Church & State Case At Supreme Court

[Roy]

Yeah it means that the states can't stop citizens from expressing their religious freedom. It doesn't say that they can't display that freedom on state property. In fact to try to stop them would be violating that amendment. It also doesn't say that the state can't institute it's own church if it wanted to. It can establish a religion if it wanted. That would not stop citizens from expressing their religious freedoms either.

So basically:

Feds: Can't establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.
State: Can establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.

I'd disagree with that last comment. One possible interpretation would be that it's an immunity (or privilege) of US citizens that they will not have a religion established for them, and that immunity would be abridged by a state that established a religion.

I agree with you that citizens should be able to express their religion, even on state property, though I'd add only if this was open to all faiths and none, that there was no explicit state support other than providing a forum, and that it wasn't intrusive and there was no coercion of others to spend time watching/listening.

So if someone donated, say, a decorative plinth of the 10 commandments to stand outside a courthouse, that might be fine as long as equal space was allowed to some-one else donating a plinth with extracts from the Egyptian book of the dead, the Icelandic saga or Crowley's comment about the whole of the law.

Caveat: IANACL.

[Sparko]

I'd disagree with that last comment. One possible interpretation would be that it's an immunity (or privilege) of US citizens that they will not have a religion established for them, and that immunity would be abridged by a state that established a religion.

Except 1. The citizens are not even mentioned in the establishment clause and 2. Congress is specifically mentioned.

I agree with you that citizens should be able to express their religion, even on state property, though I'd add only if this was open to all faiths and none, that there was no explicit state support other than providing a forum, and that it wasn't intrusive and there was no coercion of others to spend time watching/listening.

So if someone donated, say, a decorative plinth of the 10 commandments to stand outside a courthouse, that might be fine as long as equal space was allowed to some-one else donating a plinth with extracts from the Egyptian book of the dead, the Icelandic saga or Crowley's comment about the whole of the law.

Caveat: IANACL.

fine with me.

[seer]

Yes, blatant goal-post shifting.

You said the constitution only talked about laws passed by congress, I cited the section which extended that to laws passed by states, you ignored that completely and switched to asking about teacher-led prayer.

You jumped off my post to Tass, Tass and I were speaking of what was acceptable in schools, and I brought up prayer with Carrikature. All before you put you jumped in.

That's your opinion. The supreme court disagreed. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

But no one is actually forced. And it still has nothing to do with Congress making a law.

You've just deliberately deleted the clause on free exercise of religion. Dishonest schmuckery as usual, this time lying by omission.

But no one is preventing you from practicing your religion or no religion.

[Tassman]

Yeah it means that the states can't stop citizens from expressing their religious freedom. It doesn't say that they can't display that freedom on state property. In fact to try to stop them would be violating that amendment. It also doesn't say that the state can't institute it's own church if it wanted to. It can establish a religion if it wanted. That would not stop citizens from expressing their religious freedoms either.

So basically:

Feds: Can't establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.
State: Can establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.

Utter rubbish! As Jefferson said in interpreting the Establishment Clause: "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 & State.

And whenever breaches of this Clause have been tested in the courts, e.g. by Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Plaintiff has invariably won:

IMPORTANT LEGAL SUCCESSES INCLUDE:

• Winning the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturning a state Good Friday holiday, Good Friday plaintiffs included Foundation staff and state employees.
• Winning a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removing Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land
• Halting the Post Office from issuing religious cancellations
• Ending 51 years of illegal bible instruction in public schools
• Winning the first court order to a U.S. Cabinent revoking federal funds to a pervasively sectarian agency
• Halting federal funds to a bible school offering no academic classes
• Ending "parish nursing" faith/health entanglements at two state universities
• Halting a government chaplaincy to minister to state workers

FOUNDATION COMPLAINTS HAVE:
• Halted prayer at public schools, institutions, and public financing of nativity pageants and Easter services
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Stopped Job Corps trainees from being assigned to work on a Catholic shrine
• Ended a 122-year abuse of commencement prayers at a Top Ten University
• Declared unconstitutional the creation of a state post to “assist clergy”

OTHER COURT VICTORIES INCLUDE:
• Winning a legal challenge ending 51 years of illegal bible instruction in Rhea County (Dayton, Tennessee) schools
• Declaring unconstitutional the creation of a state post to "assist clergy" to save marriages
• Stopping school subsidy of child evangelism
• Removing a nativity scene from the entrance of a city hall
• Forcing a mayor to suspend sponsorship of a Day of Prayer

https://ffrf.org/legal/challenges

[Roy]

Except 1. The citizens are not even mentioned in the establishment clause and 2. Congress is specifically mentioned.

Yeah, I don't think it's unambiguous - it could be clearer. It would have taken very little effort to have simply stated in the 14th amendment that all restrictions on congress making laws applied to states too. I suppose that's why you need the supreme court to choose from the alternative interpretations what the actual intent was.

fine with me.

[seer]

Utter rubbish! As Jefferson said in interpreting the Establishment Clause: "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 & State.

Was this the same Jefferson who use tax monies to further the Christian faith among the Indians by paying for their Christian pastor? And remember this phrase "wall separation between Church & State" was not included in the Constitution and Jefferson's opinion was just that - his opinion. One not shared by other Founders, many of whom actually supported Church taxes in their states - like in my state.

And whenever breaches of this Clause have been tested in the courts, e.g. by Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Plaintiff has invariably won:

IMPORTANT LEGAL SUCCESSES INCLUDE:

No one is arguing that there wasn't a bastardization of the First Amendment by liberal courts.

[Sparko]

Utter rubbish! blah blah blah. Repeat myself and ignore everything over the last 10 pages that has proved me wrong and pretend I am right. blah blah blah

Tassy, you are not worth my time. sigh.

[Sparko]

Yeah, I don't think it's unambiguous - it could be clearer. It would have taken very little effort to have simply stated in the 14th amendment that all restrictions on congress making laws applied to states too. I suppose that's why you need the supreme court to choose from the alternative interpretations what the actual intent was.

Yeah I think they should have tried harder to be clearer in the constitution in many places. But remember, they were lawyers. It is their job to be vague so you can't pin them down.

[Roy]

Yeah I think they should have tried harder to be clearer in the constitution in many places. But remember, they were lawyers. It is their job to be vague so you can't pin them down.

Respect. Not even I am cynical enough to suggest the authors of the 14th amendment were deliberately vague in order to provide employment and an escape clause for lawyers 70 years later.

[Meh Gerbil]

Respect. Not even I am cynical enough to suggest the authors of the 14th amendment were deliberately vague in order to provide employment and an escape clause for lawyers 70 years later.

I assume you're in your mid-20s.
Put on a few more years and absolutely nothing will surprise you anymore.

[Sparko]

Respect. Not even I am cynical enough to suggest the authors of the 14th amendment were deliberately vague in order to provide employment and an escape clause for lawyers 70 years later.

I meant lawyers wrote the amendment in the first place. They like to be wordy and vague. Just read any contract.

I work for lawyers, or as I like to say, the Devil.

[Roy]

I assume you're in your mid-20s.

I wish.

(That'd mean I joined TWeb at 13...)

[Terraceth]

Yeah I think they should have tried harder to be clearer in the constitution in many places. But remember, they were lawyers. It is their job to be vague so you can't pin them down.

I think the major reason for vagueness is the fact the writers themselves disagreed on a bunch of things so they ended up with vague wording in an effort to placate everyone.

[Tassman]

Was this the same Jefferson who use tax monies to further the Christian faith among the Indians by paying for their Christian pastor?

This proves nothing. People are often inconsistent, e.g. Jefferson owned slaves yet he was opposed to slavery.

And remember this phrase "wall separation between Church & State" was not included in the Constitution and Jefferson's opinion was just that - his opinion.

Jefferson’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a “wall separation between Church & State" was his opinion as one of those who drafted the Establishment Clause. And his opinion has been cited by the courts as precedent numerous times.

One not shared by other Founders, many of whom actually supported Church taxes in their states - like in my state.

No doubt. Christians often assume they have special rights and privileges. But, whenever breaches of the Establishment Clause have been tested in the courts, they are virtually always decided in favour of the plaintiffs, as my previous list of successful legal challenges indicates.

https://ffrf.org/legal/challenges

No one is arguing that there wasn't a bastardization of the First Amendment by liberal courts.

Sour grapes!

The courts are merely doing their job in denying special religious privileges as per the Establishment Claus.

Tassy, you are not worth my time. sigh.

Can't answer, huh!

[seer]

This proves nothing. People are often inconsistent, e.g. Jefferson owned slaves yet he was opposed to slavery.

Except you can find nothing in the Founders writings that would even hint that they would be opposed to something like School prayer, or even Scripture be taught in school. Just the opposite.

Jefferson’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a “wall separation between Church & State" was his opinion as one of those who drafted the Establishment Clause. And his opinion has been cited by the courts as precedent numerous times.

But the other Founders had to approve the language, and they did not include that - or anything like that. It was clear CONGRESS shall make no law...

No doubt. Christians often assume they have special rights and privileges. But, whenever breaches of the Establishment Clause have been tested in the courts, they are virtually always decided in favour of the plaintiffs, as my previous list of successful legal challenges indicates.

Again Tass, the liberal, bias courts invented a meaning that was not found in the text. And the courts were consistent in allowing religious expression and even tax supported religious expression until these leftist whack jobs re-wrote the Constitution.

The courts are merely doing their job in denying special religious privileges as per the Establishment Claus.

I will ask again, how does school prayer violate the actual text of Establishment Claus - be specific please...