Posted on 10/23/2003 5:35:13 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
So Jews can't really be Americans? Interesting....
I'm guessing that only Protestants of the snake-handling variety really qualify as Americans.
Please come up with a legal source, any legal source, that says SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over religious cases.
The fact of the matter is that SCOTUS is empowered to hear cases dealing with questions of Constitutional violations by the government. The 1st Amendment falls squarely into that power.
I take it you don't like the bill. Do you have some ideas by which we could bring our judicial system back into the fold? Or maybe you think they're doing an OK job?
FGS
That is a matter of opinion- your opinion. There are a billion Catholics and about 200,000,000 Orthodox who disagree with your opinion and the opinions of various Protestant sects.
Of course, they're all fools, right?
As my dear-departed grandpappy said about Iran: "Who the hell wants priests running a country?"
FWIW, the courts have used their authroity to infringe upon religious freedom; an inalienable right. Can you cite a relevant case where the scotus or any other court has stood for religious freedom and not against it? They are using their hammer from the wrong end it seems.
FGS
How about cases that outlaw forced prayer in school- I certainly don't want the state telling my kids when and how they should pray. There have been numerous cases allowing the Amish to be exempt from certain legal requirements due to their faith. Federal courts have allowed various religious groups to claim conscientious objector status from serving in military. Courts have generally told the state to butt out of religion. Sounds like religious freedom to me.
We as a people or we as in the government officially? As a people, go ahead. But given the many differing and contradicting beliefs even within Christianity, yes it would be a mistake for government to start endorsing views. Read up on that Bible riot.
(to various quotes...)
I could quote you oh so many from those we admire stating quite the opposite. However, I'll limit it to George Washington's most applicable ones to this situation.
The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.The latter one is especially important to my point. The government promoting one religion or sect will spark religious controversy, which has been known often to get bloody. Better to stay away from it all.Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
I am also against government involvement for another reason. In modern days, government involvement in religion has always harmed religion. This is not a dog you want to lie down with.
Okay, I'll give you some Jeffersons:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.[he believed Jesus was simply a wise man]Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law
Those who believe upon the Word of God have found the beginning of Wisdom. Those who calls His Son a liar and follow instead the paths of men, they are the foolish ones.
Let each say for himself which he is.
I'll make really simple as you apparently require:
Part 1: The government officially endorsing a religion or sect is not good in a society that values religious freedom.
Part II: If this law did not single out one religion (well, three religions, but we know which version will be used), then it would be more likely to survive constitutional challenges. But they will not do that, because the aim is to endorse one religious sect.
I can live with that, but I certainly don't accept your opinion of Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
This just goes back to the central issue- look at how a group of (predominantly) Christians can't even decide on the 10 Commandments. Imagine the strife that this law would cause once you involved the myriad other believers and non-believers in our society.
Please explain.
That was highly inappropriate. Have you no respect for peoples' beliefs?
That's your best shot? Surely you have some ideas on how we can curtail the unconstitutional activism of the courts without throwing up red herrings???
FGS
If you think we can avoid strife by avoiding the mention of God or His Son's Name, please think again.
No way. For example, while I am pro-choice, I also believe Roe vs. Wade to be an unconstitutional extention into states' rights that needs to be overturned ASAP. My personal likes or dislikes in debatable matters have nothing to do with how I see the Constitution. If it's against me, then I guess I need to try for an amendment because re-interpretation isn't going to cut it.
I also know the general meaning of the Constitution is to restrict government to a few functions, and the Bill of Rights is meant to further restrict government action. In light of that, whenever there is a restriction of government power, I support all interpretations that result in a restriction of government power.
"Respecting an stablishment of religion" can be easily interpreted a few ways, as the loose language allows for it. One of course is "can't make a law establishing a church or national religion." Good, I'll take that. Another is "can't make a law having anything to do with a religious establishment, physical or doctrinal." Good, I'll take that one too and add both of them up. Same with the 2nd Amendment. A government with restricted power is a government good for the people.
No one is being prevented from praying, going to church or expressing their religion. The only thing the courts have done is say that religion is not something the government should be involved in.
The whole Judge Moore thing seemed silly. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church in Alabama. Was there ever any real danger to religion in that State?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.