Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now show me where there is to be a "separation of church and state". Or show me where it says that a State cannot have an official state religion (9 of the original 13 did), or that a city cannot have any kind of official display of religion. To this point you've just proven yourself wrong.
No I haven't. Amendment 14, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution), says that the provisions of the Constitution also apply to state and local governments. Between Amendment 1 and Amendment 14, it is obvious that there can be no state religion.
One link to the Constitution has already been post, but I'll post another so you can go read it for yourself.
Who by law interprets the US Constitution? Who by law gets to tell us what the 1st and 14th Amendments mean? That is right, the Supreme Court. So, what has the Supreme Court said about separation of church and state?
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (arranged by date)
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
You can't find the exact word "privacy" in there either, so does that mean that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments don't work together to create privacy rights of citizens against the government?
This is a boneheaded and incorrect way to study the law. You've proven yourself ignorant by ignoring the existence of the due process clause and the whole body of case law on this topic and that of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states and all governmental entities.
I would really like to know where you get your very, very incorrect information about the law.
Bob Jones U?
I'm just asking for you to explain to me how a bunch of states that all had official state religions would actually ratify a constitution that restricted their right to have their state religions. You guys whine about there being this "separation"...but it doesn't actually exist.
No I haven't. Amendment 14, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution), says that the provisions of the Constitution also apply to state and local governments. Between Amendment 1 and Amendment 14, it is obvious that there can be no state religion.
One link to the Constitution has already been post, but I'll post another so you can go read it for yourself.
Yet....the majority of the states at the time actually had state religions. Now, we can go by the liberal understanding of it, where there is no such thing as common sense....or we can actually go by what it says...that they didn't want Congress to overrule their religion and get stick their noses where they don't belong.
Seriously...do you guys even really THINK about this stuff before you spout off?
I'm just asking for you to explain to me how a bunch of states that all had official state religions would actually ratify a constitution that restricted their right to have their state religions. You guys whine about there being this "separation"...but it doesn't actually exist.
You are the same way about law as you are about religion...You believe what you prefer....The facts be damned.
b) don't understand stare decisis or that these cases ARE THE LAW.
They are as bad at law as they are at science.
Having done both in my lifetime, law is actually harder for most people to grasp.
Whether it be "Separation of Church and State" or any other issue...as it is now "The Law" is nothing more than the enacted concepts of "How Some People At The Time Thought Things Should Be Legally Compelled To Be"...and it is a terrible arbiter.
Laws, where ever they are "drawn up" reflect the bias of the authors and are typically changed/amended/repealed by new authors to suit what they consider the "current ideal"...the "ideal" that suits them at the time, of course.
So, what "version" of The Constitution is "right"?
The one we have now?
The one that sanctioned slavery and denied female rights?
The one that proscribed booze?
Some other "version"?
THE REAL PROBLEM is it's messed up to be governed by "Laws" that are determined, if voted upon by less than the entire adult populace...never mind just nine people. How can that fairly determine what should be legally concluded right or wrong for all?
The only TRULY FAIR way to determine "how things should be"...is to poll all the citizens, and enforce the majority view. True Democracy.
You can't ever satisfy everyone...so the best you can do is satisfy the most possible.
Anything else is "less fair".
We have the technology to be able to actually manifest a Country that is REALLY "of The People, by The People, and for The People".
Whether it be "Separation of Church and State" or any other issue...as it is now "The Law" is nothing more than the enacted concepts of "How Some People At The Time Thought Things Should Be Legally Compelled To Be"...and it is a terrible arbiter.
Laws, where ever they are "drawn up" reflect the bias of the authors and are typically changed/amended/repealed by new authors to suit what they consider the "current ideal"...the "ideal" that suits them at the time, of course.
So, what "version" of The Constitution is "right"?
The one we have now?
The one that sanctioned slavery and denied female rights?
The one that proscribed booze?
Some other "version"?
THE REAL PROBLEM is it's messed up to be governed by "Laws" that are determined, if voted upon by less than the entire adult populace...never mind just nine people. How can that fairly determine what should be legally concluded right or wrong for all?
The only TRULY FAIR way to determine "how things should be"...is to poll all the citizens, and enforce the majority view. True Democracy.
You can't ever satisfy everyone...so the best you can do is satisfy the most possible.
Anything else is "less fair".
We have the technology to be able to actually manifest a Country that is REALLY "of The People, by The People, and for The People".
The Constitution is written to avoid having to poll the entire populace. The founding fathers knew that this was a terrible idea, and worked very hard to create a government that would, in no way, be actually governed by the people. That's the point. Majority doesn't rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
