Scalia: Church-State Separation Did Nothing To Help Jews During Holocaust

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON (ABP)—The man who may be the next chief justice of the United States reportedly gave a speech in which he suggested church-state separation did nothing to prevent the Holocaust.

At a conference in November on religious freedom, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a lengthy critique of the idea that the framers of the Constitution supported strict separation between church and state. According to accounts of the speech from the Associated Press and the Jerusalem Post, he then pointed to episodes of American history that he said proved the government has always supported religion.

"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality (toward religion by government)," Scalia said, according to the Jerusalem newspaper. The kind of neutrality the framers intended, he continued, "is not neutrality between religiousness and non-religiousness; it is between denominations of religion."

Scalia contrasted that with the reticence of modern-day European leaders to discuss God or religion in public life. "You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or an Italian head of state," Scalia said. "But that has never been the American way."

Baptist Standard (http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2805)

"Scalia has an extraordinary way of not letting facts confound his arguments, but this time he's gone completely over the top by suggesting that a separation of church and state facilitated the Holocaust," Hartmann wrote.

Hartmann noted that, in actuality, church and state were closely wed in Nazi Germany, with German dictator Adolph Hitler going so far as to unite all German Protestant denominations into one government-controlled "Reich Church" and to appoint a "Reichsbishop," Lutheran pastor Ludwig Müller, to head the entity. Müller, like Hitler, committed suicide at the end of the war.

The Supreme Court distorts truth under Bush, Greenspan forgets everything he ever knew (and told Clinton) under Bush, Democratic party decides to abandon its progressive principles under Bush; the man's a big black hole for reality and principle!

[Hook Dem]

"The Supreme Court distorts truth under Bush, Greenspan forgets everything he ever knew (and told Clinton) under Bush, Democratic party decides to abandon its progressive principles under Bush; the man's a big black hole for reality and principle!" ........................4 good reasons for you to commit suicide Dan! NOW IS THE TIME!!!!! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

"You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or an Italian head of state" That's because they think they are gods.
The kind of neutrality the framers intended, he continued, "is not neutrality between religiousness and non-religiousness; it is between denominations of religion.And the kind of arms they thought everyone should carry were muzzle-loading muskets. So what?

[scott]

"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality (toward religion by government)," Scalia said, according to the Jerusalem newspaper. The kind of neutrality the framers intended, he continued, "is not neutrality between religiousness and non-religiousness; it is between denominations of religion."

I wonder which framers Judge Scalia is talking about... probably not the ones who said the following:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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."--Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."--Thomas Jefferson

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson

"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protections of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."--Thomas Jefferson

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."--Thomas Jefferson

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project."--James Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison

It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison

The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE."--James Madison

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."--Thomas Paine

"The adulterous connection between church and state."--Thomas Paine

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law."--Thomas Paine

And a little fun fact...

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

[scott]

Guess I got the wrong guys.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

nice post, and i was starting to dislike you, well i guess i was wrong...

[RobinsontoDuncan]

bump, some of the neo cons ought to respond here

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not holding my breath.

[Yonivore]

I wonder which framers Judge Scalia is talking about... probably not the ones who said the following:
Maybe, George Washington:

"It is the duty of all Nations [note: not only individuals] to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…"

Or, John Adams:

"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

Could have been Samuel Adams:

“He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.”

“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

Possibly John Quincy Adams:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”

Then, maybe it was Benjamin Franklin:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”

Quite possibly it was Alexander Hamilton:

“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

“I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

I don't know, could it have been John Hancock?

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations."

Patrick Henry?

"This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay?

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?"

And, what did Thomas Jefferson have to say?

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

[Guru of Nothing]

And, what did Thomas Jefferson have to say?

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."


Sounds to me that TJ was hedging his thoughts with the use of the term REAL Christian. Sounds like he was trying to differentiate himself from "common" Christians; or, maybe that was a line he used to hit on the hired help.

Are you a REAL Christian Yonivore?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think real christians call for the nuking of people. But hey, I might have missed that part of the gospel.

[Guru of Nothing]

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”


You can't always get what you want.

Sincerely, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny .... and TWINS!

[RobinsontoDuncan]

They were all deists

[RobinsontoDuncan]

and you cant say that just becuase christianity was the religion of the men in the constitutional covention ((100 years before darwin) (well minus a couple)) that they intended for the United States to be indistinguishable from the christian faith.

BTW we were also founded on...Slavery, the three fifths compromise, that women were subserviant (not even citizens) that indians were to be removed from their land, etc. but the religious right for some reason thinks that as long as a few founding fathers privatly envoked the name of christ, we are to blur the seperation of the religious and political.

Yonivore you are a very stupid man, and i hope you never get to public office. (if your a woman, your just as stupuid)

[Yonivore]

and you cant say that just becuase christianity was the religion of the men in the constitutional covention ((100 years before darwin) (well minus a couple)) that they intended for the United States to be indistinguishable from the christian faith.

BTW we were also founded on...Slavery, the three fifths compromise, that women were subserviant (not even citizens) that indians were to be removed from their land, etc. but the religious right for some reason thinks that as long as a few founding fathers privatly envoked the name of christ, we are to blur the seperation of the religious and political.

Yonivore you are a very stupid man, and i hope you never get to public office. (if your a woman, your just as stupuid)
The Republic would have never happened had they not reached a compromise on slavery...read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Many, including Thomas Jefferson, saw an end to slavery as being necessary for the eventual success of the nation -- but, given the sentiments of the late 16th century, they decided then wasn't the time.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

right but was the nation not founded on a constitution that allowed slavery yes. So.......... shut up. There is a fine line between tyranny and liberty, adding religion to the mix only blurs the picture

[dcole50]

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." -- Benjamin Franklin

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson

I can copy and paste quotes too -- how fun!

[travis2]

right but was the nation not founded on a constitution that allowed slavery yes. So.......... shut up. There is a fine line between tyranny and liberty, adding religion to the mix only blurs the picture

I see we have another Danallah/JohnnyTheNazi clone.

I find it deliciously ironic how in consecutive breaths he tells someone to "shut up" and then opines about tyrrany vs. liberty.

:rolleyes

[scott]

Thank you for the quotes, Yoni, and I was waiting for someone to post them.

The fact is for every quote for the idea of complete Separation of Church and State there is one against it. One thing is consistant, however: the Founding fathers did not want the Government meddling with religion, and they didn't want religious authorities (people, not "higher" authorities) meddling in Government.

[Extra Stout]

Thank you for the quotes, Yoni, and I was waiting for someone to post them.

The fact is for every quote for the idea of complete Separation of Church and State there is one against it. One thing is consistant, however: the Founding fathers did not want the Government meddling with religion, and they didn't want religious authorities (people, not "higher" authorities) meddling in Government.
The Founding Fathers no more had a consensus on the issue than politicians today have on it or any other issue. What made it into the Constitution was a negotiated compromise. The whole thing is a negotiated compromise. It wasn't as if they went to Philadelphia all of one mind and wrote the thing forthwith.

And the actual document just says that Congress can't pass a law respecting religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Nowhere does it say religion must be utterly shut out from the public forum. I would say that doing so would violate the free exercise clause, in that religious political activism is a form of free exercise.

[FromWayDowntown]

Governmental accountability to fundamentalist religious viewpoints is a good thing.

Sincerely,
The Taliban

[Extra Stout]

Governmental accountability to fundamentalist religious viewpoints is a good thing.

Sincerely,
The TalibanCall me back when you are sentenced to death by stoning for failing to attend church without an approved absence.

[FromWayDowntown]

Excellent job of finding an extreme example. I'm far more concerned about my government ceding to the religious/moral view of the social majority and, in so doing, curtailing the rights of the political, social, or moral minority. I'm pretty sure that happened in Afghanistan as well.

I find it ironic (if not altogether distressing) that my government is fighting wars to liberate people from the restraints of what amounted to dogmatic theocracy, while at the same time, fighting here to use the power of government to enforce largely sectarian views on the American people.

[JoeChalupa]

A country formed for moral and religious people. It didn't state any particular religion.

[Extra Stout]

Excellent job of finding an extreme example.Right. Because the Taliban is not an extreme example.


I'm far more concerned about my government ceding to the religious/moral view of the social majority and, in so doing, curtailing the rights of the political, social, or moral minority.If secularism was the majority view, religious activists would be claiming that their political, social, and moral rights were being curtailed.

Our democracy guarantees that the majority cannot obliterate the constitutional rights of the minority. "Constitutional rights" does not cover every little policy preference of the minority. Both sides, when they lose elections, like to pretend that all of their policy preferences are protected constitutional rights.

Our Constitution does NOT guarantee that a secular worldview must be the standard for determining public policy, which from my experience is what those left-of-center mean when they call for "separation of church and state." If that is what America wants, then America will vote for politicians who promise to do that. So far they have not done so.


I'm pretty sure that happened in Afghanistan as well.The Taliban was a small group of foreign scholars who mandated strict adherence to Islamic fundamentalist religious laws.

If I too were being intellectually disingenuous, as you are, I could conflate all secularist views with Joseph Stalin's regime in the USSR. But then I too would be full of shit.


I find it ironic (if not altogether distressing) that my government is fighting wars to liberate people from the restraints of what amounted to dogmatic theocracy, while at the same time, fighting here to use the power of government to enforce largely sectarian views on the American people.Most sectarian "oppression" here goes about as far as things like stem cell policy, or restrictions on obscene material, or public expressions of faith. Pretty much all of it is public policy, involving where the government allocates money, or striking a balance between personal liberty and the public good (which secularists do too), little of which involves constitutional rights, all of which can be changed at any point in the future if voters decide they want something different. It's just part of a free country.

What you want is that people of faith be excluded from influencing public policy, because you don't like their political views, and because your side has not lately had success against them in free elections.

In theocratic countries, religion invades into the kind of clothes you can wear, and the kind of house you can live in, and how you can raise your children, and what you can say in public, and what kind of education you can get, and the kind of job you can hold, and where and how you can come and ago, and punishes you if you don't follow religion in a way they say you can, punishes you if you read something or look at something they say you are not supposed to, and officially discriminates against people based upon their faith or lack thereof.

If you are comparing life in the United States to life in a repressive theocracy, then you are taking your privileges here for granted.

[Spurminator]

The US is about where it should be in terms of separating religion from public policy... I think that's why the most heated debates revolve around relatively meaningless (and silly) issues like the Pledge or displays of the Ten Commandments.

About the only thing I would change is the government's involvement with marriage. And I think government officials should be careful about citing their religion as an influence on their political objectives - as a matter of principle, but not law.

I do worry as the national debate over issues like these grows more intense, that the two sides will become more extreme and use whatever political leverage they have to push national policy to one of those extremes. Right now, a lot of Christians are "fightin' mad" about certain issues, and if power swings back to the Left at any point, it's likely that secular culture will fight back with a vengeance.

[FromWayDowntown]

Our democracy guarantees that the majority cannot obliterate the constitutional rights of the minority. "Constitutional rights" does not cover every little policy preference of the minority. Both sides, when they lose elections, like to pretend that all of their policy preferences are protected constitutional rights.

* * * *

Most sectarian "oppression" here goes about as far as things like stem cell policy, or restrictions on obscene material, or public expressions of faith. Pretty much all of it is public policy, involving where the government allocates money, or striking a balance between personal liberty and the public good (which secularists do too), little of which involves constitutional rights, all of which can be changed at any point in the future if voters decide they want something different. It's just part of a free country.

* * * *

In theocratic countries, religion invades into the kind of clothes you can wear, and the kind of house you can live in, and how you can raise your children, and what you can say in public, and what kind of education you can get, and the kind of job you can hold, and where and how you can come and ago, and punishes you if you don't follow religion in a way they say you can, punishes you if you read something or look at something they say you are not supposed to, and officially discriminates against people based upon their faith or lack thereof.

Or who you can marry (generally viewed as a constitutional right -- Zablocki v. Redhail; Loving v. Viriginia). Or what medical procedures are available to you (constitutionally protected right to life or liberty, whichever you choose -- Griswold v. Connecticut; Roe v. Wade; Cruzan v. Missouri). Or whether your children should be tought majoritarian/sectarian norms, beliefs, and values in public schools. (invading a minority constitutional right to free exercise -- Engel v. Vitale; Lee v. Weisman; Barnette v. West Virigina Board of Education). Those are, indeed, curious omissions from your recitation.

These are not merely public policy choices. The decisions made by the government to specifically address these issues -- to exalt the will of a sectarian majority over the rights of the political/social minority -- go to the heart of the Constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights and addresses, in particular relief, the precise reason for the Establishment Clause. No one is stupid enough to propose a bill calling for the establishment of a particular orthodox religion in this country; but many are inclined to propose legislation to rollback the rights of the minority in a subtle effort to ensure that a particular religious viewpoint endorses any initiative, regardless of its relative importance. Thus, if the former is impermissible, the latter necessarily is too. It is unprincipled to say that the latter is simply a matter of electoral spoils; constitutional rights ought never be subject to the outcome of a public vote.

These are merely the tip of the iceberg, but they are the first skirmishes in a battle that has undoubtedly begun. The ultimate result of that battle will determine if the Establishment Clause is a promise of religious liberty to all in every public setting or a shell that simply prohibits the establishment of an orthodoxy. Precedent certainly suggests that the Establishment Clause accomplishes more than a prohibition against a state church.

[Extra Stout]

Or who you can marry (generally viewed as a constitutional right -- Zablocki v. Redhail; Loving v. Viriginia). Or what medical procedures are available to you (constitutionally protected right to life or liberty, whichever you choose -- Griswold v. Connecticut; Roe v. Wade; Cruzan v. Missouri). Or whether your children should be tought majoritarian/sectarian norms, beliefs, and values in public schools. (invading a minority constitutional right to free exercise -- Engel v. Vitale; Lee v. Weisman; Barnette v. West Virigina Board of Education). Those are, indeed, curious omissions from your recitation.
The majority view is in favor of allowing recognition of relationships in order that people have equal access to property, visitation, and inheritance rights.

What the majority rejects is the official endorsement of the secular liberal definition of marriage over the traditional definitions.

The Constitution guarantees the protection of minority rights, not the exaltation of minority worldviews over all others. But since the liberal activists insisted upon achieving the latter, they so far have failed to achieve the former.

Some liberals argue that having separate arrangements is a form of segregation. But there aren't going to be separate offices for getting licenses, or separate tax forms, or separate judges for carrying out ceremonies, or any separate institutions whatsoever. There will be a different box that gets checked, and the civil arrangement will have a different name. If that is "separate but equal," then so is gender.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority opinion on abortion is to keep it legal in most cases. As even the text of Roe v. Wade admits, there is a balancing act between the rights of the mother to make her own medical decisions and the responsibility of the state to protect life, even in this case, prenatal life. This goes to what I mentioned earlier about the balance between personal freedoms and the public good, with this case having uncertainty about what the public good actually is. If an activist has religious motivations for placing greater weight behind protecting prenatal life, that does not make his position invalid nor an unconstitutional imposition of sectarian norms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mandatory, aloud, administration-led public school prayer is illegal. Only 22% of the population wants it to be legal. That is hardly a majority. Some schools frequently violate the Bill of Rights by prohibiting the free exercise of religion by students -- for example, disallowing individual prayers in non-disruptive circumstances, disallowing religiously-themed clothing or accessories, confiscating religious texts, denying religious assembly on school grounds, or discriminating against student-led religious organizations.

I agree with the Court in each instance of school prayer cases, and also in the instance of Santa Fe v. Doe.


But many are inclined to propose legislation to rollback the rights of the minority in a subtle effort to ensure that a particular religious viewpoint endorses any initiative, regardless of its relative importance. Thus, if the former is impermissible, the latter necessarily is too.There is absolutely nothing wrong with having one's religious viewpoint inform his political beliefs, none at all. Political beliefs stem from people's values, and for the devoutly religious their values stem from their faith. The penumbra of minority rights under the Establishment Clause does not extend so far as to proscribe any religious influence in politics whatsoever, as you appear to be suggesting. I submit that political activism is part of the exercise of religion for many, so that your idea violates the Free Exercise clause.

I agree with you only in those cases where activists are making a surreptitious attempt to encourage a state endorsement of religion in some form.


It is unprincipled to say that the latter is simply a matter of electoral spoils; constitutional rights ought never be subject to the outcome of a public vote.The Establishment Clause does not imply any right to protection from electoral decisions or public policies for which some people's motivation for support might have been primarily religious, so long as those decisions or policies do not violate any other rights.


These are merely the tip of the iceberg, but they are the first skirmishes in a battle that has undoubtedly begun. The ultimate result of that battle will determine if the Establishment Clause is a promise of religious liberty to all in every public setting or a shell that simply prohibits the establishment of an orthodoxy.If "religious liberty" means every person is free to speak his conscience about faith or lack thereof, as long as it does not coerce others to listen or participate, and that each person is free to participate in his own government per their own values and beliefs, be they religious or not, then I support that. If it means that the religious must be coerced into silence and into political disenfranchisement in favor of the secular, then I oppose it.

[JoeChalupa]

This is a case for the Supreme Court, no?

[Hook Dem]

"If "religious liberty" means every person is free to speak his conscience about faith or lack thereof, as long as it does not coerce others to listen or participate, and that each person is free to participate in his own government per their own values and beliefs, be they religious or not, then I support that. If it means that the religious must be coerced into silence and into political disenfranchisement in favor of the secular, then I oppose it." ...................................VERY WELL SAID!

[FromWayDowntown]

This is a case for the Supreme Court, no?

That's a great point, Joe. The Court, in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Lynch v. Donnelly (O'Connor, J., concurring), has already decided that governmental endorsement of particular religious viewpoints or of religion over non-religion violates the Establishment Clause. In a similar line of cases, the Court has also decided in Lee v. Weisman, Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, that government cannot, even subtly, coerce adherence to particular religious viewpoints.

It seems to me that what the right really wants is a reformulation of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, because without such a reformulation, much of their argument is obliterated.


The majority view is in favor of allowing recognition of relationships in order that people have equal access to property, visitation, and inheritance rights.

What the majority rejects is the official endorsement of the secular liberal definition of marriage over the traditional definitions.
I'd be curious about some statistics to back up those statements. My recollection from the recently concluded election and the polling that took place within that time was that a large majority disfavored any public recognition of "non-traditional" relationships. In light of the fact that the Court has on several occasions defined marriage to be a right of constitutional magnitude (and, perhaps even a fundamental right (Zablocki)) that the use of religious antipathy as a basis for denying equal recognition of such relationships treads perilously close to governmental endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with having one's religious viewpoint inform his political beliefs, none at all. Political beliefs stem from people's values, and for the devoutly religious their values stem from their faith. The penumbra of minority rights under the Establishment Clause does not extend so far as to proscribe any religious influence in politics whatsoever, as you appear to be suggesting. I submit that political activism is part of the exercise of religion for many, so that your idea violates the Free Exercise clause.
I don't argue that there's any prohibition (be it expressed or penumbral) against an elected official defining himself or herself (or his or her political philosophy) in a manner that tracks a particular religious viewpoint. I don't think anyone truly would suggest that such a circumstance would be desireable, and certainly, such a requirement would be altogether unenforceable. Nor do I think the exercise of the franchise should require the setting aside of a religious perspective, if that is what one chooses. Indeed, if one chooses to exercise his faith by becoming politically active, that is fine. It's at the point when he begins to legislate his morality -- to use the machinery of government to compel adherence to his particular religious viewpoint -- that I see Constitutional problems that, in my estimation, the Framers intended to curtail by drafting the Establishment Clause. I realize that this can be a fine line distinction, but I think in certain circumstances (like prayers in public schools, like abortion, like same-sex marriage, like certain faith-based initiatives), the line is rather bright and the right is beginning to encroach upon it.


If "religious liberty" means every person is free to speak his conscience about faith or lack thereof, as long as it does not coerce others to listen or participate, and that each person is free to participate in his own government per their own values and beliefs, be they religious or not, then I support that. If it means that the religious must be coerced into silence and into political disenfranchisement in favor of the secular, then I oppose it.
I don't necessarily disagree with that statement; I think its absolutely true as to private citizens and partially true as to those who choose to hold governmental office. Certainly, I don't think that the fact of religiosity should ever deprive one of a voice in government. That is, indeed, antithetical to the individual freedom protected by the Free Exercise Clause. But, I do think -- and I believe the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence supports my position -- that there is a point in governmental service where the protection of free exercise yields to the public interests served by the Establishment Clause. The assumption of public office does bring with it the limited concession of certain freedoms and rights. Its true in, for example, the defamation context. If there is to be any meaning at all to the Establishment Clause, that limited abridgment of unmitigated free exercise is necessary, too. When the government officially begins endorsing particular religious viewpoints through its policy initiatives, and when the government uses its machinery in a way that compels non-adherents or secularists or any other "religious minority" (for lack of a better term) to adhere to the tenets of a particular religious viewpoint, it's clear to me (and it seems to me that it is clear to the Court) that the prohibition of the Establishment Clause must come into play.

I still think Justice Jackson (not incidentally, the mentor to Chief Justice Rehnquist) said it best in Barnette:


"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[scott]

If secularism was the majority view

What is a secularist view?

Here are the acceptable definitions of the word secular:

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

It seems like people want to attach the stigma of Atheism to the word secular, which is simply not correct.

If by "view of secularism" you are referring to the acceptable definitions of the word, then I argue that it is the majority view of just about everything.

[travis2]

The majority opinion on abortion is to keep it legal in most cases. As even the text of Roe v. Wade admits, there is a balancing act between the rights of the mother to make her own medical decisions and the responsibility of the state to protect life, even in this case, prenatal life. This goes to what I mentioned earlier about the balance between personal freedoms and the public good, with this case having uncertainty about what the public good actually is. If an activist has religious motivations for placing greater weight behind protecting prenatal life, that does not make his position invalid nor an unconstitutional imposition of sectarian norms.

I'd like to see your stats on this statement.

Define "most cases".

The problem with the abortion debate is that the terms used are too broadly applied...and in many cases, purposely so. For example, in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, I would agree that most people have no problem with maintaining legal options for abortion. If the debate swings to "abortion any time up to the time of birth", the majority do not favor such options.

However, the question is often posed as "Do you oppose abortion in all cases?" or other vague wording.

[Hook Dem]

"It seems like people want to attach the stigma of Atheism to the word secular, which is simply not correct." ...................And it seems like people want to attach the stigma of "religous zealot" to all Conservatives which is simply not correct.

[scott]

You are right, Hook.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur. Not all liberals are "un-religious, un-patriotic" bastards.