GOP: Okay to establish State Religion

[_Darth J]

Tell you what, Stemelbow. Although you don't realize it, because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, what you and ldsfaqs are really doing is rejecting the concept of substantive due process, based on the premise that it somehow conflicts with the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights (all of whom were dead long before the 14th Amendment was ratified).

So, make the case for me that substantive due process is inconsistent with the theory of higher law constitutionalism prevalent at the time the Constitution was drafted.

[_ldsfaqs]

Darth J.... It's really not that complicated.

The state is trying to simply "retain" it's rights to have prayer etc. by codifying it into STATE LAW, preventing ANY "body" be it government, individual, group or otherwise from saying you can't have prayer, Christmas, etc. in it's meetings, courts, etc. because of the non-existent "separation of church and state" that liberals promote.

All this other malarkey you are claiming is a strawman distraction and is false.

[_beastie]

Darth J.... It's really not that complicated.

The state is trying to simply "retain" it's rights to have prayer etc. by codifying it into STATE LAW, preventing ANY "body" be it government, individual, group or otherwise from saying you can't have prayer, Christmas, etc. in it's meetings, courts, etc. because of the non-existent "separation of church and state" that liberals promote.

All this other malarkey you are claiming is a strawman distraction and is false.

Are you able to recognize that the proposed bill would have ALLOWED NC to establish a state religion had they chosen to do so?

[_Droopy]

Are you able to recognize that the proposed bill would have ALLOWED NC to establish a state religion had they chosen to do so?

What pap. It was intended as nothing more than a kind of "sense of the legislature" form of bill, with no enforcement or legal standing beyond its symbolic function. Its target was the whole school prayer issue, not creating an official state religion.

In any case, Beastie, we already have several official state religions in this country, one being what is normally termed "secular humanism" which is the unofficial but highly intolerant religion of the federal government and the public schools, and environmentalism, which, in some of its more popular, fundamentalist forms, actually does walk the line of the establishment clause.

[_Darth J]

Darth J.... It's really not that complicated.

The state is trying to simply "retain" it's rights to have prayer etc. by codifying it into STATE LAW, preventing ANY "body" be it government, individual, group or otherwise from saying you can't have prayer, Christmas, etc. in it's meetings, courts, etc. because of the non-existent "separation of church and state" that liberals promote.

All this other malarkey you are claiming is a strawman distraction and is false.

The State DOESN'T have any right to exercise religion, ldsfaqs. That right is vested in individual citizens.

Was there some federal law somewhere that was preventing individual U.S. citizens in North Carolina from the free exercise of Christianity? Would you be able to cite it for me?

In any case, thank you for your learned opinion on what the Establishment Clause means. I am sure that when those guys wrote that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, they meant that the government was supposed to establish an official state religion. I'm sure it is your deep knowledge of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that has led you to this conclusion. I mean, look at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. EEOC. Yet another recent example of unelected tyrants in black robes allowing the government to run rampant over religion, eh, ldsfaqs?

[_Darth J]

Are you able to recognize that the proposed bill would have ALLOWED NC to establish a state religion had they chosen to do so?

What pap. It was intended as nothing more than a kind of "sense of the legislature" form of bill, with no enforcement or legal standing beyond its symbolic function. Its target was the whole school prayer issue, not creating an official state religion.

In any case, Beastie, we already have several official state religions in this country, one being what is normally termed "secular humanism" which is the unofficial but highly intolerant religion of the federal government and the public schools, and environmentalism, which, in some of its more popular, fundamentalist forms, actually does walk the line of the establishment clause.

Droopy, if you could cite some of the cases or statutes where any branch of the federal government has established secular humanism as the de facto religion of the United States, that would be great.

Just wondering, but in the last hundred years or so of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, has separation of church and state meant:

(a) the government is favorable toward religion;
(b) the government is hostile to religion;
(c) the government is neutral toward religion?

Again, statutes and/or case law supporting your assertions about the current status of the law would be really helpful. Thanks in advance!

[_Darth J]

Droopy and ldsfaqs---

As you are both constitutional law scholars par excellence, I wonder if you could help me out with something:

In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction barring elementary school officials from prohibiting a girl from distributing invitations to a church party at her school. You can read that ruling here (I'm sure you've already read it, though, as you clearly have your fingers on the pulse of current 1st and 14th Amendment jurisprudence): http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 0/30/0.pdf

School officials had told this little girl she had no right to distribute invitations to a church party at school, and claimed to have the authority to prevent her from doing so. The little girl's father sued the school district on her behalf, on the basis that the school officials were violating her 1st and 14th Amendment rights. As you both undoubtedly know, since you understand the legal system better than any 50 people with a juris doctor, a preliminary injunction is a court order prohibiting a party from taken certain actions pending resolution of a case. Here, the federal district court enjoined the school administrators from interfering with this little girl distributing flyers about her church party to her friends and classmates.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121728p.pdf

Was the Third Circuit's judicial activism wrong? Shouldn't they have left this matter to school administrators to determine what rights this little girl has? Did the Third Circuit or the district court even have subject matter jurisdiction over this case? Is this yet another example of the liberal atheist federal judiciary taking away the rights of private citizens to express their religious beliefs? Shouldn't the State of Pennsylvania pass a statute to exempt itself from the federal courts, so that school officials will be free to decide what private speech they will allow? I look forward to each of your informed, well-reasoned responses.

Oh, and further to your ruminations on political philosophy: the conservative view is that school administrators should be allowed to restrict the private speech of this little girl pertaining to church activities, and the liberal point of view is that this little girl's individual right to distribute flyers about her church party is constitutionally protected. I'm sure you agree with that take, since that's the same mentality you have been demonstrating in this thread.

As the staunch, principled conservatives that you are, no doubt you will applaud the school district's vigorous efforts in opposition to this little girl who brazenly attempted to engage in private speech to invite other students to a religious activity, as if the Constitution recognized any such right.

[_subgenius]

Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion.

I see that I am dealing with a true scholar of the Constitution here. Subgenius, what do the following underlined words mean?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Yet once again we see where reality differs from your rhetoric and peacock like posturing on matters pertaining to the Constitution.
You seem to be unaware that many states do, in fact, have had laws passed which endorse religion. These laws do not specify a particular denomination but they clearly endorse a religion...monotheistic and somewhat specific.
Of the US Constitution, Article VI paragraph 3 applies to Federal employees/appointees only.
This religious test clause is at each State's discretion within their own Constitutions.
This clause precedes the establishment clause and highlights the authors of the Constitution intent (which you claim to be so aware of).
Currently 9 states still hold a "belief" in their Constitution. Meaning they have held fast to their rights, rights which are being reclaimed.
So, yes the 1st amendment has been used to fight and often negate this state right, but it is a point of debate and has not been absolutely resolved. This is because the issue is usually, if not solely, applied to situations of "forced oath"....situations requiring one to "profess" their belief.
So, while some states do not enforce this aspect of their own constitution they have not repealed it...because the recognition of the federal government over stepping is obvious...and now we see the beginning of the push back in states like NC.

[_Darth J]

Hi, subgenius!

You seem to have lost your train of thought, so I'll remind you what you said. You said, "Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion." Although you're confusing establishing a state religion with preventing the establishment of a state religion, what you appear to have meant in context is that Congress does not have the authority to require the states to extend equal protection of law to persons within a state's borders. That's obviously false, since Section 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions. Congress can, in fact, require the states to extend equal protection, and can prohibit disparate treatment under color of state law on the basis of things like race, age, sex, or religion, and can, in fact, prohibit the states from depriving persons of the civil rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Also, I am very aware that some states purport to require religious faith in a particular deity as a qualification to hold public office. Since nobody in this thread suggested that Article VI, clause 3 of the federal constitution applies to state governmental office, you appear to be off on some tangent again. It is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that prohibits the states from requiring such religious tests. It is also the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, not just the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, that prohibits the kind of state action that these North Carolina legislators are proposing. Were the bill discussed in the OP to become law, the State of North Carolina could refuse to allow a Mormon to hold public office, because Mormons do not believe in the same God that Christians believe in. Among other things, traditional Christians do not believe in a corporeal god who used to be a mortal man living on another planet.

Because you consistently demonstrate specific ignorance of constitutional law in the course of making ludicrous, wildly uninformed claims about constitutional law, here is a fun law review article to introduce you to principles of equal protection and incorporation jurisprudence that are not seriously questioned by anyone with a modicum of familiarity with these doctrines: https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue4/GellmanLooperFriedman10U.Pa.J.Const.L.665(2008).pdf

What is truly amazing about the depth of your ignorance is your obliviousness to the underlying civil rights dispute that led to this bill being proposed. It was about members of several religions, including Mormonism, being denied the right to take legal oaths on the holy book of their choice. That is, as a North Carolina state court judge specifically said, if you were a witness in court in North Carolina, and you wanted to take an oath on the Book of Mormon, you would not be allowed to do so because judges in North Carolina are empowered to determine whether or not the Book of Mormon is a Christian scripture. And this judge determined that, as a matter of law, the Book of Mormon is not Christian. Your position that it is "liberal" to object to a government official ruling on the truth value of someone's religious beliefs, but it is "conservative" to say that a state government can say one religion is superior to all others, is hilarious--but it's a sad, Franz Kafka sort of hilarity.

You also appear to be suggesting that the incorporation doctrine is not settled law. That assertion is fractally wrong. It is so wrong that it is difficult even to know where to begin. It would be like in a discussion about how automobiles work, someone suggests that it is not settled mechanics that a wheel turns on its axis.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, if you could cite some of the cases or statutes where any branch of the federal government has established secular humanism as the de facto religion of the United States, that would be great.

This kind of self-consciously disingenuous sophistry is yet another textbook example of why legal reasoning is countless light years from philosophical reasoning, and the courtroom, all-too often, even farther from the real world.

Just wondering, but in the last hundred years or so of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, has separation of church and state meant...

There's no such thing as "separation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution. Its modern incarnation as a club with which to beat religious citizens and target them for special first amendment restrictions is something that came out of left-wing activist case law jurisprudence just within the last half of the 20th century.