A Victory For Freedom

[PLATO]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Nope, it's a constitutional issue.

"SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles
"
Don't recognize it? I didn't either until a few minutes ago. It's from Alabama's state constitution.

Can't argue with that one

It is a de facto establishment as opposed to a explicitly stated establishment

I would think that there would have to be some form of compelling someone to do something for this to be true. (Even if it was as minor a statement that "they should look at that stone on their way out". It does not seem to me that a static display is in any way a de facto establishment of religion. In any event, Amendment 1 says specifically that Congress is barred and not the judiciary.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

A judge is an agent of "the government", thus he becomes "the government".

[PLATO]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yes, but the courts have always interpreted it as "the government".

A good thing they don't choose to interpret it as "the individual" huh?

[Kuciwalker]

Were you trying to contest my statement? I was explaining why it wasn't limited to Congress.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by skywalker
Were you trying to contest my statement? I was explaining why it wasn't limited to Congress.

No, I agree with your statement. My point is that the court is using and has used interpretation to set a social agenda in the country. I feel that some of this issues would be better served at the legislative level where open discussion and accountability are present.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
A good thing they don't choose to interpret it as "the individual" huh?

When the guy wears a robe, he is bound by the duties of the goernment and its limitations. A judge could not post a huge banner advocating the election of one specific candidate in his court, why this symbol of one religious tradition?

At home and out of his robes, he is free to be joe blow citizen.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


No, I agree with your statement. My point is that the court is using and has used interpretation to set a social agenda in the country. I feel that some of this issues would be better served at the legislative level where open discussion and accountability are present.

I was talking to GePap... we must have posted at the same time

[PLATO]

GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

Your example is wrong. "Not selling booze on Sundays" is completely free of religious connotation (even if it was derived from the rules of a religion), thus it is perfectly constitutional. Give a correct example, and you'll be right. But I don't think there is one...

You can't be serious, why not ban selling booze on Tuesdays? Why just on Sunday? Btw, how can blue laws be completely free of religious connotation but still derive from religious rules?

Sava -

Berz, Floyd: aren't you guys state's rights advocates?

I'm not, states have powers, people have rights. But Floyd and I do recognise the 10th Amendment as part of the Constitution.

I'm sure if the SCOTUS struck down the dry laws, you'd be screaming bloody murder for state's rights. Give me a break.

You seem more inclined to make our arguments for us rather than your own. Since I just said blue laws violate the establishment clause, I'm left wondering how you reached the conclusion I'd scream bloody murder. How does this monument violate your religious freedom? You still haven't answered that one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

A group of individual brought a suit: by that very act, it was up to the courts to decide, and all the courts up to now have backed the plaintiffs in the suit. The judge could appeal yet again to the Supreme Court, which is his last resort. I feel though that he will lose again, ebcuase the plaintiffs are correct, he is breaking the establishment clause by putting this momument to HIS individual religious beliefs in GOVERNMENT property, as a working agent of the court.

[Sava]

How does this monument violate your religious freedom? You still haven't answered that one.

I answered this before... you ignored it. I only illustrated the state's rights issue to point out the two-faced arguing I see all too often.

[GePap]

It violates people's religious freedom becuase as a symbol in a public building used by the government, one can assume that it is government approved. That no other sysmbols are shown leads one correcty to think :hmmm, the government favors one religious tradition over another. But the government, under our system, shall have no favorites, becuase favoritism means treating citizens differently based on thier religious beliefs.

Either the government puts a sysmbol from each religious tradition in an equal place of honor (difficult at best, specially in this case), or it shows none, which is immenently simple. And no, we are not vioating the judges rights: employers can limit certain forms of expressiopns by thier employees. As a officer of the court and a government employess, while at work the judge has to follow government policy vis a vi. religion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
skywalker -

You can't be serious, why not ban selling booze on Tuesdays? Why just on Sunday? Btw, how can blue laws be completely free of religious connotation but still derive from religious rules?

Because the rule itself isn't inherently religious. There are secular reasons for its existance. For example, if a majority, or even just a significant number, of people have church on Sundays, it would cause severe problems if they got in trouble for going to church instead of work. Thus, the law is making things convenient for a lot of people, yet not promoting religion.

Plus sunday is a weekend

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
GePap, What I am trying to get across is that the judiciary does not need to engage in interpretation. It should adhere to strict construction. Why? Because their is NO appeal from the judicial branch other than a constitutional amendment (which itself would be subject to interpretation!). Un less the Constitution specifically states it, then the court should not rule on it. Legislators are fully capable of mandating that the government should not be involved with the association of religion. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution says the "Congress". Beyond that it sayeth not.

Interpretation is the PURPOSE of the judiciary...

EDIT: On another note, I'd like to point out that it doesn't MATTER whether or not it violates religious freedom. It matters whether it violotes the Consitution, which also prohibits a state-sponsored religion.