seperation of church and state

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:38 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

No Slek, not when you have read some of the rulings. Want to know which one started it?

Gitlow v. New York 1925

link: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/gitlow.html

But Gitlow did not deal with religion. That was picked up in 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut:

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/cantwell%20v%20connecticut.html

In Cantwell v. Connecticut the first mention of the "Due Process Clause" of the 14th Amendment happened. In no prior texts had the name "Due Process Clause" ever entered into any historical text or rulings. The ruling does not even explain what the due process clause is, it just says that the state of Connecticut violated it. Keep in mind, the 14th Amendment deals primarily with fair elected representation in government (who can be a senator or house member, etc.). The "Due Process Clause" consists of the following: "nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law." Now, keep in mind, Cantwell was convicted of soliciting for money for a religious purpose without getting a permit. I am not sure how he was deprived of life, liberty, or property. He was eligable to get a permit, he just chose not to.

That was the start of the trend on religious rulings that were contrary to the US Constitution. They snowballed to where they are today.

ICKIMORE

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

Want more cases Slek, or is that enough for now?

ICKIMORE

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:06 am Post subject:

You haven't told us how, why or what this has to do with the misinterpretation of the 1st amendment that you claim was the basis for this thread.

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

OK, more cases, but it's getting boring going through these cases for you, you should do your own research to see the timeline of events that led to the liberal interpretations we have today.

In Everson v. Board of Education 1947:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1

The Board of Education of Ewing, New Jersey was paying a portion of the costs of busing kids to non-public schools, including religious schools. The court was kind enough to lay out a ton of ammunition for courts to cite today when they decide things, but in the end, they voted for the Board of Education. They first ruled on the "Due Process of the 14th Amendment" argument. They explained how due process would be required by the 14th amendment, and they explained it was not needed in this case because the state was paying for students to be bused to non-religious schools as well. Their reasoning for coming up with this is flawed in my view, because the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with religion. The actual word "religion" isn't even used in the 14th Amendment. If the court would have followed the prior example of the Cantwell v. Connecticut ruling they would have voted against the Board of Education on the 14th Amendment ruling.

Then the ruling went on to discuss the history behind the "establishment clause", how it was designed to eliminate the possibility of taxation for the established religion as had happened in Virginia in colonial days, and for which James Madison argued vehemently against at the time. The contention is that a religion does not need a tax to be supported, for it should be supported by the parishoners. The ruling then explained what the establishment clause means in the US Constitution:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

Now that definition, which is an interpretation of 16 words within the US Constitution, certainly is rather lengthy and detailed. It is amazing to me how much detail they were able to acheive from just 16 words. Isn't that amazing to you?

ICKIMORE

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

Now tell me, how does a plaque at the Grand Canyon National Park relate to the definition as defined by the wacky US Supreme Court?

ICKIMORE

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

Here is the first case where the term "seperation of church and state" was used. Here is the context of that term:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

It was in Reynolds v. United States 1875

It was a polygamy case in which a man was on trial for polygamy in the state of Utah and his claim was that it was his religious right.

here is the link:

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mazur/courses/documents/Reynolds.html

Now read all those cases real good Slek, and tell me if it all adds up as you had thought if you would.

ICKIMORE

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:49 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

You need me to spell it out for ya, ok, no problem. But keep in mind, I have put everything in quotes that was NOT in my own words. I hand typed my interpretations of the rulings for you already, in my own words.

In any case, let us understand the statement within the constitution that is in question here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The question has come up with the 14th Amendment and taxes coinciding with the establishment clause. In my view, this is a stretch on both accounts. The 14th Amendment "Due Process Clause" was clearly meant to keep the government from subjugating the people through force and intimidation. Just read the context within which it is written. It is not a clause on taxation, but a clause on protecting the people's "life, liberty, and property" from an unruly government.

As for the first amendment's "establishment clause", unless there is a law that specifically benefits or specifically goes against one particular religion it does not apply. You have the ACLU successfully getting plaques removed from the Grand Canyon National Park in the name of the "establishment clause" in today's society, and it is just going crazy. It really is. There is no established law passed by congress to place a plaque at the grand canyon, and without that law, it is not in violation. However, lower courts interpret the above rulings to mean that the plaque is unconstitutional because there needs to be some sort of seperation of church and state. They quote a phrase from a poligamy case that probably none of them have ever read before and try to pass it off as applying when a school puts on a temporary billboard after 9/11 "God Bless America". Come on man, it's gona haywire. It isn't base on the US Constitution one bit. Wake up and smell the coffee man.

ICKIMORE

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:50 am Post subject:

Sorry Icki', but you've got nothing substantial there except your opinion that the application of the 1st "is just going crazy".

IMO, as the Grand Canyon is a federally operated national park, the inclusion of biblical passages inscribed on plaques implies a specific endorsement of a specific religion by the government.

This, also IMO, is clearly unconstitutional as the 1st amendment was designed to prohibit the government from endorsing any "establishment of religion" in a preferential and/or advantageous manner.

As there is no possible way that the designers of the constitution could anticipate or predict the future of the US, the wording is purposely vague, therefore requiring interpretation by the courts in order to evolve with the times.

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

What law was passed by congress that called for the plaque to be placed at the Grand Canyon?

The word "law" in the "establishment clause" is NOT vague. Unless you question what the meaning of the word law is????

ICKIMORE

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:44 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

As I said in my opening statement on this topic Slek.....

The US Supreme Court has decided our fate on church and state, not the US Constitution.

So you agree with the entire premise I laid out in my opening statement on the issue Slek?

ICKIMORE

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:26 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

Slek, I interpret the words "congress shall pass no law" to mean that congress can't pass any laws. Not, nobody in government, whether in congress or not, can do anything that relates to any religion or potentially religious symbol. I do not see how the words "congress" and "law" can be confused to mean something other than as they are stated. There is no evidence at the time of the writing of the US Constitution that suggests that the framers of said US Constitution ever referred to "congress" as anything other than a legislative body. There is no evidence of any kind that suggests that the framers of the US Constitution ever referred to "law" as something other than a law.

Does that explain it for you?

ICKIMORE

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:30 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

What is your interpretation of the words: "congress shall pass no law"?

ICKIMORE

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

I got one more question for you Slek, a very direct question, that I am confident you will not answer in a very direct manner:

Did you read the case notes on Reynolds v. United States 1875?

ICKIMORE

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:53 am Post subject:

I addressed this already:

Individual states are not exempt from constitutional law.

How I interpret it matters not. But if you must know;

"congress shall pass no law" == "any lawmaking body, be it federal or state or county or whatever, shall pass no law"

Maybe you tell me how you interpret this passage:

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:55 am Post subject:

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

Slek, I asked you a yes or no question. If you are unable to answer in a yes or no fashion then I am unable to address your points further on this topic, for you are being disrespectfull to the person who holds the opposing viewpoint within this debate.

ICKIMORE

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:57 am Post subject:

And I said "nope".

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

then your opinion is uneducated.

ICKIMORE

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:06 am Post subject:

That may be the case, but the courts agree with me.

Hmmm... should I trust the courts or some irrational poster on a message board? Tough call! Mr. Green

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 321

I don't trust media or courts in general. I instead dig deeper to find out what really took place, to find out the real scoop, not what some group, agency, government official, or media form told me is the case. That is called being educated on a topic, you should try it sometime.

ICKIMORE

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3