NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, where does it say that in the Constitution word for word? Inquiring Pastafaris want to know.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There you go.

What part of :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

are you failing to understand?

Here is a link;

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

In those exact words. Seperation of Church and State, just help me find it im losing an argument here help me out I need to find the exact words.

In those exact words. Seperation of Church and State, just help me find it im losing an argument here help me out I need to find the exact words.

We gave you the exact words and the link I gave you has some case law about it.

How are you loosing an argument? What are they saying exactly?

*facepalm*

How well did you do on your Reading Comprehension test?

Well it doesn't say seperation of church and state in those words... Furthermore, the fact that it only involves congress means *gasp* faith based initiatives. So there is no SOCAS. Watch my freedoms go down the toilet.

Crap am I screwed. I need to find "seperation of church and state" in those words exactly. Not the congress should make no law one. I could do without the attitude though.

It never says the specific phrase in the constitution. However, James Madison, the man who wrote most of the Bill of Rights (Including the first one) did use the phrase "Complete separation of Church and State" to describe the first amendment in a letter.

Damnit! No exact words?

Well it doesn't say seperation of church and state in those words... Furthermore, the fact that it only involves congress means *gasp* faith based initiatives. So there is no SOCAS. Watch my freedoms go down the toilet.

Separation of church and state is a phrase to describe the establishment clause.

"Only involves congress.." I am not sure what you mean?

What freedoms are you loosing? Are you being forced to follow Christianity? Are you prevented from worshiping? Mind you this is a very basic explanation....

Damnit! No exact words?

You have to explain the argument. If the person is saying there is not separation because that phrase is not in the Constitution is ignorant or being disingenuous.

Well it doesn't say seperation of church and state in those words... Furthermore, the fact that it only involves congress means *gasp* faith based initiatives. So there is no SOCAS. Watch my freedoms go down the toilet.

Congress can't pass a law regarding religion. Ergo, since they're the only branch of the government that can pass enforcable legislation (although the president can decree Executive Orders, those cannot be used to make law), they're the only ones in the government that have the power to directly influence religions, their establishments, and their operations.

The phrase "seperation of church and state" can be liberally used to apply to a great many things, but in essence, because of previous court rulings and preceding laws, it means that the government (no matter at what level) cannot pass any law or make any judgement in favor or to the detriment of any religion.

There's your SoCaS.

Well, this is my long story. I posted several satirical posts that seemed too serious and I made the mistake of joking that there was no church and state, to which my drunk friend mentioned there was not. And
suddenly I remembered that oh crap it doesnt say that. And I read it and it said CONGRESS should make no law...etc. Which my drunk friend mentioned it only affects congress. So a Neocon supreme court could do as they please. Did I mention I'm on my tenth redbull?

You can't argue that, because it doesn't specifically say that there's SoCaS, that there is no such thing as it.

The 9th and 10th amendments do not clarify which rights belong to the state and to the people - it is understood that it is up to the courts to decide what rights belong to the people or the state. Forming a concrete Constitution would be asinine - considering the fact that there have been 27 amendments to it since its inception, I think this proves itself.

Well, this is my long story. I posted several satirical posts that seemed too serious and I made the mistake of joking that there was no church and state, to which my drunk friend mentioned there was not. And
suddenly I remembered that oh crap it doesnt say that. And I read it and it said CONGRESS should make no law...etc. Which my drunk friend mentioned it only affects congress. So a Neocon supreme court could do as they please. Did I mention I'm on my tenth redbull?

The supreme court can't make laws. The only thing it can do is make decisions on distinct trials based on the laws set forth by the federal government and the constitution.

So it's up to right-wing supreme court justices.... Wow, I feel a lot better now. :'(

So it's up to right-wing supreme court justices.... Wow, I feel a lot better now. :'(

Why do you say they're right-wing?

Let's take Scalia, who is generally deemed to be the most right wing justice. He doesn't say abortion is a good idea or a bad idea. He says that the constitution doesn't prevent there from being bans put on it. He also, by the way, won't find that a fetus is a human being and entitled to equal protection, which anti-abortion groups want the Supreme Court to find.

Same with guns. He's a Justice. Not a politician.

I beseech you to educate yourself. Here's a good first step that won't be too disagreeable for you: It's Scalia being interviewed by Charlie Rose for about 45 minutes. Watch and learn some things.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4701933866885788792&ei=ObZQSdu5E4SQqALq5tjyCw&q=Scalia&hl=en

Like King ZQ said (that is his new name form now on!). Most justices take their job of upholding the Constitution very seriously and would almost never let their own feelings get in the way.

Scalia I'm not against. Roberts... Gives me a lack of faith.

So it's up to right-wing supreme court justices.... Wow, I feel a lot better now. :'(

*le sigh*

The Supreme Court takes both the written law and case law, set by precedent and previous court cases, into account. So, even if a state passed a law saying that pornography is illegal, the Supreme Court could (would) deem it unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates free expression (ie. freedom of speech).

The Court doesn't just make laws willy-nilly. And it's not in control of this absolute power that everyone thinks it is. Justices assigned by appointment to the Court are subjected to an intense interrogation process that could be compared to trying to drop of water through thick aluminum foil. Then, even after that, they are subject to impeachment by Congress.

Generally, those that think that Justices make law from the bench are those that are stifled from their decisions.

What about bong hits 4 christ... Yes, i'm serious.

What about bong hits 4 christ... Yes, i'm serious.

Whatever makes weed legal is something I'm for. Except not for Christ, though. That would totally harsh my buzz.

What about bong hits 4 christ... Yes, i'm serious.

That was decided on the grounds that the use of Marijuana is illegal.


The supreme court usually finds that the Government is allowed to regulate actions, and not ideas.

What about bong hits 4 christ... Yes, i'm serious.

(I think it's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus")

The 1st Amendment didn't apply because the right to freedom of speech was countermanded by the abuse of anti-drug legislation by the guy's school. Freedom of speech isn't as concrete as you think, either.

For example, you can't run into a crowded mall and yell "BOMB!" Freedom of speech only applies when it does not abridge the rights or lives of other people, or doesn't conflict with the law.

I thought that had to do with speech.

Sorry late post. Must have been the bong hit button, slows my comp to 56k.

*le sigh*

The Supreme Court takes both the written law and case law, set by precedent and previous court cases, into account. So, even if a state passed a law saying that pornography is illegal, the Supreme Court could (would) deem it unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates free expression (ie. freedom of speech).
Unless pornography is redefined as something else due to prevalent culture, like hate crime.


In this case, on topic, a religion might no longer be considered religion but truth in which case church might as well become the state.

Unless pornography is redefined...

Ah, but what is "pornography?"

You'd be interested by the Court's decision, if you haven't heard it. :wink:

In this case, on topic, a religion might no longer be considered religion but truth in which case church might as well become the state.

As for this, I have no clue where you're coming from. Care to clarify?

Porno = Boner Fuel.

Ah, but what is "pornography?"

You'd be interested by the Court's decision, if you haven't heard it. :wink:
Actually, no, not the least bit interested because it's irrelevant to my line of thinking.

As for this, I have no clue where you're coming from. Care to clarify?
Can any church be proactively supported by the State?

Seperation of church and state based on US constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Redefine Christianity from being a religion or church into being Absolute Truth.

Then the original question is reformed into:
Can Absolute Truth be proactively supported by the State?


...Well, that or redefinition of constitution which is - after all - a worthless piece of paper. ;)

On a semi-related subject some labour MP's have been called for disestablishment of the Church of England, mainly moaning about how the Monarch cannot be a Catholic.

Not that it matters, politicians making decisions about the Monarch is like the poachers deciding the fate of the gamekeeper. Her Majesty would never alow it, she is very dedicated to her role as protector of the faith. Prince Charles however has said he might change the corronation oath to be protector of all faith, so then things might change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3868700/Labour-MPs-back-separation-of-state-and-Church-of-England.html

Damnit! No exact words?

If you want exact words then maybe you should be using google to find a secondary American law source that would allow you to search case and statutory law using those exact keywords rather than relying on others... then complaining when you don't get the results you want.

**this is a public service announcement -- with guitar!!!**

1. Don't worry about the "Congress shall make no law ...." language as a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)); Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

2. As for the phrase, "separation of Church and State" it is merely a shorthand for the Establishment Clause that SCOTUS has adopted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This the Court first explained 130 years ago in Reynolds v United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878) (emphasis added):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

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.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) 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.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' 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.

3. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

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.'

4. Finally, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison (the author of the First Amendment), in particularl, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

I'm kinda glad I missed this thread...

**this is a public service announcement -- with guitar!!!**

<SNIP>



i love the ones with guitar!

I'm kinda glad I missed this thread...
Why? Does it bother your blood pressure to watch out of control drunks show off how little they paid attention in elementary school civics classes even when they were sober?

i love the ones with guitar!
Hooray for guitar! :D

What about bong hits 4 christ... Yes, i'm serious.What about it? It was decided on a schools right to uphold its rules.

i love the ones with guitar!
I prefer the ones with a crying Indian.

no ofence...but i think your kinda dumb...

There you go.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

no ofence...but i think your kinda dumb...

a) irony.
b) calling someone dumb is a flame and not generally a good idea.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

:soap::headbang:

Really, where does it say that in the Constitution word for word? Inquiring Pastafaris want to know.

It doesn't say "bill of rights" anywhere in the Constitution. Does that mean the BoR doesn't exist?

Yours is one of the dumber arguments I've seen in favor of disregarding church-state separation. You'd be all up in arms demanding it if Muslims were the majority in this country. The sad part is that except for the whacked-out far-right Islamists, most of them would give you more freedom than you would give them. Ditto for Pagans, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Hindus.

Scalia I'm not against. Roberts... Gives me a lack of faith.

Scalia at best is a liar. He said that no founding father ever used the phrase separation of church and state.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

Actually it is both.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

After reading more than enough of your "arguments" to last a life time, I've come to a decision: from this point on I am going to respond to you as if you have had a traumatic head injury that has effected some key parts of your brain, such as your executive functioning and long-term memory. I am not claiming this HAS happened--just that it's the most logical and sanity-preserving attitude I can think of.

Now, why don't you have a cookie and take a nap?

:soap::headbang:

Deep breaths through your nose, man.

Boy can that question open up a can of worms.

As I recall from ages past, the "Separation Clause" only exists in a letter Jefferson wrote, never in any official document.

Establishment and Separation don't even come close to meaning the same thing, in spite of the Supreme Court's many decisions. That they have revisited it many times shows how hard it is to really nail it down. It made sense back in the 18th Century, but as the language changes, meaning is gained or lost. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not, but always a lively discussion.

After reading more than enough of your "arguments" to last a life time, I've come to a decision: from this point on I am going to respond to you as if you have had a traumatic head injury that has effected some key parts of your brain, such as your executive functioning and long-term memory. I am not claiming this HAS happened--just that it's the most logical and sanity-preserving attitude I can think of.

Probably the safe bet.

Boy can that question open up a can of worms.

As I recall from ages past, the "Separation Clause" only exists in a letter Jefferson wrote, never in any official document.


Not only, James Madison also used the phrase. Which carries more pursuasive weight, as I'm inclinded to believe Madison's interpretation of the Bill of Rights considering he, you know, wrote it.

is this jsut debate over the existance of the seperation of church and state ? Or are we talking about some issue where it applies ? like funding of religious schools or some such ??

is this jsut debate over the existance of the seperation of church and state ? Or are we talking about some issue where it applies ? like funding of religious schools or some such ??

The former. I think the OP was trying to make the point that since it doesn't say "separation of church and state" in those exact words in the US Constitution then such a thing must not exist. Then an assortment of people said, in varying ways, "No, you're wrong".

US Constitution -- Article VI, Section 3 -- starts it, the First Amendment strengthens it. SCOTUS finishes it.

The former. I think the OP was trying to make the point that since it doesn't say "separation of church and state" in those exact words in the US Constitution then such a thing must not exist. Then an assortment of people said, in varying ways, "No, you're wrong".

in that case the establishment clause along with the 14th amendment pretty much make that accepted common law today. there is really no need to go further. now exactly what is meant is up for debate. but as for the OP's question seems it was answered by the 5th or 6th post.

no ofence...but i think your kinda dumb...

You keep wallowing in irony. And stay classy.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

Except not.

That's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, a distinct difference.

Seeing as many on the Christian Right try to accuse atheism of being a religion as well, does that mean we can teach atheism in schools and christians can't complain about it? You know, since it's not freedom from religion?

Really, where does it say that in the Constitution word for word? Inquiring Pastafaris want to know.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort. The 1st amendment refers only to the intertwining of the government and the church such as the power of the British monarch over the Church of England. Government was not allowed to control the church or vice-versa.

The exact phrase "seperation of Church and State" is from a letter - I think it was by Jefferson, but I cannot recall the recipient or year off-hand. It was a reference again to preventing the government from controlling religion.

*edit* I think I have a book with a collection of Jefferson's letters at home. I'll see what I can find when I get home from work if I remember.

Boy can that question open up a can of worms.

As I recall from ages past, the "Separation Clause" only exists in a letter Jefferson wrote, never in any official document.

Establishment and Separation don't even come close to meaning the same thing, in spite of the Supreme Court's many decisions. That they have revisited it many times shows how hard it is to really nail it down. It made sense back in the 18th Century, but as the language changes, meaning is gained or lost. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not, but always a lively discussion.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort. The 1st amendment refers only to the intertwining of the government and the church such as the power of the British monarch over the Church of England. Government was not allowed to control the church or vice-versa.

The exact phrase "seperation of Church and State" is from a letter - I think it was by Jefferson, but I cannot recall the recipient or year off-hand. It was a reference again to preventing the government from controlling religion.

*edit* I think I have a book with a collection of Jefferson's letters at home. I'll see what I can find when I get home from work if I remember.

I'm increasingly convinced some of you post this stupid stuff specifically for the purpose of causing me to have an aneurysm. :eek:

Why people are continuing to post in this thread, I don't know...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

FYI, The First Amendment to the Constitution Provides:

"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."

Thus, the first 10 words answer your question.

Why people are continuing to post in this thread, I don't know...

Because everybody loves to quote bits of the constitution as if they know about it, and are an expert.

For the purposes of giving CT an aneurysm :D

For the purposes of giving CT an aneurysm :D

Nobody actually said this; thus, this is not true.

-_-

Nobody actually said this; thus, this is not true.

-_-

hang on - I said it! Thus, it is true.

:p

I'm increasingly convinced some of you post this stupid stuff specifically for the purpose of causing me to have an aneurysm. :eek:

I'm have a bet that your head won't explode from the armchair lawyers until some time next year at least, so could you take a break from NSG for a few weeks?

hang on - I said it! Thus, it is true.

:p

Alas, I meant one of them.

You can't say that they're giving TCT an aneurysm... they have to. :D

Alas, I meant one of them.

You can't say that they're giving TCT an aneurysm... they have to. :D

No fair! You just changed the rules! Nowhere did you mention that in your original post :p

EDIT: Too late, it's already happened, and teh interwbz proves it! Ahem, I mean: Source (http://cat-tribes.head.asplode.net/)

It doesn't say "bill of rights" anywhere in the Constitution. Does that mean the BoR doesn't exist?

Yours is one of the dumber arguments I've seen in favor of disregarding church-state separation. You'd be all up in arms demanding it if Muslims were the majority in this country. The sad part is that except for the whacked-out far-right Islamists, most of them would give you more freedom than you would give them. Ditto for Pagans, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Hindus.

Actually if you read my posts I am for separation of church and state. It's wrong to offend people because of their beliefs or ignorance. Yes, I definatley would be against a Muslim Majority after growing up in Indonesia and having a Right Wing Islamist father. I hate Sharia, If it was buddhists, I wouldn't mind.

I'm have a bet that your head won't explode from the armchair lawyers until some time next year at least, so could you take a break from NSG for a few weeks?

:D

I'll try to hold on until some time next year at least. :wink:

Boy can that question open up a can of worms.

As I recall from ages past, the "Separation Clause" only exists in a letter Jefferson wrote, never in any official document.



Madison wrote of it several times.....

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm


* The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

* Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

* Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

* To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Well, this is my long story. I posted several satirical posts that seemed too serious and I made the mistake of joking that there was no church and state, to which my drunk friend mentioned there was not. And
suddenly I remembered that oh crap it doesnt say that. And I read it and it said CONGRESS should make no law...etc. Which my drunk friend mentioned it only affects congress. So a Neocon supreme court could do as they please. Did I mention I'm on my tenth redbull?

You're losing an argument to a drunk?

I pity you.

Madison wrote of it several times.....

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm


* The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

* Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

* Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

* To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Thank you for the references. I still think I read a quote from a Jefferson letter on that subject. I just can't find it now that I want it. On the same subject, however:

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate" - Ulysses S. Grant, speech at Des Moines, Iowa, 1875

At any rate, the OP asked where in the U.S. Constitution the exact phrase "separation of church and state" could be found. The answer is that the exact phrase is not in the Constitution. The phrase has been often used throughout the history of the United States, primarily due to the British government's insistence that all be members of the Anglican church and the cruel beatings that were endured by those who dared support other denominations or religions. Another concern was the degree to which the Catholic church dominated Spain, France, and other European nations in (then) recent history.

*edit* and remember that any decree by the SCOTUS has no power of law. The SCOTUS cannot legislate by decree, and it is the duty of everyone to disregard an unjust decree. The power of legislation is vested in Congress, and Congress shall make no law outside the limits of its delegated Constitutional authority.

Thank you for the references. I still think I read a quote from a Jefferson letter on that subject. I just can't find it now that I want it. On the same subject, however:


:) Thank you.

I think you are thinking of his letter to the Danbury baptists.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

:) Thank you.

I think you are thinking of his letter to the Danbury baptists.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

That's the one. Pg. 510 in Thomas Jefferson, Writings, 10th printing.

US Constitution -- Article VI, Section 3 -- starts it, the First Amendment strengthens it. SCOTUS finishes it.
Why did I just have a flashback to Mortal Kombat?

After reading more than enough of your "arguments" to last a life time, I've come to a decision: from this point on I am going to respond to you as if you have had a traumatic head injury that has effected some key parts of your brain, such as your executive functioning and long-term memory. I am not claiming this HAS happened--just that it's the most logical and sanity-preserving attitude I can think of.

Now, why don't you have a cookie and take a nap?

I think I'll do the same.

Why did I just have a flashback to Mortal Kombat?

Hmm... Could it be called a Libertality?

Hmm... Could it be called a Libertality?Hell yeah! :D
That'd be awesome.

*edit* and remember that any decree by the SCOTUS has no power of law. The SCOTUS cannot legislate by decree, and it is the duty of everyone to disregard an unjust decree. The power of legislation is vested in Congress, and Congress shall make no law outside the limits of its delegated Constitutional authority.

Again, I'm suspicious that you people say things just to try to make my head explode.

Your statements are utter rubbish. Here is my preset lecture on the power of judicial review:

1. Judicial review--the power of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violate it -- is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

2. Where exactly in the Constitution is judicial review found?

Well, let's quickly note that Artice VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Let us also note that Article I (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) and Article II (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branch.

So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

Inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails.

Regardless, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

3. Where did the concept of judicial review come from? Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case (http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Dr%20Bonham's%20Case.htm) in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm) in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm), Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, as I have also noted, in the 200 years since Marbury the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious. (In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

4. Is judicial review valid? Another case you might check out that confirms the Court's power of judicial review is the unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=358&invol=1), 358 U.S. 1 (1958):

As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
. . .
However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.



5. More on the history of judicial review. I've already established that judicial review was not a new idea and had existed under common law. Here is more from Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Court 1801-1835, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 646, 655-656 (1982):

The Privy Council had occasionally applied the ultra vires principle to set aside legislative acts contravening municipal and colonial charters. State courts had set aside state statutes under constitutions no more explicit about judicial review than the federal. The Supreme Court itself had measured a state law against a state constitution in Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), and had struck down another under the supremacy clause in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796); in both cases the power of judicial review was expressly affirmed. Even Acts of Congress had been struck down by federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court had reviewed the constitutionality of a federal statute in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796). Justice James Iredell had expressly asserted this power both in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), and in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), and [Justice] Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper. In the [Consitutional] Convention, moreover, both proponents and opponents fo the proposed Council of Revision had recognized that the courts would review the validity of congresssional legislation, and Alexander Hamilton had proclaimed the same doctrine in The Federalist.

6. Also, I'll note the following from A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 15-16 (1965):

[It] is as clear as such matters can be that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expected that the federal courts would assume a power -- of whatever exact dimensions --to pass on the constitutionality of actions of the Congress and the President, as well as of the several states. Moreover, not even a colorable showing of decisive historical evidence to the contrary can be made. Nor can it be maintained that the language of the Constitution is compelling the other way.


7. On the question of judicial vs. legislative supremacy, Hamilton explains in Federalist #78 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html):

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Again, I'm suspicious that you people say things just to try to make my head explode.


No, but I may start now.

Again, I'm suspicious that you people say things just to try to make my head explode.

<snip>

In response to a statement by a previous poster about whether the SCOTUS could somehow ignore the BoR and make laws respecting religion, etc. I said that the SCOTUS has no legislative power. Where was I wrong? You seem a tad testy.

Actually it is both.

I disagree.

I disagree.

you can disagree all you want. Doesn't make you right.

After reading more than enough of your "arguments" to last a life time, I've come to a decision: from this point on I am going to respond to you as if you have had a traumatic head injury that has effected some key parts of your brain, such as your executive functioning and long-term memory. I am not claiming this HAS happened--just that it's the most logical and sanity-preserving attitude I can think of.

Now, why don't you have a cookie and take a nap?

Nice personal attack! Score yourself 5 bonus points.
However, you still trail 6 to 5.

I disagree.

What don't you understand?

To have freedom of Religion you have to also have freedom from Religion.

Why did I just have a flashback to Mortal Kombat?

Jefferson...versus...Sub Zero...FIGHT!

In response to a statement by a previous poster about whether the SCOTUS could somehow ignore the BoR and make laws respecting religion, etc. I said that the SCOTUS has no legislative power. Where was I wrong? You seem a tad testy.

Apparently I misundestood you. I thought you were saying SCOTUS rulings weren't law. You are correct that SCOTUS has no legislative power.

Sorry. :$

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.

That was easy.

Then you're wrong.

That was easy.

Your head will never a splode if these poor efforts continue....:rolleyes:

What don't you understand?

To have freedom of Religion you have to also have freedom from Religion.

Freedom of religion can only mean "live and let live" - any time you begin to decree that someone may not express his beliefs, you infringe on the entire first amendment. You can demand that public money not be spent on religious causes, but it is absurd to force the religious out of public spaces just because you disagree with their religion. Public space belongs to all, even those with whom you or I may disagree. On the other hand, if he is trespassing on your property to preach (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) you do have the authority to tell him to leave and request police intervention because it is a direct infringement of your property rights.

So, if you decree that thou shalt not mention religion in any context in any public forum, you have violated the concept of freedom of religion. Christianity, Islam, and many related minor sects and cults require preaching their beliefs. If you tell someone he may not speak of his beliefs, you have violated his rights.

Freedom of religion can only mean "live and let live" - any time you begin to decree that someone may not express his beliefs, you infringe on the entire first amendment. You can demand that public money not be spent on religious causes, but it is absurd to force the religious out of public spaces just because you disagree with their religion. Public space belongs to all, even those with whom you or I may disagree. On the other hand, if he is trespassing on your property to preach (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) you do have the authority to tell him to leave and request police intervention because it is a direct infringement of your property rights.

So, if you decree that thou shalt not mention religion in any context in any public forum, you have violated the concept of freedom of religion. Christianity, Islam, and many related minor sects and cults require preaching their beliefs. If you tell someone he may not speak of his beliefs, you have violated his rights.

True .... to an extent.

Enforcing the Establishment Clause and keeping government from endorsing or aiding a religion or religion over non-religion is NOT "forcing the religious out of public spaces." Just for the record, let me repeat what the Establishment Clause means. See Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

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.'

Congress can't pass a law regarding religion.

It also means (I don't know if this is what you were trying to say, but if so, then I apologize for being redundant) that there can be no official state religion, e.g. the Church of England, established in the United States.

It doesn't mean (or if in United States jurisprudence it does, then it SHOULDN'T; I don't believe it was intended to be interpreted this way) that government employees and public servants are required to be atheists, or that atheism is a prerequisite to qualifying for government jobs, or that the names of "God" or "Jesus" must not be spoken on public property.

It also means (I don't know if this is what you were trying to say, but if so, then I apologize for being redundant) that there can be no official state religion, e.g. the Church of England, established in the United States.

It doesn't mean (or if in United States jurisprudence it does, then it SHOULDN'T; I don't believe it was intended to be interpreted this way) that government employees and public servants are required to be atheists, or that atheism is a prerequisite to qualifying for government jobs, or that the names of "God" or "Jesus" must not be spoken on public property.
A good thing, then, that nobody tries to impose such restrictions, eh?

The proper restriction is that religious people who work for the state cannot express their religious views while they are on the job in a manner that would create the impression of a government endorsement of a religion.

So, a state employee wearing a cross and talking about their plans to go to church later = okay.

A monument to the Ten Commandments but to no other religions on the steps of a courthouse = not okay.

It also means (I don't know if this is what you were trying to say, but if so, then I apologize for being redundant) that there can be no official state religion, e.g. the Church of England, established in the United States.

It doesn't mean (or if in United States jurisprudence it does, then it SHOULDN'T; I don't believe it was intended to be interpreted this way) that government employees and public servants are required to be atheists, or that atheism is a prerequisite to qualifying for government jobs, or that the names of "God" or "Jesus" must not be spoken on public property.

The government doesn't do that. There isn't (well there shouldn't be) a religious test to get a job in the government. Checking for atheists is still a religious test.

There is nothing wrong with being religious in office or as a government employee. Where you overstep your bounds is when you try to enforce your religious moral codes on others.

You would be shocked to hear that most of the defenders of the establishment clause would argue against atheism being the only philosophy for people in office.

I'm increasingly convinced some of you post this stupid stuff specifically for the purpose of causing me to have an aneurysm. :eek:

No, that's just a bonus ;)

I'm actually having a debate about this on another forum, and apparently the separation of church and state is a "liberal myth".

I didn't know I was supporting a liberal myth! I thought I was supporting what the Constitution and Bill of Rights said! :eek: :p

Ahh, people are fun.

I'm actually having a debate about this on another forum, and apparently the separation of church and state is a "liberal myth".

I didn't know I was supporting a liberal myth! I thought I was supporting what the Constitution and Bill of Rights said! :eek: :p

Ahh, people are fun.

You should give a link so some of us can have some fun. ;)

Then you're wrong.

That was easy.

Nu-uh.


*wins the arguement*

Freedom of religion can only mean "live and let live" - any time you begin to decree that someone may not express his beliefs, you infringe on the entire first amendment.

So far, so good.

You can demand that public money not be spent on religious causes, but it is absurd to force the religious out of public spaces just because you disagree with their religion. Public space belongs to all, even those with whom you or I may disagree.

I don't see that happening, but go on, I agree.

On the other hand, if he is trespassing on your property to preach (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) you do have the authority to tell him to leave and request police intervention because it is a direct infringement of your property rights.

I have that right, but I often eschew it in favor of presenting perplexing questions to neophyte proselytizers who wake me up on weekends.

So, if you decree that thou shalt not mention religion in any context in any public forum, you have violated the concept of freedom of religion. Christianity, Islam, and many related minor sects and cults require preaching their beliefs. If you tell someone he may not speak of his beliefs, you have violated his rights.

Agreed. However, that does not cover erecting monuments, creches, big ol' Ten Commandments tablets, or other iconography on public land. Come on to the public land and say all you like. Bring a temporary structure to help get your point across, if you like. But take it down when you leave, or I will.

A good thing, then, that nobody tries to impose such restrictions, eh?

The proper restriction is that religious people who work for the state cannot express their religious views while they are on the job in a manner that would create the impression of a government endorsement of a religion.

So, a state employee wearing a cross and talking about their plans to go to church later = okay.

A monument to the Ten Commandments but to no other religions on the steps of a courthouse = not okay.

Soooooo very this. ^

The government doesn't do that. There isn't (well there shouldn't be) a religious test to get a job in the government. Checking for atheists is still a religious test.

No need for parenthetical equivocation. "No religious test" is actually in the US Constitution. Aricle VI, Section 3.

There is nothing wrong with being religious in office or as a government employee. Where you overstep your bounds is when you try to enforce your religious moral codes on others.

Bingo and blackout.

Agreed. However, that does not cover erecting monuments, creches, big ol' Ten Commandments tablets, or other iconography on public land. Come on to the public land and say all you like. Bring a temporary structure to help get your point across, if you like. But take it down when you leave, or I will.

Might I ask why? If the religious are paying taxes, other monuments are erected by other groups for other purposes, and the organization that wants the monument also pays for it, why not allow it? There is no reason to forbid it - no one could consider it a state endorsement of religion unless they were very eager to find something to be offended by.

Might I ask why? If the religious are paying taxes, other monuments are erected by other groups for other purposes, and the organization that wants the monument also pays for it, why not allow it? There is no reason to forbid it - no one could consider it a state endorsement of religion unless they were very eager to find something to be offended by.
Unless you want every single public space to look like a shopping mall of religious options, then temporary installations only are the way to go. Because of the restriction that the government may not show preference for any religion over any other religion, nor for religion over irreligion, nor for irreligion over religion, then government acknowledgement of religion must be an all-or-nothing situation, in order to avoid the appearance of preference.

In other words, if the government pays for the permanent installation of one religion's monument on public (tax funded) property, then it must pay to install monuments for all other religions, too, as well as a monument for atheism and/or humanism.

So, tell me, how many of our tax dollars do you think should be properly spent on such gew-gaws? You know, rather than on, say, maintaining the public buildings, keeping the trees and plants of the parks healthy, having enough cops to patrol those parks, etc, etc, etc.

And when you're done calculating that, explain to us all how that is a better, more efficient, less conflict-generating way to follow the separation of church and state, as opposed to just having the government not pay for the installation of ANY religious monuments at all, while letting private individuals erect, at private cost, temporary installations that can be put up, taken down, moved around, as needed, thus allowing enough room for everyone to use the public spaces.

Remember, in order to follow the non-establishment clause, your only options are ALL or NOTHING. I can't wait to hear the practical argument in favor of ALL that shows it to be a better option than NOTHING.

Unless you want every single public space to look like a shopping mall of religious options, then temporary installations only are the way to go. Because of the restriction that the government may not show preference for any religion over any other religion, nor for religion over irreligion, nor for irreligion over religion, then government acknowledgement of religion must be an all-or-nothing situation, in order to avoid the appearance of preference.

In other words, if the government pays for the permanent installation of one religion's monument on public (tax funded) property, then it must pay to install monuments for all other religions, too, as well as a monument for atheism and/or humanism.

So, tell me, how many of our tax dollars do you think should be properly spent on such gew-gaws? You know, rather than on, say, maintaining the public buildings, keeping the trees and plants of the parks healthy, having enough cops to patrol those parks, etc, etc, etc.

And when you're done calculating that, explain to us all how that is a better, more efficient, less conflict-generating way to follow the separation of church and state, as opposed to just having the government not pay for the installation of ANY religious monuments at all, while letting private individuals erect, at private cost, temporary installations that can be put up, taken down, moved around, as needed, thus allowing enough room for everyone to use the public spaces.

Remember, in order to follow the non-establishment clause, your only options are ALL or NOTHING. I can't wait to hear the practical argument in favor of ALL that shows it to be a better option than NOTHING.

I said that the monuments should be paid for by the religious group that wants it, e.g. 10-commandment monuments donated by a religious organization, are fine by me. Anyone who wants to fund the erection of any monument in a public space, whether it be a war memorial from the VFW or a menorah sculpture or an artistic sculpture, ought to be able to do so. Maintenance is negligible, but if that concerns you, why not allow all communities to vote whether to allow a new monument and budget the necessary costs every election day?

I said that the monuments should be paid for by the religious group that wants it, e.g. 10-commandment monuments donated by a religious organization, are fine by me. Anyone who wants to fund the erection of any monument in a public space, whether it be a war memorial from the VFW or a menorah sculpture or an artistic sculpture, ought to be able to do so. Maintenance is negligible, but if that concerns you, why not allow all communities to vote whether to allow a new monument and budget the necessary costs every election day?

Right, 'cause that's easier and cheaper than just saying no religious monuments... :rolleyes:

Right, 'cause that's easier and cheaper than just saying no religious monuments...
It may not be, but unless we're advocating the banning of any public expression of faith, rather than merely a sensible distinction between Church and State, Tothe's suggestion is not entirely mad.

It may not be, but unless we're advocating the banning of any public expression of faith,

Personally I am, or at least those that are permanent and on government property.

rather than merely a sensible distinction between Church and State, Tothe's suggestion is not entirely mad.
And you would say that allowing only one religions monuments on government property a "sensible distinction between church and state"? Because that is exactly what would happen, since a majority of Americans are christian.

Personally I am, or at least those that are permanent and on government property...
I believe I may have understood you.

When you were advocating "just saying no religious monuments", I thought you were meaning no religious monuments at all in the US, not simply no religious monuments on US government property.

I said that the monuments should be paid for by the religious group that wants it, e.g. 10-commandment monuments donated by a religious organization, are fine by me. Anyone who wants to fund the erection of any monument in a public space, whether it be a war memorial from the VFW or a menorah sculpture or an artistic sculpture, ought to be able to do so. Maintenance is negligible, but if that concerns you, why not allow all communities to vote whether to allow a new monument and budget the necessary costs every election day?
Because that would be a green light to religious bigotry, that's why.

I believe I may have understood you.

When you were advocating "just saying no religious monuments", I thought you were meaning no religious monuments at all in the US, not simply no religious monuments on US government property.

Well, I could have been clearer... :(
Although, on a personal level I would have no problem with there being no religious monuments at all...

It may not be, but unless we're advocating the banning of any public expression of faith, rather than merely a sensible distinction between Church and State, Tothe's suggestion is not entirely mad.
False dichotomy. Not using public funds to pay for permanent installations of religious monuments DOES NOT EQUAL banning all public expressions of religion, so long as religious people are permitted to practice their own religions publicly.

In the city of Boston, the predominantly Italian Catholic neighborhood of the North End is pretty much taken over all summer long by weekly saint's feast processions (sometimes several a week). These are religious rituals to carry icons around the neighborhood to bless businesses and houses, and they are fully public. But they are not funded by the government nor by tax money. Despite the high number of churches in the North End that have religious monuments displayed where the public can see and access them, there are no permanently installed religious monuments that are paid for by tax money. Yet still, there are public expression of religion.

I said that the monuments should be paid for by the religious group that wants it, e.g. 10-commandment monuments donated by a religious organization, are fine by me. Anyone who wants to fund the erection of any monument in a public space, whether it be a war memorial from the VFW or a menorah sculpture or an artistic sculpture, ought to be able to do so. Maintenance is negligible, but if that concerns you, why not allow all communities to vote whether to allow a new monument and budget the necessary costs every election day? Was talking about this the other week with my friend. One idea was that the group that sets it up pays a flat fee for maintenance, or takes care of their own maintenance of their 'monument'. failure to pay or to keep up the maintenance will result in the 'monuments' removal. no votes necessary.

Remember, in order to follow the non-establishment clause, your only options are ALL or NOTHING. I can't wait to hear the practical argument in favor of ALL that shows it to be a better option than NOTHING.

Shows openmindedness in the Government and an attempt to be 'fair' to everyone, no matter their beliefs.
you can limit where the monuments can go "Parks, outside certain Gov Buildings, etc." as well as limit the size "no bigger than X by Y by Z" and limit content "Please no: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Geo/political statements, etc..." you can even limit it by general Religion. "Chrisianity, Islam, Pastafarian, etc.." and not "Baptist, Catholic, Mormonism, Shiite, etc...", you can even create an office filled with various theologists to review any proposed wording to make sure it's 1) not political in nature ("Abortion is Murder") 2) not focusing too much on one aspect/person ("Phred Phelps is God", or 3) just plain appropriate ("Catholics SUX!" just make sure it applies TO EVERYONE!

Have the group wanting to put something, fill out a form, pay a fee to 'rent the area' and any deliquency can be followed up by a notice of "payment deliquency" being tacked on the monument for a month before it's taken down. care and maintenance is handled by the various churches or groups doing the donation. thus no "Government money" will be spent on the displays.

If handled properly, those who are deeply religious will know the Government is NOT abandoning Religion, and those who are Athiest or Agnostic can view the displays as nothing more than artwork donated by various groups.

Was talking about this the other week with my friend. One idea was that the group that sets it up pays a flat fee for maintenance, or takes care of their own maintenance of their 'monument'. failure to pay or to keep up the maintenance will result in the 'monuments' removal. no votes necessary.



Shows openmindedness in the Government and an attempt to be 'fair' to everyone, no matter their beliefs.
you can limit where the monuments can go "Parks, outside certain Gov Buildings, etc." as well as limit the size "no bigger than X by Y by Z" and limit content "Please no: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Geo/political statements, etc..." you can even limit it by general Religion. "Chrisianity, Islam, Pastafarian, etc.." and not "Baptist, Catholic, Mormonism, Shiite, etc...", you can even create an office filled with various theologists to review any proposed wording to make sure it's 1) not political in nature ("Abortion is Murder") 2) not focusing too much on one aspect/person ("Phred Phelps is God", or 3) just plain appropriate ("Catholics SUX!" just make sure it applies TO EVERYONE!

Have the group wanting to put something, fill out a form, pay a fee to 'rent the area' and any deliquency can be followed up by a notice of "payment deliquency" being tacked on the monument for a month before it's taken down. care and maintenance is handled by the various churches or groups doing the donation. thus no "Government money" will be spent on the displays.

If handled properly, those who are deeply religious will know the Government is NOT abandoning Religion, and those who are Athiest or Agnostic can view the displays as nothing more than artwork donated by various groups.
Good effort, but that's not a practical benefit. It's a political or, at best, philosophical benefit, but in terms of costs and impact on the urban environment, it is not relevant.

The same kind of open-mindedness and inclusiveness could be served much less expensively -- in fact, it might even show a profit for the state -- by freely granting permits for public events and temporary public installations to all religions, instead of showing preference for the big, mainstream Christian churches, the way many municipal governments do now.

Well, I could have been clearer...
Dinnie worry yersel.

Although, on a personal level I would have no problem with there being no religious monuments at all...
I would, in some respects.


<snip>
See this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14337803&postcount=105) post.

Dinnie worry yersel.


I would, in some respects.



See this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14337803&postcount=105) post.
Cool, all clear, then.

Was talking about this the other week with my friend. One idea was that the group that sets it up pays a flat fee for maintenance, or takes care of their own maintenance of their 'monument'. failure to pay or to keep up the maintenance will result in the 'monuments' removal.



Shows openmindedness in the Government and an attempt to be 'fair' to everyone, no matter their beliefs.
you can limit where the monuments can go "Parks, outside certain Gov Buildings, etc." as well as limit the size "no bigger than X by Y by Z" and limit content "Please no: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Geo/political statements, etc..." you can even limit it by general Religion. "Chrisianity, Islam, Pastafarian, etc.." and not "Baptist, Catholic, Mormonism, Shiite, etc...", you can even create an office filled with various theologists to review any proposed wording to make sure it's 1) not political in nature ("Abortion is Murder") 2) not focusing too much on one aspect/person ("Phred Phelps is God", or 3) just plain appropriate ("Catholics SUX!" just make sure it applies TO EVERYONE!

Have the group wanting to put something, fill out a form, pay a fee to 'rent the area' and any deliquency can be followed up by a notice of "payment deliquency" being tacked on the monument for a month before it's taken down. care and maintenance is handled by the various churches or groups doing the donation. thus no "Government money" will be spent on the displays.

If handled properly, those who are deeply religious will know the Government is NOT abandoning Religion, and those who are Athiest or Agnostic can view the displays as nothing more than artwork donated by various groups.

I don't see why the government would want to appease people of any religious persuasion. Better to simply take the position that the government wants nothing to do with any religion unless it breaks the law.

I don't see why the government would want to appease people of any religious persuasion. Better to simply take the position that the government wants nothing to do with any religion unless it breaks the law.
I agree. That approach complies with the Constitution, removes as many obstacles to religious expression/practice as can be reasonably expected, and costs nothing.

Good effort, but that's not a practical benefit. It's a political or, at best, philosophical benefit, but in terms of costs and impact on the urban environment, it is not relevant. what cost in my idea? the land? less land that needs maintenance, so less time spent and thus less pay. as for urban environment? you got all those tacky "art" sitting outside most areas. same principal, just shrink em down.

The same kind of open-mindedness and inclusiveness could be served much less expensively -- in fact, it might even show a profit for the state -- by freely granting permits for public events and temporary public installations to all religions, instead of showing preference for the big, mainstream Christian churches, the way many municipal governments do now.two problems. with that. if allowing all religions (not churches, I said you can limit it by Religion) is still showing preference for the big mainstream CHRISTIAN churches, then 'free park use' will be worse since then each Chrisitan Church will still outnumber any other church/mosque/etc... and at a large event, the news will only cover some of them allowing for more free publicity and not a blanket area.

Second, the churches don't pay taxes. if they don't want to pay the fee, then they don't put up a display/monument. purely voluntary. and with them taking care of their own display, no cost to the Gov.

and note: under my idea, everyone will have the same dimensions to work with so no clear advantage of numbers. failure to keep up with the fees and the display is removed. thus no permanence. (and a display or monument doesn't have to be big. it can be as small as a picture on a wall outside some building.)

I don't see why the government would want to appease people of any religious persuasion. Better to simply take the position that the government wants nothing to do with any religion unless it breaks the law.because one of the principals that help found this country is Freedom of Religion. People often talk about letting their children CHOOSE the religion they want to follow. so how can they choose if the only religions they are expoised to is their parents? a trip to the park and people might find a Religion that is more suited for them.

a trip to the park and people might find a Religion that is more suited for them.

As it would without the monuments... :p

because one of the principals that help found this country is Freedom of Religion. People often talk about letting their children CHOOSE the religion they want to follow. so how can they choose if the only religions they are expoised to is their parents? a trip to the park and people might find a Religion that is more suited for them.

And as long as the government allows you to freely practice your religion of choice then you have freedom of religion. The government doesn't have to respect your religion, only your freedom to practice it. Really, the best thing the government can do for a person's spiritual well being is to leave them alone and let them sort it out for themselves. That's vastly simpler than trying to maintain balance between every religion.

what cost in my idea? the land? less land that needs maintenance, so less time spent and thus less pay. as for urban environment? you got all those tacky "art" sitting outside most areas. same principal, just shrink em down.

two problems. with that. if allowing all religions (not churches, I said you can limit it by Religion) is still showing preference for the big mainstream CHRISTIAN churches, then 'free park use' will be worse since then each Chrisitan Church will still outnumber any other church/mosque/etc... and at a large event, the news will only cover some of them allowing for more free publicity and not a blanket area.

Second, the churches don't pay taxes. if they don't want to pay the fee, then they don't put up a display/monument. purely voluntary. and with them taking care of their own display, no cost to the Gov.

and note: under my idea, everyone will have the same dimensions to work with so no clear advantage of numbers. failure to keep up with the fees and the display is removed. thus no permanence. (and a display or monument doesn't have to be big. it can be as small as a picture on a wall outside some building.)

because one of the principals that help found this country is Freedom of Religion. People often talk about letting their children CHOOSE the religion they want to follow. so how can they choose if the only religions they are expoised to is their parents? a trip to the park and people might find a Religion that is more suited for them.
No, no, I still don't like it. It's still taking up too much public time, space and attention.

I propose a compromise. A municipality shall maintain at public expense, not to exceed a maximum budget of $100 per fiscal year, a municipal shrine structure, which shall resemble one of those little "Visitor Information" shacks and which shall be an enclosed structure but open to the public for free. Said structure will not exceed 10 x 10 square feet and one story in size, nor shall it be smaller than a walk-in public phone booth.

In said municipal shrine structure, all groups representing a religion, or atheist and/or humanist group, and or ecumenical group, may install ONE (1) SNOWGLOBE representative of their beliefs. Said snowglobe may not exceed 5" x 3" x 5" in size, and will have all the content restrictions you listed above.

Installation and maintenance of the snowglobe will be the sole responsibility and at the sole cost of the group installing it. Should any snowglobe be deemed to violate size and/or content restrictions by a duly authorized public inspector, the group that installed it will be responsible for remedying, removing, or changing the snowglobe at their sole expense.

Any municipality that does maintain such a municipal shrine structure must admit all religious, atheist, humanist, and/or ecumenical groups to install one (1) snowglobe each in said structure, without restriction or discrimination, in accordance with the US Constitution. Failure to do so may be considered a civil rights violation and may be subject to legal action by the wronged party. The only other option to such broad accommodation will be to have no municipal shrine structure at all.

How does that sound?

No, no, I still don't like it. It's still taking up too much public time, space and attention.

I propose a compromise. A municipality shall maintain at public expense, not to exceed a maximum budget of $100 per fiscal year, a municipal shrine structure, which shall resemble one of those little "Visitor Information" shacks and which shall be an enclosed structure but open to the public for free. Said structure will not exceed 10 x 10 square feet and one story in size, nor shall it be smaller than a walk-in public phone booth.

In said municipal shrine structure, all groups representing a religion, or atheist and/or humanist group, and or ecumenical group, may install ONE (1) SNOWGLOBE representative of their beliefs. Said snowglobe may not exceed 5" x 3" x 5" in size, and will have all the content restrictions you listed above.

Installation and maintenance of the snowglobe will be the sole responsibility and at the sole cost of the group installing it. Should any snowglobe be deemed to violate size and/or content restrictions by a duly authorized public inspector, the group that installed it will be responsible for remedying, removing, or changing the snowglobe at their sole expense.

Any municipality that does maintain such a municipal shrine structure must admit all religious, atheist, humanist, and/or ecumenical groups to install one (1) snowglobe each in said structure, without restriction or discrimination, in accordance with the US Constitution. Failure to do so may be considered a civil rights violation and may be subject to legal action by the wronged party. The only other option to such broad accommodation will be to have no municipal shrine structure at all.

How does that sound?

Who gets to shake the snowglobe? Anyone, or just designated faiths? Why can't it be a desert globe, or an ash globe? Can they be filled with holy water? Are people allowed to worship them? Which ones get to face east?

It's a minefield I tell you!

And as long as the government allows you to freely practice your religion of choice then you have freedom of religion. The government doesn't have to respect your religion, only your freedom to practice it. Really, the best thing the government can do for a person's spiritual well being is to leave them alone and let them sort it out for themselves. That's vastly simpler than trying to maintain balance between every religion.
Just because it seems like we never get to a place where we don't need to say it, I quote for truth again.

Who gets to shake the snowglobe? Anyone, or just designated faiths? Why can't it be a desert globe, or an ash globe? Can they be filled with holy water? Are people allowed to worship them? Which ones get to face east?

It's a minefield I tell you!
Well, there's always the no shrine option.

Any restrictions as to shakeage will be up to the installing parties, but they will also be responsible for signage to that effect (not to exceed 4x4 inches and which must be engraved upon a brass plate in a free-standing holder; the option to bolt either the sign or the snowglobe or both to the shrine structure shelf may be exercised for an annual fee of $500.00 for each of the sign and the snowglobe). However, I would expect that most religions would be willing to let anyone shake their snowglobes, in keeping with those signs you see in front of churches stating that "all are welcome."

Also, placement in the shrine structure will be first come/first serve, however, within each shrine structure shelf space, a snowglobe may be oriented in any direction.

Also, globes may be filled with any substance that does not violate local law or ordinances.

By the way, any other details of installation requirements/restrictions that may come up in the process of making this plan implementable -- such as dimensions of an optional stand so that the snowglobe may be visible behind the shakeage restriction sign, etc -- can be worked out in committee by a bi-cameral team of Congressional officials as well as officials from the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Well, there's always the no shrine option.

Any restrictions as to shakeage will be up to the installing parties, but they will also be responsible for signage to that effect (not to exceed 4x4 inches and which must be engraved upon a brass plate in a free-standing holder; the option to bolt either the sign or the snowglobe or both to the shrine structure shelf may be exercised for an annual fee of $500.00 for each of the sign and the snowglobe). However, I would expect that most religions would be willing to let anyone shake their snowglobes, in keeping with those signs you see in front of churches stating that "all are welcome."

Also, placement in the shrine structure will be first come/first serve, however, within each shrine structure self space, a snowglobe may be oriented in any direction.

Also, globes may be filled with any substance that does not violate local law or ordinances.

Welcome to your friendly municipal multi-faith snow-globe-o-rama! Learn of the cultural diversity of <insert place> through the medium liquid-encapsulated diorama! Before entering please take off / put on your hat, take off / put on your shoes, as appropriate. Please note that the atheist globe is empty as a statement of ironic intent rather than breakage.

Was talking about this the other week with my friend. One idea was that the group that sets it up pays a flat fee for maintenance, or takes care of their own maintenance of their 'monument'. failure to pay or to keep up the maintenance will result in the 'monuments' removal. no votes necessary.

Shows openmindedness in the Government and an attempt to be 'fair' to everyone, no matter their beliefs.
you can limit where the monuments can go "Parks, outside certain Gov Buildings, etc." as well as limit the size "no bigger than X by Y by Z" and limit content "Please no: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Geo/political statements, etc..." you can even limit it by general Religion. "Chrisianity, Islam, Pastafarian, etc.." and not "Baptist, Catholic, Mormonism, Shiite, etc...", you can even create an office filled with various theologists to review any proposed wording to make sure it's 1) not political in nature ("Abortion is Murder") 2) not focusing too much on one aspect/person ("Phred Phelps is God", or 3) just plain appropriate ("Catholics SUX!" just make sure it applies TO EVERYONE!

Have the group wanting to put something, fill out a form, pay a fee to 'rent the area' and any deliquency can be followed up by a notice of "payment deliquency" being tacked on the monument for a month before it's taken down. care and maintenance is handled by the various churches or groups doing the donation. thus no "Government money" will be spent on the displays.

If handled properly, those who are deeply religious will know the Government is NOT abandoning Religion, and those who are Athiest or Agnostic can view the displays as nothing more than artwork donated by various groups.


Quit trying to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist. There is nothing about enforcing the First Amendment that is hostile to religion. Perhaps Justice O'Connor's concurrence in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html), 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (O'Connor, J., concurring) will help explain:

I join in the Court's opinion. The First Amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring establishment of religion. They were written by the descendents of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely. Together with the other First Amendment guarantees--of free speech, a free press, and the rights to assemble and petition--the Religion Clauses were designed to safeguard the freedom of conscience and belief that those immigrants had sought. They embody an idea that was once considered radical: Free people are entitled to free and diverse thoughts, which government ought neither to constrain nor to direct.

Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. The well-known statement that "[w]e are a religious people," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313 (1952), has proved true. Americans attend their places of worship more often than do citizens of other developed nations, R. Fowler, A. Hertzke, & L. Olson, Religion and Politics in America 28-29 (2d ed. 1999), and describe religion as playing an especially important role in their lives, Pew Global Attitudes Project, Among Wealthy Nations U. S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion (Dec. 19, 2002). Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

Our guiding principle has been James Madison's--that "[t]he Religion ... of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 2 Writings of James Madison 183, 184 (G. Hunt ed. 1901) (hereinafter Memorial). To that end, we have held that the guarantees of religious freedom protect citizens from religious incursions by the States as well as by the Federal Government. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940). Government may not coerce a person into worshiping against her will, nor prohibit her from worshiping according to it. It may not prefer one religion over another or promote religion over nonbelief. Everson, supra, at 15-16. It may not entangle itself with religion. Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 674 (1970). And government may not, by "endorsing religion or a religious practice," "mak[e] adherence to religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 69 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

When we enforce these restrictions, we do so for the same reason that guided the Framers--respect for religion's special role in society. Our Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, and provided for the possibility of judicial intervention when government action threatens or impedes such expression. Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly interferes with private religious practices. When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship. In the marketplace of ideas, the government has vast resources and special status. Government religious expression therefore risks crowding out private observance and distorting the natural interplay between competing beliefs. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both.

Given the history of this particular display of the Ten Commandments, the Court correctly finds an Establishment Clause violation. See ante, at 19-25. The purpose behind the counties' display is relevant because it conveys an unmistakable message of endorsement to the reasonable observer. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 690 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring).

It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943) ("The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts"). Nor can we accept the theory that Americans who do not accept the Commandments' validity are outside the First Amendment's protections. There is no list of approved and disapproved beliefs appended to the First Amendment--and the Amendment's broad terms ("free exercise," "establishment," "religion") do not admit of such a cramped reading. It is true that the Framers lived at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now. They may not have foreseen the variety of religions for which this Nation would eventually provide a home. They surely could not have predicted new religions, some of them born in this country. But they did know that line-drawing between religions is an enterprise that, once begun, has no logical stopping point. They worried that "the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects." Memorial 186. The Religion Clauses, as a result, protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.

***

We owe our First Amendment to a generation with a profound commitment to religion and a profound commitment to religious liberty--visionaries who held their faith "with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar." Zorach, supra, at 324-325 (Jackson, J., dissenting). In my opinion, the display at issue was an establishment of religion in violation of our Constitution. For the reasons given above, I join in the Court's opinion.

Quit trying to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist. There is nothing about enforcing the First Amendment that is hostile to religion. <snippety>
So, I take it then that you don't like the snowglobe idea? ;)

So, I take it then that you don't like the snowglobe idea? ;)

I should have quoted JuNii's post. (now fixed)

I love the snowglobe idea. :wink: