Separation of State from Church

[manifold]

The United States Supreme Court struck down the Alabama "moment of silence" law. The Court found that the "moment of silence" law had no secular (non-religious) purpose, but did in fact have a religious purpose which was to bring prayer into public schools. The Establishment Clause requires governmental neutrality toward religion. According to the Court, the State of Alabama was not neutral toward religion. The Court held that Alabama was promoting religion and infringing upon individuals' "freedom of conscience."

Was SCOTUS neutral towards religion? It seems to me, an attempt was made in the Alabama law to make concessions to the non religious and thus WAS neutral.

If you actually read the specifics of the case, I'm guessing you wouldn't have posted something quite so ignorant. But I could be wrong.

 

[Ernie S.]

^Deflection fail.

I'll take this as an acknowledgment on your part that there are indeed NO LAWS against praying in school.

Answer the question. Would you mind? How would you react? Wouldn't you, like most anti religionists be calling the ACLU? How would the ACLU frame it's suit?

Are you basing your argument that there ARE laws against praying in school on mani's reaction to you saying a prayer in school?


Mani may be quite powerful, but I'm not sure that his opinion on an issue will suddenly make a new law materialize.

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

 

[Ernie S.]

The United States Supreme Court struck down the Alabama "moment of silence" law. The Court found that the "moment of silence" law had no secular (non-religious) purpose, but did in fact have a religious purpose which was to bring prayer into public schools. The Establishment Clause requires governmental neutrality toward religion. According to the Court, the State of Alabama was not neutral toward religion. The Court held that Alabama was promoting religion and infringing upon individuals' "freedom of conscience."

Was SCOTUS neutral towards religion? It seems to me, an attempt was made in the Alabama law to make concessions to the non religious and thus WAS neutral.

If you actually read the specifics of the case, I'm guessing you wouldn't have posted something quite so ignorant. But I could be wrong.

I'll read further. What I see from the summary I read is that SCOTUS struck down an Alabama law setting aside a few minutes for meditation that attempted to make concessions to those who might object to prayer.

 

[Immanuel]

Personally, I am at a loss to explain why the liberal establishment - many of whom claim to follow a faith - are the very ones who are attempting to remove religion from any public display. I find that to be somewhat ridiculous. Don't tell me you are tolerant when you are not. If you seek to wipe religion out of the country.... say so. Own it. Have the courage of your convictions. But, know this, do not claim to be the 'tolerant' ideology when you demonstrate tolerance only towards those you feel inclined to.

The 'separation' was never supposed to be used to destroy that which it was designed to protect. And that is what certain sections of our system are trying to do.

where has anyone gone after someones christmas yard display?

Its ONLY on government property.

why do you lie?

Where did she say anything at all about yard displays?

Why do you lie?

Let me guess, it was just a "mistake".

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

^Deflection fail.

I'll take this as an acknowledgment on your part that there are indeed NO LAWS against praying in school.

Answer the question. Would you mind? How would you react? Wouldn't you, like most anti religionists be calling the ACLU? How would the ACLU frame it's suit?

I'll answer your question as soon as you acknowledge that there are no laws against praying in school, or in public anywhere for that matter... or provide evidence of such a law's existence.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

 

[xotoxi]

Answer the question. Would you mind? How would you react? Wouldn't you, like most anti religionists be calling the ACLU? How would the ACLU frame it's suit?

Are you basing your argument that there ARE laws against praying in school on mani's reaction to you saying a prayer in school?


Mani may be quite powerful, but I'm not sure that his opinion on an issue will suddenly make a new law materialize.

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

 

[Ernie S.]

From Chief Justice Berger's dissenting opinion:

Some who trouble to read the opinions in these cases will find it ironic -- perhaps even bizarre -- that on the very day we heard arguments in the cases, the Court's session opened with an invocation for Divine protection. Across the park a few hundred yards away, the House of Representatives and the Senate regularly open each session with a prayer. These legislative prayers are not just one minute in duration, but are extended, thoughtful invocations and prayers for Divine guidance. They are given, as they have been since 1789, by clergy appointed as official chaplains and paid from the Treasury of the United States. Congress has also provided chapels in the Capitol, at public expense, where Members and others may pause for prayer, meditation -- or a moment of silence.

Further on in his dissent:

I make several points about today's curious holding.

(a) It makes no sense to say that Alabama has "endorsed prayer" by merely enacting a new statute "to specify expressly that voluntary prayer is one of the authorized activities during a moment of silence," ante at 472 U. S. 77 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). To suggest that a moment-of-silence statute that includes the word "prayer" unconstitutionally endorses religion, while one that simply provides for a moment of silence does not, manifests not neutrality, but hostility, toward religion. For decades, our opinions have stated that hostility toward any religion or toward all religions is as much forbidden by the Constitution as is an official establishment of religion. The Alabama Legislature has no more "endorsed" religion than a state or the Congress does when it provides for legislative chaplains, or than this Court does when it opens each session with an invocation to God.

Seems that the majority decision did seek to outlaw prayer, did it not?

 

[Immanuel]

Are you basing your argument that there ARE laws against praying in school on mani's reaction to you saying a prayer in school?


Mani may be quite powerful, but I'm not sure that his opinion on an issue will suddenly make a new law materialize.

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

Wouldn't you agree that liberals believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Come to think of it... isn't it?

Immie

 

[Ernie S.]

Are you basing your argument that there ARE laws against praying in school on mani's reaction to you saying a prayer in school?


Mani may be quite powerful, but I'm not sure that his opinion on an issue will suddenly make a new law materialize.

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

In this case, Wallace vs. Jaffree (1985) was essentially the antithesis of a law. It rendered an established law unenforceable. You're right. Striking down a law is not a law.

 

[Ernie S.]

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

Wouldn't you agree that liberals believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Come to think of it... isn't it?

Immie

must spread...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nowhere is it written in those documents that Christians, Jews Muslims or Buddhists are prohibited from praying in a public place, as a matter of fact, it seems logical to say that the 1st Amendment specifically says that the government is forbidden to deny anyone that right.

There is no provision in the Constitution or its case law that prohibits citizens from praying in a public place, that has never been at issue.

At issue is the government’s endorsement of religion – per law, policy, or other measure – where such an act has no secular purpose, where its primary goal is to promote religion, and where representatives of the state manifest an ‘excessive entanglement’ with regard to religious expression. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman

When a government violates one or more of the criteria noted above, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

One of the common mistakes made by many theists is to infer that to prohibit a government mandated or authorized religious display, such as a nativity scene, is somehow an abridgment of the Free Exercise Clause, as Christians, in this case, are not allowed to celebrate Christmas in a public venue.

This is not the case, to disallow a government sanctioned public religious display in no way violates the tenet of any faith.

Indeed, with regard to Christianity, for example, nowhere in the doctrine or dogma of that faith will you find it mandated that a true Christian must erect a nativity scene on public land at the behest of government, and that a failure to do so means a core principle of one’s faith is denied by the state.

That a majority of the community is Christian is irrelevant, that no one complains or cares is irrelevant, or that only one person out of many objects is irrelevant.

Constitutional rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his Constitutional rights as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence, or that he represents a minority – even if it’s a minority of one.

In order for the Constitution and its case law to have any meaning and authority, the fundamental tenets of the First Amendment must be applied in a consistent manner to ensure an equal and fair application of the law overall.

As Justice Blackmun observed in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), the Court has ruled consistently with regard to government endorsement of religion in many forms:

In recent years, we have paid particularly close attention to whether the challenged governmental practice either has the purpose or effect of "endorsing" religion, a concern that has long had a place in our Establishment Clause jurisprudence. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 436 (1962). Thus, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 60, the Court held unconstitutional Alabama's moment-of-silence statute because it was "enacted . . . for the sole purpose of expressing the State's endorsement of prayer activities." The Court similarly invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it "endorses religion" in its purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593 (1987). And the educational [p593] program in School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 389-392 (1985), was held to violate the Establishment Clause because of its "endorsement" effect. See also Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989) (plurality opinion) (tax exemption limited to religious periodicals "effectively endorses religious belief ").

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

 

[xotoxi]

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

Wouldn't you agree that liberals believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Come to think of it... isn't it?

Immie

You have a point.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nowhere is it written in those documents that Christians, Jews Muslims or Buddhists are prohibited from praying in a public place, as a matter of fact, it seems logical to say that the 1st Amendment specifically says that the government is forbidden to deny anyone that right.

There is no provision in the Constitution or its case law that prohibits citizens from praying in a public place, that has never been at issue.

At issue is the government’s endorsement of religion – per law, policy, or other measure – where such an act has no secular purpose, where its primary goal is to promote religion, and where representatives of the state manifest an ‘excessive entanglement’ with regard to religious expression. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman

When a government violates one or more of the criteria noted above, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

One of the common mistakes made by many theists is to infer that to prohibit a government mandated or authorized religious display, such as a nativity scene, is somehow an abridgment of the Free Exercise Clause, as Christians, in this case, are not allowed to celebrate Christmas in a public venue.

This is not the case, to disallow a government sanctioned public religious display in no way violates the tenet of any faith.

Indeed, with regard to Christianity, for example, nowhere in the doctrine or dogma of that faith will you find it mandated that a true Christian must erect a nativity scene on public land at the behest of government, and that a failure to do so means a core principle of one’s faith is denied by the state.

That a majority of the community is Christian is irrelevant, that no one complains or cares is irrelevant, or that only one person out of many objects is irrelevant.

Constitutional rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his Constitutional rights as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence, or that he represents a minority – even if it’s a minority of one.

In order for the Constitution and its case law to have any meaning and authority, the fundamental tenets of the First Amendment must be applied in a consistent manner to ensure an equal and fair application of the law overall.

As Justice Blackmun observed in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), the Court has ruled consistently with regard to government endorsement of religion in many forms:

In recent years, we have paid particularly close attention to whether the challenged governmental practice either has the purpose or effect of "endorsing" religion, a concern that has long had a place in our Establishment Clause jurisprudence. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 436 (1962). Thus, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 60, the Court held unconstitutional Alabama's moment-of-silence statute because it was "enacted . . . for the sole purpose of expressing the State's endorsement of prayer activities." The Court similarly invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it "endorses religion" in its purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593 (1987). And the educational [p593] program in School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 389-392 (1985), was held to violate the Establishment Clause because of its "endorsement" effect. See also Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989) (plurality opinion) (tax exemption limited to religious periodicals "effectively endorses religious belief ").

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

I favor Justice Burger's dissenting opinion. His opinion that the intent of the 1st amendment was not so much to keep religion out of government as to not play favorites among different sects.
O'Connor's thought that the inclusion of prayer being a possible use of the meditation period is rather ironic. The fact that the majority went along, is, in fact bizarre.

 

[manifold]

Answer the question. Would you mind? How would you react? Wouldn't you, like most anti religionists be calling the ACLU? How would the ACLU frame it's suit?

I'll answer your question as soon as you acknowledge that there are no laws against praying in school, or in public anywhere for that matter... or provide evidence of such a law's existence.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'll answer your question as soon as you acknowledge that there are no laws against praying in school, or in public anywhere for that matter... or provide evidence of such a law's existence.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

From my perspective, I see the opposite.
I've seen a concerted effort by the left to remove God from schools, public buildings and institutions. The result has been rampant teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, disregard for the law, the entitlement society and a general break down of social morality. You may see this as a good thing. If so, congratulations. You seem to be winning.

 

[manifold]

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

From my perspective, I see the opposite.
I've seen a concerted effort by the left to remove God from schools, public buildings and institutions. The result has been rampant teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, disregard for the law, the entitlement society and a general break down of social morality. You may see this as a good thing. If so, congratulations. You seem to be winning.

yer funneh!

 

[jillian]

I'll answer your question as soon as you acknowledge that there are no laws against praying in school, or in public anywhere for that matter... or provide evidence of such a law's existence.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

it's because they see *their* faith as controlling what everyone else does. If the faith were Islam, they'd be shrieking about "creeping sharia law" and marching against the building of mosques, much less allowing it into schools and government.

 

[manifold]

There are court decisions restricting prayer in schools, public meetings, etc. My contention is that these restrictions interfere with free exercise.

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

Wouldn't you agree that liberals believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Come to think of it... isn't it?

Immie

Obviously not. Otherwise it wouldn't be a litmus test for all Supreme Court nominees.

 

[Immanuel]

I'll answer your question as soon as you acknowledge that there are no laws against praying in school, or in public anywhere for that matter... or provide evidence of such a law's existence.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

And I could not disagree with you more. Although I respect your points.

Religious expressions have been a part of this country since it was founded. Evidently you have not been listening to what the left has been trying to do over the last 50 years.

When this country was founded politicians were even expected to be people of faith. Now, since the 1960's, the left has been waging an all out war against any public expression of faith and not only by politicians but by anyone at all.

I happen to be one of the biggest proponents of the separation of church and state. I do not want my government interfering in my faith at all, but damnit, I don't want people on the left telling my children's teachers that they can't bring a bible to school, keep it in their desk and read it during their free time or wear a cross around their neck for that matter either. I don't want people on the left telling my son that he can't pray with his teammates before a high school football game either.

If it weren't for the left's insistence of shoving their values down the throats of others, this would not even be an issue today.

But, it seems to me that the just of the thread is not that the laws have been put in place, but rather that the left has made a concerted effort to force prayer and the bible out of public life in general. They have not succeeded... yet. The operative word there being yet.

Immie

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, I don't see separation as a left/right thing... at all. And I'd wager a lifetime of paychecks that the Founding Fathers didn't either. Second, the 'concerted' effort you apparently lament is not about forcing prayer, or the bible, out of public life. It's about steadfast resistance against those that seek to force it into public life. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some to see, but it makes all the difference. I'll never understand why anyone who professes devout faith would demand the right to leverage government institutions to brandish their faith as a weapon of conformity.

it's because they see *their* faith as controlling what everyone else does. If the faith were Islam, they'd be shrieking about "creeping sharia law" and marching against the building of mosques, much less allowing it into schools and government.

You know something, Jillian, you say that in reference to a post quoting me and by your placing *their* in your post you are inferring that I am attempting to control what everyone else does, that I have a problem with "creeping sharia law" and that I had a problem with the Ground Zero mosque. Maybe you should go back and find my posts about Sharia Law... good luck.

Maybe you should go find my posts about the GZ Mosque. I will admit that when I first heard about it and thought that it was planned for GZ, I had a problem with that. Placing a mosque on the foot print of the World Trade Center would have been an insult to America. I would actually compare it to the Muslim Mosque (I don't remember what they call it and don't want to look it up) sitting on the grounds of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. A couple hours later when I learned that was not the case, I changed my stance.

Oh and one thing else, maybe you should look up my posts where I have insisted that any one of another faith should adopt my own.

I've known (and respected your faith) for as long as I have known you. I have never insulted you or your faith. I don't think I deserve the insult you just threw my way.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Since when are court decisions LAWS?

Wouldn't you agree that liberals believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Come to think of it... isn't it?

Immie

Obviously not. Otherwise it wouldn't be a litmus test for all Supreme Court nominees.

You lost me, that doesn't make sense in regards to your stand.

It is a litmus test for S.C. Nominees because it is considered "the law of the land". Anyone, any politician for that matter, seeking to overturn that law is outright forbidden from serving in any position of real influence in this country. That is the litmus test that is in force today.

Maybe you are looking at it differently and I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

Immie