posted on December 10, 2006 01:27:34 PM newLinda asks
.And just who in the heck is allen asch???? According to a quick google search on 'who is allen asch' it's a CHEF at the Univ. of Nevada Like I care to just BLINDLY believe a list a CHEF'S/instructor's OPINION.....lol lol Nope....I prefer FACTS....something you liberals don't appear to care about one bit. You'll make up anything....post it as FACTS....whether it IS nor not. Pretty darn sad for those who THINK they're intellectuals.
Allen Asch is a lawyer in California. He received his undergraduate degree from Yale and Law degree from Washington University.
posted on December 10, 2006 01:29:46 PM new
And even if the guy is a chef, why should that be beneath you, Linda?
Care to give us your full name and let us google to see what great jobs you've held that would warrant your permission to give us all your wisdom? Go ahead, take a chance! I dare you.
posted on December 10, 2006 01:33:19 PM new
an OPINION with links....that I share. Since we're posting OPINIONS of others here lol lol
Carter hails the ACLU as an almost impartial arbiter of the first amendment, referencing cases where the ACLU has defended Christians and their right to free speech.
There are some serious logical flaws with this example.
First of all, it presumes that the ACLU is really concerned with free speech and not with specific social issues. Oh, to be so naive.
An editorial written yesterday by John Leo, outlines the case against such an assumption.
As it turns out the ACLU is riddled with special interest lobbies that make donations and influence the practices and policies of the union.
Dissent within the ACLU's ranks is silenced, initially by culture and most recently through institutionalized policy.
Meyers [a former ACLU board member] leveled many criticisms at Romero [executive director of the ACLU], among them: that he is intolerant of dissent, withholds financial information from the board, and cuts funding of ACLU affiliates if they are critical of him. He also says Romero instructed Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, to create a policy restricting board members' rights to speak directly to staff. Meyers said that policy was twice changed. Now questions by board members have to be voted on and agreed to by a majority of the executive committee before Romero will agree to answer.
Meyer suggests that the ACLU has strayed from its traditional free speech roots and is now more closely defined by its politicking for "identity groups".
The second problem with Dr. Carter's ACLU example is a bit more complex. Carter proposes that if the ACLU does some things that Christians would define as good then it must not be evil. To which I say, defending a Christian doesn't make the ACLU "good" or even "neutral" any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car.
The sum of actions levied against Judeo-Christian values is much more of a defining factor in determining the character of the ACLU, as an organization, than the few cases Carter cites.
The BTK strangler didn't kill his own daughter, does that negate his other evil acts?
Does is mitigate the characterization of him as an evil man?
Leo gives an example of how the union really works.
...the ACLU now has issue-oriented lobbies inside it. They are called "projects" and include the "Reproductive Freedom Project," the "Women's Rights Project" and the "Lesbian and Gay Rights Project." The influence of the projects, and the money they bring in, often tend to sway the ACLU away from its once primary concern about free speech.
For instance, the ACLU came out early against the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a conspiracy statute aimed at the Mafia.
RICO always had the potential to be used to curb political dissent, and when defenders of abortion started to use it against anti-abortion protesters, the ACLU waffled and looked the other way. Harvey Silverglate, of the Massachusetts ACLU, said sympathy of abortion rights caused the national ACLU to drop its guard on a serious violation of political freedom.
In 2003, after 17 years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion protesters couldn't be punished as racketeers under RICO. No thanks to the ACLU. The organization still defends free speech, but not always when that speech is directed against a group or an interest it cares about.
On May 12th, Nedd at http:www.stoptheaclu.org wrote a piece disecting Carter's argument that brilliantly exposes the ACLU's record.
As for me, I find the simplest explanation for Professor Carter's confusion in the words of Isaiah 5:20. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil' that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
The western world is confused by ever flattering voices of "learned" men who have redefined "good" by selling the idea that freedom is the chaotic and unfettered liberty to act upon whatever desire you can conceive.
True freedom, Christianity argues, comes from learning not to give into your desires but to become master over them.
And in a society where "evil" means refusing to embrace degrading carnal behavior and uninhibited self-gratification, it is easy to understand Carter's mistake.
posted on December 10, 2006 01:41:50 PM new
there's also an allen asch who is a journalist.
How would we EVER know which one wrote that list????
and no, roadsmith....being a lawyer with an opinion doesn't give him ANY more weight than anyone else with an opinion.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 02:09:24 PM new
There are millions and millions of Americans that TOTALLY disagree.
They too believe all the aclu has done is take away all that was/is good in America....and replace it with allowing perverts/communist dogna/etc to thrive.
the aclu defends preverted groups like NAMBLA....while it works to tear a part groups that have always been beneficial to America....like the boy scouts....etc.
It promotes the rights of scum...terrorists....etc. Those aren't in American's best future interests. Never have been, never will be.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 03:01:16 PM new
Anyone is free to put anything they wish on private property, that never has been in question and shouldn't be. Business establishments are free to put up Christimas decorations, nativity scenes, have their employees dress up in Christmas character costumes and say Merry Christmas to everyone who walks through their doors, if they so choose to do so.
Now why would a business choose not to do that, especially IF the majority of people believe in and support Christmas?
THE BOTTOM LINE, THE DOLLAR BILL, that's why. They do not want to risk offending others who just MIGHT protest by keeping their dollar bills in their wallets and spending them elsewhere.
WHY is it NOT OK in this instance to let the "Free Market Place" determine what is appropriate and what is not and yet it is in almost every other instance, at least according to our Neo-Con friends?
If PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PRIVATE ENTERPRIZE do not wish to be offensive, why should any group feel that "THEY" have the right to IMPOSE their values on everyone else and FORCE them through the support of their tax dollars to support such displays, etc?
This last election certainly screamed volunes about how America feels on the Neo-Con agenda, but perhaps they need another lesson in 2008?
posted on December 10, 2006 03:38:39 PM new
lol....like I said before, you're confused.
We've always been able to do these things....but NOW the ability to do them are being TAKEN away.....NOT by free interprise LOL LOL LOL
but by groups LIKE the ACLU...and other atheists/seculartics who just CAN'T remove their own EYES from viewing them....that they find so offensive.
LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 03:53:02 PM new
Linda said:
"We've always been able to do these things....but NOW the ability to do them are being TAKEN away.....NOT by free interprise LOL LOL LOL"
Who is taking away the right for individuals to put anything they wish on their own private property or for business owners to do such? I am opposed to that, such would violate the right of a person or corporation to control their PRIVATE PROPERTY.
What you seem to be having the problem with and where you are obviously confused is the distinction between PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY.
PUBLIC means exactly that, EVERYONE OWNS AND SUPPORTS IT, not just a few.
posted on December 10, 2006 04:04:09 PM new
Don't pretend to be so dumb you haven't been hearing about ALL the different 'changes' that have been FORCE upon school children...business...and any adult that used to enjoy a nativity scene in PUBLIC on PUBLIC land.
This is total nonsense by the WACKO -remove God from everything left.
The holiday is CHRISTMAS....no other religion's NATIONAL holiday. No one has to be SO PC by not saying "merrry Christmas" to whomever they want to. But no....now the wacko left calls it anything OTHER than Christmas.
The holiday celebrates the BIRTH of Christ. No muslim...no jew....no other faith. JESUS/Christ.
And to pretend that all the forced changes by the atheists who just can't allow our first amendment rights to be practiced because a FEW are offended.
Tough....adjust ....I have to at all the vile, perverted issues you want to declare are 'normal'.
Again it's like the left works to remove ALL good from society...but defends all that is WRONG to the hilt. No wonder our society has taken such a negative slide downward....the left continues to support it all.
Now the loonie tunes are saying SANTA is too religious. LOL LOL LOL
Don't want to celebrate the national HOLIDAY? Then don't. But quit working against others doing so.
posted on December 10, 2006 04:10:46 PM new
She just won't ever "get it"
Still haven't seen the nativity scene in her front yard yet???
She's free to have one and obviously likes them.....even the sacreligous ones....where is her's ?????
It would be nice if she would quit bashing America....
posted on December 10, 2006 04:22:42 PM new
Linda said;
"...school children...business...and any adult that used to enjoy a nativity scene in PUBLIC on PUBLIC land."
NOW we are getting somewhere. School children, for the most part attend PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT ARE BUILT AND FULLY FUNDED WITH MANDATORY PUBLIC TAX MONEY. That is NOT PRIVATE property.
What "business" either singular or plural are FORCED not to celebrate Christmas, Karl Marx's birthday or anything else? They most certainly are free to do so, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES of their actions.
"...used to enjoy a nativity scene in PUBLIC ON PUBLIC LAND." That is an easy one, it is a religious symbol and the US government and every other government entity should be forbidden to endorse ANY RELIGION or RELIGIOUS PRACTICE over any other. NO ONE has a RIGHT to use PUBLIC PROPERTY to promote ANY RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OR VALUES. I absolutely support that prohibition.
posted on December 10, 2006 04:31:34 PM new
Just because you as an atheist????? support taking away constitutional RIGHTS religous people have ALWAYS practiced in this Nation....doesn't mean it's right nor that it will be allowed to continue.
But that is exactly what I mean about the radical left CHANGING everything that was good to the way THEY want it to be now.
Religious rights are guaranteed/PROTECTED under our constitution.....and should NOT be violated because THEY offend YOU.
You are exactly what the ACLJ and similar PRO-constitution groups fight against.
There is NO limitation put on the practice of religion in our constitution.
PERIOD.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 04:50:22 PM new
I beg your pardon Linda? Me, an atheist? Of course not.
There are ANY NUMBER of restrictions placed on religions and the practice thereof. For example, parents MAY NOT WITHHOLD medical treatment from their children based on their religious beliefs. Parents MAY NOT involve their children in church services that involve them handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison, etc, etc. We have MULTIPLE COURT RULINGS that say so.
Your knowledge of Constitutional law is sorely lacking here. There was and is a well established separation of Church and State that the framers of the Constitution invisioned. It is a VERY complicated and complex document, for your reading pleasure;
------------------------------------------------
Introduction
To say that religion is a big topic of interest to a lot of people in the United States today is a bit of an understatement. It would, however, be incorrect to say that because of the great deal of attention religion and government is getting today, it is a more important topic now than ever before. On the contrary, religion and government has been a matter of great importance and concern to many for centuries.
Today, some headlines highlight some of the issues that surround us: The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is removed from office for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from his court house building. A California atheist sues to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and loses; then wins on appeal; then loses in the Supreme Court. President George W. Bush is criticized for his idea of the Faith-Based Initiative, where faith-based organizations could get federal funds where previously they had been barred. Public school bus drivers are required to remove holiday decorations from their busses after complaints of "offended" parents.
These stories, some national, some local, all have one thing in common - the relationship between religion and government. It is a sticky widget. We are a nation of many religious faiths, and many of us work for a government in some capacity. Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion and government co-exist without crossing over each others' boundaries? What are those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state?
These are some of the questions that this Topic Page will address. Likely, this page will not change any one's mind on the subject - it is a highly personal one. The goal is not to change minds, but to explain what is in the Constitution, what the Supreme Court has said about the topic over time, and how the topic is being seen today.
Religion in the original Constitution
Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States.
In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, religion did not get a lot of sound bites. It should be noted that without exception, the Framers were Christian or, at the very least, believed in God (Deism). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. Disagreements about style and method of worship between them were nearly as vast and incongruous as any seen today between, say, Jews and Muslims, such that the Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.
James Madison, when speaking of the method and manner of the election of the members of the Congress, noted that even "Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression," telegraphing his own desire for no religious test for government service. He had been a prime mover in the efforts of some Virginia lawmakers to ensure that no preference be given to any religion in that state, and that a proposed tax to aid religious efforts be defeated. Madison and one of the Pinkney cousins moved, in the waning days of the Convention, that the Congress be permitted the power to establish a university, with the express stipulation that "no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion." The motion was turned down on a six to four vote, but it was another illustration of his desire to extend no preference to any religious sect.
There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. This alternate text has been described both as a way of accommodating those religious persons for whom "swearing" was forbidden, and as a way for the unreligious to take the oath with the same force of personal responsibility that swearing would have for a religious person. Either way, the alternate text attempts to make the oath all-inclusive and religion-neutral.
Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.
Some state constitutions are not shy about referencing God - a study of such references is available.
The First Amendment
The Framers thought that they had constructed a very complete and comprehensive document. But many people disagreed, and though the opposition had many issues with the Constitution, they focused on one in particular: the lack of a bill of rights.
Almost all of the state constitutions contained bills of rights - rights that the people of the states were guaranteed to enjoy regardless of any law or rule to the contrary. The supporters of the Constitution felt that a bill of rights was unneeded at best, because the federal government was not allowed to legislate on issues it had no direct mandate to do so, and dangerous at worst, because a list of rights could necessarily limit the rights of the people.
In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word - on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:
Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
Virginia was much more verbose:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.
New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:
That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.
Aside from New Hampshire's wide-reaching "no touch" proposal, all of these have a few elements in common. First, no national religion should be established, in contrast to several European nations of the time (and to this day) which have an official state church. Second, that no one sect of any religion be favored by the government. Third, that all persons should be free to worship in whatever manner they deemed appropriate for them.
Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Does this final version have the same effect of all the other proposals? Was it the intent that these clauses of the 1st Amendment the same as that of New Hampshire's "no touching" proposal? Probably. Whereas in Europe, the "establishment of religion" did mean a state church, it took on a whole new meaning in America. Several attempts were made in several states to have and maintain official churches, but the multitude of denominations made it increasingly difficult to do so. If a state established the Congregationalist Church and required taxes be paid to it, it was not long before Lutherans or Baptists began to refuse to pay the tax. By the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had official state churches, but not official state denominations. In other words, a state would charter a church as it would a business today, but it would have no other formal role in the running of the church. Even that practice was waning, with only six states incorporating churches in any way by 1789. Clearly, the trend in church/state relations was towards no relationship at all.
In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.
The Bill of Rights, however, had no effect on how a state treated its churches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted, many did. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.
The Wall of Separation
Often when someone speaks of the constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, they also speak of "the wall of separation between church and state," or simply as "the separation of church and state." What does this mean, and what is the origin of this phrase?
It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment.
One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is directly responsible for giving us this phrase. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson used the phrase - it was probably not the first time, but it is the most memorable one. He said:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] 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.
Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.
Jefferson's letter specifically pointed out by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v US (98 US 145 [1878]). For details on the Reynolds case, see the next section. It has been a notable metaphor for the 1st Amendment's non-establishment concept ever since.
Supreme Court Cases
Very early on, in Terrett v Taylor (13 US 43 [1815]), the Court was asked to rule on a dispute over church lands. The lands had originally been a part of Fairfax County, Virginia, but had ended up within the new District of Columbia when the District had been delineated by Congress. The members of the Episcopal church of Alexandria sued when trustees of the church wanted to sell some of the lands the church had been deeded by the state. One of the arguments in the case was that under the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the state did not have the authority to deed land to a church. The Court rejected the argument that land deeded under a state law, passed in 1776, could be repealed by new state laws, passed in 1798 and 1801 because the 1776 law was thought to be unconstitutional. The new laws removed the deeds to the land. This could not be allowed, the Court wrote:
Such a doctrine would uproot the very foundations of almost all the land titles in Virginia, and is utterly inconsistent with a great and fundamental principle of a republican government, the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property regally acquired.
The Court wrote that it did not wish to rule on the question of the constitutionality of such deeds. The effect of the newer laws was to divest individuals or corporations of lands legally acquired. The Court did state, however, that it did not find the 1776 law to be inconsistent with the Constitution nor with the Virginia Bill of Rights.
In another case, Reynolds v U.S. (98 US 145 [1878]), the defendant, accused of bigamy in the Territory of Utah, argued that the Congress should not be allowed to regulate a religious act, that being bigamy. In particular, bigamy is not "malum in se" (or innately immoral), is not prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and is not prohibited in any of the teachings of the New Testament. Reynolds argued that over such a religious act, the Congress should have no power to legislate. Reynolds argued other, more technical and legal points, but the Court did address this prong of the argument.
The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.
The Court noted that religion and government had often mixed in the years prior to the Constitution, causing concern among some. The debate culminated in Virginia, where a proposal to set rules and regulations for religious instructors was proposed and postponed - eventually, another bill in defiance of the first was proposed and passed, that being Jefferson's work which established religious freedom. The act included a definition of what religious freedom encompasses:
In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.
The Court linked Jefferson's words in the Virginia Act referenced to his later words in the Danbury letter, and used the linkage to further its opinion that the Congress did, in fact, have the power to restrict bigamy in the Utah Territory:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
The Court concluded that to make religious rule or law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.
The first major religion case in the 20th century was Cantwell v Connecticut (310 US 296 [1940]). In this case, the Supreme Court found that the religious freedoms embodied in the 1st Amendment were protected from state infringement by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The defendants in the case, Newton, Jesse, and Russell Cantwell, a father and his two sons, were convicted of violating several state laws when they canvassed a neighborhood promoting the Jehovah's Witness religion. The law they had been convicted of violating required prior approval of religious solicitations by the secretary of the public welfare council, such approval having not been acquired.
In striking down the requirement for prior approval of solicitations, the Court was unambiguous:
We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.
In explaining the freedoms they were referring to, the Court continued:
The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act.
The Court noted that the first freedom is absolute - there can be no restriction whatever on what the people are free to believe. As the Court noted in Reynolds, however, the freedom to act on belief can be regulated. The main difference in this case was not that solicitations for a religious sect could be regulated, but that the secretary of the public welfare council had to agree that a solicitation was for a valid religious purpose. This prior restraint, the Court wrote, was a censorship of religion and was clearly a "denial of liberty" under the 14th Amendment, and hence under the 1st. The prior restraint law was "obnoxious to the Constitution."
The 14th Amendment was brought up in relation to state laws in another interesting case that did not advance the cause of religious freedom. In Hamilton v Regents (293 US 245 [1934]), a group of Methodist students and their fathers tried to bring suit against the University of California. The University required all students below a certain age to undergo classes in military science and tactics given by the Reserve Officers Training Corps. The students objected on conscientious objector grounds, and were expelled for refusing to attend the classes. The Court found that though there is a liberty question at stake in the case, the ability of the government to compel military service is of a higher nature; though exceptions can be made for conscientious objectors, they are only statutory in nature and not constitutional in nature. This case is notable, however, as it did tacitly acknowledge the need for states to adhere to 1st Amendment religious protections.
Finally, in Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]), the Court put the final touch on the incorporation of religious liberty as applies to the states, though in a roundabout way. Arch Everson brought a suit against the Ewing, New Jersey schools for authorizing payments to parents of students attending parochial schools for use of the public bus system to transport the student to school. Everson contended that such payments to parents of parochial school students unconstitutionally funded religion with public funds. The law in question did prohibit the disbursement of funds to any parent who sent their child to a private school that was run for-profit.
The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Despite all of this, the Court found that the public school district's payment for the use of public busses to transport parochial school children was not in violation of the 1st Amendment. It wrote that the public support of bus fares in this way was exactly the same as the public support of the police or fire services that protected the persons, buildings, and grounds of parochial schools. The issue on which the decision seems to have hinged is the fact that the bus fare aid was given to all students regardless of the school the student attended, and without regard for the religion of the student or the school. The aid was, the Court decided, completely neutral on the question of religion.
The culmination of all of these cases came in 1971. The case, Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971]), established what is known today as "The Lemon Test." The Lemon Test is used to examine a law to see if it has the effect of establishing a religion. The Court wrote:
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
The test was used in the Lemon test to answer the central question in that case: can the state pay some of the salary of teachers who teach in parochial schools? The case concerned a Rhode Island law that provided that teachers in parochial schools could receive a supplement from the state if the school spent less per pupil on non-religious education than the average spent in public schools. If so, teachers who taught only secular courses were eligible for the supplemental pay. Rhode Island's argument was that the funds were only paid to teachers of non-religious subjects, and only based on the per-pupil expenditures on non-religious subjects. The Court ruled that the requirements of the state to ensure that the teachers never mentioned religious subjects, and the record keeping and examination to determine the amount spent on secular subjects would be too much of an entanglement. The Lemon case found similar entanglements in similar Pennsylvania laws. The laws may have passed the first two prongs of the test, but failed the third.
This three-pronged test has been used in many cases since it was first promulgated. Though the Lemon Test is not infallible, it has largely stood the test of time and is still in use today.
Contemporary issues
Prayer in schools
In Good News Club v Milford Central School (533 US 98 [2001]), the Supreme Court ruled that a school may not exclude a religious club from using facilities in the school, after school hours, just because the club is religious in nature. In other words, if the Chess Club can use school property for after school meetings, the Good News Club must also be permitted to use school property. To deny them access is to discriminate on the basis of the Club's religious viewpoint, which is a violation of the Club's free speech. The point behind a policy to ban religious organizations in this way was to avoid Establishment Clause issues. But the Court found that it was clear that since the Club would meet after school hours, there was no way that it could be reasonably concluded that the school was endorsing religion.
The Good News decision is one of many Supreme Court decisions that weave a tangled web when it comes to school prayer. One thing is clear: the Supreme Court has consistently said that a school must not endorse religion or any particular sect of a religion. The trick is in the interpretation of this edict. Often times, as in the Good News case, schools have gone too far, failing the Lemon Test's second prong.
Another major issue that the Court has grappled with in recent years is that of prayer broadcast over the public address system of a school during extra-curricular activities, such as football games or graduation ceremonies. The latter issue was addressed in 1992 by the Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman (505 US 577). The case involved the invitation by Robert Lee, a middle school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, to a rabbi to deliver an invocation and benediction at graduation ceremonies in 1989. Deborah Weisman was one of the graduates, and her father, Daniel Weisman, objected to the inclusion of the prayers in the ceremony. The Court noted that the rabbi's comments, which are included in full in the Court's opinion, lasted no more than two minutes. Attendance at the ceremony was voluntary. The Court noted that the ceremony was held in school facilities. Weisman had sought a temporary restraining order to block the prayers, but had been unsuccessful. His case was filed at an attempt at a permanent injunction against future prayers.
The District Court had found the practice of invitation of a member of the clergy to offer prayers to fail the second prong of the Lemon test. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court, and the city of Providence appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court also agreed with the ruling in Weisman's favor. The Court noted that while the prayers offered were non-sectarian in nature, in that they referred to and thanked God without reference to uniquely Jewish or Christian belief, the prayer was still primarily religious in nature:
The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.
The Court noted that Lee gave the rabbi a pamphlet that was intended as a guide on how to structure and deliver non-sectarian prayers, but the Court indicated that this good-faith effort, rather than making things better, made things worse: "Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers."
The Court also looked at the effect of the prayer on students. It noted that discourse on issue like prayer in school, is positive, as is tolerating speech you disagree with. But the school environment, religious speech carries with it a "risk of indirect coercion."
What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.
The Court has also tackled the stickier issue of prayer during extracurricular school-sponsored activities. In Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (530 US 290 [2000]), the Court ruled on this issue. At Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, one student was elected as student council chaplain. This student delivered a prayer over the PA system before home football games. Some Catholic and Mormon students and their parents sued the school district over the practice. After the suit was filed, the school held a referendum to let the students decide if the prayer should continue, and if so, to elect someone to deliver the prayer. The student body voted to continue the practice. The District Court allowed the prayer only if it was non-sectarian, but the Circuit Court ruled both the old and new schemes to be unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed.
Both sides of the issue referred to the previous Lee case. The school district argued that since the prayer was being led by a student, and not by a member of the clergy invited to the school by an administrator. The Court said that it agreed that private-lead speech was much less restricted than public-sponsored speech, but it disagreed that the student's speech was private.
These invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events... [T]he school allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation. The statement or invocation, moreover, is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message.
As with the Lee case's directives for the delivery of the invocation, the Court was troubled by the student-based election system, which was put in place to ensure that there was popular support for the plan:
Santa Fe's student election system ensures that only those messages deemed "appropriate" under the District's policy may be delivered. That is, the majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.... [the] student election does nothing to protect minority views but rather places the students who hold such views at the mercy of the majority.
Despite all of the above, the school district had a trump card in its attempt to continue to allow prayer at the games: attendance at the football games is not compulsory. The Court was unconvinced - they noted that some students were compelled to attend games, such as cheerleaders, band members, and members of the team itself. The Court also raised the issue of peer pressure as making attendance less than completely voluntary. Leaving all of that aside, the Court still felt the policy violated precedent: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."
Cases like Good News seem like wins for religion, and cases like Lee and Santa Fe seem like loses. But the Court would probably argue that they are all wins for religious freedom, even if the practical application seems to point in different directions. The details make all the difference, and taken as a whole, the body of decisions about school prayer do follow a single line of reasoning.
Judge Roy Moore
One of the most contentious public debates about religion in government in recent years centered around Alabama judge Roy Moore. In the 1990's, Moore was elected to serve as a circuit court judge in Alabama. In 1995, Moore was sued by the ACLU and by the Alabama Freethought Association for displaying a copy of the Ten Commandments, carved from wood, in his courtroom. Both suits were dismissed by the court, but generated much public controversy. Moore used the controversy as a springboard to a campaign for a higher office. His campaign referred to him as "The Ten Commandments Judge." In 2000, he was elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
After assuming office, Moore had a granite monument, depicting the Ten Commandments, installed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. As Chief Justice, Moore was solely responsible for decisions regarding decoration in the Supreme Court building (which also houses a law library, several other inferior courts, and administrative offices), and he did not consult with the other eight state Supreme Court justices in his decision to place the monument. The monument weighed 5300 pounds and was installed in the building on the night of July 31, 2001. The monument was paid for out of private funds. The installation procedure was filmed, and video tapes of the installation were sold by a Christian media group to raise funds for Moore's legal defense.
Several lawyers who frequented the building filed suit to have the monument removed. There was a seven-day bench trial, during which the Alabama federal district court trial judge visited the monument. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge ordered the monument's removal. Moore appealed, and the district court stayed its ruling until the appeal was processed. Moore's appeal was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals on July 1, 2003. In the decision against Moore, the Appeals Court found Moore's arguments unconvincing, using his own words against him when applying the Lemon test:
Chief Justice Moore testified candidly that his purpose in placing the monument in the Judicial Building was to acknowledge the law and sovereignty of the God of the Holy Scriptures, and that it was intended to acknowledge "God's overruling power over the affairs of men." In his unveiling speech, the Chief Justice described his purpose as being to remind all who enter the building that "we must invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God." And he said that the monument marked "the return to the knowledge of God in our land." He refused a request to give [the I Have a Dream] speech equal position and prominence because, he said, placing "a speech of any man alongside the revealed law of God would tend to diminish the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument." Against the weight of all this evidence, Chief Justice Moore's insistence in his briefs and argument, and in part of his testimony, that the Ten Commandments as presented in his monument have a purely secular application is unconvincing.
The Court found that the monument failed two of the three prongs of the Lemon test. Moore appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, but the high court refused to hear the case. By the time the Supreme Court denied his appeal, the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court had come out against Moore's continued fight, and Moore had been suspended from his position as Chief Justice for refusing to comply with the court's order that the monument be removed. On November 12, 2003, the monument was removed from the rotunda and placed in a room out of public view. The next day, a state ethics panel removed Moore from office for ethics violations, stemming from his refusal to comply with the Appeals Court order.
Though the Moore case never had a hearing in front of the Supreme Court, meaning that not even four of the justices were agreeable to hearing the case, the controversy continued for several months. Supporters of Moore used the issue during the state's next electoral primary in 2004. On July 20, 2004, the monument was removed from the Supreme Court building, having been purchased by a private group. American Veterans in Domestic Defense took the monument on tour throughout the South.
posted on December 10, 2006 05:01:34 PM new
As I said....the 1st Amendment to our Constitution is QUITE easy to read and UNDERSTAND.
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.
That some, like you, refuse to HONOR it's words....is of no surprise.
All the other 'laws' you speak of WERE/ARE violations of our 1st amendment.
Just as now...the radical left continues to support more and more 'taking away parential rights'....they have alreay done so to certain degrees....those you've mentioned.
But NO WHERE are ANY limitations put on saying prayers in public...in public in GROUPS....in schools....anywhere. Period.
All that is made up in the heads of those who oppose honoring our 1st amendment.
posted on December 10, 2006 05:19:42 PM new
First off - I am NOT your 'sweetie'. Be REAL clear about that. I'm picky and would never be anyones sweetie that holds your positions. NEVER. lol
Secondly. NOPE...you're wrong. I don't have to 'live with it'. That's why I and millions of other American's who are upset that people like you are LIMITING our freedom to practice their religion are financially supporting groups that fight the ACLU.....like the ACLJ.
You haven't won this war by ANY stretch of your imagination. LOL
And this year more stores ARE going back to wishing their customers MERRY CHRISTMAS...because they realize how they upset them last year.
Jesus is the REASON for the SEASON. Christmas is to a national holiday set up to celebrate the birth of CHRIST. The one who upsets the left so much....and who they'll fight against a holiday to celebrate his birth....but they'll fight FOR the 'rights' of terrorists.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
You keep repeating limiting your right to practice your religion, HOW? I could not care less what religion, if any, you practice or do not practice or any one else, none of my business or concern.
However you and your ilk certainly have traditionally tried to cram your religious beliefs down everyone elses throat and demand that they help you financially support them.
Why don't you just tell the whole truth? WHY are religious institutions given tax exempt status, really? Could it be because it is widely known though UNSPOKEN that people would NOT pay those taxes and would rather see their "houses of worship" go down the tubes? BTW, who is paying those taxes that the religious institutions are not? With the US declining in ACTUAL Church attendance, whatever you may want to call your building and the increasing decay of values (your words I believe,) it seems to me that America is speaking loudly and clearly that BY IT'S ACTIONS, IT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. LOL LOL LOL
I personally am glad that business establishments are capitalizing on the Christmas season, makes good economic sense. It may have originated as a religious exercise, but I challenge anyone to show he how putting up lights, decorations, baking all sorts of sweets, putting up a tree and decorating it and exchanging gifts has any religious significance whatsoever. Seems your religious holiday has been co-opted by BIG BUSINESS!! LOL LOL LOL
YES, I think you WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.
After Dubya, your chances of winning future elections for awhile are less than snowballs in hades. LOL LOL LOL
posted on December 10, 2006 05:48:07 PM new
Keep re-reading the 1st amendment especially where it says: "shall make no law.... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....that part is especially what continues to be VIOLATED by groups like the aclu and their supporters.
I have no problem with anyone who doesn't believe in God/Christ and chooses to celebrate Christmas with Santa rather than/or in addition to Christs birth.
So your assumption that THAT upsets me, is a false one.
I have never supported FORCING religion upon anyone.
You're confused again. What I fight/argue/financially support is to STOP those like you who think you have some 'right' to limit ANYONES practice of their religion in any fashion at all.
According to the 1st amendment YOU DON'T.
You have no right to tell people they can't wear crosses to work...in school...
you have no right to tell them they can't pray before a athletic game
you have no right to tell the top honor graduation student they can't thank their GOD for helping them accomplish what they did.
you can't allow 'special interest groups' to use school facilities and then NOT allow Christmas to meet.
Why are gays allowed to but Christians aren't?
Why can't a few Christians meet at lunch time to study their Bibles?
Why must religious hospitals be FORCED to preform abortions?
Why must doctors/pharmacists/nurses be FORCED to prescribe/distribute drugs that are against their ethical/religious beliefs?
Why must doctors be forced to preform abortions when it's against EVERYTHING they believe in....saving lives not taking them.
The list is extremely long.
Some involves removing crosses from both gov. places AND private places.
It's ALL WRONG....and our constitution says so.
Having a 'different' opinion doesn't trump our constitution. NEVER has ...never will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 10, 2006 06:16 PM ]
posted on December 10, 2006 05:51:41 PM new
I would state to you, that the third branch of our federal government, THE JUDICIARY and it's head, THE US SUPREME COURT, disagrees with you and their INTERPRETATION of the US CONSTITUTION DOES TRUMP YOURS. Sorry! LOL LOL LOL
BTW, you do pick and choose what you want to answer don't you! LOL LOL LOL
[ edited by JustSimpleMe on Dec 10, 2006 05:52 PM ]
posted on December 10, 2006 06:04:13 PM new
linduh advocates torture and cheers when pedophiles get off the hook....then wails and moans because she can't put statues in front of the court house ???
Some christian! !LOL!!!!
PS Jesus was born in October and NO where in the bible does it instruct anyone to celebrate the occasion especially not with plastic statues, football games, trees with crap hanging on them or silly songs..
posted on December 10, 2006 06:05:30 PM new
I address what I want to address. If that bothers you....whine to all the lefties here who wont answer ANY questions put to them at all.
I answer more questions put to me that ALL of them put together ever have.
I think we all know that our USSC is not an unbiased court. It's become a POLITICAL court...and why appointments have become such a hot topic. It's NOT like it used to be...where law was just interpreted....now it's 'by popular opinion of the left or the right leaning judges'.
This President has/did worked to get it BACK to just interpreting law....as it was WRITTEN in our constitution....not by some 'living constitition' that changes with popular opinion.
IF I haven't address a question you feel is just so important....I will. What is it?
posted on December 10, 2006 06:09:37 PM new
EVERYTHING is political IN GOVERNMENT Linda, that is a given. The JUDICIARY, as the THIRD BRANCH of our federal government is most assuredly found in the US CONSTITUTION. Whether they do their job correctly or not, it is their job and a check and balance exists, the President nominates and the US Senate must advise and consent. Afterwards, any Justice or Chief Justice can be impeached and removed for cause. The US Supreme Court is still THE FINAL ARBITUR of the US Constitution.
I would like your view on this please;
"Why don't you just tell the whole truth? WHY are religious institutions given tax exempt status, really? Could it be because it is widely known though UNSPOKEN that people would NOT pay those taxes and would rather see their "houses of worship" go down the tubes? BTW, who is paying those taxes that the religious institutions are not? With the US declining in ACTUAL Church attendance, whatever you may want to call your building and the increasing decay of values (your words I believe,) it seems to me that America is speaking loudly and clearly that BY IT'S ACTIONS, IT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION"
posted on December 10, 2006 06:10:12 PM new
justsimpleme - Who wrote that extremely long op-ed piece you copied and pasted???
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
It thought you might find this interesting. IF the framers of our Constitution were such religious people, where is their explicit intent to include such?
"Q133. "Please tell me if there is any mention of GOD or LORD or CHRIST anywhere in the US constitution."
A. There is no direct mention of God in the Constitution, except in the formation of the date used in the document: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The Lord in this phrase is, of course, Christ. That is it. Religion is indirectly mentioned in the oath of office, where a person is permitted to swear or affirm, taking into account those religions where swearing was impermissible. And no religious test was allowed for any office in the United States, which is neither a direct nor indirect reference to God or Christ, but is notable nonetheless"
posted on December 10, 2006 06:59:17 PM newBut NO WHERE are ANY limitations put on saying prayers in public...in public in GROUPS....in schools....anywhere. Period.
That's why I and millions of other American's who are upset that people like you are LIMITING our freedom to practice their religion are financially supporting groups that fight the ACLU.....like the ACLJ.
You're confused again. What I fight/argue/financially support is to STOP those like you who think you have some 'right' to limit ANYONES practice of their religion in any fashion at all.
Hmmmmm ......... isn't this all said by the same person who was just carping about American Muslims praying in public??
