GOP: Okay to establish State Religion

[_Droopy]

[quote="Darth J"] As you both undoubtedly know, since you understand the legal system better than any 50 people with a juris doctor...

God help us all if there are that many in this country. In point of fact, the United States is graced with some 70% of the planet's lawyers, and few things are as clearly indicative of a deeply pathological, ill society as this.

[_beastie]

The weird thing about droopy is that he is totally oblivious to when he's over his head. He has one of the strongest cases of unwarranted hubris that I've ever seen.

[Guest]

Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what you're talking about, Droopy.

Also:

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.

You bet, Droopy. You know who one of my favorite left wing activist judges of the last half of the 20th century was? James Madison. Not only was he a liberal, but it is generally acknowledged that James Madison didn't know a damned thing about the Constitution.

http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingth ... ation.aspx

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

You know another one of my favorite late 20th century liberal activist judges? Thomas Jefferson. You know who else? Morrison Waite, who was chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1874 to 1888. Both of them were late 20th century leftists.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 162-64 (1879)

The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration "a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion," postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested "to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly."

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital "that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States." Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three — New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia — included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: "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 the 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

[_Darth J]

And Droopy, I want you to know how much I enjoy your utter failure to grasp the issue. If someone doesn't like the idea that a state government would purport to legislatively and judicially exclude Mormonism from the rubric of Christianity, and hold that the state government's concept of Christianity allows them to remove Mormonism from the public arena, then clearly that someone is a liberal who wants to destroy religion.

Droopy, will you tell me again about Chief Justice Roberts holding that Obamacare is permissible under the Commerce Clause? I love it when you provide your insightful commentaries on constitutional law. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24572&hilit=commerce

Please tell me again that John Roberts is part of the American Left, too!

[_Darth J]

case law jurisprudence

Droops, just one last thing. Since "case law jurisprudence" is, as we all know, a Satanic device of luciferian machinations, could you distinguish it by referencing any other form of jurisprudence that has ever existed in the United States? Since, say, 1776 to the present time?

The Founders didn't take it for granted that as former British colonies, we were a common law country. Did they?

[_subgenius]

Darth J,
notwithstanding your fantasy of being the resident legal eagle, i would offer the following....by the way...are you a licensed attorney?

I understand your position on incorporation as it pertains to this topic...however, the 10th amendment can quite easily be argued as nullifying this incorporation....a constitutional concept that you, no doubt, are well aware exists.
Quite simply put....the fealty of the NC constitution to the US constitution is not being violated and since the US constitution is silent on the matter of a state establishing a religion.
When one considers this further...one must also view this through the lens of "freedom of religion", particular to the prism of the federal government being able to prohibit religious expression....one may argue that the federal government does not have the power to prohibit religious expression.
after all...this whole matter began over a prayer being said before assembly, which has been done without incident or consequence for decades....only now, the ACLU had nothing better to do.
So, the 4th appeals found that only "favoring" one religion over the other was the issue...but being religious was not...thus allowing prayer, as long as it was not overtly one religion or another (2011 Forsyth County Board of Commissioners).

That being said, i would agree that beyond the symbolism of any particular state establishing a religion (unlikely that it would manifest beyond being symbolic) it might be troublesome for a state to establish a religion...however, this particular case brings up something more troubling....and that is the question of what is the appropriate relationship between the Federal govt and the State. Personally, i favor state's rights by default, and do so on this matter.
Ultimately there are probably more productive things for the ACLU, NC State ,and the Federal court system to be focused upon.

[_Darth J]

Darth J,
notwithstanding your fantasy of being the resident legal eagle, i would offer the following....by the way...are you a licensed attorney?

No. I practiced law for nine years in Utah and am currently voluntarily suspended. I have already made that clear on this board, and I alluded to it when I was new here. That's also 100% irrelevant to anything in this thread. There are law professors who have never even sat for a bar exam. I had one for third-year jurisprudence. A current license to practice law simply means the right to represent clients.

The fantasy of being the resident legal eagle is your own. You frequently hold forth on the ins and outs of constitutional law. And you are consistently wrong.

Like this thread: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... r&start=21 Or this one: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... it=skinner Or this one: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... it=skinner

And on and on.

Since you have decided to compare resumes, though, where did you get your J.D.?

I understand your position on incorporation as it pertains to this topic...however, the 10th amendment can quite easily be argued as nullifying this incorporation....a constitutional concept that you, no doubt, are well aware exists.

Sure, that can be easily argued. I can also easily argue that Elvis killed President Kennedy. Since the 14th Amendment specifically removes the states' power to deny persons equal protection of law, the argument that the states have reserved the power to deny equal protection plummets to the ground pretty quickly. Feel free to tell the State of Arkansas that it can disregard Supreme Court decisions about equal protection, though.

Quite simply put....the fealty of the NC constitution to the US constitution is not being violated and since the US constitution is silent on the matter of a state establishing a religion.

Hmm......

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nope, guess not. The incorporation doctrine is exactly the idea that things like the Establishment Clause apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. So now you're back to your idea that the incorporation doctrine is not settled law.

It's curious that the incorporation doctrine seems like a great idea to you when you think it supports your religious value judgments. You have referred to Skinner v. Oklahoma in several threads, under the mistaken belief that this case shows the U.S. Supreme Court determining that procreation is the legal purpose of marriage. E.g., viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28045&hilit=griswold&p=676628&view=show#p676628

So how is it that the U.S. Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Skinner at all, since the 10th Amendment allows states to reserve the power to deny persons due process and equal protection of law?

Also, subgenius, if you could articulate this heretofore unknown method of jurisprudence in which people can pick and choose between constitutional provisions (like the 10th and 14th Amendments), instead of harmonizing the various provisions of the Constitution, that would be great. You would be the first person to do so since 1789, so I'm sure your work on this endeavor would be impressive.

When one considers this further...one must also view this through the lens of "freedom of religion", particular to the prism of the federal government being able to prohibit religious expression....one may argue that the federal government does not have the power to prohibit religious expression.

That sure would mean something if anyone was saying otherwise. The prohibition against the state establishment of religion is in fact one of the ways in which the First Amendment protects the free exercise of all religions, but recognizing that would require some kind of coherent understanding of something on your part.

after all...this whole matter began over a prayer being said before assembly, which has been done without incident or consequence for decades....only now, the ACLU had nothing better to do.

That's a beautiful mischaracterization of what happened. Incidentally, did you figure out why the Baptists and the Anti-Defamation League, among other religious groups, filed amicus briefs in favor of the trial court being upheld? Why did they take the same side of this case as the ACLU, if the ACLU wants to destroy religion?

And you know that prayer they gave that referenced "the gospel of Jesus Christ"? You are aware that they don't recognize the LDS Church as teaching the same gospel of Jesus Christ as they do, right? They don't think you're a Christian. A state court judge specifically said that the Book of Mormon is not a Christian scripture. Remember? Anyway, if you could explain why a violation of the Constitution that has gone on unchallenged for decades is legally permissible, that would be great.

So, the 4th appeals found that only "favoring" one religion over the other was the issue...but being religious was not...thus allowing prayer, as long as it was not overtly one religion or another (2011 Forsyth County Board of Commissioners).

Yeah, and? Why did the ACLU argue that, since the ACLU supposedly wants to destroy religion entirely?

And why did the ACLU represent an LDS high school student in Texas where the Protestant majority was making her feel excluded and she was being discriminated against at school because she was LDS? Since the ACLU hates religion and wants to destroy it, I mean.

That being said, i would agree that beyond the symbolism of any particular state establishing a religion (unlikely that it would manifest beyond being symbolic) it might be troublesome for a state to establish a religion...however, this particular case brings up something more troubling....and that is the question of what is the appropriate relationship between the Federal govt and the State. Personally, i favor state's rights by default, and do so on this matter.

States don't have any rights, subgenius. States have powers. That's why you see things like this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The definition of a "right" in constitutional law is a limit on the state's power over an individual. The Tenth Amendment expressly does not allow states to reserve for themselves powers prohibited to them by the federal constitution. The 14th Amendment is part of the federal constitution.

All you're doing is characterizing a state government purporting to favor one religion over another at the expense of individual citizens belonging to minority religions within that state, and then labeling this as "state's rights conservatism." You be sure to explain how that political philosophy of the government telling people which is the best religion equates to conservatism, okay?

Ultimately there are probably more productive things for the ACLU, NC State ,and the Federal court system to be focused upon.

There is? There is something more important for the courts and civil rights organizations to focus on than the government explicitly favoring one religion over another? How utilitarian should we get before we just toss the Bill of Rights altogether, since there are more productive things to focus upon?

[_beastie]

I'm guessing that the only response Darth will get to these posts was Droopy's joke about lawyers.

[_x1134x]

How about legalizing marijuana? Are Washington and Colorado not subject to the Supremacy clause on this point? - are they not in fact committing acts of secession?

Yes, they are, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal narcotics laws preempt state laws purporting to legalize substances that are illegal under federal law.

No, they are not. They are not making a law that says "marijuana is LEGAL, regardless of what the feds say". THAT would be unconstitutional for them to do. What they are doing is saying "There will be no STATE penalty for possessing marijuana". That's it. It doesn't make the federal law any less applicable. There's no requirement that all states make and enforce laws that mirror federal laws. The federal government must enforce its own laws, the states are under no obligation to do so. This is how alcohol prohibition ended, once the states realized they didn't have the resources to enforce the (unenforceable) law, the feds found they weren't even CLOSE to having the resources to enforce the law.

[_Morley]

This is how alcohol prohibition ended, once the states realized they didn't have the resources to enforce the (unenforceable) law, the feds found they weren't even CLOSE to having the resources to enforce the law.

Interesting. And I'd always assumed prohibition ended because of the Twenty-first Amendment to the US Constitution...