Separation of Church and State

[Terra Nullius]

Oooh. Molly and theocracy!!!

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels!

I would have thought it plainly obvious that the existence of a multiplicity of religious establishments, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and so on, would have shown that no religionist was in dire need of having to use state property to display their religious zeal.

Maybe so.

However, christians are bound by religious duty to "go out to all the world and preach the Good News." Who is to say that installing a manger on public land is not considered by some people as part of fulfilling that religious duty? Should the state prohibit them from freely practising their faith?

Of course other sects may get kinda thingy about graven images. By prohibiting/allowing public displays of religion, isn't the state going to be forced into taking sides one way or the other?

And, just cos the whole manger thing is getting really tired by now,..
what if my religion requires me to perform baptisms in a river or to set up a sweat lodge in a forest? Is that really any different to setting up a manger scene outside the town hall?
By Imran's interpretation, it looks like I'd have to go out and buy myself a river/forest. If the state prohibited use of its lands for any religious purpose, wouldn't that effectively be preventing me from practising my own religion?
(Not that I have anything against the idea of private ownership of land, of course! )

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't ask me about the Constitution, you asked me if a cross on a wall is coercive. It is not coercive. Whether or not it is constitutional depends on other factors. If a law was passed requiring or allowing only the cross that would fail constitutional muster because state coercion is involved.

I said if the cross on the wall is donated by a private company, like your manger example.

Where in that does it say the state must ban manger scenes?

The First and Second prong, which has been been seen by future courts and legal scholars as banning government endorsement of religion.

Does not aloowing a manger scene, by itself, advance a particular religion. And what is the specific secular purpose there?

That is the essence of the establishment clause. Notice how coercion is the key?

Why because you say so? Because one case says so? I don't think coercion is the key at all. I believe endorsement is the key, as Justice O'Conner does.

For example, say the state of Georgia declares Southern Baptist to be the state religion. No taxes go to it, the Georgia government just wants to declare how it endorses the Southern Baptists and what better way than to call it the state church. No coercion whatsoever.

Is that Ok?

the peer pressure created by the Pledge cannot be compared to what some overly sensitive atheist feels at the sight of a manger scene, nor can you equate the Pledge with whatever peer pressure an atheist feels knowing most of his neighbors are religious.

Yeah, and when I talk about the peer pressure applied by its neighbors being a certain religion, then you can bring that sentance up. I'm talking about the peer pressure of having a particular religion's symbol on public land, indicating a government endorsement. That peer pressure is akin to the pledge. Both indicate the government's endorsement of a particular religion.

Though somehow I have a feeling that this is going to be like that time where you insisted the free market has no coercion whatsoever. Ie, a disagreement with absolutely no bridging.

according to your logic, the gov't should ban Christianity because the knowledge most of the country is Christian creates peer pressure on non-Christians and that coercion isn't allowed by the 1st Amendment.

On public lands? Hell yes, or else allow everyone to have equal access.

Who is to say that installing a manger on public land is not considered by some people as part of fulfilling that religious duty? Should the state prohibit them from freely practising their faith?

In that case, yes. You can practice your religion all you want, just don't do it on public property. Or tell the town hall (or whereever) to install a prayer room or allow Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Daoists, Buddhists, etc, etc, to have the same oppertunity to freely practice their faith.

what if my religion requires me to perform baptisms in a river

Most rivers allow anyone to do what they want (with the exception of pollution or damning it up), so there isn't an endorsement of one religion over the other. Hell, you could hold a Satanist sermon in a river and not have to get permit. Putting a display in front of town hall requires permission. I don't know of any town hall that says you can put whatever the Hell you want in front of town hall. If it said that and you put up a manger and the Jews put up a star of David and the Hindus put up a statue of Vishnu and everyone esle could put up anything and not get hassled, then it'd be fine, but it doesn't work that way.

[Zkribbler]

Zkribbler, J. -- I concur.

[Berzerker]

I said if the cross on the wall is donated by a private company, like your manger example.

I dont recall anything about a private company, just a cross on a school wall. Anyway, you have your answer.

The First and Second prong, which has been been seen by future courts and legal scholars as banning government endorsement of religion.

Quote it, the way you guys interpret things doesn't inspire confidence.

Does not aloowing a manger scene, by itself, advance a particular religion. And what is the specific secular purpose there?

Of course, so does the existence of a church and preachers. Can we ban religious speech in public now because it advances a particular religion? Congress shall make no law... You guys keep leaving that out of your interpretation. That last part looks like you've mis-interpreted the first prong:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose

What statute are we talking about, Imran? There is no law involved, just an expression of religiousity on public land by private citizens. That first prong was the courts BS to restrict religious liberty, not define the establishment clause. Thats the argument the feds have used to ban religious practices they dont like, usually involving drugs. So the court says Congress can ban drugs (without any religious exceptions) - a secular purpose - even though that law clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion. They turned "Congress shall make no law" into "Congress shall do whatever it likes in the name of secularism".

Why because you say so? Because one case says so? I don't think coercion is the key at all. I believe endorsement is the key, as Justice O'Conner does.

Ah, so molly posted a quote that helps my case, not yours. Okay, where did O'Connor say the feds must ban mangers scenes? I want to see her argument that "Congress shall make no law" is to be ignored. No Imran, even she must have said a law that effectively endorses religion is unconstitutional. That doesn't help your argument, you think no law need exist. If I burn a flag on public land, is the gov't endorsing my symbolism? Oh, but when its a manger scene, then gov't is endorsing my religion.

For example, say the state of Georgia declares Southern Baptist to be the state religion. No taxes go to it, the Georgia government just wants to declare how it endorses the Southern Baptists and what better way than to call it the state church. No coercion whatsoever. Is that Ok?

As long as they dont make any law, they can call themselves whatever they want. The Prez endorses Christianity, has he violated the Constitution? He could even say our gov't is a Christian gov 't and it still wouldn't matter. Why? No law...

Yeah, and when I talk about the peer pressure applied by its neighbors being a certain religion, then you can bring that sentance up. I'm talking about the peer pressure of having a particular religion's symbol on public land, indicating a government endorsement. That peer pressure is akin to the pledge. Both indicate the government's endorsement of a particular religion.

Bull, the Pledge was enacted by law. It violates the religious liberty of teachers and coerces children into affirming a specific religious belief. A manger scene is not a law, nor does it "ask" you to walk up everyday and stand before the baby Jesus and affirm your allegiance under the watchful eye of agents of the gov't.

A manger scene is coercive

Though somehow I have a feeling that this is going to be like that time where you insisted the free market has no coercion whatsoever. Ie, a disagreement with absolutely no bridging.

Wtf? You cant change subjects fast enough.

On public lands? Hell yes, or else allow everyone to have equal access.

WHOAAA!!! What? Everyone must be allowed equal access, i.e., put up their symbols? Thats my position, not yours. But, you dodged my question. Can we ban Christianity because the existence of Christians and their religion coerces atheists? You say yes on public lands but that doesn't address your claim atheists are being coerced by the simple fact so many people call themselves Christians. You're trying to equate gov't coercion with private peer pressure and the 1st Amendment addresses only the former, not the latter.

In that case, yes. You can practice your religion all you want, just don't do it on public property

So you would ban wearing crucifixes in public? Bibles gone from public libraries? Priests must wear non-religious clothes when leaving the church? No one can walk around the neighborhood singing carols? If the gov't banned speech on public land, would that violate the 1st Amendment? If a manger scene sends a coercive message, then all coercive messages must be banned. And since you say the majority's views coerce minorities, can gov't ban the public expression of popular ideas? There's no end to the nonsense resulting from your argument...

Most rivers allow anyone to do what they want (with the exception of pollution or damning it up), so there isn't an endorsement of one religion over the other. Hell, you could hold a Satanist sermon in a river and not have to get permit. Putting a display in front of town hall requires permission.

It requires permission because land is at a premium and safety concerns are important. But it appears you believe we should be allowed to practice our religion on public lands as long as we are out of sight. Perhaps we can speak freely on public lands as long as we are out of earshot of everyone else? You guys dont understand this is not just a religious matter, its about freedom of speech. This is about a minority banning the majority's message, I thought the left was big on freedom of speech...

I don't know of any town hall that says you can put whatever the Hell you want in front of town hall. If it said that and you put up a manger and the Jews put up a star of David and the Hindus put up a statue of Vishnu and everyone esle could put up anything and not get hassled, then it'd be fine, but it doesn't work that way.

So our religious liberty now depends on a-holes who hassle religious minorities? Do slanderers nullify our freedom of speech as well? Ban commerce because of frauds? No cars because of drunk drivers?

What in the hell is going on with these posts, its in duplicate or triplicate

[Imran Siddiqui]

What statute are we talking about, Imran?

It would behoove you to actually read my posts. I have shown you a case (Everson) where "Congress shall make no law" has been interpreted as any state action when the 14th Amendment applied it to the states. After all, the states don't have a Congress.

Thats the argument the feds have used to ban religious practices they dont like, usually involving drugs. So the court says Congress can ban drugs (without any religious exceptions) - a secular purpose - even though that law clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion. They turned "Congress shall make no law" into "Congress shall do whatever it likes in the name of secularism".

When you say **** like this, you show your ignorance of the law. The banning religious drug use case (the Smith case) was ruled on the basis of neutrality, not a law with a secular purpose (the Lemon test has NO application here, so saying that's the justification used to ban religious drug use is silly). Justice Scalia articulated a standard that a neutral, generally applicable law does not need to adhere to the 'compelling governmental interest' standard that laws that specifically target free exercise do.

As long as they dont make any law, they can call themselves whatever they want.

I'd imagine that 'declaring' a religion to be a state religion implies a law.

So you are saying that if a law is passed, then that law cannot endorse religion also? Because that law wouldn't have any coercive effects according to you.

And if a private group has to get permission from a town council and they vote on giving them that permission, would that qualify?

WHOAAA!!! What? Everyone must be allowed equal access, i.e., put up their symbols? Thats my position, not yours.

No, that's always been my position (remember SLD saying that's because Muslims don't want to put up their symbols). But they DON'T get equal access. It's kind of like "seperate but equal". Works in theory, not in practice.

So you would ban wearing crucifixes in public? Bibles gone from public libraries? Priests must wear non-religious clothes when leaving the church? No one can walk around the neighborhood singing carols? If the gov't banned speech on public land, would that violate the 1st Amendment?

Apparently you ignored the second part, which stated (in essense) as long as everyone else can do it, its ok. All of those practices are allowed to be done by everyone. You are not allowed to just place whatever you want on the town hall lawn. I mean, you can do a little experiment and put a statute of a Koran on your town hall, see how quickly it gets taken away.

[Terra Nullius]

Thanks for the response, Imran

allow Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Daoists, Buddhists, etc, etc, to have the same opportunity to freely practice their faith.

You are not allowed to just place whatever you want on the town hall lawn. I mean, you can do a little experiment and put a statute of a Koran on your town hall, see how quickly it gets taken away.

Anecdotal
It wouldn't surprise me to see some level of bias, consious or otherwise. But to what extent is this really the case?

i) In a majority-christian population, wouldn't you expect to see more applications to display christian symbols anyway?
ii) Some sects are more disposed towards the public display of religion in the first place. We could promote fairness by seeing that every religion is equally represented, but it might be unreasonable to assume every sect agrees with a given form of representation.
The idea that everyone should have their own display just supports another kind of disparity between those who want to display their religion and those who do not.
iii) If the problem is one of bias towards/against a particular religion's public display, then it's really not a question of SoCaS is it? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to take action against such bias directly rather than raising teh hammer of church vs. state?

Oh, and quite frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a manger displayed on public land, so the idea itself seems a little odd from here. Exactly what sort of display are we talking about? What other forms of display are common?

[Terra Nullius]

Most rivers allow anyone to do what they want

I agree. The example is flimsy.
No permit required - no action by the state. Case closed

I'm just trying to find a good hypothetical here. Let's say a particular congregation became very popular. Let's say other people started to object that every time they went to the river for a picnic, some nutter was busy getting dunked.

Where do we go from there?
Should the state:
a) forbid gatherings of say, >100 people without a permit
b) thus prohibit the free exercise of a given religion
c) allow baptisms/ gatherings/ whatever upon the grant of such a permit

If the river is a popular spot, it might make sense to introduce some form of regulation. And if I understand your reasoning, as soon as any regulation is introduced, the river becomes off-limits to any religious group forever after.

You can practice your religion all you want, just don't do it on public property.

I may be jumping at shadows here, but I'm a bit suspicious of the correlation between practising religion and the ownership of property. Your logic seems to lead towards the conclusion that you cannot practice a religion without first owning private property.

Which brings up another matter.
What about churches recieving de-facto support from the state in the form of tax concessions and the like. Do US churches recieve any such benefits? How does that fit into your interpretation of SoCaS?

[Terra Nullius]

Yeah, because the religious symbol of one religion sitting in front of the courthouse or town hall doesn't exert any peer pressure whatsoever.

If you went to Muslim communities in Michigan and the town hall had a statue of a Koran in front of the building, but no Star of David or Nativity creche (or cross), I bet you that a vast number of Christian folk would be claiming how they are being coerced to believe in Islam or not be given a fair shake in front of the town council.

Sounds reasonable, but it looks like you're jumping to conclusions here.

If there is a display relating to a given religion, how does that prove that anyone is being dealt with unfairly?

Wouldn't a muslim, upon seeing a representation of christianity, take heart and exult that God is worshipped in that community? Surely a muslim, arriving at a courthouse where the Ten Commandments were displayed, would praise God and give thanks that their pleas would be heard fairly.

Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.
And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the
judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

There's such a thing as truth in advertising you know.

If the community is predominantly christian, wouldn't you prefer to know about it in advance. At least you know what to expect.

Sure, I have no doubt you'd have "christians" clamouring for blood if they felt they were being unfairly treated by a predominantly muslim council. That doesn't make them right and it doesn't prove that a genuine bias exists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
In fact, in the effort to be politically correct, there was a city in Florida that denied a Christian display but allowed a Jewish display.

You're such an idiot. The city didn't deny the Christian display for PC reasons but for religious reasons. It's a massively majority Jewish community that didn't want to see Christian symbols in their town, while allowing Jewish symbols all over the place. While I can understand the sentiment, it was clearly unconstitutional. After winning, however, the Christian woman who brought the suit wen't overboard and tried to put up a display that said, "Reclaim America for Christ!" among two others (each religion was only allowed one display after the settlement). That was also clearly unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, just a few miles north of there, here in Broward county, Christian fundies have managed to take over the religious studies department at Broward Community College, and require all students taking their courses to learn their version of Christianity without any other interpretations.

Yep, good times for all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I wish I were as smart as SLD.

Hit yourself on the head with a brick many times. Then you will be.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Wouldn't a muslim, upon seeing a representation of christianity, take heart and exult that God is worshipped in that community? Surely a muslim, arriving at a courthouse where the Ten Commandments were displayed, would praise God and give thanks that their pleas would be heard fairly.

Can you explain why, whenever an American court tries to display the 10 Commandments, it always chooses the Protestant version to display?

[chequita guevara]

The Framers weren't literalists.

[chequita guevara]

With all the damn churches all over the damn place, why do Xians need one more place to put up their religious symbols? Why can't they put their damned mangers on their own damned churches?

[Zkribbler]

Because they are trying to cram their religion down non-believers' throats. They need to go where the non-believers are. Plus, getting the government to back your play makes you more effecting in coercing converts.

[Berzerker]

It would behoove you to actually read my posts. I have shown you a case (Everson) where "Congress shall make no law" has been interpreted as any state action when the 14th Amendment applied it to the states. After all, the states don't have a Congress.

Imran, that quote from Everson is not about the establishment clause. Try reading it again:

The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom.

Its about the religious liberty clause that follows the establishment clause.

State action = law abridging religious freedom.

When you say **** like this, you show your ignorance of the law.The banning religious drug use case (the Smith case) was ruled on the basis of neutrality, not a law with a secular purpose (the Lemon test has NO application here, so saying that's the justification used to ban religious drug use is silly). Justice Scalia articulated a standard that a neutral, generally applicable law does not need to adhere to the 'compelling governmental interest' standard that laws that specifically target free exercise do.

My bad, but the quote you used didn't mention Scalia, Smith, or his standard of neutrality. The first prong refers to a "secular legislative purpose" and that is the effect of laws against drugs. Not neutrality, as you can see by the 2nd prong:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion

A law banning peyote inhibits religion, so neutrality is not applicable. But a "secular" law banning peyote is fine. The "compelling state interest" loophole IS about secularism and not neutrality, it is never used in favor of religious liberty.

I'd imagine that 'declaring' a religion to be a state religion implies a law.

Hard to tell what you meant since you referred to it as an endorsement, not a law.

So you are saying that if a law is passed, then that law cannot endorse religion also? Because that law wouldn't have any coercive effects according to you.

It isn't a law unless it coerces or compels us to act. So what does this law tell me to do or face jail time? I've already quoted the meaning of the establishment clause:

government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise

When the Framers referred to a law in "Congress shall make no law", they meant a law that coerces someone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. I already know most if not all of the people in my state gov't are Christians, so a "law" that says my state gov't is a Christian gov't doesn't coerce me to act. A "law" stating the obvious is, as someone pointed out here, truth in advertising. And no, the knowledge most of the people in my state gov't are Christians does not coerce me, nor does the knowledge most of the country is Christian.

No, that's always been my position (remember SLD saying that's because Muslims don't want to put up their symbols). But they DON'T get equal access. It's kind of like "seperate but equal". Works in theory, not in practice.

If you want equal access, why don't you argue for equal access instead of no access? And since you argued that manger scenes are coercive, why does equal access pass your test when non-believers will feel coerced (according to you) at the sight of all those religious symbols? You want to deny all access regardless of whether or not some gov't is denying equal access. You've cited the "coercion" one feels at the sight of a manger scene, and vandals/thugs who scare people away from putting up symbols, but you have not cited a law as the culprit.

Apparently you ignored the second part, which stated (in essense) as long as everyone else can do it, its ok. All of those practices are allowed to be done by everyone.

It isn't applicable to your argument...You said a manger scene is coercive, therefore should not be allowed on public land. How does adding a Star of David eliminate the coercion of the manger scene? Seems to me that just adds coercion for those who aren't Christian or Jewish. Equal access, which you claim to support (in theory), is not consistent with your argument that a religious symbol on public land is coercive. So Bibles in libraries, crucifixes, and other religious garb are allowed on public property as long as no law denies equal access? Thats your position? But when it comes to a manger scene, you call it coercive to deny their display.