Senate nominee O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of religion

[The_Dude 1,142]

The idea was common sense. England had the church of England, the US did not want one specific religion interfering with governmental affairs; which was the case in England.

Nowadays, pretty-much all countries have similar amendments; however, as you pointed out, this does not mean the government [government = we the people] cannot celebrate along with its people and their beliefs. Also why most countries that are predominately Christian, have Easter as a federal public holiday.

It gets a bit nebulous when the topic of religion strays into the realm of education and medicine. There are some school districts, cough Texas cough, whose school board is trying to implement creationism as a legitimate subject in school curriculum over evolution. Or what about abortion where religious objections are being used to try and outlaw it. There is a huge difference between allowing a christmas tree in front of city hall and government enacting laws that effect the lives of those who don't believe in their religious dogma.

[Heracles 417]

When you think about it, you understand why a separation of church and state is rational conclusion.

Rational like your stance on illegal aliens right? It's so rational that no other country uses your definition of it. Need I bring up the example of cars with five wheels again to illustrate this point.

It clearly says congress [congress = federal government] shall pass no law, that's quite self explanatory. I am sure you and these so-called constitutional scholars both read and English? Yes. Therefore, it does say that they cannot pass any law to prohibit or favor a particular religion; which back in those days meant a denomination of Christianity, for example Protestant, Church of England etc. What it clearly does not say, it that any other level of government or even congress is prohibited from partaking in religion or its activities.

It gets a bit nebulous when the topic of religion strays into the realm of education and medicine. There are some school districts, cough Texas cough, whose school board is trying to implement creationism as a legitimate subject in school curriculum over evolution. Or what about abortion where religious objections are being used to try and outlaw it. There is a huge difference between allowing a christmas tree in front of city hall and government enacting laws that effect the lives of those who don't believe in their religious dogma.

Even using your definition of it, pushing atheism is a form of favoritism towards one belief. atheism = belief.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

Excuse me, Mr. Constitutional Scholar? Perhaps you'd like to frame that better as to what exactly you are talking about.

That is lame, Paul is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else, including your beloved supreme court. Yes, they do rule based on their ideological stances, bias and opinions; they are human after all. Hence, why the equivalent courts abroad do not yield as much authority [power] over their country.

[mawilson 2,133]

That is lame, Paul is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else, including your beloved supreme court. Yes, they do rule based on their ideological stances, bias and opinions; they are human after all. Hence, why the equivalent courts abroad do not yield as much authority [power] over their country.

According to Steve, even when the law is so clear that only one outcome is feasible,

it means jack unless it's "interpreted" by a lawyer or "constitutional scholar".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

atheism = belief.

Actually, Atheism = Disbelief.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You know what I'm talking about.

Do you honestly believe placing a Christmas tree out in front of a city hall is unconstitutional?

A city government should be able to have a Christmas tree on the grounds of a court house. On the other hand congress cannot pass a law requiring a local government to have a Christmas tree. That is the intent of the ammendment. The difference is clear to everyone except pin head constitutional "experts" who think that any mention of God in government is unconstitutional.

Edited October 20, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[The_Dude 1,142]

A city government should be able to have a Christmas tree on the grounds of a court house. On the other hand congress cannot pass a law requiring a local government to have a Christmas tree. That is the intent of the ammendment. The difference is clear to everyone except pin head constitutional "experts" who think that any mention of God in government is unconstitutional.

No, that is your interpretation of the ammendment.....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A city government should be able to have a Christmas tree on the grounds of a court house. On the other hand congress cannot pass a law requiring a local government to have a Christmas tree. That is the intent of the ammendment. The difference is clear to everyone except pin head constitutional "experts" who think that any mention of God in government is unconstitutional.

By the same token, a city government - or a state government for that matter - can limit the freedom of speech, press, assembly just as long as Congress did not mandate the infringement of these rights? After all, these other provisions of the first amendment are formulated the very same way - Congress shall make no law ... 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.. That's interesting. To any local or state government pursuing such approach: Good Luck with that!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A city government should be able to have a Christmas tree on the grounds of a court house. On the other hand congress cannot pass a law requiring a local government to have a Christmas tree. That is the intent of the ammendment. The difference is clear to everyone except pin head constitutional "experts" who think that any mention of God in government is unconstitutional.

Who is arguing against a Christmas tree on the grounds of a public building? No one....straw man argument. Where advocates like the ACLU step in is when a local politician wants to nail the Ten Commandments to the wall of City Hall or place a crucifix in front of a public building. Do you think public officials should be allowed to place a crucifix or the Ten Commandments on public buildings like courthouses and schools?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

By the same token, a city government - or a state government for that matter - can limit the freedom of speech, press, assembly just as long as Congress did not mandate the infringement of these rights? After all, these other provisions of the first amendment are formulated the very same way - Congress shall make no law ... 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.. That's interesting. To any local or state government pursuing such approach: Good Luck with that!

Well, misrepresentation of the constitution over the years is interesting... Technically a state/local government could limit those things. The people wouldn't put up with it mind you, but they could do it. That's why we were made into a Republic with the representation on a Federal Level. We were made to be what we wanted to be as individual states, but on a Federal level there were certain rules/laws put forth by all members of that Federal system.... If you want to live in a state where there's a ton of social programs, then you can have it... If you want to live in a state where ther's no social programs, then you could have that... We've gotten away from it because of too much federal intervention... We had a near perfect system, but instead of people realizing the system we had and the benefits it brought to people who wanted to live each and every way of life, people decided because they didn't like Joe's way of life, that they needed to federally control Joe's way of life... hence the moronic laws on the books that deny state funding to states who don't abide by certain guidelines in their state laws....

[Heracles 417]

No, that is your interpretation of the ammendment.....

The wording is quite self explanatory.

Congress = federal government

law = a system or collection of rules.

Nothing there says the federal government is prohibited in participating in any religious activities. It certainly does not say any local government is prohibited.

[Heracles 417]

Who is arguing against a Christmas tree on the grounds of a public building? No one....straw man argument. Where advocates like the ACLU step in is when a local politician wants to nail the Ten Commandments to the wall of City Hall or place a crucifix in front of a public building. Do you think public officials should be allowed to place a crucifix or the Ten Commandments on public buildings like courthouses and schools?

That is not what is being discussed here and a straw-man argument.

A government being able to celebrate with its constituents is nothing like the scenario you paint out. The situation here is that anything and everything religious in nature is prohibited. Basically reminds me of the Soviet Union. Whereas, abroad the government is not prohibited from interacting with religion. For example, my brother sending his kids to a private religious school, means the state pays x towards their education. The government is able to celebrate holidays with people of various faiths. The state government contributing to half the cost of a local Buddhist building a community center. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Is that not what tolerance, unity and diversity is all about?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, misrepresentation of the constitution over the years is interesting... Technically a state/local government could limit those things. The people wouldn't put up with it mind you, but they could do it.

So, there's no constitutionally protected right to free speech? Freedom of the press is not consitutionally protected either. Nor is assembly or the right to petition the government. No such rights actually exists. We're just happen to be fortunate enough that state and local governments let us enjoy those freedoms. Excellent!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So, there's no constitutionally protected right to free speech? Freedom of the press is not consitutionally protected either. Nor is assembly or the right to petition the government. No such rights actually exists. We're just happen to be fortunate enough that state and local governments let us enjoy those freedoms. Excellent!

No there is, but as I said, it only applies on a Federal level when appealing to the federal government. A city government doesn't have to let you have a say. A city government doesn't even have to be elected. It could be a group of people who just control things....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A government being able to celebrate with its constituents is nothing like the scenario you paint out.

Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments

By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / June 28, 2005

In a major showdown over the presentation of religious symbols and sacred text on public property, the US Supreme Court has made it somewhat easier for government officials to justify displays like the Ten Commandments.

But at the same time, the nation's highest court put officials on notice that their motives must be clearly secular for such displays to pass constitutional muster.

In two important church-state rulings announced Monday, the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas, but struck down one in Kentucky.

The rulings came on a busy final day of the US Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term that included no announced retirement by any justice. Many analysts say an announcement could come at any time.

In one Ten Commandments case the court said an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin did not amount to an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.

The majority justices said that while the Texas display was an acknowledgment of a sacred religious text by the government, the public exhibit did not cross the line into impermissible proselytizing. The vote in the Texas case was 5 to 4.

Setting the stage for church-state litigationBut the high court reached a different conclusion in a Kentucky case involving a Ten Commandments display on the wall of two county courthouses.

The justices ruled 5 to 4 that public officials were not motivated by a necessary secular purpose in ordering the courthouse display. Instead the majority ruled that government officials in the Kentucky case had acted in a way that sought to advance religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

The swing vote determining the outcome in both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.

In a concurring opinion in the Texas case, Justice Breyer illustrated how close that case was for him. "The circumstances surrounding the monument's placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the Commandments' text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message," he says.

"The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged," Breyer writes. "Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals ... are likely to have understood the monument as amounting ... to a government effort to establish religion."

The First Amendment's establishment clause bars the government from taking actions that promote or endorse religion or a particular religious faith.

Some legal scholars hold the view that the establishment clause requires a strict separation between church and state. They say religion is best protected by minimizing potential government entanglements. Others say strict enforcement of separation can force government into a posture of hostility toward religion and the religious.

The high court has carved out a middle position in this ongoing and increasingly heated debate.

Nonetheless, analysts say the two decisions and the sharp split within the court set the stage for more church-state litigation with increasing focus on the context and history of the display. But ultimately the decisions may provide a road map for officials seeking to defend such displays.

"It leaves us litigating each and every one of these cases individually," says Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert and law professor at the University of Texas Law School. "Everyone can manipulate the facts," he says. "The lesson for state governments is, disguise your purpose."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University Law School professor who argued the Texas case, said future cases will depend on context and history. If the display is part of a broad presentation of sources of law such as exists at the US Supreme Court, the court will probably uphold it, he says. "But the court is always going to be looking at the purpose of the government action, the context, and history."

'A purpose to favor one faith'The decisions come in two different cases, Van Orden v. Perry, involving a Ten Commandments display on the Texas state capitol grounds in Austin, and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, involving a sequence of Ten Commandments displays on the walls of two county courthouses.

The Texas case involves a six-foot-tall tombstone-like monument donated to the state 40 years ago by a civic group, the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

Scores of similar monuments were donated to cities and towns across the nation as part of a promotion for Cecil DeMille's epic movie "The Ten Commandments." The monuments were displayed without controversy for decades, but in recent years, a series of legal challenges have been launched to have them removed from public property.

The Kentucky case involves an attempt by McCreary County officials to authorize the display of a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in local courthouses.

After the display triggered a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, officials responded by surrounding the Commandments with other historic documents mentioning God or raising religious themes. Upon obtaining advice from lawyers, the presentation was changed again, this time to include documents considered to have played a foundational role in the development of American law, including the Ten Commandments.

A federal appeals court upheld the Texas display, but a different appeals court panel struck down as unconstitutional the display in Kentucky.

Writing for the majority in the Kentucky case, Justice David Souter said that government officials had acted with an improper purpose in posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," Souter writes.

"A purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the understanding that liberty and social stability demand a tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens," he says.

He says the high court is not saying that a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on law or history. He cited as an example the frieze in the high court's own courtroom depicting Moses holding tablets with 17 other lawgivers.

The history of Ten Commandments casesPrior to Monday's rulings, the high court had last decided a Ten Commandments case in 1980, when the justices, in a 5-to-4 ruling, struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Decalogue be posted in public school classrooms.

"The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature," the high court said in 1980. "The Ten Commandments are undeniably sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact."

The Ten Commandments issue was the subject of extensive public debate in 2003 when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore refused to obey a federal court order that he remove a 2-1/2 ton Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the rotunda of the state supreme court building. He was removed from office.

That monument is currently on a nationwide tour visiting various churches that support Mr. Moore's cause. It has become a symbol to many religious conservatives of what they view as a concerted campaign to erase any mention of God or religion from the public square in America.

http://www.csmonitor...ml/%28page%29/2

Edited October 20, 2010 by El Buscador