Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

hyper426 wrote:

Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it!

True....but religion is best undermined by the seperation of the church from State. A nation and people need to be honest in regards to that which they value the most...God or the State? One cannot say that God is the highest priorty or value in their life, while also being an advocate of the seperation of church from State. If one values seperating the church from the State, then their highest value is the State and not the Church.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K Ndugu. That's an interesting observation and I'm thinking about it, but initially I'm not sure that the analogy meshes with the issue of the First Amendment.

In my opinion, the First Amendment, as repective to religion, was to ensure that the state would have no ability to meddle with, interfere with, or regulate religion in any way. As long as that was the case, neither would the Church be able to interfere in government as government is prohibited from making laws or establish regulation respective to the exercise of religion.

Now the State did go on to write a definition for a church. A for proft business or a political advocacy group can't exempt itself from secular law by masquerading as a Church, for instance, and the bonafide churches are required to conduct themselves as good neighbors and within the confines of the secular laws that protects the inalienable rights of all.

My personal definition of 'separation of Church and State' is that what I believe was intended by the founders. Their intention was that Church and State coexist peacefully and side by side with neither interfering with the other.

0 Replies

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Ndugu wrote:

True....but religion is best undermined by the seperation of the church from State. A nation and people need to be honest in regards to that which they value the most...God or the State? One cannot say that God is the highest priorty or value in their life, while also being an advocate of the seperation of church from State. If one values seperating the church from the State, then their highest value is the State and not the Church.

Welcome to A2K Ndugu.

Many religious organizations are the strongest supporters of separation of church and state. For example, the Reverend Barry W. Lynn is the Director of www.au.org, an organization which defends church state separation.

History has shown us that both church and state are damaged by influence from the other. The first amendment is not just there to protect the people from imposed religion through state endorsement, but also to protect religion from the machinations of government.

0 Replies

If you can't get Ros's link to work for AU, try this one:
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

AU is probably one of the less-offensive advocacy group for removal of all religion from public places, but their practices and the stances they take are every bit as 'partisan' as those who attempt for force government to establish specific religious criteria or principles. Both I think are offensive and both have much more to do with ideology than with any principle of separation of Church and State.

(I have heard it said but have absolutely nothing more than hearsay to go on that AU is not really comprised of the religious at all but hides behind the Church and a 501(3)(c) organization to give itself legitimacy; still others suggest it is a closet arm of the out-of-favor ACLU to bring pressure on the churches. It is interesting that the AU and ACLU are 100% aligned on every issue involving church and state so there could be some basis for the suspicion.)

The devil is always in perception and application, however.

One doctrine is that a woman's right to control her own body means that abortion should be safe and legal in all circumstances.

Another doctrine is that life begins at conception and whether born or unborn, a life is a life and it is mujrder to intentionally destroy it.

These separate doctrines may or may not arise out of religious belief.

I would guess most athiests agree that it is murder to intentionally destroy an innocent human life while many religious are pro choice. Many athiests (not all) believe it is murder to destroy a guilty human life while many (not all) religious think there are times when capital punishment is just and appropriate. The point being that both athiests and religious are pro choice in matters of abortion and/or capital punishment and both athiests and relgious are pro life in matters of abortion and/or capital punishment.

So does it matter whether the attorney is deeply religious or athiest when s/he makes an argument before the Supreme Court for or against Roe v Wade or for or against capital punishment? Does the attorney's motives matter? Or is the issue itself all that is important?

Should it matter whether it is Christians or Jews who like to see a marble monument of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn or is it a matter of citizens of the community, who happen to be mostly Christians and Jews, who enjoy a particular work of art?

Would it matter if the majority of those who advocated leaving a community landmark in place, even one with religious overtones, were not religious at all?

I have no idea how the Supremes are going to rule, but I hope in their deliberations they come to the conclusion that it is not a presence of something religious that makes it illegal, but only what the people are required to do or believe as a result of that something religious. If there is no requirement, no expectation, and no reward, there is no First Amendment violation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have no idea how the Supremes are going to rule, but I hope in their deliberations they come to the conclusion that it is not a presence of something religious that makes it illegal, but only what the people are required to do or believe as a result of that something religious. If there is no requirement, no expectation, and no reward, there is no First Amendment violation.

It is indeed difficult to predict what side each justice will take. Reporters covering the Supreme Court often remark that in oral argument each justice may comment on both sides of the issue, therefore making it difficult to guess what position that justice will ultimately take.

For example, Justice Scalia is considered the least inclined to find Establishment Clause violations. In the oral arguments concerning the Texas monument case, the New York Times reports that Justice Scalia seemed unhappy with the grounds given by the Texas attorney general. The Texas attorney general defended the state's Ten Commandments display as having the secular purpose of "recognizing historic influences". Justice Scalia commented: "You are watering it down to say that the only message is a secular message. I can't agree with you. 'Our laws come from God.' If you don't believe it sends that message, you're kidding yourself."

0 Replies

If it's as simple as most of you seem to think why is the SC having a knicker twister over it?After all they know best don't they?

Generally speaking,throughout history,bodies like the SC come to decisions which serve the purposes of the legal profession.Rabelais has plenty to say on that.It's the economy stupid!Litigation as bean-feast.There's nothing new under the sun.Human beings have one track minds.
Keep paying.

0 Replies

Well while I have deep respect and admiration for Justice Scalia, I have from time to time disagreed with the side he took on an issue. I think in this instance he is both right and wrong. The purpose of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament was an expression of the Jewish belief that the Law is God's law. So here Scalia is correct.

However, all these thousands of years later, there are those in our society who do not believe that God gave the Law to the people; indeed there are those who do not believe in God at all. Some of these, however, can appreciate a historical significance of one of the oldest recorded legal codes available to us. But then I believe the true athiest is not bothered by religion in the least and considers anything religious as just another quirk of humanity.

Have you seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? There was one scene in which a small group of survivors were fortified in one room of an inner city Manhattan public library. They were burning books to stay alive and a young woman noted a librarian holding a Gutenberg Bible tight against himself and explained that he was protecting it. She asked him if he believed God was going to save him. He replied that no, he did not believe in God, but the Bible was symbolic of the beginning of modern civilization. If western civilization was finished, he was going to preserve at least a tiny part of it.

Of course the librarian was a fictitious character, but I see him as symbolic of those non-religious who can appreciate that religion is a part of human history and for good or bad is part of who we have become. I think such non-religious have no problem with a marble slab containing the Ten Commandments being representative of people becoming a people of laws all those many millenia before.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Justice Scalia commented: "You are watering it down to say that the only message is a secular message. I can't agree with you. 'Our laws come from God.' If you don't believe it sends that message, you're kidding yourself."

For a change, I agree with Justice Scalia.

0 Replies

Obviously the laws come from God.Where the laws come from is what we call God.

0 Replies

Boy, I see a trampling coming my way. LOL I disagree with people that agree with Scalia. To begin with, the court says that the government cannot endorse religion, but they keep doing it anyways. They have prayers before each session of congress and the supreme court. You guys are all hypocrites for supporting what Scalia says. If prayer isn't endorsing religion, why can't schools begin their sessions with a prayer, but state and federal legislators can? Hypocrites, I say!

0 Replies

How will the Supreme Court rule?

Foxfyre wrote:

* * *

One doctrine is that a woman's right to control her own body means that abortion should be safe and legal in all circumstances.

Another doctrine is that life begins at conception and whether born or unborn, a life is a life and it is mujrder to intentionally destroy it.

These separate doctrines may or may not arise out of religious belief. . . .

Should it matter whether it is Christians or Jews who like to see a marble monument of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn or is it a matter of citizens of the community, who happen to be mostly Christians and Jews, who enjoy a particular work of art?

***

I have no idea how the Supremes are going to rule, but I hope in their deliberations they come to the conclusion that it is not a presence of something religious that makes it illegal, but only what the people are required to do or believe as a result of that something religious. If there is no requirement, no expectation, and no reward, there is no First Amendment violation.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed that decision 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court made the same observations. There are those who oppose abortion and there are those who advocate for the woman's right to choose and their motivations (religious or not) will vary.

The Supreme Court noted:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Quote:

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps [505 U.S. 833, 851] in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that, where reasonable people disagree, the government can adopt one position or the other. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). . . .

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. [505 U.S. 833, 852]

The First Amendment commands the separation of church and state -- it defines the liberty of ALL to define one's own concepts / beliefs in the religious realm.

As with the issue of abortion, men and women of good conscience disagree on the issue of whether or not the State (or a political subdivision thereof) should display the Ten Commandments on public property.

Some will argue that a Ten Commandments monument is merely a work of art that citizens (most of whom happen to be Christians or Jews) just happen to enjoy seeing on their courthouse lawns . . . Others will argue that the monument is a governmental endorsement of religion that violates the liberty interests of ALL the citizens to form their own religious beliefs without governmental intrusion or influence.

People might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, or (in this case) disagree about whether the government should display the Ten Commandments . . . the Supreme Court has ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

When the State displays monuments of the Ten Commandments on Public Property, the State is sending a message of endorsement to all citizens who view the Ten Commandments on Public Property. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Compulsion comes in many forms. The display of the Ten Commandments is symbolic speech. Even if the government disclaims any endorsement of religion and tells its citizens that they can avert their eyes or simply view the Ten Commandments as a "work of art" or as a link in history of our laws . . . the government is still involving itself in molding the beliefs of its citizenry through symbolic speech. The government is not allowed to do so -- the government is not allowed to compell or enforce one view or the other. The government cannot claim that a governmental display of the Ten Commandments is not an endorsement of religion when so many people are of the view that it is an endorsement of religion in violation of the people's protected liberty interests to be free of governmental endorsement of religion. It's not government's place to mold the minds / views of the people in these matters.

If the Supreme Court follows the same rationale that it set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . . . the Supreme Court will rule that governmental displays of the Ten Commandments are governmental endorsements of religion -- something that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

0 Replies

Re: How will the Supreme Court rule?

Debra_Law wrote:

If the Supreme Court follows the same rationale that it set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . . . the Supreme Court will rule that governmental displays of the Ten Commandments are governmental endorsements of religion -- something that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

And if they *don't* follow the same rationale as set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will they be challenged on this inconsistency, or will it simply be accepted due to the differences in the cases?

0 Replies

Re: How will the Supreme Court rule?

Debra_Law wrote:

The display of the Ten Commandments is symbolic speech. Even if the government disclaims any endorsement of religion and tells its citizens that they can avert their eyes or simply view the Ten Commandments as a "work of art" or as a link in history of our laws . . . the government is still involving itself in molding the beliefs of its citizenry through symbolic speech. The government is not allowed to do so -- the government is not allowed to compell or enforce one view or the other. The government cannot claim that a governmental display of the Ten Commandments is not an endorsement of religion when so many people are of the view that it is an endorsement of religion in violation of the people's protected liberty interests to be free of governmental endorsement of religion. It's not government's place to mold the minds / views of the people in these matters.

If I can play devils advocate regarding the statement above for a moment... What if a group of people, even a small group, feel that any arbitrary symbol, for example a statue, represents something religious to them. For example, what if native americans saw all pictures of Bald Eagles as something religious. How would the court differentiate an argument for leaving Bald Eagles and removing Ten Commandments?

0 Replies

Bald eagles is a very bad example; try something else. Most of us see eagle feathers on chief's headdress.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bald eagles is a very bad example; try something else. Most of us see eagle feathers on chief's headdress.

That's exactly why I used them as an example. There actually *is* a religious connection with Eagles, albeit one which most of the population isn't aware of.

0 Replies

Or going to something even more closely related, there is an enormous (and beautiful) bronze sculpture of a Roman God gracing the main corridor of the municipally owned Albuquerque airport. Nobody, not Christians, not Jews, not athiests, nobody has objected to this sculpture with obvious religious underpinnings.

Would a marble sculpture depicting the Ten Commandments in this same spot be acceptable? It is on government property.

Would the bronze sculpture of the Roman God be acceptable in front of the courthouse?

How about a painting of a peace pipe, ceremonial headdress, and a kiva background, all symbolic of the Navajo and Hopi faith here? Acceptable? They're all over the place and I can't think of anybody, even the most rabidly fundamental Christians, who object to them.

I still think a live and let live approach to this stuff is absolutely the only way to go.

0 Replies

Indians are more touchy about their burial grounds.

0 Replies

Re: How will the Supreme Court rule?

rosborne979 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
If the Supreme Court follows the same rationale that it set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . . . the Supreme Court will rule that governmental displays of the Ten Commandments are governmental endorsements of religion -- something that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

And if they *don't* follow the same rationale as set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will they be challenged on this inconsistency, or will it simply be accepted due to the differences in the cases?

It will be interesting to read the Court's rationale for whatever decision it issues. I expect the Court to rule that the State may not erect a monument to the Ten Commandments on public grounds. If the Court rules otherwise, I will be astonished.

On the other hand, the bald eagle is our national emblem. To our nation, the bald eagle represents soaring freedom. I don't see any separation of church and state issue if the government displays our national emblem.

0 Replies

they used that example to show that you can't please everyone, and religion can be found in almost every nook and cranny of the state. You just have to really want to exterminate it, and be only in that mindset, to find it.

0 Replies

they used that example to show that you can't please everyone, and religion can be found in almost every nook and cranny of the state. You just have to really want to exterminate it, and be only in that mindset, to find it.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know