Supreme Court to Decide Pledge Case

[Aquarian]

well, if you were to say that jewish teachers in public schools shouldn't wear a kippah (singular of kippot, aka yarmulke), I'd have a harder time arguing against that, but we'd also have to forbid cross jewelry, wwjd bracelets etc. The problem with the pledge is that it's presented as coming from authority rather than personal view.

But as far as people on the street being barred from wearing their religious attire that I would argue against. The situations are very different when comparing representatives of the establishment to ordinary citizens. Anywhere we draw a line regarding a particular behaviour there will always be debate as to whether the line goes to far or not far enough. The where will it end argument assumes that every movement of the line will lead inexorably towards abolition of the line itself and anarchy will reign. This is a logical fallacy as the movement of the line results in a new border beyond which another decision to move the line would need to be approved of. It will end where the line does.

 

[MtnBiker]

Quran displayed at NYPD headquarters
Placement of Muslim book under glass arranged by Muslim chaplain

While former Alabama Justice Roy Moore has been removed from office due to controversy surrounding a religious display in a public building, the New York City Police Department is displaying a copy of the Muslim Quran in the lobby of its headquarters.

According to Newsday, the holy book was placed in a glass cube atop a brass pedestal at the beginning of the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Oct. 27. The display is featured near the Hall of Heroes and is placed in front of the official police seal.

Donna Lieberman, the New York Civil Liberties Union executive director, warned against government promotion of religion, saying the Quran display likely violates the Constitution.

"I think that the government, including the Police Department, cannot engage in religious promotion," she told the paper. "There's a vast difference between promoting religion and in educating police officers about religions so that they understand and are sensitive to various values and beliefs."

Continued Lieberman: "It is not always clear where the line is drawn. But when the government engages in promoting religion, that crosses the line."

According to the report, the NYPD has eight chaplains of various faiths.

One of those chaplains, Imam Izak-El Mu'eed Pasha, spearheaded installation of the Quran display. He told Newsday police work makes religion a central part of police life.

"By the nature of the job, they have to have some faith," he told the paper. "There's no way to do it without having faith."

Pasha said it would be "wrong" for the department to prohibit such a display based on church-state separation concerns.

"Without them having faith I think you would have a different police department that probably would not be able to serve all its people in the best way," he is quoted as saying.

link

Wonder how long this will last?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by shylock
"There is no separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution . . ."

That strikes me as an overly simplistic interpretation.

If you truly understand our government, then you know that it is a government of limited powers derived from the people and the Constitution. The government can only do what it is authorized to do and can only act in areas where it is authorized to act. The fount of federal authority is the Constitution.

The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a complete barrier to government action vis-a-vis religion. And, as such, establishes a clear separation between the state and religion.

It's the difference between reading and comprehending.

If the authors of the Amendment to the Constitution had actually wanted to prohibited any action vis-a-vis religion, than they wouldn't have said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" they would have said "Congress shall take no action vis-a-vis religion" or, perhaps, "Congress shall take no action establishing a religion". They did not. You'll note that "an establishment" isn't a verb but a noun. A noun that means that Congress shall not fund nor make laws to create a national religion.

Not to mention the fact that the Constitution merely prohibits Congress from an establishment, it does not prohibit states from making laws affecting religion. Thus, blue laws, oaths of office, etc. have been carried out with a religious connotation throughout the history of the country.

Perhaps it is you who doesn't comprehend the meaning and import of the Constitution and is taking a simplistic approach with a one-sided, carelessly considered argument.

 

[Bry]

Once again, Moi, I'm having difficulty following your reading. What does "respecting" mean? I should think it would mean the same as with regard to, with respect to, having to do with, taking as its focus, affecting, addressing, concerning, etc. "respecting" seems to me a very big word indeed, to the extent that I would say that according to the constitution, Congress shall make no law which has anything to do with an establishment of religion. To my mind, the phrase "In God we trust", for example, is made with respect to an establishment of religion, simply because it is an inherently religious statement, ie it pertains properly to the sphere of religious establishments, ie it should not be allowed on federal currency.

Furthermore, if they wanted to limit the implications of their phrasing in the way which you imply, they would have said "respecting THE establishment of religion", not "respecting AN establishment of religion".

 

[Moi]

I hate to tell you, Bry, but once again you've missed the mark. By using the words they did, the authors of the Constitution were very careful not to prohibit Congress from delving into religion. They merely made it so that Congress could not prohibit anyone from practicing their chosen religion in favor of a state sponsored religion.

Clearly, the Supreme Court, congress and most states agree with my interpretation. Else, almost every single law in existence which has a tangential connection to religion would have been struck down. They haven't- thank God.

Oh, I mean thank the gases which formed the earth.

 

[Aquarian]

hmm, I always thought establishment could be used as a verb as well, as in 'the governor's establishment of a state church is forbidden' like a gerundy sort of verb, but that sounds funny. So does 'the establishing of a religion'... and don't get me started on how funny the word establish looks after reading 4 or 5 dictionary entries...

That aside, keep in mind that however the framer's of the constitution wrote what they were trying to say, or for that matter what they were actually trying to say, they might be wrong. They were wrong on suffrage for blacks, they were wrong or unclear on suffrage for women, there have been what, 27 amendments so far? Don't get me wrong, they laid out many noble ideals most of which were lived up to, even more were lived up to as time marched on, but they were looking at it from an 18th century perspective without the knowledge we have now. Where americans find an error in the constitution, by omission or inclusion (prohibition was a big oopsie) it is our duty to correct it. Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for ALL. Do you think our current set of laws ensures that end 100%?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Aquarian
hmm, I always thought establishment could be used as a verb as well, as in 'the governor's establishment of a state church is forbidden' like a gerundy sort of verb, but that sounds funny. So does 'the establishing of a religion'... and don't get me started on how funny the word establish looks after reading 4 or 5 dictionary entries...

That aside, keep in mind that however the framer's of the constitution wrote what they were trying to say, or for that matter what they were actually trying to say, they might be wrong. They were wrong on suffrage for blacks, they were wrong or unclear on suffrage for women, there have been what, 27 amendments so far? Don't get me wrong, they laid out many noble ideals most of which were lived up to, even more were lived up to as time marched on, but they were looking at it from an 18th century perspective without the knowledge we have now. Where americans find an error in the constitution, by omission or inclusion (prohibition was a big oopsie) it is our duty to correct it. Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for ALL. Do you think our current set of laws ensures that end 100%?

Yes, of course, it could be a verb. But not as "governor's AN establishment of ...". The word an is an article and can only modify a noun or a pronoun (which is why in this case, the word is not a verb). Anyway, of course the authors could have been WRONG but most arguments about keeping the government out of religion don't assume they were wrong originally. They just claim it means something not written in the document. As to whether I think there are any errors in our Constitution, as currently amended, no I don't think that there are any errors. I just think that a lot of errors have been made "interpreting" it.

P.S. I'm not shouting, I just don't know how to italicize for emphasis.

 

[Aquarian]

np about the 'shouting', there's a button above (I)that will put the right code around what you want italisized (or bold (B) or underline (U) etc)

I often think that the constitution could be replaced by two clauses:

1) don't hurt anyone you don't have to

2) don't take stuff that ain't yours

But then I think of how uncommon common sense is and grudgingly admit much more needs to be spelled out. I think it would be an interesting experiment to attempt to rewrite the constitution to cover all known tangents from the original...

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Aquarian
np about the 'shouting', there's a button above (I)that will put the right code around what you want italisized (or bold (B) or underline (U) etc)

I often think that the constitution could be replaced by two clauses:

1) don't hurt anyone you don't have to

2) don't take stuff that ain't yours

But then I think of how uncommon common sense is and grudgingly admit much more needs to be spelled out. I think it would be an interesting experiment to attempt to rewrite the constitution to cover all known tangents from the original...

I love it! Your version Rocks! I've always been one who doesn't need laws...I guess spike lee said it best....Do the right thing!

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by Moi
I hate to tell you, Bry, but once again you've missed the mark. By using the words they did, the authors of the Constitution were very careful not to prohibit Congress from delving into religion. They merely made it so that Congress could not prohibit anyone from practicing their chosen religion in favor of a state sponsored religion.

Clearly, the Supreme Court, congress and most states agree with my interpretation. Else, almost every single law in existence which has a tangential connection to religion would have been struck down. They haven't- thank God.

Oh, I mean thank the gases which formed the earth.

I know you don't agree, and I also understand that the Supreme court, and other institutions in our country would tend to side with your interpretation. But it is an interpretation. You haven't shown how my reading of the words is necessarily SYNTACTICALLY wrong, (as an English teacher, I'd be surprised if you could...) therefore your assertion that "the authors of the Constitution were very careful not to prohibit Congress from delving into religion." is speculation. I would also agree that to find the separation of church and state in the first amendment is also an interpretation, but it is a viable interpretation, regardless of the conservative justices with which our Supreme Court is stacked.

I'm not shouting either.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
I know you don't agree, and I also understand that the Supreme court, and other institutions in our country would tend to side with your interpretation. But it is an interpretation. You haven't shown how my reading of the words is necessarily SYNTACTICALLY wrong, (as an English teacher, I'd be surprised if you could...) therefore your assertion that "the authors of the Constitution were very careful not to prohibit Congress from delving into religion." is speculation. I would also agree that to find the separation of church and state in the first amendment is also an interpretation, but it is a viable interpretation, regardless of the conservative justices with which our Supreme Court is stacked.

I'm not shouting either.

Blah Blah. Calling your interpretation correct over an exact reading of the words on the page versus the words not on the page is what I'd call ludicrous. As an english teacher surely you wouldn't give your students a passing grade if they told you that the incorrect answer they actually wrote was, in fact, not the correct answer they meant to write. Puhlease.

 

[Bry]

Here ya go, Moi. Go nuts.

What does "respecting" mean? I should think it would mean the same as with regard to, with respect to, having to do with, taking as its focus, affecting, addressing, concerning, etc. "respecting" seems to me a very big word indeed, to the extent that I would say that according to the constitution, Congress shall make no law which has anything to do with an establishment of religion.

Furthermore, if they wanted to limit the implications of their phrasing in the way which you imply, they would have said "respecting THE establishment of religion", not "respecting AN establishment of religion".

You see, I trust, that the difference of interpretation rides on two points: 1. the definition of "respecting" (all of those I listed were perfectly acceptable) and 2. the undeniable presence of the indefinite article instead of the definite article which would support your reading. I guess I would say your "exact reading of the words" is rather imprecise. I can't help but note that you seem a bit confused about the noun / verb issue respecting the word "establishment". Establishment is not a verb ever, though Aquarian was correct to point out its "gerundy" character, as in "the act of establishing". The use of the indefinite artice suggests that they did not have this definition in mind; rather, they seem to be using it in the sense of "an organized group". Compare the substitutions:

Congress shall not make laws respecting THE ("an" doesn't work here) act of establishing a national Religion. (your reading)

Congress shall not make laws respecting an organized group of religion. (my reading)



Here's what you said:

You'll note that "an establishment" isn't a verb but a noun. A noun that means that Congress shall not fund nor make laws to create a national religion.

As will be plain to anyone who looks, your treatment of "establishment" coresponds to your use of the VERB infinitive "to create".

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
Here ya go, Moi. Go nuts.


You see, I trust, that the difference of interpretation rides on two points: 1. the definition of "respecting" (all of those I listed were perfectly acceptable) and 2. the undeniable presence of the indefinite article instead of the definite article which would support your reading. I guess I would say your "exact reading of the words" is rather imprecise. I can't help but note that you seem a bit confused about the noun / verb issue respecting the word "establishment". Establishment is not a verb ever, though Aquarian was correct to point out its "gerundy" character, as in "the act of establishing". The use of the indefinite artice suggests that they did not have this definition in mind; rather, they seem to be using it in the sense of "an organized group". Compare the substitutions:

Congress shall not make laws respecting THE ("an" doesn't work here) act of establishing a national Religion. (your reading)

Congress shall not make laws respecting an organized group of religion. (my reading)



Here's what you said:


As will be plain to anyone who looks, your treatment of "establishment" coresponds to your use of the VERB infinitive "to create".

I gotta say, Bry as much as I think your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, I just got out of a thread posted by another person and was hopping mad at how they decided to disagree with others. So I'll being my post by saying thanks for at least attempting to have a civil discussion- reasonable people can disagree!

But your arguments of new interpretations will never change my mind. All the readings I've done and all the historical documentation about how the authors of the Constitution spoke just make me see things differently. It's clear to me that people's ideas of separation between church and state differ today than they did yesterday; most commonly because we've been exposed to freedom for a much longer period of time. We see things differently than they did...let's face it, in the 18th century I wouldn't have read all the things I have today. And my experiences with other cultures would have been different. How else can you explain that the constitutional authors didn't clearly deny religious interference?

 

[Bry]

I gotta say, Bry as much as I think your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, I just got out of a thread posted by another person and was hopping mad at how they decided to disagree with others. So I'll being my post by saying thanks for at least attempting to have a civil discussion- reasonable people can disagree!

It's my pleasure! all the regulars get snippy from time to time, and i'm no different.

I appreciate your post, and I suppose we'll just leave it at that. If you can remember any of the sources you studied from regarding the intention of the Founders on this point, I'd welcome recommendations to expand my knowledge. As for the phrasing they left us with, I'd say they probably didn't agree, and this bit of vaguery was as definitive a separation as they could arrive at. Apart from our interpretations, I think that government and religion should not be mixed, simply because I think the best image of America is as a haven for diversity. But that is a different discussion altogether.

 

[ajwps]

But if we do this Bry, then should we not re-write all of our laws, for they are also based on the Judeo-Christian belief system.

The problem comes when the Judeo-Christian belief system becomes a bit subtler for this being a "Christian" country. There are many who take this concept of the Ten Commandments as belonging solely to one religion or another. In this case Christian in origin. The assistant Attorney General of the same state where the Ten Commandments caused the removal of a judge stated unequivocably that the USA is a Christian country established by Christians for Christians.

Congress shall not make laws respecting THE ("an" doesn't work here) act of establishing a national Religion. (your reading)

Is this 'Christian' country established under the New Testament Ten Commandments a national religious State?

Western civilizations laws are based on the those G-d commandments which some in western societies chooses to follow as the basis for the legal system.

Before the advent of those Ten Commandments there were no rules, either positive or negative, with which to use as a guide to living our lives.

Many people today do not wish to be reminded of the Ten Commandments when they interfer with our personal desires and go on our merry way murdering our neighbor for their possessions or just stealing them or lying to get what we want.

Question: Which group of people on the earth are the eternal reminder of these laws that mostly no one really wants? If we can destroy these people (small in number) who remind us of the laws of society, can't we just go back to the good ole days when those who shoot first become the owners and leaders?

 

[Bry]

I dug this up, since you were interested. It's not, as i remembered, about the Judge Moore case but about the pledge of alleigance. But my arguments here would be the same. By the way, has the Supreme Court made a decision on the pledge?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
I dug this up, since you were interested. It's not, as i remembered, about the Judge Moore case but about the pledge of alleigance. But my arguments here would be the same. By the way, has the Supreme Court made a decision on the pledge?

Wednesday, March 24th they hear arguments. No idea when the verdict will be announced.

 

[Bry]

thanks, Moi.

 

[acludem]

I bristle at the notion that our country was based on "Judeo-Christian" principles. First, James Madison, who is largely responsible for our Constitution was an ardent supporter of a strict separation of church and state. Jefferson and Madison led the fight in Virginia against government subsidy of protestant churches. Benjamin Franklin, another of the most important framers, strongly supported this separation. All three of these men were Deists, that is they believed that God had created the earth, and then quit worrying about it. There is only two references to religion in our Constitution, the first in the date "in the year of our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty-Seven" a common way that documents of that time period were dated, the other is the first amendment establishment clause, which I firmly believe was designed to prevent both intrusion by government in religion and by relgion in government. This is a democracy not a theocracy. I realize some of you who are deeply religious would like to and belive it would be best to have everyone in this country believe as you do. If that's what you want, establish your own country and make it a theocracy. The Ten Commandments vary much in different versions of the bible. Which version should we use? Me, I like the George Carlin revised list of the three commandments: 1.) Thou shalt always be honest and faithful 2.) Thou shalt try really hard not to kill anyone 3.) Thou shalt keep thy religion to thy self.
If Judge Moore wants to post those on the courthouse wall he has my blessing.

I believe the "under God" clause has no place in the pledge and never should have been put into it by Dwight Eisenhower. The decision on this case will likely be out in the late Summer or Fall as the Supreme Court generally takes its time.

acludem

 

[Moi]

And yet, Adams and Jefferson both held church services in the capital building. Jefferson believed that all human rights came from God not man or government and believed that a moral dicta in god's eyes was necessary for accurate governance. George Washington, a huge supporter of God and religion also held services in government venues as did Ben Franklin.

What they each believed in was that government ought not fund one religion at the expense of another and that no one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs...totally different than today's tactic of abolishing all mention of god or a deity or any type of religious speech whatsoever.