The 99

gospelriders

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
The Supreme Court has ruled, and affirmed many times, the separation of church and state. There is no exception for what the "majority" wants, since the Constitution is designed specifically to protect the minority, or the individual. Supreme Court rulings become the law of the land, as per the Constitution, and as such becomes Constitutional, part of the Constitution. The "free exercise thereof" applies to the individual, not to the government. When the government exercises a freedom of religion, it's not an exercising thereof, it's an establishment thereof.

turtle you seem to have wealth of information ,so i am sure you are aware of church services held in the house of reps. up to 1868 or communion services in the treasury bldg. or services in the supreme court as late as 1806. not mandating or establishing,but clearly a preference.these were attended by sitting presidents and congressman of the time. it would appear they were very comfortable about the constitutionality of conducting those services on federal property.
do i think government in any country should establish religion, that is a big no! faith and conversion come on a personal level not by government endorsement or even organized religion.
we do have to take into consideration past history, in the context of what this post was about in the first place.so if was ok then in government places why not now? are we more "enlightened" now or have we drifted farther into darkness?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
...There is no exception for what the "majority" wants, since the Constitution is designed specifically to protect the minority, or the individual.
This party, you have right, well mostly. The Bill of Rights does place rights above the vote of any majority.

Supreme Court rulings become the law of the land, as per the Constitution, and as such becomes Constitutional, part of the Constitution.

This is false. SCOTUS has no power to make law, and neither do they have a constitutional role as the sole or even supreme arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional. That is a power they arrogated to themselves. I forget which justice said, "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is," but that was a novel concept at the time. That would have been news to the Founding Fathers.

There are times when SCOTUS ruled one way at one time, and another later, without any alteration by Congress. Did the law change? No, just one Co-equal branch's view of it, which the other branches didn't challenge.


The "free exercise thereof" applies to the individual, not to the government. When the government exercises a freedom of religion, it's not an exercising thereof, it's an establishment thereof.

An interesting opinion. Have something to support it? I'd like to look it over.



--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I think a lot of you need to visit the reasons behind the clause and the history of England leading up to and just beyond 1776.

AND I also think that if one is to understand that the ACLU is a member driven organization, changing it comes from being a member and not by trying to fight it as just a complainer.

AND I am wondering why December 25 is a Federal and state holiday.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I think a lot of you need to visit the reasons behind the clause and the history of England leading up to and just beyond 1776.

AND I also think that if one is to understand that the ACLU is a member driven organization, changing it comes from being a member and not by trying to fight it as just a complainer.

AND I am wondering why December 25 is a Federal and state holiday.

Same could be said of the KKK or Black Panthers.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
Sorry Cheri but that's not correct. There is no "separation of church and state". There is a prohibition against the establishment of a religion. There is no, none, zero, nada prohibition against the observation of religion even in government meetings and locations. They did not want a "church of America", a single specified established religion, in the manner of the church of England. There is no Constitutional violation in having a short prayer to open any meeting or event.

As to form, whatever the majority subscribes to should be chosen. By default, that will be a general Christian prayer at almost all functions in this country, the exception being things like events at a Jewish school etc.. Common sense easily covers it, the problem only being when those with no common sense like the ACLU and their type being allowed to participate.

You're ok with 'whatever the majority subscribes to', huh? So when the state you live in has to conduct all business in Spanish, no complaints, right?
Things take on a different complexion when you're NOT in the majority. Don't believe me, ask the white folks in South Africa.....
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Apples and oranges. I was speaking specifically of a short invocation and suggesting a Jewish gathering not be required to have a Christian or Muslim prayer while pointing out the Constitution prohibits establishment not observation.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Sorry Cheri but that's not correct. There is no "separation of church and state". There is a prohibition against the establishment of a religion. There is no, none, zero, nada prohibition against the observation of religion even in government meetings and locations. They did not want a "church of America", a single specified established religion, in the manner of the church of England. There is no Constitutional violation in having a short prayer to open any meeting or event.

As to form, whatever the majority subscribes to should be chosen. By default, that will be a general Christian prayer at almost all functions in this country, the exception being things like events at a Jewish school etc.. Common sense easily covers it, the problem only being when those with no common sense like the ACLU and their type being allowed to participate.

You're ok with 'whatever the majority subscribes to', huh? So when the state you live in has to conduct all business in Spanish, no complaints, right?
Things take on a different complexion when you're NOT in the majority. Don't believe me, ask the white folks in South Africa.....

EVERYONE PANIC!!! We have a STRAWMAN!!!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
turtle you seem to have wealth of information ,so i am sure you are aware of church services held in the house of reps. up to 1868 or communion services in the treasury bldg. or services in the supreme court as late as 1806. not mandating or establishing,but clearly a preference.these were attended by sitting presidents and congressman of the time. it would appear they were very comfortable about the constitutionality of conducting those services on federal property.
Of course they were. Everyone is comfortable practicing their own religion regardless of the setting. Plus, no one objected of challenged it, so it was fine.

we do have to take into consideration past history, in the context of what this post was about in the first place.so if was ok then in government places why not now? are we more "enlightened" now or have we drifted farther into darkness?
We certainly have to take the past into consideration, but we can't necessarily apply the past to today if things have changed. Many would certainly like to roll back the clock on many things, but alas that's not possible. Times change and laws change. It was OK then because no one objected to it, and it's not OK now because people do. People have objected to it in official ways and have gotten the courts involved, and now there is precedent for it not to happen.

There are things of a religious nature that have gone on in government and some are still going on today. Some are being objected to, and some aren't. Many of the ones which are being objected to are, I think, being objected to simply because someone wants to show some power against the government. They want to be able to tell the government what they can and cannot do, because they're sick and tired of a government doing the same thing to them. Most of it's much ado about nothing insofar as the actual issue they are objecting to, but because they're objecting to it, it has to be settled, which sets another precedent. The slope is slippery on both sides.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
This party, you have right, well mostly. The Bill of Rights does place rights above the vote of any majority.
So what part of my statement do you feel isn't right? I contend the statement is 100% right, not merely mostly right.

This is false.
No, it's true. :D

SCOTUS has no power to make law, and neither do they have a constitutional role as the sole or even supreme arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional.
I never said they made law, nor that they have a constitutional role as an arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional. The do, nevertheless, perform the function of the latter. They don't make law, but their rulings do, in fact, confirm or reject laws, both of which are used for precedent in other cases, as well as in future legislations, which makes their rulings the law of the land.

That is a power they arrogated to themselves. I forget which justice said, "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is," but that was a novel concept at the time. That would have been news to the Founding Fathers.
It was a novel concept at the time, but it is the reality today.

There are times when SCOTUS ruled one way at one time, and another later, without any alteration by Congress. Did the law change? No, just one Co-equal branch's view of it, which the other branches didn't challenge.
And in each and every instance, their rulings became the law of the land. The other branches cannot challenge the SCOTUS rulings, anyway. There is no mechanism for appeal. That's why it's called the High Court, because there is no higher court to appeal to. The only thing the other two branches (Congress, mainly) is to repeal or alter the law which the SCOTUS ruled on, and do so in a manner that doesn't conflict with the Court's ruling.

There have been plenty of cases where Congress made a law that did one thing, and then at a later time they passed a law which did the exact opposite. And both laws were Constitutional, either because they weren't challenged, or because the SCOTUS affirmed it. Laws change, attitudes change, times change.

The "free exercise thereof" applies to the individual, not to the government. When the government exercises a freedom of religion, it's not an exercising thereof, it's an establishment thereof.
An interesting opinion. Have something to support it? I'd like to look it over.
Well, logic and common sense. When the state exercises freedom of religion, and does so in an official capacity, they are by necessity and by overt action establishing a religious preference, causing a particular religion to be accepted and recognized over all others. Oklahoma, for example, tried to enact a law whereby Islamic law and doctrine (Sharia law) could not be used in court cases. What the law does, as written, is single out and establish Islam to be recognized over all others. In that case it's to specifically exclude Islam as a valid religion to apply in court decisions, but it is decidedly an open back door to the staircase of precedent which will allow other specific religions to be excluded, one by one, until we get down to the one true religion which is allowed, established, and the Constitution prohibits that on any level. As for more obvious examples, one only has to look at the may countries around the world where the government has established an official religion.



--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.[/QUOTE]
 
Top