News Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?

[fifiki]

Again, I'm not assuming it - I'm reading it straight out of the law (in the case of the Schiavo law). The law does not mention religion and in its implimentation will not affect any religion specifically. That's what it means to have a secular purpose.

That's being very exclusive in your definition of secular purpose. As I've quote from case law above, it can go further into subjective motivations. The courts doesn't like to do it, but they do sometimes.

Ok, so when you see "secular purpose" you go back to the mind of the writer and his motivation. That is not what is meant by secular purpose - its still about the law itself: You can have a law that doesn't mention God but still has religious implications, ie a law about alcohol consumption/distribution could affect certain Christian sects that use it in communion even if the law doesn't mention God. That would be a law that looks secular at face value but in fact has a specific religious implication - but the Schiavo law does not do that.

Well according to the Supreme Court they do go back to "subjective motivations" of the enacters. I don't believe I'm misreading it at all. Scalia has never hid the fact that he wants to get rid of the secular purpose part of the test entirely and he bemoans the fact that it's so inaccurate to go into the minds of those who wrote the laws and what their motivations were. The majority on the other hand disagree with him. Why do they have to do this? To figure out the purpose of the law. For what reason? To make sure that it's was secular and they find that it's lacking when it was "motivated wholly by religious considerations."

I agree with all of that, as indicated above (and your example is a good one) - but again, that is not the case with the 3 issues brought up by SOS.

I know you've mentioned this many times, but I've never once said anything about whatever the 3 issues you're referring to. I'm also not willing to go back to find out what they are either, so I can't really say anything about other other issues. (I know one being the Terri Schiavo case). My only contention with you is about what I've said in the post itself.

Sometimes, laws are tough to interpret and to understand the intent of the law, you have to go back to what the writer said about it or how it is being implimented. That is true. But that is not imply questioning the beliefs of the writer of the law. Its still all about the law itself.

I've always said that when looking to in the legislative purpose/intent it might reveal a law written wholly for religious considerations. How can this happen? When the whole purpose for the law in the first place was for religious reasons. So I really don't see how one can just assume that the law is secular.

Ie, if the purpose of the gay marriage ban is to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the writer gets his ideas of marriage from his Christian beliefs, the first part applies and the second part does not. In fact, considering the source of the beliefs is a violation of the writer's religious freedom. The legislative purpose is that gay marriage is immoral and should be outlawed and the objective of the law is to preserve the sanctity of marriage. I don't see why this is so hard to understand - especially with regard to the Schiavo case, where I have provided the text of the law and quotes from the people who passed it, regarding their intent.

The difference with that example is that there was another purpose for the law that was secular. I can give you another example like that: the Sunday closing law. The Court once said that although there was strong religious origin for the law, it was constitutional because there was another purpose: a uniform day of rest for all citizens. But the issue we are discussing is when there is no other purpose for enacting the statute besides religious motivations. Besides which I never said that the Schiavo law was unconstitutional for violating the first Amendment.

fifiki, I think we're more in agreement than you realize (certainly more than I realized before), but you're arguing things that don't apply to those 3 examples given. I don't disagree with you on those other arguments, I'm trying to steer you away from them because they are tangential - they do not apply here: The implication of all of this is that the 3 examples given by SOS are not violations of the establishment clause and do not support the assertion that Bush is part of a movement to eliminate the separation of church and state.

Ahhh! Ok so I'm not even arguing about those other examples, so perhaps I'm on another tangent entirely. Well who knows, when Bush puts about 4-5 new Supreme Court Justices on the bench (which it seems likely he might), let's see what direction things will go. Assuming that they will be similar to Scalia or Thomas. But I do see your point though. So I will let y'all (or is it ya'll? This girl I know from the South is very adament that it's ya'll) discuss...on with the show...

 

[SOS2008]

The implication of all of this is that the 3 examples given by SOS are not violations of the establishment clause and do not support the assertion that Bush is part of a movement to eliminate the separation of church and state.

...the US Government cannot perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over another, or even favors belief over non-belief or the other way around.

As stated repeatedly, one can just violate it by chipping away at it, though I and many others do not want our taxes used to support displays of the Ten Commandments, or the teaching of creationism, or what have you. And in the examples given, I feel there has been favoritism of Christian belief over other/non-belief in regard to these issues and related laws.

As for Bush and his involvement in a movement to eliminate separation of church and state, why do you think he, along with Frist, et al, want to change the senate rule on filibuster opposition? It is so they can nominate fundamentalist judges at will in the pursuit of a Christian agenda. What do you call that?

 

[SOS2008]

What Clinton did was take an opinion poll before making just about any decision, and that is not normal (it had never been done before to the extent he did it), nor is it the correct way to lead a country. That's dereliction of duty.

Wha-da-heck!?

 

[russ_watters]

...I and many others do not want our taxes used to support displays of the Ten Commandments, or the teaching of creationism, or what have you.

And as we already discussed, those are clear violations that are always overturned by the courts. They are also isolated cases - unless you can show how Bush or the federal government are involved. For both of those reasons, they are not a threat to separation of church and state.

And in the examples given, I feel there has been favoritism of Christian belief over other/non-belief in regard to these issues and related laws.

There certainly is/has been. And you think there is something wrong with that? I discussed several posts ago why that is the case and why there is nothing wrong with it: the morality of the US Constitution is based on European philosophy, which is based partially on the Judeo-Christian morality.

As for Bush and his involvement in a movement to eliminate separation of church and state, why do you think he, along with Frist, et al, want to change the senate rule on filibuster opposition? It is so they can nominate fundamentalist judges at will in the pursuit of a Christian agenda. What do you call that?

Well, at least now you're only making a prediction - shall I take that as an admission that no such infringement has happened yet? That this supposed "movement" isn't making any progress?

Anyway, be specific: do you think if Bush gets to nominate 4 USSC justices that we'll go back to the pre-1947 (iirc) interpretation (freedom "from" religion), or even go beyond that?

Regardless, I think the new interpretation is too restrictive anyway: it outlaws things like the invocation at a graduation ceremony. Its a case where the two religious clauses of the 1st amendment happen to conflict with each other, but I think the new interpretation is wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

That's being very exclusive in your definition of secular purpose. As I've quote from case law above, it can go further into subjective motivations. The courts doesn't like to do it, but they do sometimes.

I'm not saying that they don't ever do it, just that the reason they do it (and the reason they don't like to) is that they need to in cases where the point of a law is unclear. Lawyers (or worse, Congressmen) never have been good writers...

Well according to the Supreme Court they do go back to "subjective motivations" of the enacters. I don't believe I'm misreading it at all. Scalia has never hid the fact that he wants to get rid of the secular purpose part of the test entirely and he bemoans the fact that it's so inaccurate to go into the minds of those who wrote the laws and what their motivations were. The majority on the other hand disagree with him. Why do they have to do this? To figure out the purpose of the law. For what reason? To make sure that it's was secular and they find that it's lacking when it was "motivated wholly by religious considerations."

We don't disagree on this point. In fact, I doubt even the other judges disagree with Scalia's main point: that it is inaccurate to try to get into someone's head. Its just that they disagree on if being inaccurate or difficult is enough of a reason to not try to do it.

Regardless, both views go back to how the law is to be used.

I know you've mentioned this many times, but I've never once said anything about whatever the 3 issues you're referring to. I'm also not willing to go back to find out what they are either, so I can't really say anything about other other issues. (I know one being the Terri Schiavo case). My only contention with you is about what I've said in the post itself.

Fair enough.

I've always said that when looking to in the legislative purpose/intent it might reveal a law written wholly for religious considerations. How can this happen? When the whole purpose for the law in the first place was for religious reasons. So I really don't see how one can just assume that the law is secular.

I still don't see why you keep using the word "assume". You never assume the intent of a law and I've never said otherwise: you read it in the law itself, or if the intent is unclear, you can go back to the writer and see how it was intended to be used.

Besides which I never said that the Schiavo law was unconstitutional for violating the first Amendment.

SOS did - I was trying to keep the conversation on point. In any case, we're not in disagreement about the rest of that paragraph.

Ahhh! Ok so I'm not even arguing about those other examples, so perhaps I'm on another tangent entirely.

Yup. That's ok though, because even the tangents allow us to explore different aspects of the issue (and frankly, you're pretty good at this, which makes it enjoyable/informative) - I've just been trying to relate as much as I can to the point of the thread.

Well who knows, when Bush puts about 4-5 new Supreme Court Justices on the bench (which it seems likely he might), let's see what direction things will go. Assuming that they will be similar to Scalia or Thomas.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Unless you guys want to debate the movie "Minority Report", a crime isn't a crime until it has happened. Orwell had a term for a crime committed only in one's mind...

 

[kyleb]

Funny you should bring up Orwell, he popped into my mind too when you argued that it is a dereliction of duty for the administrator in a representative democracy to attempt to represent his constituency.

 

[russ_watters]

Funny you should bring up Orwell, he popped into my mind too when you argued that it is a dereliction of duty for the administrator in a representative democracy to attempt to represent his constituency.

Wow, its hard to fathom how you could twist my words any further - you said almost exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

[Informal Logic]

And as we already discussed, those are clear violations that are always overturned by the courts. They are also isolated cases -

These things are not isolated or rare in any way. For example, there are many government buildings (courts, schools, etc.) in which the Ten Commandments have been and still are displayed. As with the current case in Texas, the argument of historical usage and/or that the Commandments are part of a collection/group of displays has been made, and as such these displays are not overturned and are allowed to remain. For those of us who do not want our tax dollars spent in this way, historical usage, etc., is not sufficient reasoning and we oppose this.

There certainly is/has been. And you think there is something wrong with that? I discussed several posts ago why that is the case and why there is nothing wrong with it: the morality of the US Constitution is based on European philosophy, which is based partially on the Judeo-Christian morality.

As posted above, so you are of the group who takes this position. Some people would like to remove separation all together. Many participants in this thread do not want government and religion mixed at all--once again regardless of historical argument. This is all that is being said.

Anyway, be specific: do you think if Bush gets to nominate 4 USSC justices that we'll go back to the pre-1947 (iirc) interpretation (freedom "from" religion), or even go beyond that?

Changing a historical senate rule would remove a vital check an balance in our system, which would open a door for who knows what beyond that, even just from a point of setting precedence.

 

[russ_watters]

These things are not isolated or rare in any way. For example, there are many government buildings (courts, schools, etc.) in which the Ten Commandments have been and still are displayed.

If its a personal display (such as in the judge's chambers, and we didn't pay for it), is old (hence, we didn't pay for it after the interpretation of the 1st amendment changed), or is part of a larger display featuring other examples of judicial history, then its not a violation, like you said below.

As with the current case in Texas, the argument of historical usage and/or that the Commandments are part of a collection/group of displays has been made, and as such these displays are not overturned and are allowed to remain. For those of us who do not want our tax dollars spent in this way, historical usage, etc., is not sufficient reasoning and we oppose this.

That goes into the same category as 4th of July celebration fireworks. Its not a 1st Amendment issue, and its fine if you oppose it. But I happen to like fireworks and don't mind paying a buck or two in taxes to support their purchase.

As posted above, so you are of the group who takes this position. Some people would like to remove separation all together. Many participants in this thread do not want government and religion mixed at all--once again regardless of historical argument.

Actually, that makes me part of the group that wants to preserve the intent of the Constitution and its moral basis. Its not about removing separation, its about keeping the same separation we've always had. In fact, it is you (and others in this thread) who wants to change the meaning of separation of church and state. I oppose that change for two reasons: 1st, I just plain like the Constitution the way it is and second, the change you and others have advocated is not humanly possible. People simply don't work that way.

Changing a historical senate rule would remove a vital check an balance in our system, which would open a door for who knows what beyond that, even just from a point of setting precedence.

A filibuster is not a "check and balance", its a procedural/burocratic game that thwarts the democratic process by preventing voting. I honestly wonder how you'd see the issue if the shoe was on the other foot

 

[SOS2008]

If its a personal display (such as in the judge's chambers, and we didn't pay for it), is old (hence, we didn't pay for it after the interpretation of the 1st amendment changed), or is part of a larger display featuring other examples of judicial history, then its not a violation,

The example of the Ten Commandments is a display on the grounds of the Texas State Capital, as is the case with many of the displays--not someone's personal office. That displays have been allowed based on historical usage is not considered justification for this display by those who want government and religion kept separate (and per the original post, 44 years is hardly historical in the Texas case in any event), but more importantly that taxes are used for purposes of this display.

That goes into the same category as 4th of July celebration fireworks.

Who has said this is a separation of church and state issue?

Actually, that makes me part of the group that wants to preserve the intent of the Constitution and its moral basis.

That's the whole point of this thread--the differing interpretations of the intent of the Constitution. We just don't agree on this.

A filibuster is not a "check and balance", its a procedural/burocratic game that thwarts the democratic process by preventing voting. I honestly wonder how you'd see the issue if the shoe was on the other foot

Once again, your interpretation. However, the filibuster is a system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years. That's right, when the Democrats have had a majority--So what do you mean when the shoe is on the other foot? More like I suppose the Republicans would want to change it back when they no longer are the majority again.