still looking for legal advice (Park City: attorneys, live in, law)

[dogmom]

Sarge...Cassellis was not referring to you. The world does not revolve around Sarge.

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by dogmom

Sarge...Cassellis was not referring to you. The world does not revolve around Sarge.

Mom, you need to review Casselli's post. You will find that she was also addressing me.

[dogmom]

Original post was not yours...she did 'refer' to you..however you do not live where we do...but consider your remark noted..the original poster needed someone in SOUTHERN UTAH...

I sure hope the original poster finds the legal help they need...God help them...

[akkat]

the only answer i am looking for is one that is not clouded by mormon bias. a fair an honest representation where... as the constitution garuntees ..my right to seperation of church and state is honered. simple really.

[dogmom]

Akaat...this shouldn't be that hard to find an unbiased attorney. I don't get it either...there really is no separation of church and state in utah...that might be true in other states, also, I don't know, I have only lived in CA and UT. Like I said, maybe try Mesquite or Vegas...good luck

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by akkat

the only answer [i] am looking for is one that is not clouded by [Mormon] bias. a fair an honest representation where... as the [C]onstitution [guarantees] ..my right to [separation] of church and state is [honored]. [Simple] really.

It is not simple by any means, because you do not explain what the issue actually is. Your entire case may be highly complicated. Next, perhaps you could explain why you believe your right to separation of church and state is being violated. This is a constitutional question, and you probably need a constitutional law lawyer, which are fairly rare. I still teach constitutional law to students seeking a career in law enforcement. Perhaps a short history on the subject of church and state will be useful. This is NOT legal advice; it is simply a history lesson that may give you some insight.

First, contrary to popular belief, the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State is NOT found in the Constitution; although, it is based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Doctrine of Separation of Church and State is a legal construct based on a series of court decisions.

The first case decision most commonly associated with the development of the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State is Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). In this particular case, Everson sued the Board of Education, because state law allowed the use of public funds to transport students to religious schools. The Supreme Court upheld the law, but this particular case first applied the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to state legislatures and Congress through the 14th Amendment.

Next, we come to the 1962 Supreme Court decision in Engle v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421. Simply stated, the court ruled that state composed school prayers and requiring students to recite them was unconstitutional. In this case, the court also ruled that it did not matter whether the prayer was non-denominational or that students did not have to participate. This case also established the right of any student or faculty member to pray on school grounds, but neither could lead prayer.

Over time, the Supreme Court has refined its position and now applies what is called the “Lemon Test.” It has three major points:

1. Any legislation must have a neutral purpose regarding religion.
   
   
2. The law may not promote or inhibit religion.
   
   
3. The law must not create a high degree of interaction between government and religion.

There is still a high degree of controversy regarding this doctrine. I have seen the courts rule an issue to be in violation of the doctrine, where I cannot see how the Lemon Test applies. The most common example of what I am talking about is found in the controversy of displaying the Ten Commandments in court houses as part of the architecture. No law forced the Architect to place the Commandments on the wall. It does not promote or inhibit religion, and it does not create a high degree of government interaction with religion. It is simply an artistic means of promoting law.

As you can see, government and its laws are under scrutiny when it comes to the Separation Doctrine. Unless you can show that a particular statue fails the lemon test, you do not have a separation issue.

[dogmom]

Well that was interesting..just because the law says separation of church and state, or not, whatever..does not mean this poster will get a fair attorney...what's to say that said attorney had particular beliefs and can't help put base his advice on those beliefs. I still say he/she needs to go to Mesquite or Las Vegas depending on what the issue is, which is none of our business anyway. Of course, if it divorce or child custody then that is not a good idea.

[coolcats]

Originally Posted by dogmom

Well that was interesting..just because the law says separation of church and state, or not, whatever..does not mean this poster will get a fair attorney...what's to say that said attorney had particular beliefs and can't help put base his advice on those beliefs. I still say he/she needs to go to Mesquite or Las Vegas depending on what the issue is, which is none of our business anyway. Of course, if it divorce or child custody then that is not a good idea.

The logic of your post insinuates that 100% of lawyers in Saint George are LDS, and 100% of those LDS lawyers are unethical. Is that what you really mean to say?

[dogmom]

No coolcats, I am not insinuating that 100% of attorneys are LDS and unethical. Seeing as how the majority of the population down here is LDS it just makes logical sense that the majority are LDS...Gee did I touch a nerve?? All the poster wants is someone fair...I didn't start this.

[coolcats]

Originally Posted by dogmom

All the poster wants is someone fair...I didn't start this.

But continuing your elipses ... the conclusion I arrive at is that you believe LDS lawyers aren't fair. No use arguing more about it. Just pointing out my interpretation of your point of view.