Separation of Church and State

[chequita guevara]

The Framers didn't interpret the Constitution they way you do, Berz. They were loose interpreters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Doesn't the first amendment BEGIN with "Congress shall make no law..." Are you just saying that it applies to establishment and nothing else?

The first prong refers to a "secular legislative purpose" and that is the effect of laws against drugs.

The Lemon case had nothing to do with drugs, and the Smith case didn not use the Lemon test. You CAN'T equate them.

A law banning peyote inhibits religion, so neutrality is not applicable.

A law banning peyote for everyone is a neutral, generally applicable law. It is applicable, and is, in fact, Scalia's argument.

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.

You keep saying this, but your only reference is one case. Where is the Framers' wording saying 'coercion is what establishment of religion means'?

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 may want to read my posts next time. My standard for violating the Establishment Clause is endorsement, not coercion. So I don't care about "coercion" one whit. I stand with O'Conner, the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from endorsing a particular religion.

[Berzerker]

The Framers didn't interpret the Constitution they way you do, Berz. They were loose interpreters.

The Framers banned religious displays from public lands? And what is there to interpret about "Congress shall make no law"? Sorry, but the "loose" definition is much more recent. You see, those words now mean "Congress shall make no endorsement" and privately funded manger scenes on public lands must be banned because that is an endorsement.

Imran

Doesn't the first amendment BEGIN with "Congress shall make no law..." Are you just saying that it applies to establishment and nothing else?

There are a bunch of clauses following those 5 words, the first is the establishment clause followed by the religious liberty clause. The quote you cited dealt with the religious liberty clause...and those opening 5 words apply to all of the clauses that follow...

The Lemon case had nothing to do with drugs, and the Smith case didn not use the Lemon test. You CAN'T equate them.

I didn't cite the Smith case, you did. I pointed out how language in the Lemon case was an argument used in banning drugs.

A law banning peyote for everyone is a neutral, generally applicable law. It is applicable, and is, in fact, Scalia's argument.

Then a law banning the Bible for everyone is neutral. Scalia does not use neutrality as his standard, he uses secularism - when it suits him. But he doesn't want to use the word "secular" because he's a conservative Catholic.

You keep saying this, but your only reference is one case. Where is the Framers' wording saying 'coercion is what establishment of religion means'?

Coercion = law...Congress shall make no law... The 1st Amendment does not prohibit an establishment of religion, it prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion.

You may want to read my posts next time. My standard for violating the Establishment Clause is endorsement, not coercion. So I don't care about "coercion" one whit. I stand with O'Conner, the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from endorsing a particular religion.

You argued that a manger scene is coercive and shouldn't be allowed on public land. And you clearly tried to equate "endorsement" with "coercion" (the latter resulting from the former) so I have been reading your posts. Furthermore, the 1st Amendment doesn't say "endorsing a particular religion", it says "respecting an establishment of religion". So allowing any religious symbols on public lands would violate the 1st Amendment if your interpretation was valid.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Framers banned religious displays from public lands? And what is there to interpret about "Congress shall make no law"?

They also said Congress shall not abridge free speech or the press, and then turned around and did that merely a decade after they signed the damn thing.

As for what is there to interpret, any damn thing we want. I refuse to be beholden to a bunch of dead guys simply because they wrote a document. This is our government. We get to make the rules. It stopped being their government when they died. What they thought only means anything in as much as they could come up with a good argument that is still a good ardgument today.

Anything which expands the freedom of the people is a good thing. Not letting others force their religion upon me makes me freer. It makes them freer too, since I can't do it to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

and those opening 5 words apply to all of the clauses that follow...

Including the Establishment Clause.

I pointed out how language in the Lemon case was an argument used in banning drugs.

Um.. where? By who?

Then a law banning the Bible for everyone is neutral.

Neutrality is applied to free exercise challenges, such as the Native Americans who wanted to smoke peyote. Which is why you doubly can't apply Lemon, because that's the Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The natives didn't claim establishment violations in the drug laws.

Scalia does not use neutrality as his standard, he uses secularism

Yeah, Scalia is SUUUUCH a secularist .

Ever read his abortion or homosexual sodomy opinions (dissents)?

Coercion = law...Congress shall make no law... The 1st Amendment does not prohibit an establishment of religion, it prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The Framers would have been happy with an establishment of religion as long as there were no laws doing so?

You argued that a manger scene is coercive and shouldn't be allowed on public land.

Berzerker, you suffer from this disease where you don't realize when others are taking on your argument to discredit them, and instead think that they accept your argument because they believe it true.

And you clearly tried to equate "endorsement" with "coercion"

Yeah... um... not really. They are two different things and I've been arguing that the whole thread.

Furthermore, the 1st Amendment doesn't say "endorsing a particular religion", it says "respecting an establishment of religion".

Yeah, which is the same thing. Something "respecting an establishment of religion" = endorsing that religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Framers banned religious displays from public lands? And what is there to interpret about "Congress shall make no law"?

They also said Congress shall not abridge free speech or the press, and then turned around and did that merely a decade after they signed the damn thing.

POINT!

Interestingly, Berzerker's interpretation is at odds with John Adams and the Federalists, who, of course, are Framers.

[Odin]

Berz is a good example why strict constructionism is a joke. Getting ones personal biases out of judicial decisions is impossible.

[Berzerker]

chegitz

They also said Congress shall not abridge free speech or the press, and then turned around and did that merely a decade after they signed the damn thing.

And Jefferson won and refused to enforce those laws because he said they were unconstitutional. Was he right? Why? A literal reading of the 1st Amendment?

As for what is there to interpret, any damn thing we want. I refuse to be beholden to a bunch of dead guys simply because they wrote a document. This is our government. We get to make the rules. It stopped being their government when they died. What they thought only means anything in as much as they could come up with a good argument that is still a good ardgument today.

While I agree with that sentiment about binding contracts, the people in gov't are supposed to uphold the Constitution so the document does matter.

Anything which expands the freedom of the people is a good thing. Not letting others force their religion upon me makes me freer. It makes them freer too, since I can't do it to them.

And a manger scene on public land denies your freedom? To quote Eddie Murphy, "Get the **** outta here".

Imran

Including the Establishment Clause.

Umm...yeah...

Um.. where? By who?

"Compelling state interest" has long been an excuse to ban drugs. That is a secular argument.

Neutrality is applied to free exercise challenges, such as the Native Americans who wanted to smoke peyote. Which is why you doubly can't apply Lemon, because that's the Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The natives didn't claim establishment violations in the drug laws.

You didnt answer my question. If peyote can be banned by a "neutral" law because it bans peyote for everyone, can the Bible be banned for everyone?

Yeah, Scalia is SUUUUCH a secularist .

Ever read his abortion or homosexual sodomy opinions (dissents)?

I said he used a secular argument to uphold a ban on peyote but since he isn't fond of secularism he tried to hide his reasoning behind "neutrality". But a law banning peyote is not neutral, it clearly inhibits religion. Finish reading before thinking up more insults and you will save us both time.

The Framers would have been happy with an establishment of religion as long as there were no laws doing so?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What is the prohibition? No establishment of religion or no laws respecting an establishment of religion? What made them happy is another matter.

Berzerker, you suffer from this disease where you don't realize when others are taking on your argument to discredit them, and instead think that they accept your argument because they believe it true.

Does that mean you believe manger scenes are not coercive? You took on my argument to discredit it? I said manger scenes are coercive? That was your argument, dont try to attribute it to me.

Yeah... um... not really. They are two different things and I've been arguing that the whole thread.

You've been arguing that? I've been arguing that, not you. I said an endorsement without a law does not violate the 1st Amendment and you said the endorsement alone (privately funded manger scenes are this endorsement) violates the 1st Amendment. You equated a manger scene with coercion by calling it an endorsement, i.e., the coercion results from the endorsement.

Yeah, which is the same thing. Something "respecting an establishment of religion" = endorsing that religion.

"Endorsing a particular religion" is not the same thing as "respecting an establishment of religion". A number of religions say there is only 1 God, if Congress passed a law requiring us to pay homage to this 1 God, that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment because no particular religion was "endorsed" by the law.

[Berzerker]

POINT!

Interestingly, Berzerker's interpretation is at odds with John Adams and the Federalists, who, of course, are Framers.

John Adams was not one of the Framers, and I reject the notion that we must ignore what the 1st Amendment says just because the Framers were not unaminous on all issues or some went on to violate the Constitution. If that argument was valid we'd have to discard the whole Constitution.

Odin

Berz is a good example why strict constructionism is a joke. Getting ones personal biases out of judicial decisions is impossible.

What personal bias do I have and how does it negate my reading of the 1st Amendment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Compelling state interest" has long been an excuse to ban drugs. That is a secular argument.

WTF?! Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

If peyote can be banned by a "neutral" law because it bans peyote for everyone, can the Bible be banned for everyone?

Does banning the Holy Book of Christianity sound neutral to you? Banning mind altering drugs (of which peyote is one) is neutral. Now if they said we're banning peyote and in the debate it was done because those damned Indians, then it ain't neutral.

But a law banning peyote is not neutral, it clearly inhibits religion.

The law bans far more than peyote. Ever hear of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, ectasy? You think Congress has passed a law for every one of those drugs? Or did they just pass one law and gave the FDA control over the list of mind altering substances?

No establishment of religion or no laws respecting an establishment of religion?

The former.

Does that mean you believe manger scenes are not coercive? You took on my argument to discredit it? I said manger scenes are coercive? That was your argument, dont try to attribute it to me.

Do you deliberately act dense? Because it isn't cute, you know. It's just tiresome. Your argument was that if it is coercive, it violates the establishmen clause. I pointed out that manger scenes are also coercive, even though I don't think coercion is the proper standard.

Do keep up, will you?

You equated a manger scene with coercion by calling it an endorsement, i.e., the coercion results from the endorsement.

To equate endorsement and coercion, all endorsement must be coercion and all coercion must be endorsement. I believe all endorsement is coercion. However, I don't believe that when a town says anyone can put anything on the town hall grass that the coercive effects of having numerous religious symbols is endorsement.

"Endorsing a particular religion" is not the same thing as "respecting an establishment of religion". A number of religions say there is only 1 God, if Congress passed a law requiring us to pay homage to this 1 God, that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment because no particular religion was "endorsed" by the law.

Monotheism.

John Adams was not one of the Framers, and I reject the notion that we must ignore what the 1st Amendment says just because the Framers were not unaminous on all issues or some went on to violate the Constitution. If that argument was valid we'd have to discard the whole Constitution.

Adams, as well as Jefferson, wrote home during that time to the delegates and corresponded with those at the Convention. And many there were proteges of both men (and would join their respective parties which were already forming pre-convention). I think they deserve the title of "Framers", especially since they ended up interpreting a good deal of it in their Presidencies.

And the Framers weren't unanimous on all isssues! I never would have gotten that from your posts .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

What personal bias do I have and how does it negate my reading of the 1st Amendment?

You are a libertarian, and will, therefore, will interpret things in a way that will fit your ideology (like how you think the constitutions somehow doesn't allow social security or wellfare ).

[Berzerker]

Odin, you found Social Security and Welfare programs in the Constitution? Where? And yes, I'm libertarian. How does that negate my reading of the 1st Amendment? You're a commie, has your ideology led you to interpret the Constitution to accomodate programs you like?

Imran

WTF?! Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

Look at Hugo Black's definition of neutrality, that a law shall not advance or inhibit religion. This is required by the 1st Amendment. But a ban on peyote does inhibit religion, so it isn't a neutral law, true? How does Scalia get around this problem? He
adds to the "compelling interest" a different definition of neutrality - if the law applies to everyone, its a neutral law. Well, whooped-de-do, a law applies to everyone, therefore according to Scalia the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make neutral laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion". It aint a neutral law by Black's definition. But it is a secular definition, it applies to everyone without regard to religion.

Does banning the Holy Book of Christianity sound neutral to you?

Of course not... Does banning a Holy Sacrament of the Native American Church sound neutral to you?

Banning mind altering drugs (of which peyote is one) is neutral.

You said that, why is it neutral? Because the ban applies to everyone. Therefore banning the Bible for everyone is also neutral.

Now if they said we're banning peyote and in the debate it was done because those damned Indians, then it ain't neutral.

So banning the Bible is okay if no one says we should ban it because of those damn Christians? You've just re-written the 1st Amendment again, now its "Congress shall unintentionally make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion".

The law bans far more than peyote. Ever hear of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, ectasy? You think Congress has passed a law for every one of those drugs? Or did they just pass one law and gave the FDA control over the list of mind altering substances?

So if all religious texts are banned for everyone (including the Bible), that's a neutral law? What is your point? Peyote was banned, the fact other drugs are also banned is irrelevant.

The former

The Framers opposed the establishment of religions? Many belonged to established religions, they just didn't want established religions getting the power to make laws thru the state.

Do you deliberately act dense? Because it isn't cute, you know. It's just tiresome.

You think your insults make this enjoyable? Do you act like this in person?

Your argument was that if it is coercive, it violates the establishmen clause. I pointed out that manger scenes are also coercive, even though I don't think coercion is the proper standard.

So why do you deny arguing that manger scenes are coercive? You used a bad analogy, don't blame me. And that wasn't my argument, a law must be passed. And no, not "permission" to use public land.

To equate endorsement and coercion, all endorsement must be coercion and all coercion must be endorsement. I believe all endorsement is coercion.

So "do this or we might hurt you" = Toyota makes good cars?

However, I don't believe that when a town says anyone can put anything on the town hall grass that the coercive effects of having numerous religious symbols is endorsement.

If a manger scene is coercive to non-believers, then a manger scene and a star of David is coercive to non-believers. Most towns dont have the religious diversity to satisfy your requirement. What happens when the only people interested in putting up a religious symbol (a manger scene) are Christians? Too bad? That manger scene is coercing people? Add a star of David and no one will be coerced?

Monotheism

That isn't a religion, its a classification to describe religions with 1 God. Mono = 1, theism = God.

Adams, as well as Jefferson, wrote home during that time to the delegates and corresponded with those at the Convention. And many there were proteges of both men (and would join their respective parties which were already forming pre-convention). I think they deserve the title of "Framers", especially since they ended up interpreting a good deal of it in their Presidencies.

Madison and Jefferson were the force behind the establishment clause, not Adams. So why is he relevant?

And the Framers weren't unanimous on all isssues! I never would have gotten that from your posts

If you needed me to tell you, the problem is on your end.

[Berzerker]

" With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them." - James Madison

No detailed powers for Social Security or Welfare mentioned

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Well Odin, he didn't see those programs in the Constitution either.

[Terra Nullius]

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

Cos that's what the zionists pay them for!!

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Because they are bound by religious duty to cram their religion down non-believers' throats.

fixed

Plus, getting the government to back your play makes you more effecting in coercing converts.

The people are by nature fickle. it is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to secure them in that conviction. for this reason it is worthwhile being organised in such a way that when people no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.
Niccolo Machiavelli

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I refuse to be beholden to a bunch of dead guys simply because they wrote a document. This is our government. We get to make the rules. It stopped being their government when they died.

Not letting others force their religion upon me makes me freer. It makes them freer too, since I can't do it to them.

Meh, peeyotee / payotay.

Why waste your breath moaning at the crowd?
If every tongue was still the noise would still continue

I can understand wanting a state which specifically forbids proseletysing - by anyone at anytime. But that wouldn't permit a separation between church and state would it?