[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government. Many of the colonies had an officially recognised religion - Delware: Christianity, Georgia: Protestantism, Maryland: Christianity, Massachusetts: monotheism(governor required to profess Christian faith), New Hampshire: Protestantism, New Jersey: Protestantism, North Carolina: Protestantism, Pennsylvania: Christianity, South Carolina: Protestantism, Tennessee: Monotheism and Vermont: Protestantism(Sabbath must be observed by all citizens).
I’m personally against the state being involved in religion but the fact remains that this was how the US was founded.[/quote]
That was correct when the Constitution was written, but not any longer. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was legally bound to apply to the states (and thus lower, local governments who are chartered by state governments) vis-a-vis incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause against the states, officially by the landmark Supreme Court case in Everson v. Board of Education.
[/quote]
I’ve already addressed Everson vs Board of Education. That was the decision by Hugo Black and others. It was based on taking a line from a private letter by Jefferson out of context. I’m not talking about case law. I’m talking about originalism and what the Constitution really means. Not what judicial activists have subsequently claimed it means.
[/quote]
When he was on the Court, Hugo Black got one vote out of nine on con-law questions arising out of a case or controversy before the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court’s Article III powers. Me and you, we each get no vote on con-law questions under Article III. Sorry.
Edit: It looks like my post is behind the times on this thread.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
When he was on the Court, Hugo Black got one vote out of nine on con-law questions arising out of a case or controversy before the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court’s Article III powers. Me and you, we each get no vote on con-law questions under Article III. Sorry.
Edit: It looks like my post is behind the times on this thread.
[/quote]
Ironically, that case (Everson) was decided on a 5-4 split, just like the case in question that started this thread.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]
So?[/quote]
It’s also incredibly intimidating to pray in public. It’s much more intimidating to try to include verbal prayer in your life than it is to hear someone do it.[/quote]
Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.â?¦[/quote]
Different time and place. Written to a people who respected prophets and devoutly religious people. So then it could have been done for personal profit. Try standing on a street corner prophesying today and see what it gets you. Surely this message wasn’t against the ministry of John the Baptist, the Apostles, or even Jesus himself.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The procedure of government is not theirs–it is all of ours–and it should thus be free of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.[/quote]
This is my problem. If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure. The procedure must be established through morality the same way decisions are.
To derive a means of governance you must seek to establish which is better than another. So people have to leave their religious guidance out of the evaluation of the system? It’s the same thing as taking it out of the function of that procedure.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The procedure of government is not theirs–it is all of ours–and it should thus be free of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.[/quote]
This is my problem. If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure. The procedure must be established through morality the same way decisions are.
To derive a means of governance you must seek to establish which is better than another. So people have to leave their religious guidance out of the evaluation of the system? It’s the same thing as taking it out of the function of that procedure.
You are asking to resend the DOI.[/quote]
Morality should be left out it. Since it’s all made up, and subject to opinion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure.[/quote]
What? The procedures are written and spoken formalities. They are structure, like the umpiric procedures prefatory and attendant to a baseball game. They require nothing in the way of god for their establishment or sustenance.
Or are you turning this into an argument about objective and subjective morality vis-a-vis all law and governance?
[quote]
So people have to leave their religious guidance out of the evaluation of the system?[/quote]
No. As I’ve been arguing, their religious guidance is theirs, and they are free to govern–loudly and proudly, if they want–in accordance with their beliefs–this being protected by the First Amendment. What they are not free to do, so far as I am concerned, is to build their religious guidance into the procedural structure of governance–this, by contrast, being prohibited by the First Amendment.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
This decision sounds good on paper especially to those christians living in christian dominate towns. I have a feeling most of them would have a fast reversal of their opinion if they found themselves as a minority religion in some other town.[/quote]
This is definitely the case. A local school in our area has numerous bible type verses (and this is a PUBLIC school) up. Luckily for them it is small and almost all conservative Christians. One verse from the Koran and the news would be called.
This is not the school I’m talking about, but an example from my state of freedom of religion as long as you believe the right thing (Christianity LDO)
All that said I don’t really give a shit if a place opens up with prayer or not. If people need to bow down for guidance before they talk about some dog ordinance go for it. I don’t really think it has much place, but you’re not going to stop it.
The distinction being the meeting is not being held for the purpose of praying.[/quote]
This is a distinction, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Religion does not belong in the procedural structure of government. See my response to DoubleDeuce.
Again, this has nothing to do with offense. There is nothing offensive to me about religion, or religion in public, or religion in the ramblings of any person, elected or not.[/quote]
Sure it does. The elected official whose meeting you are paying for is carrying on the business of government with or without prayer. Since the 1st Amendment allows for the free exercise of religion, and no one is compelled to join in with the prayer, not one persons’ rights are being infringed upon. Elected officials have to right to practice their religion anytime and any place they so choose. To forbid them otherwise would engage in prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure.[/quote]
What? The procedures are written and spoken formalities. They are structure, like the umpiric procedures prefatory and attendant to a baseball game. They require nothing in the way of god for their establishment or sustenance.
Or are you turning this into an argument about objective and subjective morality vis-a-vis all law and governance?
[quote]
So people have to leave their religious guidance out of the evaluation of the system?[/quote]
No. As I’ve been arguing, their religious guidance is theirs, and they are free to govern–loudly and proudly, if they want–in accordance with their beliefs–this being protected by the First Amendment. What they are not free to do, so far as I am concerned, is to build their religious guidance into the procedural structure of governance–this, by contrast, being prohibited by the First Amendment.[/quote]
Nope. No one is being compelled to participate. Future councils are not bound to continue the prayer. No governmental business is being affected by anyone participating or refusing to participate in prayer. Your argument would be valid if, for example, a government entity refused to do business with a contractor because the owner did not belong to a particular church.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure.[/quote]
What? The procedures are written and spoken formalities. They are structure, like the umpiric procedures prefatory and attendant to a baseball game. They require nothing in the way of god for their establishment or sustenance.
Or are you turning this into an argument about objective and subjective morality vis-a-vis all law and governance?
That is not a sine qua non for First Amendment violation. I don’t know why you keep trotting it out. When your argument begins with and rests on an erroneous implication, your argument is meaningless.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That is not a sine qua non for First Amendment violation. I don’t know why you keep trotting it out. When your argument begins with and rests on an erroneous implication, your argument is meaningless.[/quote]
I think they are trying to argue that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted from an Accommodationist perspective, whereas you seem to take more of a Separationist perspective. In reality, neither group has ever fully been vindicated in their perspective, as the courts have reached varying opinions that seem to favor one perspective or another at different times. This ruling everyone is debating seems to favor more of an Accommodationist perspective, whereas the Lemon test, for example, originated from a case that took more of a Separationist tone.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
To forbid them otherwise would engage in prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
[/quote]
Another bad argument. Many people can be prohibited from freely exercising their religions in many circumstances. Teachers in public schools, for example, who cannot lead prayer in biology class.
Things aren’t as simple as reading the words and making a call. There is speech that is abridged. There are boundaries built around religious expression, especially where government bodies, officials, and laws are concerned.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That is not a sine qua non for First Amendment violation. I don’t know why you keep trotting it out. When your argument begins with and rests on an erroneous implication, your argument is meaningless.[/quote]
I think they are trying to argue that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted from an Accommodationist perspective, whereas you seem to take more of a Separationist perspective. In reality, neither group has ever fully been vindicated in their perspective, as the courts have reached varying opinions that seem to favor one perspective or another at different times. This ruling everyone is debating seems to favor more of an Accommodationist perspective, whereas the Lemon test, for example, originated from a case that took more of a Separationist tone.[/quote]
Indeed I am a Separationist. But my point above is a less open to interpretation. I think there are many things that a government can do which fall short of compelling people to pray or worship but which are still obvious violations of the First Amendment.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Indeed I am a Separationist. But my point above is a less open to interpretation. I think there are many things that a government can do which fall short of compelling people to pray or worship but which are still obvious violations of the First Amendment.[/quote]
True, but isn’t even a violation mostly subjective to how one wishes to interpret something that is far beyond absolute law?
We are left with two simple clauses: no one can argue that free exercise cannot be prohibited, nor that government cannot establish a state religion. Beyond that we have no formal constitutional fiat to go on, so if we’re talking about a mryiad of other things government can do, pay for, censor or promote, beyond those two, it’s always open for interpretation as to whether or not the First Amendment was indeed violated.
So if one is reading the debate from an accommodationist perspective, I would argue their point isn’t necessarily null and void. However, like most everyone else, I am not losing sleep over this and I see it as a fairly minor ruling in the grand scheme of First Amendment case - i.e., I wouldn’t call it a “landmark” ruling by any means.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Indeed I am a Separationist. But my point above is a less open to interpretation. I think there are many things that a government can do which fall short of compelling people to pray or worship but which are still obvious violations of the First Amendment.[/quote]
True, but isn’t even a violation mostly subjective to how one wishes to interpret something that is far beyond absolute law?
We are left with two simple clauses: no one can argue that free exercise cannot be prohibited, nor that government cannot establish a state religion.[/quote]
I presume that you mean “can” here.
[quote]
Beyond that we have no formal constitutional fiat to go on, so if we’re talking about a mryiad of other things government can do, pay for, censor or promote, beyond those two, it’s always open for interpretation as to whether or not the First Amendment was indeed violated.
So if one is reading the debate from an accommodationist perspective, I would argue their point isn’t necessarily null and void.[/quote]
I would respond that even the two short clauses we have are sufficient to unambiguously establish that the absence of outright compulsion is not ipso facto exonerative, even from an accommodationist perspective. Which in turn means that “no one is being directly compelled to pray” is not a defense.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If it is free of those things, there is nothing on which to establish a procedure.[/quote]
What? The procedures are written and spoken formalities. They are structure, like the umpiric procedures prefatory and attendant to a baseball game. They require nothing in the way of god for their establishment or sustenance.
Or are you turning this into an argument about objective and subjective morality vis-a-vis all law and governance?
That is not a sine qua non for First Amendment violation. I don’t know why you keep trotting it out. When your argument begins with and rests on an erroneous implication, your argument is meaningless.[/quote]
I don’t believe the 1st Amendment prohibits religious guidance in re procedural structure when the outcome is not adversely affected by it. Case in point, many judges invoke the name of the Christian God when swearing in witnesses, suspects, officers, etc. Some judges do not. Are you then claiming the judges who do invoke the name of God in a court proceeding are then trampling on the 1st Amendment rights of others?
It could be reasonably argued that a student who did not participate in daily prayers led by a teacher could easily feel compelled to participate for fear of a lower grade. Because the possibility an adverse outcome is a reasonable assumption for failing to participate, the action of praying is disallowed in that context.
Do you also not take into account the same Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights opened their legislative sessions with prayer? That right there should tell you most of what you need to know about the meaning of the establishment clause.
I don’t believe the 1st Amendment prohibits religious guidance in re procedural structure when the outcome is not adversely affected by it. Case in point, many judges invoke the name of the Christian God when swearing in witnesses, suspects, officers, etc. Some judges do not. Are you then claiming the judges who do invoke the name of God in a court proceeding are then trampling on the 1st Amendment rights of others?[/quote]
I don’t use words like “trampling,” but yes, I think appeals to god should not be part of courtroom procedure.
There are many other sufficient reasons for the prohibition on teacher-led prayer in class.
But either way, for me, it is a matter of Constitutional principle, not a matter of measuring adverse possibilities in particular instances. Just like–(and for anybody who wants to jump in here frothing at the mouth, note that this is an analogy and not an equivalence)–just like how there are no immediate, case-specific problems with the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, and yet I was, and am, against such killings as a matter of Constitutional principle.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Do you also not take into account the same Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights opened their legislative sessions with prayer?[/quote]
And Jefferson the slave-owner wrote some powerful words about the equality of humanity. Hypocrisy was among their vices as men.
