Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
manoletters
Forum Addict
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby manoletters » Mon May 12, 2014 5:35 pm

I INTENSELY dislike this latest SCOTUS decision, as I think religion should be kept firmly out of the public arena. But what's done is done. Since the court made a very bad move, it might as well compound the travesty by going even further in terms of ignoring or gradually eliminating the Establishment Clause. Yes, it's definitely time for those who administer these public meetings to allow, even encourage the recitation of all sorts of prayers/invocations. In keeping with America's ever-broadening "Diversity," such prayers and invocations must include those promulgated by Satanism, Wicca, Sun Worship, African and Native American Tribal Religions, and don't forget Santeria! "Too creepy!" you say? Well, there are many parts of the King James Bible that go way BEYOND "creepy;" it's my constitutional RIGHT (or WAS) not to be bombarded at City Hall by the various psychic disorders propagated by religious fanatics. What's good for the Hypo-Christians is good for the Hindu!
"Give 'em Hell, Shiva!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Sandi » Mon May 12, 2014 6:57 pm

manoletters wrote:I INTENSELY dislike this latest SCOTUS decision, as I think religion should be kept firmly out of the public arena.


First, I am not a religious person, and I haven't darkened the doorway of a church for around 50 years. However unlike you, I do not fear Christians, and am happy to leave them alone.

For starters, the Constitution does not dictate, or even infer that religion be kept "out of the public arena." The "establishment clause" in the first amendment is simply to keep the Stae out of the Church (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).

You and others who are fearful of what Christians might say or do in public like to pretend that the part of the First Amendment that says: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" doesn't exist at all. I'm not sure what you fear from Christians, but it must be something strong Leave them alone, and perhaps they will leave you alone.

When your remove rights that you have no interest in from others, in the long run, you end up trampling your own freedom.

Donald
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2502
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Donald » Mon May 12, 2014 7:53 pm

I think what bothers about this decision is what it does to religion. It may not be "establishment" of religion, but it sure as hell seems like religion using the government to piss on folks who don't share a particular faith. I look at that sort of religion as too weak to stand on its own, something to not be a part of. And a government that associates with this sort of religion associates itself with weakness.

What I fear from weak religion is that it tries to use strong government to give itself power.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 12, 2014 8:03 pm

Sandi wrote: The "establishment clause" in the first amendment is simply to keep the Stae out of the Church (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).


I think you misunderstand the establishment clause. It is not to keep the state out of the church. It is to keep the church out of the state. The government is not supposed to be promoting any particular religion.

Perhaps you are suggesting that as long as the government doesn't establish a new religion, they can promote an existing religion? Well, that's not how the clause has been understood by the supreme court. Promoting a particular religion establishes that religion as the religious view endorsed by the state.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 12, 2014 9:00 pm

Sandy, I don't think fear of Christians is really the issue, so much as a lack of interest in having religious dogma that many find to be ignorant at best and down right distasteful at worst being preached in a place devoted to public policy making. Since most prayers of this nature are generally utterly benign or even banal, I think the biggest issue some have is that they think that allowing a religious group to say a prayer implies that the government endorses said group and it's beliefs. Since charity, universal love, peace and forgiveness are major teachings of the christian faith, that clearly isn't a risk we are close to realizing, and more the shame.

Not willfully lend any credence to Sandi's argument, but the guys who wrote the bill of rights had a pretty good idea what constitutes a government established religion, and why that was a bad thing. They clearly didn't buy into the idea that the act of praying in a public forum on it's own constituted the government establishing, promoting or endorsing a religion since they authorized the various federal legislative bodies to have chaplains.

And Huck arguing that the court is wrong because it's not following what the court has ruled in the past kind of ignores the point of the court. It evolves based on the make up of it's members as well as the beliefs of society. The court has an times reversed itself on important issues to the betterment of society. Not saying this is one of those times. For one, I don't think it's all that important and issue, nor is it really reversing itself. Marsh v. Chambers already authorized prayer in a civic setting.

manoletters wrote:Yes, it's definitely time for those who administer these public meetings to allow, even encourage the recitation of all sorts of prayers/invocations. In keeping with America's ever-broadening "Diversity," such prayers and invocations must include those promulgated by Satanism, Wicca, Sun Worship, African and Native American Tribal Religions, and don't forget Santeria!


From my understanding of the case in question, after objections were raised the council did open up prayers to other faiths in the community. Perhaps not all of the ones you list, but I believe Wiccan and Islam were mentioned in an article I read last week and the council attempted to include a wide range of religious groups. I would assume the number of Christian aligned churches asked to provide prayers still outweighed the non-christian churches, in the same manner that the number of Christian aligned denominations most likely out numbered other faith denominations in that area. If 7 out of 10 religious groups in the area are christian and you give every religious group a turn, you are going to end up with a majority of christian groups providing the prayer.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:And Huck arguing that the court is wrong because it's not following what the court has ruled in the past kind of ignores the point of the court. It evolves based on the make up of it's members as well as the beliefs of society.


I agree with this much. Lets stick to what is best for our country.

I think Sharia Law is a bad idea. I don't want the U.S. to follow that path, to declare by words or actions that we are a Christian nation. I prefer a spirit of tolerance and acceptance for other religions. If Israel and most Muslim countries and the Vatican want to be religous states, that's their way. But it's not the cowboy way. U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Sandi » Mon May 12, 2014 9:40 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Sandi wrote: The "establishment clause" in the first amendment is simply to keep the Stae out of the Church (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).


I think you misunderstand the establishment clause. It is not to keep the state out of the church. It is to keep the church out of the state. The government is not supposed to be promoting any particular religion.

Perhaps you are suggesting that as long as the government doesn't establish a new religion, they can promote an existing religion? Well, that's not how the clause has been understood by the supreme court. Promoting a particular religion establishes that religion as the religious view endorsed by the state.


I understand the establishment clause just fine. It is your interpretation that is afoul of history. Perhaps you should google Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which speaks specifically to the issue.

What kind of pretzel logic do you use to make allowing the exercise of religion as the promoting, or endorsing a particular religion?

The left would love to relegate the "free exercise thereof" to be inside a church, or a home only. What the hell are you all afraid of?

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 12, 2014 9:57 pm

Sandi wrote: What kind of pretzel logic do you use to make allowing the exercise of religion as the promoting, or endorsing a particular religion?

The left would love to relegate the "free exercise thereof" to be inside a church, or a home only. What the hell are you all afraid of?


There's a giant straw man. If you want to put on your hari krishna garb and chant in the park, leftists aren't going to drag you away.

This is the usual false argument of the religious right: If they can't say their prayers in school, they aren't able to practice their religion.
There is no settling this debate, it is a waste of time.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9573
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Mon May 12, 2014 10:03 pm

Sandi wrote:I understand the establishment clause just fine. It is your interpretation that is afoul of history. Perhaps you should google Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which speaks specifically to the issue.
Is this where you're gonna tell us about that one-way wall again, Sandi? Pretzel logic, indeed.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Sandi » Mon May 12, 2014 10:05 pm

Huckleby wrote:There's a giant straw man. If you want to put on your hari krishna garb and chant in the park, leftists aren't going to drag you away.

This is the usual false argument of the religious right: If they can't say their prayers in school, they aren't able to practice their religion.
There is no settling this debate, it is a waste of time.


You are correct about the straw man: but it is your straw man. Why do you relegate the "free exercise of" to the park, or anywhere, as long as it isn't public.

If the framers intended the "free exercise of" to not take place in public/government owned places they certainly would have clarified themselves. In fact prayer has been quite common in government owned public places, up until the last five or so decades.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby DCB » Mon May 12, 2014 10:39 pm

Sandi wrote:
What kind of pretzel logic do you use to make allowing the exercise of religion as the promoting, or endorsing a particular religion?

Because the prayers aren't just spontaneous outbursts from individuals. They are being led by religious leaders who were specifically invited by the Town. And except for a token non-Christians ( for a brief period), they were all from a particular religion.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 12, 2014 10:51 pm

Sandi wrote: If the framers intended the "free exercise of" to not take place in public/government owned places they certainly would have clarified themselves. In fact prayer has been quite common in government owned public places, up until the last five or so decades.


Three cheers for progress. Forcing prayer from one faith on a public gathering is uncivil.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Sandi » Mon May 12, 2014 11:19 pm

Three cheers for progress. Forcing prayer from one faith on a public gathering is uncivil.


Who? What prayers are being forced? On who? Example please.

Really Huck, you are a smart person; but showing ignorance to win an point shows otherwise.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 12, 2014 11:32 pm

Sandi wrote:
Three cheers for progress. Forcing prayer from one faith on a public gathering is uncivil.


Who? What prayers are being forced? On who? Example please.

Really Huck, you are a smart person; but showing ignorance to win an point shows otherwise.


Prayer in school or a public meeting sends a signal that a particle belief is the superior way. It is disrespectful and unnecessary. It imposes on a captive audience.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court violates Establishment Clause yet AGAIN

Postby Sandi » Mon May 12, 2014 11:48 pm

Huckleby wrote:Prayer in school or a public meeting sends a signal that a particle belief is the superior way. It is disrespectful and unnecessary. It imposes on a captive audience.


What a croc of donkey doo.

So Congress (by opening with prayer) is always sending signals that whatever denomination is superior? How does this particular belief come about?

Methinks that you confuse religious "denominations" with religious beliefs.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests