5
   

Separation of State and Church?

 
 
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 02:49 pm
I don't think so. I don't see congress establishing a religion here. Do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 7,044 • Replies: 168

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 03:53 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
while i agree with the general principle, i'd feel more comfortable if the person complaining was an upcoming attendee, not one from last year, they went and got graduated, get over it
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 03:58 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I don't think so. I don't see congress establishing a religion here. Do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/


The establishment clause applies to local government as well as congress (incorporated through the fourteenth amendment).
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 03:58 pm
@djjd62,
I don't think it's unconstitutional. I don't see a violation of the first amendment anywhere in this. Could someone who disagrees with me please point it out.

Amendment I

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.


0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 03:59 pm
@wandeljw,
Please show me the part you're talking about.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:05 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Incorporation through the fourteenth amendment is established by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:22 pm
@wandeljw,
Wikipedia is not a credible or scholarly source according to the founder of the site and many college professors.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305

I don't think that ruling is going to have any bearing on this case.
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:28 pm
@wandeljw,
jeeez, didn't you check the renaldo TOS Rolling Eyes
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:33 pm
@djjd62,
Gee, I didn't know that I was the founder of Wikipedia. It's a sad commentary on your site that an ignorant old fart like me has to tell you something that happened 5 years ago. Are you ding bats that far behind around here?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:41 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
i didn't say you were, i was commenting on your (seeming) TOS for replying in your threads

as for what the founder of wiki says, i don't know the man, and since he's never told me this in person, i'm gonna take his implied advice, and not believe something i read on the intertubes Wink
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:44 pm
@djjd62,
What do you mean by TOS?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:46 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
terms of service
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:48 pm
@djjd62,
That's the way it is. No one is forced to deal with me. If you want to deal with me then there are certain requirements. It's entirely your choice. Now how American is that?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:50 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
i thank , well not god exactly, whatever i believe in, which i guess is nothing if i'm honest, everyday i'm not an american
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:53 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I don't think so. I don't see congress establishing a religion here. Do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/
Well; they do, just by allowing them tax free status; and for their part organized religions are the support of Government, law, and order as much as in Medieval England...
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 04:54 pm
@djjd62,
That makes two of us. We agree.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:11 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
The Everson v Board of Ed is also on the Cornell Law School site. Wiki merely clipped it.

Let it go to scourt since the tickets are printed. The ACLU cannot STOP the proceedings because the violation would merely repeat the case claim.
Sometimes these issues can get mighty fine in their interpretations. Its the same Amendment that made the town of West Chester Pa. remove the ten commandments from the court house facade.

There is no half a pie on this issue, its all in or all out. Weve fought the fight to keep Creationism out of Public SChool science based upon the same clause of the firt Amendment. If the USSC wants to parse this out line by line, it could be a very interesting couple of years for the Roberts court.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 11:18 am
In my opinion, some taxpayers might not want their tax dollars spent in an endeavor (education) that results in a graduation in such a symbolic auditorium that exudes the Christian (Protestant) faith? However, the fact that the graduation is in that auditorium might also correlate, to a subtle message, to non-Christians that they might not be "comfortable" in that community. In the U.S.A. we cannot build walls around townships. A graduation in such a symbol of Christianity may be just as effective as a wall?

As long as social status correlates to the ability to cloister oneself, and family, amongst those of a similar ilk, I believe, this type of situation will continue to make the news periodically. Especially since the diverse demographic from urban America will, in the coming decades, be moving into the hinterland, I believe.

Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 03:38 pm
@Foofie,
They've been holding the graduations in that building for 70 years with no problem. One person is offended. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. Just another example of the far left wanting to control a free people.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 06:11 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

They've been holding the graduations in that building for 70 years with no problem. One person is offended. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. Just another example of the far left wanting to control a free people.
People do have a right, whether or not it is allowed to them, to say how their tax money is spent, and the argument should be made by those who would spend it that it is going to serve all the people... There are some people who do not want to see their tax dollars go to support abortions, and since they have a perfectly good moral argument against abortion, they are right to object... Some people do not like war... Some people are okay with defensive war and not offensive war... Some people are okay with prisons but disagree with capital punishment... What their morality demands they should be allowed...

If it were possible to even approximate the cost of war or capital punishment I doubt either would have much support; but on the basis of morality no state has the authority, freely given, to be more immoral that the people it would rule...People can only give to the state the power they have as individuals... If, for example, no one has the power to kill, then that authority cannot be given to the state... If two people, or three do not have the power to kill, then they together cannot give to the state that authority...It is the moral argument that should win since the state should represent our highest morality, and the reason for this is simple... The state has its authority from the people governed, but not one single person can keep an eye on it at all times, and with the state being like a corporation, and immortal people are born into it, and die in it, and so never have individual control over it... Yet the state may control them, and if it is a force for immorality, then the people and their liberty are threatened...

To give the churches their liberty, and to threaten none of them with a state religion is not the same as supporting them as social and political clubs with tax breaks... It is a small edge, but tax free status is a tax shelter... If churches were held to the same standards as charities, many would fold... Most seem to only help themselves... Few seem to represent any forward thinking, modern, or progressive action... To say they are conservative is incorrect for they are reactionary... There should be no freedom of religion... By that I mean: people should have the right to meet and talk and even pray as they see fit... Any support given the churches tends to establish them more firmly in our lives, and the proof of the good they do is how much the rest of society must struggle for their daily bread... They do not good... They help themselves...They threaten our rights and support injustice... They should not be allowed to incorporate, own property, or evade taxes...
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Separation of State and Church?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 11:27:43