm not a strict constructionist, and clearly you are. That phrase ^ is by no means the only example of a clause of the Constitution not being taken absolutely literally. Look at how Fourth Amendment protection has been broadened and interpreted - that's a good thing.

 

It's funny how the strict constructionists never apply that reasoning to the second amendment, but anyhoo...

 

The argument I'd give to whatidsay is this: say Congress doesn't officially establish Christianity as a national religion, but puts "Jesus Saves" on currency and teaches the Bible in public schools. It doesn't take a crazy imagination that they've abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit. Thus the Court's interpretation that essentially the government as an inherently coercive power, cannot favor one religion over another.

 

Another way of looking at it from an original intent view: did the framers mean to prevent an official national religion but allow Congress every means just short of that to strongly promote their favorite brand of Christianity? If you say no, then there needs to be some leeway in interpreting the first amendment.

[bjorn_skurj]

I have heard that many of the founders were Deists, not Christian.

 

WP's definition of deism:

 

Historical and modern deism (from Latin: deus) is defined by the view that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has also come to be identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.

[Atticus]

The argument I'd give to whatidsay is this: say Congress doesn't officially establish Christianity as a national religion, but puts "Jesus Saves" on currency and teaches the Bible in public schools.

 

Great example!

 

That would be Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, and would therefore be prohibited by the Constitution.

[Basil II]

Good God.....All you people are Insane!!!! i want to sit down and have a beer with you all~~~

 

 

-Robert.

[Atticus]

Good God.....All you people are Insane!!!! i want to sit down and have a beer with you all~~~

-Robert.

 

 

you buying?

 

[wheelco]

you buying?

 

maybe Scalia is

[Atticus]

maybe Scalia is

 

I bet he can put back a few...

 

[jhc]

Great example!

 

That would be Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, and would therefore be prohibited by the Constitution.

 

Where do you draw the line between this example (which follows the letter of the law, it's only your interpretation that says this is, in effect, creating a national religion) and less egregious examples? Would a standard, for example, that says if a government law/action was excessively entangled with religion, and was designed soley for the promotion of religion, and had no legitimate secular purpose... would that be enough for you to say it's unconsitutional?

[Atticus]

Where do you draw the line between this example (which follows the letter of the law, it's only your interpretation that says this is, in effect, creating a national religion) and less egregious examples? Would a standard, for example, that says if a government law/action was excessively entangled with religion, and was designed soley for the promotion of religion, and had no legitimate secular purpose... would that be enough for you to say it's unconsitutional?

 

I just don't think "interpret" means "stretch beyond the clear meaning of the words." The 1st amendment refers to laws enacted by Congress. If Americans truly want a clear separation of church and state (e.g. no government action that hints at promotion of religion), then why don't we put that in our law, rather than stretching what IS the law?

[cryptique]

I just don't think "interpret" means "stretch beyond the clear meaning of the words." The 1st amendment refers to laws enacted by Congress. If Americans truly want a clear separation of church and state (e.g. no government action that hints at promotion of religion), then why don't we put that in our law, rather than stretching what IS the law?

Why do you hate Wilco?

[Atticus]

Why do you hate Wilco?

 

they wouldn't play my birthday party

 

[Mick]

I just don't think "interpret" means "stretch beyond the clear meaning of the words." The 1st amendment refers to laws enacted by Congress.

 

Because the Court realized that the protections of the Bill of Rights are meaningless if they are read to only prohibit acts of the US government. For instance, Iowa decides to make the Church of England the state religion and all citizens are required to attend Sunday services or are subject to the death penalty. Without incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, that bastard Governor Tom Vilsack can say "You must have tea and cake with the vicar or you die because 'the 1st amendment refers to laws enacted by Congress'.

CAKE OR DEATH!"

 

If Americans truly want a clear separation of church and state (e.g. no government action that hints at promotion of religion), then why don't we put that in our law, rather than stretching what IS the law?

 

Because the country was founded by old white guys that were products of the age of enlightment. Americans don't have much of that anymore. The exports of America are numerous in amount. One thing they export is corn, or as the Indians call it, "maize". Another famous Indian was "Crazy Horse". In conclusion, America is a land of contrast. Thank you.

[jhc]

I just don't think "interpret" means "stretch beyond the clear meaning of the words." The 1st amendment refers to laws enacted by Congress. If Americans truly want a clear separation of church and state (e.g. no government action that hints at promotion of religion), then why don't we put that in our law, rather than stretching what IS the law?

 

I know this has gotten old, but I really wish you had taken a stab at my questions.

 

Do you really think a standard, such that a law which is excessivle entangled with religion, served no legitmate secular purpose, and is designed solely to promote reliigion is unconsitutional, is such a ridiculous strech?

[Atticus]

I know this has gotten old, but I really wish you had taken a stab at my questions.

 

Do you really think a standard, such that a law which is excessivle entangled with religion, served no legitmate secular purpose, and is designed solely to promote reliigion is unconsitutional, is such a ridiculous strech?

 

I thought my previous posts would have amply answered that question. If a law was passed that had no legitimate secular purpose, and was "excessively" entangled with religion, then I could probably argue its unconstitutionality under either the establishment or free exercise clauses. I would think you would be more interested in discussing, for instance, the actions of a school principle with regard to religion in schools or a judge putting up a religious placard in his or her courtroom... something more in the gray area that is clearly not congress passing a law.

 

We elect representatives who are supposed to pass laws which reflect the will of the people but are not violative of the constitution. It would be perfectly reasonable for Congress to further clarify the separation between church and state through additional laws--which would not be held unconstitutional based on the reaching opinions that have already been handed down by the supreme court. But rather than explore that avenue, it seems that most would just rather continue to allow judges to stretch the provisions of the bill of rights.

[jhc]

I thought my previous posts would have amply answered that question. If a law was passed that had no legitimate secular purpose, and was "excessively" entangled with religion, then I could probably argue its unconstitutionality under either the establishment or free exercise clauses.

 

OK, well that's a start. Since that's the precise legal formula used to define violations of the establishment clause, you shouldn't really have a lot of problems with the legal status quo.

 

I would think you would be more interested in discussing, for instance, the actions of a school principle with regard to religion in schools or a judge putting up a religious placard in his or her courtroom... something more in the gray area that is clearly not congress passing a law.

 

So your problem is not with the standards used, but their application to other government bodies/individuals that aren't Congress? That's fine, but that seems like a totally different debate.

 

(and Incoprpotation doctrine aside, I hardly think a judge putting up the 10 Commendments with the explicit stated intention of promoting Christianity is a "gray area" when it comes to actions with no legitimate secular purpose)