Hypocrisy

Court rulings are not law, nor should they be, they can be easily overturned by a reasonable supreme court.

Judicial Review is not a power granted to the Court system by the Constitution it is a power that, ... ummm stretching the memory here but I believe Chief Justice Marshall grabbed and noone contended him because him doing that was better than the alternatives at the time.


So I follow the constitution and A. Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution and B. The Court system which validated this illegal rule is not even allowed the power of judicial review in the constitution.

I have a question if the courts are supposed to "review" the consitutionality of a law, shouldn't they review the constitutionality of their own Judicial review powers?

A court system that derives its power from breaking the constitution is not fit to judge or interpret the constitution.

JV

It's a good thing that the Supreme Court has been reasonable throughout most of its history (IMHO).

Here's the law that they must interpret whenever a new gray area shows up:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Maintaining the precarious balance of those first two clauses has ultimately led to all sorts of interesting laws and judicial rulings.

Religious and charitable organizations are tax-exempt. But charities which receive government funding (i.e. money coerced out of the people in the form of taxes rather than freely given out of their own goodness) are not supposed to proselytize. This is an attempt at a reasonable balance.

This applies to hospitals, schools, child protection services, and homeless relief, among others, which were traditionally the province of religion, but have been increasingly been offered as services of the state as well.

Unfortunately, in adopting these services, the state has an unfair advantage, because they pay for them by means of involuntary taxes rather than voluntary donations. So, sometimes the balance goes out of whack in favor of nonreligious charities. Plus, people start to think of these services as being part of the public realm, or the state, and thus religious messages are not allowed to be an "established" part of them.

Eventually it could reach the absurd point of becoming a defacto established state "nonreligion", and we are back to the bad old days of forced tithing and persecution of other beliefs in the public realm. Oh wait, that's sort of what it is like now. We're just a little more subtle about it, and it's not quite so brutal.

Luckily we have a reasonable Supreme Court. I hope.

"the purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries" -James Madison

The interpretation of the establishment clause comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in response to a letter from a group of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut. The letter from the Baptist group was a complaint that the Connecticut tax laws oppressed them, since they permitted communities to levy taxes for the support of an official, government-chosen religion. Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, so Baptists and members of other religious groups (as well as nonreligious persons) were compelled to support the dominant faith through their tax money.

"Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

In the original letter there were sections that had been blacked out. Dr. James. H. Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress decided to have the FBI try to uncover the blacked out portions. The findings were quite surprising. In his final letter, Jefferson had referred to a "wall of separation between Church and State." The FBI results, though, showed that in the early draft, Jefferson was even more vehement, and referred to "wall of eternal separation." In addition, the early draft shows Jefferson explaining his opposition to government proclamations of fasting days because the office of the President had only "temporal powers."

Considering that Jefferson helped write the Constitution I tend to take his word on the intent of the establishment clause.

Actually Jefferson wasn't there for much of the constitutional convention (flame me if i have my founding fathers mixed up), but instead sent Madison in his place, and was very upset that madison had different views than he and changed many things he wanted.

Also Jefferson was not a dictator, just because he wanted that clause to mean seperation of church and state does not mean ALL THE OTHER delegates would have accepted the constitution if they had thought it meant that, I can assure you that most would not have due to the high religiousness back then.

Also his meaning of seperation of church in state was in direct reference to something I agree with, if money is to be given to a church or religion money must be given to all religions or none, or else you are in fact establishing a state religion. No interpretation was needed to correct the problem he addresses in that letter, by funding only one church connecticut was establishing a state religion so it was already unconstitutional, we didn't need seperation of church and state to fix it. There is also a big difference between allowing kids to pray in school and funding one religion with taxpayers money, a very big difference.

JV

I love it when people start agreeing and don't admit it.

If you are saying chip and I agree you are wrong.

I do not recognize the Court fabricated notion of separation of church and state, they don't have the right to Judicial Review of the Constitution. It was written by men far superior to them and it is a travesty when they change its meaning.

Even if they review it to something I agree with it will still be illegal in my mind. They do not have the right to Judicial Review, I don't know how many other ways I can say it.

JV

[/B]

I'm sorry, but I have to step up and say this is just a personal opinion. No one today can assure anyone of what went on in the minds of men centuries dead. We can only pick and prod over the words the left behind.



On the other hand, I'm all in favor of allowing prayer in school ..... As soon as they also allow:

Wiccan and pagan covens
Buddhist meditations
Shinto ceremonies
Muslim prayer
Santeria and Voodoo ceremonies
Atheist meetings
and a bunch of other religons I can't think of right now, ALL on equal time and footing as well as educating the student body on each of these religons in an unbiased manner. If the religous right wants to teach christian beliefs, then I feel it's hypocritical to ignore or demean the others.

All or nothing.

Until then I'd prefer if religon actually were a completely personal decision, to be taught at home and your church of choice ... period.

I rather enjoy reading these debates.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say I enjoy watching the hand waving that goes on during these debates.

First, who cares if the message on the T shirt was "left" or "right"? The kid's 1st ammendment rights were upheld and that is a Good Thing. Now, instead of complaining, lets use that as a starting point to make sure *ALL* 1st ammendment rights are upheld.

As for school sponsored religon, can anyone actually say with a straight face that it is a good thing and does not interfere with the rights of others in a society as diverse as America?

Liberals and Conservatives : know what the real difference between the two is? The way they are spelled. They both equally enjoy bending the taxpayers over and sticking it to them.

What it seems to me is that people are more interested in their "team" winning than they are in the actual constitution. Instead of blaming each other's parties for bad court rulings. rejoice when a good ruling is passed. Who cares if it benefits the so-called ideals of a particular party? Thats just hand waving. The important thing is that the constitution is upheld, regardless of political spins. Keep that in mind and encourage your elected representatives to do the same. Whatever party you belong to. That, my friends, is the only way to work our way out of this political quagmire.

Humbly,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Historical myopia: The human tendency to deify or vilify those that came before us.

What about the impressionable young kids?

Ok, time for more quotes from the good old U.S. Constitution:

"Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

It is the Supreme Court's power and job to decide cases on the basis of the principles set forth in the Constitution. To do this, they must be as sure as they can what the original writers meant when they wrote it. The Constitution says what it says, and it is up to them to decide how it applies to each case that comes up.

So there's your disagreement. Now here's the agreement:

posted by Jonathan VonLenard

posted by Chip Midnight

posted by Ananda Sandgrain

The point I am making here is that we all agree that the government has no business collecting taxes in order to fund the establishment of a religion, no matter what that religion might be.

As a side note, this country really does enjoy freedom OF religion. A greater percentage of people profess to have some form of religious belief and practice here than in any other country on Earth! It's just time we were honest and admitted that several of the religions have gotten away with government establishment because they don't call themselves "religion":

(Some of these are not groups, merely descriptions)
Atheism
Communism
Psychiatry
Psychology
Yoga
Naturopathy
Secular Humanism
Materialism
"Otherness" (re: David Brin - the dogma that no culture is better than any other)
Darwinism (especially the "social" variety)
...

That's all I can think of atm, but you get the idea. There's plenty of fields of thought and belief that have made inroads into society BECAUSE they claim not to be religion, and thus are allowed into government funded schools, hospitals and other charitable activities. As Jellin Pico said, "All or Nothing."

Unless of course, you'd rather be reasonable.

Let them form their own opinions. Opinions and beliefs based on personal choice, a choice made freely and with knowledge of just what ALL the choices are.

AS to your quoting the constitution, you are right the court must rule on cases.... by following the constitution.

This does not mean change the constitution or corrupt it which they have done in the past, and this most certainly does not mean the power to review legislation.

Nowhere does it say they can claim legislation unconstitutional, this was a power grabbed because of some midnight judicial appointments and one was sitting in a desk when the next administration took over and they refused to turn it it. The legislation ruled they had to turn over the appointment and the Supreme Court so as to not really decide the matter stated that the congress violated the constitution by making that law, both sides were happy the matter solved like that because it was a very sticky situation, so they closed their eyes to the fact the Supreme Court usurped a new power.

You are right Chip and I agree that no one religion should be funded by the state as it is establishing a religion, but I say that is already banned in the constitution and that Jefferson's letter saying we needed, or he meant, separation of churhc and state is not needed because the matter at hand was already unconstitutional.


Either way, I bet Jefferson would not be pleased by the way his statement of Separation of Church and State has been corrupted into the use of it today. He mant it as a protection from a state religion, not to destroy religion.


JV

I always knew Jello was a smart snack j/k.

But that is true, protecting kids from different religions and ideals is not smart as it promotes hate.

I mean come on, most of the groups that fight against religion being present are the same ones that want multiculturalism so badly. So which is it? should we have diversity or not? If so then relgion is just another form of diversity.

You don't tell new immigrants that they can't wear their traditiional clothes from their countries, so how can you tell kids they can not pray.


JV

Who tells them that? They can. Just not over the intercom.

-AP

Very easily when the argument for prayer in school is a handy dandy euphimism for 'Christian' prayer in school. And to extend that, it's also easy for me to say no when bands of religous, -christian- religous right wingers demand christian
monuments not in churches, but in court houses and other government buildings.

I'm a firm advocate of seperation of church and state. Very firm. I believe whole-heartedly in the idea that we are free to worship as we please, but I also believe each of us has a right to be free -from- religon as well.

Religon = Home and Church. Between you and your family and whatever god you may or may not worship. I don't want a particular religon taught in schools. I don't want this countries laws to come out of any dusty manuscript hundreds or thousands of years old. I don't want our country run on religous doctrine.
______________________________________________

******What we can have is the kind of hatred spewing forth from this Michigan kid, whose speech served no other purpose than to display utter contempt for our nation and president, and cause division amongst the student body.

Who ARE these people who get deeply offended by hearing about what a great nation they live in, or are scarred over observing someone else pray at mealtime?? ******
_______________________________________________


Hypocrasy anyone? Some vitriol with that extrremely right winged rant? Who's accusing who of what here? Who is the author, or anyone else, to get upset over a personal political opinion, expressed in writing? Sorry, not someone who believes in the 1st amendment.


_______________________________________________

*****And yet we are supposed to sit back and smile, knowing that this brat in Michigan is just “exercising his right” to demoralize our country? ******
_______________________________________________


Yes Mr Aldrich and Varner, you are, just as you are free to exercise you right to flame anyone whos opinion is different.

_______________________________________________


******Can we just pass an amendment to the First Amendment?

Because we really need to clarify this whole “free speech” thing. A majority of the country is terribly mistaken about how “freedom of speech” works, and they need to be educated. *******
_______________________________________________



WHOA!!



_______________________________________________

*******What happened to Steve Hinkel and these senior citizens is outrageous, but can be anticipated by anyone promoting conservative values. Anyone who professes a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, supports the military and our troops in combat, and wishes to expand capitalism and uphold freedom from a tyrannical government sees the legal door slammed in their face time and time again.

However, anyone who wants to make obscene or polarizing statements about religion, our country, its leadership or our way of life gets the green light more often than not. ****
_______________________________________________



This kinda helps my view along I think. Rather typical, dare I say stereotypical, reaction to any opossing view. "Outlaw it! Only the Christian Right wing knows the true course."


_______________________________________________

*****The entertainment community chastised the American public for boycotting the Dixie Chicks after one of the singers made an anti-Bush statement during a European concert. The American people were offended by the Chicks’ display of hatred toward their president, but were scolded by other rockers for not letting the Chicks exercise their First Amendment rights. ******
_______________________________________________



The "entertainment community" chatised the American public?? Say what? I'm sorry, but there are just SO many weird paranoid, bits of nutiness here, I don't know where to begin. Personaly, I doubt the entire american public were offended, and I don't remember them expressing hatred toward the president. To me it sounds as if the author equates dissenting views as hatred. Isn't that a like a bad thing?


_______________________________________________

******It’s high time conservatives take back the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was written for every citizen, no matter what the liberals try to tell us. ****
_______________________________________________



I have to differ here too. Neither the Constitutiom, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence were written, drafted, composed or even dreampt of by conservatives. It was Liberals who did it. Yes, Liberals, Rebels and Revolutionaries who wanted to break with all the garbage of the past and strike out into new social waters. They dreamed of something never done before, using only the good bits from here and there, and they fought an uprising to bring this new thing into being.

Why? To free themselves and their posterity and to insure the Blessings of Liberty and to Boldly go where No One has Gone Before.

I'm sorry for barging in this talk, but this is a subject I feel strongly about. Freedom is pretty hard to define, and it's a tricky thing to work for, but religon is a powerful subject. Ultimately though, it's there to more or less deal with what just about all of them would agree is a soul. In todays world I believe a government should not be concerned with souls and the eternity of god, it's just way too easy to get all weird fast.

Leave it at home, go to your church if you want, and every once in awhile, go crazy and burn a flag on 7-4. George Washington wants you to.

Destroy religion? LOL, Please! Christians crack me up. You make up around 70% of the US population and yet have this amazing persecution complex. It's quite insane. That's like white people crying that blacks are opressing them.

Jefferson was a Deist (about as close to atheism as you can get while still believing in god). He was not a big fan of religion and I seriously doubt that Madison twisted his intentions at the constitutional convention. Here are some other choice quotes from mister Jefferson...

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religon (Jesus), before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind and agrandizing their opressers in church and state... The purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." - letter to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - letter to Archibald Cary, 1816

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives... But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interests and absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest." - letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - letter to Baron Alexander von Humbolt, December 6, 1813

Christians like to engage in a bit of revisionist history when talking about the founding of this country and the men who founded it. Most of the founders were Deists, Unitarians, and non-Christians.

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian.... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative."

If you want to continue to claim that current day courts are misrepresenting the actual intent of establishment clause, you should really learn more about the men who actually wrote it.

Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and many others held very dim views on organized religions. They were very much in favor of freedom FROM religion.

So when are we gonna start talking about the founding fathers and Freemasons?

No, he's right; the politicians who defended stealing Indian territories, attacking Mexico, slavery and later segregation were all members of the Democratic party. That may have been a long time ago, but a lot of democrats have called for modern day companies to apologize to and even indemnify the descendants of slaves without making a similar gesture on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

It's all meaningless political posturing anyway. Like an apology now on behalf of people who died a few hundred years ago means anything? The whole notion is absurd. Empty PC'ness run amok.

I agree. This business of apologizing on the behalf of one's ancestors to the ancestors of others is pretty silly, especially since for all you know, you could have been the one who was owed the apology a couple of centuries ago.

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly willing to apologize for things I've done, if only I could remember all the details, and could identify where those people ended up!

Edit: (There was stuff here that was an uncomfortable enough subject that no one even dared mock me.)

Why the self-censoring?

-AP

Heh Ananda I thought the part you edited out was very Hitchhiker's Guide-ish

What people are asking for here is the right to pray in school. Not to TEACH religion, or practice ceremonies. Just simple prayer. Perferably in private. And yes; Buddhist meditations, Muslim prayer should be allowed too. Also Shinto prayer. and any form of Wiccan. Pagan, or other prayers. Mind you we are talking Prayers here, not ceremonies of any kind. Those are more properly practiced in places of worship. If athiests want to pray, or more appropriately NOT pray, they should be able to do this also. As lomg as all this praying is not forced on others, where is the harm?