Church & State Case At Supreme Court

[Meh Gerbil]

The Establishment Clause prevents government at any level from demonstrating preference toward religion...

It has been demonstrated several times that this is not the case.
You can keep repeating it all you want but the language is very clear.

[seer]

The Establishment Clause states that the US Congress cannot establish a state religion and the Fourteenth Amendment extends that onto the legislatures of the individual states.

Bingo! And a public school instituting prayer is not Congress (state or federal) establishing a religion.

Congress agreed that US Congress cannot establish a state religion or, by implication, recognise any specific religion as the defacto state religion...as Jefferson (as one of the draftees of the Clause) made clear in his “separation of Church and State” interpretation.

No it doesn't - that is made up. Since that is not what other Founders thought it meant - since they even used federal and state monies to support and further the Christian religion. The text and intent of the First Amendment is quite clear - Congress could not establish a state church.

There's no “liberal bias”, simply the courts doing their job. You may think that government can openly favour Christianity over other religions...or secularism...but historically the courts don't agree with you. Deal with it.

What historically? The last 50 years?

The Establishment Clause prevents government at any level from demonstrating preference toward religion; including preferences for any specific religion such as Christianity. This is why the courts consistently rule that government institutions (such as public schools) cannot support religious causes or promote religion, e.g. via school prayers.

The Establishment Clause does no such thing, that is no where in the text. Where does it say that the federal or state government can't show preference? The Founders certainly did.


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

[guacamole]

We tried to have a moment of silence after the pledge in our school rather than a prayer. Didn't work well.

[seer]

We tried to have a moment of silence after the pledge in our school rather than a prayer. Didn't work well.

We often said the "Our Father" after the pledge and the teacher would often read a passage from scripture - usually from the Old Testament so our Jewish friends would feel included. But none of this was mandatory - you did not have to pray, nor did the teacher have to offer a prayer (many did not). It was their choice.

[Tassman]

Bingo! And a public school instituting prayer is not Congress (state or federal) establishing a religion.

This is not what the courts have ruled. They have halted prayer at public schools, institutions, and public financing of nativity pageants and Easter services & etc.

No it doesn't - that is made up. Since that is not what other Founders thought it meant - since they even used federal and state monies to support and further the Christian religion. The text and intent of the First Amendment is quite clear - Congress could not establish a state church.

The courts have ruled otherwise and it is their job, not yours to interpret the Constitution. It’s no good whining about “liberal judges”, just because you don’t like the umpire’s verdict.

What historically? The last 50 years?

Since people have started questioning religious practices which have been supported by the govt. and testing them in court.

The Establishment Clause does no such thing, that is no where in the text. Where does it say that the federal or state government can't show preference? The Founders certainly did.


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

Irrelevant! The rulings of the Continental-Confederation Congress were superseded by the US Constitution March 4, 1789,

[seer]

This is not what the courts have ruled. They have halted prayer at public schools, institutions, and public financing of nativity pageants and Easter services & etc.

Right and the liberal courts were wrong, are you saying the courts are never wrong?

The courts have ruled otherwise and it is their job, not yours to interpret the Constitution. It’s no good whining about “liberal judges”, just because you don’t like the umpire’s verdict.

They did not interpret the Constitution, they changed the Constitution. Again Tass when the little red school house has morning prayer how is that CONGRESS making a LAW (whether a state or federal congress)? It isn't and you know it. The text is very clear, it's just that you and leftists judges don't like it.

[Meh Gerbil]

They did not interpret the Constitution, they changed the Constitution. Again Tass when the little red school house has morning prayer how is that CONGRESS making a LAW (whether a state or federal congress)? It isn't and you know it. The text is very clear, it's just that you and leftists judges don't like it.

Tassman is impervious to bolded text.
I even tried italics, but to no avail.

I think he has a reading comprehension problem.
You can have honest discussions with Starlight and Roy on this issue, but not Tizzy.

[Tassman]

Right and the liberal courts were wrong, are you saying the courts are never wrong? [

No, the courts were just doing their job, namely interpreting the Constitution; it’s not for you to second-guess them just because you don’t like their decisions.

They did not interpret the Constitution, they changed the Constitution. Again Tass when the little red school house has morning prayer how is that CONGRESS making a LAW (whether a state or federal congress)? It isn't and you know it. The text is very clear, it's just that you and leftists judges don't like it.

NO, they interpreted the underlying intent of the Constitution as they understood it to be. That’s their role. So can “just take your ball and go home”.

Tassman is impervious to bolded text.
I even tried italics, but to no avail.

Ah, "bolding" and "italics" make your erroneous claims right do they?

[Meh Gerbil]

No, the courts were just doing their job, namely interpreting the Constitution; it’s not for you to second-guess them just because you don’t like their decisions.

The courts don't have the right to interpret the constitution and they cannot even read it unless they pay to visit the national archives.
You cannot make this stuff up - and no, the copy you pulled out of your Nazi-O's this morning isn't an official copy because they didn't have cereal in the olden days.

NO, they interpreted the underlying intent of the Constitution as they understood it to be. That’s their role. So can “just take your ball and go home”.

Your playground analogies make no sense, as for judges, there is no underlying intent in the Constitution.
I did a word search and the phrase doesn't exist - now you're just making stuff up.
You shouldn't lie about these things as they're too important.

Ah, "bolding" and "italics" make your erroneous claims right do they?

Dude, watch the racist overtones or I'll report you.

[Meh Gerbil]

This is not what the courts have ruled. They have halted prayer at public schools, institutions, and public financing of nativity pageants and Easter services & etc.

Those rulings weren't about cutting religion out of society but rather about spending cuts to help lower our debt.
It is wrong headed to interpret a temporary spending cut as having something to do with the relationship between church and state.

The courts have ruled otherwise and it is their job, not yours to interpret the Constitution. It’s no good whining about “liberal judges”, just because you don’t like the umpire’s verdict.

No, their job is to make sure the intent of Congress is enforced which is easy enough to learn by asking a congressman. I don't know what baseball has to do with the courts, I don't think an unelected position such as an umpire should be deciding these things unless you misspelled it and mean empire which would make a bit more sense.

Since people have started questioning religious practices which have been supported by the govt. and testing them in court.

I'm sure they're not being tested - I think you've confused separation of court and school.

[seer]

No, the courts were just doing their job, namely interpreting the Constitution; it’s not for you to second-guess them just because you don’t like their decisions.

Are you kidding Tass? I will ask you again - are the courts ever wrong? And again, there is no interpretation - it is a change. We all can read the text "Congress shall make no law." The little red school house having morning prayer IS NOT Congress making a law.

NO, they interpreted the underlying intent of the Constitution as they understood it to be. That’s their role. So can “just take your ball and go home”.

No, they added to the Constitution, they changed the meaning, which was "Congress shall make no law."

[Jedidiah]

Tassman is impervious to bolded text.
I even tried italics, but to no avail.

I think he has a reading comprehension problem.
You can have honest discussions with Starlight and Roy on this issue, but not Tizzy.

I know he has a reading comprehension problem.

[Tassman]

Are you kidding Tass? I will ask you again - are the courts ever wrong? And again, there is no interpretation - it is a change.

Not in this instance.

We all can read the text "Congress shall make no law." The little red school house having morning prayer IS NOT Congress making a law.

The First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," becomes applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. State institutions cannot endorse school prayers nor allow them to be recited nor allow religious displays on public property. This has been the finding without exception, whenever this issue has been brought before the courts .

No, they added to the Constitution, they changed the meaning, which was "Congress shall make no law."

You recite this like a 'spell'. Jefferson's wall of separation between Church and State, as applied to the Establishment Clause by the man who helped write it, makes it perfectly clear that the US is a secular nation with no established religion or a defacto established religion.

[seer]

Not in this instance.

LOL! Of course...

The First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," becomes applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. State institutions cannot endorse school prayers nor allow them to be recited nor allow religious displays on public property. This has been the finding without exception, whenever this issue has been brought before the courts .

Again, you are changing the meaning. As the courts did. Even if the establishment clause is applied to the state, prayer in the little red school house still is not the state Congress making a law. And again, as far as the courts go this is a fairy recent development. You can not get around it Tass, if a town decides to have morning prayer in school that in no way violates the actual text of the law. You know it and everybody reading this knows that.

You recite this like a 'spell'. Jefferson's wall of separation between Church and State, as applied to the Establishment Clause by the man who helped write it, makes it perfectly clear that the US is a secular nation with no established religion or a defacto established religion.

Nonsense, Jefferson had his opinion, one I might add did not make it into the text. Other Founders like Washington and Patrick Henry actually argued for tax supported churches on the state level. Yes, the Founders did not want a national church, like the Church of England but they had no problem with religious expression in public setting, and like I linked - they even supported the Christian religion with tax monies. So Jefferson is not the last word, nor did his view of separation make it into the text. And that text is very clear Tass - you and the leftist judges just don't like it.

[Tassman]

Again, you are changing the meaning. As the courts did. Even if the establishment clause is applied to the state, prayer in the little red school house still is not the state Congress making a law. And again, as far as the courts go this is a fairy recent development. You can not get around it Tass, if a town decides to have morning prayer in school that in no way violates the actual text of the law. You know it and everybody reading this knows that.

It violates the intention of the law as has been ruled by the courts, virtually without exception, every time they have been called upon to make a ruling.

Nonsense, Jefferson had his opinion, one I might add did not make it into the text. Other Founders like Washington and Patrick Henry actually argued for tax supported churches on the state level. Yes, the Founders did not want a national church, like the Church of England but they had no problem with religious expression in public setting, and like I linked - they even supported the Christian religion with tax monies. So Jefferson is not the last word, nor did his view of separation make it into the text. And that text is very clear Tass - you and the leftist judges just don't like it.

See above.