|
|
|
|
|
| | The Constitution and religious freedom Page 12 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) | When it comes to MLK, that history has been revised to the point of being laughable. It was the republicans that supported the civil rights act, the democrats did n't want it to pass. One of their leading statesman, the leading light in the senate from West Virginia, the oldest person in the senate, was a member of the KU KLUX KLAN......... Yet you don't hear that too often now, do you? Why is that??? All you hear about is how the republicans are racist, homophobes, haters................ A little reality would be nice.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 1:16:42 PM |
Well, here's another case where people put religion ahead of their civic and even contractual obligations. Isn't it comforting to know that the gunsights used by our troops are imprinted with citations of Bible verses?
Under extreme public pressure when that story broke, the company making those sites is no longer putting those bible references on their scopes. Enough is enough. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 1:21:45 PM | A lot can change in 40 years. Since the Bakke case and the championing of anti-affirmative-action campaigns by Ward Connerly and other prominent Republicans, plus the general affiliation of religious conservatives with the GOP, their support for Prop. 8, and so on, it's hard not to get an impression of Republicans as more concerned with preserving the prerogatives of their support base rather than extending opportunities to those who have traditionally been overlooked.
Yes, I worded that very carefully. And, this is the perception that I have of Republicans in general. So what am I missing? Specifically, how does letting the market fix everything when there is a pervasive and persistent cultural bias against certain people actually play out in practice?
There might have been liberal Republicans at one time, but there aren't many left now. --just as it's getting to be very hard to survive politically as a Blue Dog Democrat. A liberal Republican would be completely unelectable. A moderate in either party might have a shot, if she or he can get past the hard core "base of support" even to be nominated. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 1:24:38 PM |
Under extreme public pressure when that story broke, the company making those sites is no longer putting those bible references on their scopes. Enough is enough.
Good. I appreciate the sentiment to want God's protection for our troops. I do too. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 3:41:21 PM | Personally, I could care less if they had a verse from the bible, a verse from the torah, a verse from the koran inscribed on my rifle, the scope, every bullet................ The way I look at it, one of them might be right, and you can never have enough life insurance. I was in a situation once where a catholic priest said a prayer over me.......... long story........... Now, I personally think that of all the religions, the catholics are about as wrong as can be in what their theology, the pope is a joke, etc..... However, at the time, all I said was....... Thanks, padre. And the thank you was sincere. There are no athiests in foxholes.
What I don't get is that the ones who complain of such trivia are usually athiests, and since they don't believe in what is inscribed anyway, why the problem?
'nuff said.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 8:28:01 PM | preserving the prerogatives of their support base rather than extending opportunities to those who have traditionally been overlooked.
Who do you claim is denying which opportunities to whom, exactly? And how does doing that square with the law? If what you're alleging is not just the product of your imagination, you should be able to tell us who's violating whose legal or constitutional rights.
Why should we think "preserving prerogatives" rather "extending opportunities" is anything more than just a fancy, roundabout way of saying "keeping what we've earned for ourselves, rather than being forced by our government to share it with strangers"? And if it no more than that, what legal obligation does anyone have to give part of his property to other people?
Answer us that, Mr. Bones. If you can. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/21/2010 11:49:37 PM | Keeping what I earned is very different than keeping "those people" out of my neighborhood. It was only recently that DWB traffic stops became frowned upon. You needn't play stupid about illegal discrimmiation. The fact that it is no longer politically acceptable to do it is a cultural change, not a market change. Markets follow values, they don't create them.
You don't owe anyone your property, but you do owe those who help you build your wealth a share that is proportional to the value of their contribution. And if you're smart, you'll calculate the optimal, not necessarily the minimal, compensation to pay for the time and effort your workers put in. If you don't, and your community deteriorates as a result, and you wind up paying more in taxes as a result to house all the criminals, don't whine to me. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 7:13:18 AM |
You needn't play stupid about illegal discrimmiation.
I'm feeling a little stupid this morning, but I blame it on the Wild Turkey. I don't know what you mean by "politically acceptable" illegal discrimination (unless you're referring to the majority of Democrats that opposed things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.) But race discrimination's been illegal for a long time now, and I don't know what difference it makes what anyone thinks of it. And I don't understand your statement about markets, or how they're relevant.
Anyone can concoct a slogan like "driving while black," and after stand-up comics, "community organizers," and lawbreaking black drivers have bleated it often enough, it will start to become one of those alleged truths that "everyone knows." It uses the same rhetorical trick I've pointed out before with the coined word "homophobia." And that is to make up and then popularize a word or phrase, to get people to reach a conclusion without ever having made the argument that leads to it. To me, that kind of argument-by-shortcut is a red flag that the supporting facts are scarce. You seem to accept it as fact that this was happening--apparently as generally accepted police behavior--not so long ago. That's a pretty serious charge. I don't know the evidence for it, but if you do, I'd like to see it.
You go back to the old saw about workers being paid less than they deserve. That's too far off topic to get into again much here. I'll just note that you've never explained what gives employers a continuing advantage in negotiating the price of labor. There must be a chronic surplus of qualified workers for the jobs available. But why? It should just as easily work the other way around. If there were a shortage of aeronautical engineers in Phoenix, say, companies who needed them would have to pay top dollar.
But to go back to the topic of this thread, the Court struck a big blow for the First Amendment yesterday. It's the biggest commercial free speech decision in many years. I heard a lawyer who was once a Supreme Court law clerk talking about it. He mentioned that Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that took Stevens' arguments in the dissenting opinion, point by point, and just tore them to pieces. (I'm going to try to read that today--I don't like Stevens.) He also said he thinks Kennedy--who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion--may have shifted back toward the originalist side of the Court because he's uncomfortable with Sotomayor. It will be interesting to see if this is also a sign of a change in the way the Court calls 1st Am. cases involving freedom of religion. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 8:01:14 AM |
Anyone can concoct a slogan like "driving while black," and after stand-up comics, "community organizers," and lawbreaking black drivers have bleated it often enough, it will start to become one of those alleged truths that "everyone knows."
I see. Well, I guess the studies that showed the rates of unticketed stops to be much higher for those with darker skins simply weren't credible?
You really are playing stupid about it. What I want to know is, why? Do you honestly think that all calls for equal treatment under the law are a communist plot and nothing more? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 8:58:19 AM |
studies that showed the rates of unticketed stops to be much higher for those with darker skins simply weren't credible
Since I haven't seen these studies, I don't know whether they're credible or not. That's why I asked you to point me to them.
I doubt most communists are much interested in the Constitution or any other law, however it's applied. Your assumption that people who don't share your political views must believe in race discrimination is false, but telling. You presume a lot. Excluding racial minorities has often been a hidden purpose behind the environmental control of land use, for example. And yet the laws which authorize it are largely promoted by whites who consider themselves liberal, and they are often the ones who benefit most. Petaluma is just one example of the many places--in this state and others--where that happens.
It looks like you think your claims are so obviously true that if I'm not persuaded by them, I must be "playing stupid." I'll have to remember to tell myself that, when I don't convince the jury a defendant's guilty. I don't recall ever doubting your good faith, and yet I see you're doubting mine. I wish it came as more of a surprise. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 10:28:47 AM | Let's see:
<div class="quote">Title: The Influence of Race in Police-Civilian Interactions: A Content Analysis of Videotaped Interactions Taken During Cincinnati Police Traffic Stops
Personal Author: Dixon, Travis L.; Schell, Terry L.; Giles, Howard; Drogos, Kristin L.
Journal Name: Journal of Communication
Source: Journal of Communication v. 58 no. 3 (September 2008) p. 530-49
Publication Year: 2008
Abstract: Although the study of police-civilian relations has recently entered the intergroup communication arena, there are no studies of actual interactions between these social categories. In part to rectify that stark omission and guided by communication accommodation theory, 313 randomly sampled video recordings from police cars on traffic stops in Cincinnati, Ohio were content analyzed. The study revealed 3 key differences as a function of the officers' and drivers' races: (a) Black drivers were more likely to experience extensive policing during the stop; (b) the communication quality of White drivers was, on average, more positive than that of the Black drivers; and (c) officers' communication behavior was more positive when the officer and driver were of the same race. These findings are consistent with public opinion data and their implications for theory are discussed.
And:
<div class="quote">Vehicle stops by police for driving while Black: Common problems
and some tentative solutions
Brian R. Kowalski a,b,?, Richard J. Lundman b
a Bureau of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 1050 Freeway Drive North, Columbus, OH 43229-5430, United States
b Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 300 Bricker Hall, 190 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1353, United States
Abstract
A common set of problems currently surround analysis of vehicle stops by police for what has come to be called “driving while Black.” These common problems range from an exclusive focus on contemporary police practices to possible differences in the driving behavior of African Americans and Whites. The present research used observer-reported data from “Midwest City” at the start of the 1970s to propose and illustrate tentative solutions to the common problems that currently surround analysis of race and
vehicle stops by police. The article concludes with discussion of the tentative solutions and the implications that follow from them.
© 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Police administrators and police researchers currently spend considerable time and money collecting and analyzing data on vehicle stops by police only to cautiously
conclude that it is difficult to determine whether the data signal racially-biased policing or instead are the misleading result of a set of common problems (McMahon,
Garner, Davis, & Kraus, 2002, p. 23). Consider two illustrations of this caution, the first from a police administrator and the second from police researchers.
First, after mandating collection by police of traffic stop data and permitting outsiders to analyze and report the data, then Chief David Bejarano reacted to Cordner,
Williams, and Velasco's (2002) report of race and ethnic disproportionality in vehicle stops in San Diego by noting, “No matter how much quantitative data we generate, we will not be able to answer with any certainty why Black/African American and Hispanic
drivers are over-represented in vehicle stops. ...
Second, police researchers Eck, Liu, and Bostaph (2003) examined police-reported vehicle stops in Cincinnati from July 1 to December 31, 2001 and found Black drivers were more likely to be stopped by Cincinnati police. They cautioned (Eck et al., 2003, p. 55), however, “We must emphasize that data from these stops only provide an
incomplete picture of how and why disproportionality arises.” ...
I'm not doubting your good faith necessarily. I'm doubting your willingness to confront the possibility that some aspects of your faith might be misplaced. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 11:38:07 AM | Hey Ace
What you are missing is that there are certain areas of town that really do have a higher proportional occurance of traffic violations. Now, you live in this area, so I will tell you that where I live, in the south west corner of the 91-55 interchange, we just don't have a lot of people cruising around in lowriders, filled with young men from the age of 15 to 30. Is that racist of us because we dont't have the same demographic as the corner of Rampart and Beverly? (I chose that corner in LA because that is where the original Tommy's is located :) :) :) Rubbing my belly now.........) I live at the end of a cul-de-sac, so I don't have people cruising around my hood......... Believe it or not, we have had problems, like I had a car in the driveway that the passenger side window was broken, and some very minor items removed.
If black/hispanic drivers are "over represented" in traffic stops, perhaps its because they commit more traffic stop type violations........ maybe because they local cops recognize them as bangers, and are being cautious. What the statistics that you give should be contrasted to is what the people that live in the neighborhoods where these gang bangers ply their trade think about whether or not the cops should be "hassling" these fine upstanding individuals.
I had a second cousin by marriage who worked as a mechanic at the police vehicle repair station in downtown LA. He was there during the time that they had the "crash units" that targeted gangs. He spoke to all the cops who drove the cars he worked on, and they would tell him things that they never would tell you and me. I can tell you this, at that time it was open war for the dominance of the city of LA in a few very large areas. Did some of the cops go overboard? Maybe, BUT, if they did, it wasn't because they were racist, or power mad, it was because the GOOD people in the area were literally crying and begging for help, and they did what they could.
Now, even police work falls into a bell curve. Some are very bad, some are very good, most in the middle. What the race baiting poverty pimps such as jesse jackson and al sharpton did was to take advantage of the few bad ones. I can tell you that from stories that I heard, if the police chief would have been the clown that is now a city councilman, LA would be its own third world country. Had Gates not been there, God help them all.
How about lets look at things from the perspective of the true victums, and that would be the honest folk who are trying to make a living, and having to live with the bangers instead of making the criminals into modern day Jesse James, and glorifying them into victumhood.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 2:06:28 PM | Well, I might well owe Match a clarification. If policing follows a bell curve, so does the proportion of good people in any population. Poor neighborhoods have more problems, and of course the drug trade takes its toll--being a black market and all. To dismiss racism out of hand, though, as Match appears to do, seems naive and ill considered to me. That's all. I don't see him as a racist. I see him doing what everyone tends to unless they're on their toes--discounting information that challenges assumptions he believes in.
I do it too, which is one of the reasons why I like debating you guys. Keeps me honest. It's in that spirit that I raise the racism issue. I'm not playing the race card to make Match look bad. I'm saying, here's another piece of the puzzle. To the extent that it is true--and you must admit some truth to it even if you believe that community activists have overplayed it--it must be addressed if we're to have a clear understanding of what's going on in our society.
Nothing traitorous about that.
So, to get back on topic, is there any compelling reason why we cannot maintain a strict separation between church and state such that individuals are not denied the opportunity to speak for themselves about their own religious views, government institutions remain neutral at all times, and those acting in an official government capacity remain silent while on duty?
What will break if we do that? Anything important? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 2:18:39 PM | How about lets look at things from the perspective of the true victums, and that would be the honest folk who are trying to make a living, and having to live with the bangers instead of making the criminals into modern day Jesse James, and glorifying them into victumhood.
I agree. When honest business people who have the protection of the state can buy and sell recreational drugs, there will be no more demand for gang protection. Those young men and women will have to get real jobs. Who knows, maybe some of them would turn out to be great cops or soldiers. And maybe, if we can demonstrate that there really is a place for people like them in honest society, they'd sign up and help protect _us._
The first thing that Gates did, correct me if I'm mistaken, was to address the perception of racism head on and deal with it. In the process he enlisted the various minority communities that had previously been perceived as part of the problem. And, he made sure that his officers would become and remain accountable to those communities. It worked very well. He didn't plead plausible deniability regarding the perception of racial profiling and race-based service disparities. He admitted that the perception was the issue and took the steps needed to correct it.
We would all do well to follow his example. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 2:22:32 PM | Gates did all that, and more. The reason he wasn't too well thought of in some circles was because he was tough, and expected his officers to be the same. He demanded results, and allowed his officers a certain leniency in certain areas that a few officers took too far, hence his problems.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/22/2010 10:07:56 PM | | Hmmm ... The consensus among the minority commentators was that he did a lot to clean things up. There were no loud objections to any of the three, and only three, white candidates that he recommended as his successor. That alone says a helluva lot about his street creds. If he wasn't well thought of among some within the department, I'm not sure that's much of a problem. It would depend on who they are and their own agendas. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/12/2010 8:30:59 AM | Here's a piece I just ran across. Everson was the Supreme Court decision that for the first time applied the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause to the states. What the Establishment Clause requires in any given situation is a far more complicated issue than a lot of people want to believe.
[Ed Whelan]
February 10, 1947—In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court misconstrues the Establishment Clause as erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. As University of Chicago law professor Philip Hamburger demonstrates in his magisterial Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, 2002), there is no legitimate basis for reading the Establishment Clause to impose a regime of separation of church and state, much less Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” The idea of separation was “radically different” from the non-establishment guaranteed by the First Amendment and became popular only “in response to deeply felt fears of ecclesiastical and especially Catholic authority.” Moreover, explains Hamburger, the persisting separation myth has in fact undermined religious liberty.
Ed Whelan was a law clerk for Justice Scalia and later worked in the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel, advising other lawyers on especially difficult issues of constitutional law. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/12/2010 8:55:53 AM |
Poor neighborhoods have more problems, and of course the drug trade takes its toll
You may not choose to be poor, but you do choose to be a dirt bag or not and make your neighborhood what it is. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/25/2010 10:40:45 AM | In agreement with fz...but taking it a little further, after a certain age we also make our lives and finances what they are too.
Ace the problem with socialist thinking is it does not hold individuals responsible for their own lives and withholding freedoms further takes away the ability for one to prosper, invent, grow and spread one's wings. A nation will follow. It is a downward spiral we see in history ending in walls falling and Unions dividing [or simply tea parties. :-)].
Yet what I see you often saying Ace is that the government is the problem...which I'd agree. Adding government as a solution in this equation though is an illogical answer.
The change needed is not being institutionalized and that is 'freedoms.' Freedom is what great inventors in history held (today they are confined with environmental and other government regulations). Freedom led to 'great' leaders as discussed above (Martin L. King) fought for.
So what will happen to medicine when the gov. takes over health care? Consider the regulatory hoops already existing both legal and non-legal in the invention of cures for that which truly ails this country.
And what of religious freedoms such as a gov. worker with a Christian calendar at his/her desk. Isn't this his/her intellectual right?...or should a bias be held for atheism? Atheism holds no government confines as far as murder, theft and the very laws created that 'originally' stood on 'biblical' priniciples.
Ace it's truly this simple: you can take the cross off the tree, but you can't take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Diminishing the freedoms of those holding refuge in this country (those who cherish freedoms) -- you loose the core values of which America once stood for.
If this is the 'change' our administration has in mind (gov. control of banks, medicine and religion), you find tyranny. What is next -- free speech (we already find this on many networks as bias censorship takes place)? I don't think this is what Dr. King fought for in freeing a nation of ignorance and his dream that was back-stepped by separatism, resentment for past wrongs and bias we see held in the minds of citizens today. While it is not beneficial (for the nation as a whole) to live in the past -- it is also ignorant to not learn from mistakes.
So how did prohibition work in the past? Prohibiting religious freedoms is not different than prohibiting alcohol consumption. Neither is the government's job or place. Prohibition is not what tax dollars should be spent on (while matters are tied up in hearings and courts). We pay our Senators (including the religious and non-religious).
With the economy today -- I think the gov. has more to worry about over that of removing the freedoms of children who desire to place Christ on Christmas ornament that decorate the nations' Christmas tree. Is it just me that sees the ignorance and hypocrisy when reading the Constitution and seeing how gov. operates today? :-p | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/25/2010 11:21:12 AM |
Ace the problem with socialist thinking is it does not hold individuals responsible for their own lives and withholding freedoms further takes away the ability for one to prosper, invent, grow and spread one's wings.
I completely agree with you about Socialism.
The problem with unregulated Capitalism is that it does not hold individuals responsible for the damage they do to others. Appropriate regulation isn't Socialism. Appropriate regulation applies the protective force of the police power to protect the rights of individuals, including the right not to be defrauded or coerced by other persons.
Honestly, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I see government as the problem. I don't. I see unrestrained government as just as much a problem as unrestrained corporatism.
There are two types of tyranny. One is the tyranny of an unrestrained government. The other is the tyranny of an unregulated marketplace that leads to monopolistic practices. Monsanto is just as much a tyrant in its ambition as conservatives claim Obama is.
I hold both problems to be just about equally worrisome. I can't understand why conservatives are so paranoid about the one and so dismissive of the other. That stance seems utterly misguided to me. Why _are_ y'all so tweaked that way?
I agree with you that prohibiting religious freedom is idiotic. However, there is a difference between prohibiting the expression of private individuals and allowing government officials to use their offices to promote a particular religious view.
No one has the right to interfere with the free and equal expression of an individual's religious views so long as no one else's rights are violated in the process. By the same token, no government official has the right to impose any type of religious qualification on access to government services. And just as importantly, no government official has the right to give the appearance of any such favoritism.
There is a line between individual expression and government expression. That line is clear and easy to follow. So why not just follow it like good citizens who value the Constitution as our fundamental agreement and leave it at that? I don't see anywhere in the Bible an injunction to usurp legitimate authority or break agreements in the name of Christ. Do you? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/25/2010 2:13:13 PM | I'll re-post this.
This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—February 10 [Ed Whelan]
1947—In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court misconstrues the Establishment Clause as erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. As University of Chicago law professor Philip Hamburger demonstrates in his magisterial Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, 2002), there is no legitimate basis for reading the Establishment Clause to impose a regime of separation of church and state, much less Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” The idea of separation was “radically different” from the non-establishment guaranteed by the First Amendment and became popular only “in response to deeply felt fears of ecclesiastical and especially Catholic authority.” Moreover, explains Hamburger, the persisting separation myth has in fact undermined religious liberty.
Ed Whelan was a law clerk for Justice Scalia, and he went from there to the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ--the lawyers who research the most difficult legal issues for the Department. So he's not just popping off. I think it's pretty clear Everson spread the mistaken notion that the Establishment Clause meant to set up an absolute barrier between church and state. The dissenting justices in the case thought so, too. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/25/2010 3:05:57 PM | So now you're arguing what you think the law ought to be?
The principle of strict separation is settled despite the dissent, and I have yet to see any harm that has come from abiding by it. Can you cite a single case in which such harm arose? Note that cases favoring atheism are also cases of religious favoritism.
You want to display the 10 Commandments in your courtroom? No problem, just put the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta next to them to provide a historical context.
Otherwise, you create a prejudicial climate against Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists and others who do not hail from a Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that I specifically omitted Muslims from that list, because they too come from a Judeo-Christian tradition. They just consider their inspiration to be a more recent revelation than that of either Moses or Jesus.
I can't believe that you're still arguing for such a prejudicial government climate, and I don't understand your motivation for doing so. Why are you? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/26/2010 12:40:17 AM | So now you're arguing what you think the law ought to be?
Of course. That's what anyone's doing when they criticize a Supreme Court decision. That's what the dissenting Justices are doing in every decision that's not unanimous. As you can see from my cite, it's not just mutts like me who think the majority badly misinterpreted the purpose of the Establishment Clause in Everson, even if it got the decision right. There are some very eminent constitutional scholars who think so, too.
The principle of strict separation is settled
No, not at all. Everson was the Court's first crack at interpreting the Establishment Clause. A 5-4 majority upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their kids to parochial schools. The majority found this law served the secular purpose of getting the kids to schools "safely and expeditiously." What Whelan, Hamburger, and others are disagreeing with is the majority's statement that the Constitution sets up a "wall of separation" between church and state, and the conclusion by all nine justices that the Framers meant the Establishment Clause to do far more than just prohibit the establishment of state religions.
But the Court has decided quite a few Establishment Clause cases since 1947, and as I've detailed in a lot of other posts, its decisions as a whole do NOT create the wall separating church from state that Justice Black spoke of in Everson. I've cited and quoted from a number of later decisions by the Court which explain--with examples--why an absolute separation isn't feasible. Most legal analysts would say the Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause as creating a barrier, but one that has some holes in it. And the facts of each case seem to determine how permeable this barrier is.
You want to display the 10 Commandments in your courtroom? No problem, just put the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta next to them to provide a historical context.
The Ten Commandments are already all over the architecture of the most important courtroom--the one where the Supreme Court sits. Some of the Commandments are engraved in a wall panel right above the Chief Justice's chair. And despite what you think the law should be, the Court has never held that anyone else's codes have to be added to the architecture to achieve balance. Nor has it held that the invocation to open legislative sessions has to be given by someone other than a Christian clergyman. And I doubt it ever will.
What you're ignoring is that courts often consider long-established customs and traditions to determine what the law is. This began as a Christian nation, and its laws reflect that history. The Framers weren't considering Hinduism when they were debating the First Amendment, nor did they mean that amendment to make government turn itself inside out to assure that Hindu tenets are depicted just as prominently everywhere Christian ones are. Whatever inequalities our particular history creates are incidental, not prejudicial or invidious--and they're nothing that violates the Establishment Clause.
I already cited another case involving the religion of Summum, and the Court's decision that the city didn't violate the Establishment Clause by preventing its followers from placing a monument inscribed with the seven aphorisms of Summum in a public park, next to an existing monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. If you like, I'll be glad to cite the seven aphorisms. They're good for a laugh. So is the Lukumi Babalu decision, where the Court held Hialeah's animal cruelty ordinance unfairly targeted a church where they practiced Santaria.
I don't understand your motivation for doing so. Why are you?
Because I don't believe the Establishment Clause prohibits the inequalities and historical exceptions you describe as "prejudicial." I think the local elementary school can have its Christmas program without also having to have Summum, Santaria, Jain, Bahai, Zoroastrian, and Wiccan programs. Do you really imagine the Framers meant the Establishment Clause not only to prevent government from favoring not just Methodists or Episcopalians over other Christians, but also to prohibit all traditional public Christian ceremonies unless they were replicated for every other imaginable religion? If so, I wonder what your evidence is that that's what they meant the Clause to do. Do you know of even one thing to that effect that any of them wrote or said at the time? Do you know of a single study by any legal scholar that reaches that conclusion? I don't. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/26/2010 3:45:10 AM |
Whatever inequalities our particular history creates are incidental, not prejudicial or invidious--and they're nothing that violates the Establishment Clause.
As long as the references to religious tradition are incidental and not prejudicial, there is no problem. But when you start telling kids in school to pray in Jesus's name, it's no longer incidental. Any situation in which a reasonable person would find a practice prejudicial is prejudicial. The fact that the Framer's didn't happen to know any Hindus doesn't mean they didn't want to make justice equally available to them in order to protect their own claim on freedom. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 2/26/2010 10:28:41 AM | This is OT, but only a little. I read a good article about a threat to another major freedom the 1st Amendment guarantees: speech.
It lays out better than I can what I've felt for a long time about the self-censorship so-called liberals insist on imposing through political correctness, hate speech, etc., and how it serves the purposes of the jihadists who demand that the rest of the world dance to their tune, or die.
When we kowtow to Muslim extremists, aren't we saving them some of the trouble of imposing their will on us by force? One example the article doesn't mention is the Army's shameful failure even to mention the role of Islamic jihadism in the Ft. Hood murders. Pretty disgusting to have soldiers dying overseas in a war against Muslim jihadists, while at home, our Army tolerates them in its own ranks because its high officials lack the courage to purge them. Wouldn't want to offend the C-in-C by appearing anti-Muslim. And the same fear dictated how the Christmas Day bomber was handled. The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes.
http://article.nationalreview.com/426030/how-to-stifle-speech/clifford-d-may | |
|
|
|
|
Page
12
of
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
|
|
Home
login 
