Replies

Nice substantitive argument...

Regarding the clause, “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

I would argue the following:

1. If indeed the intent of the Constitution was Federal Gov’t religious neutrality, doesn’t it follow that State gov’ts WITHIN the Federation should be subject to the same interpretation?

2. A nativity scene in a State building is essentially “respecting an establishment of one particular religion.” Consider that there are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are State residents and taxpayers and they may object to the sanctification of the Nativity Scene by the State.

BTW, I welcome counter-arguments/discussions such as yours having substance...

"Consider that there are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are State residents and taxpayers and they may object to the sanctification of the Nativity Scene by the State."

Simple little question here...why are the people "representing" these fine believers not pushing to have the symbols of their beliefs placed in the square rather than trying to tear down one predominant belief? Seems to me that would be the logical and tolerant thing to do.

'Course commies really don't want fairness or logic or tolerance...what they really want is to eliminate everyone's rights to believe what they want to believe, including those you suggested....why?...because all religious organizations are a threat to dictators.

First they came for the Christians, the evilgelicas and then Romans C's where not far behind follow by all the rest...

I would argue the following: 1. If indeed the intent of the Constitution was Federal Gov’t religious neutrality, Ah, but was it? The answer is clearly, no. The intent of the Constitution was the establishment of a set of rules, guidelines, et. al. as the last-best-hope basis of united States forming a federated government. The fact that "religious neutrality" was first mentioned only in the Bill of Rights, and not in the Constitution itself, gives proof that the issue was clearly important it was not paramount among the Founders.

Those who know the history of that era also know that such a provision in the First Amendment had nothing to do with making the United States a religious neutral institution as it was to insure against the requirement of religious oaths, such as was required in Great Britain and many part of Europe,and, in fact, several States in years before, as part of the requirement of citizenship.

...doesn’t it follow that State gov’ts WITHIN the Federation should be subject to the same interpretation? The answer again is, no. Not in this matter.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land to which all state laws must yield. No where in the Constitution is the above subject matter considered or inferred; ergo, it is a matter for the state.

The Constitution declares that those specified powers not expressly granted to the Federal (central) government are reserved for the States.

2. A nativity scene in a State building is essentially “respecting an establishment of one particular religion.” With all due respect but where did that quote originate? Not from the Constitution. As has been pointed out numerous times on numberless posts, the First Amendment prohibits Congress the "...establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.." IOW, the Constitution is ordering Congress -- "Hands off."

Consider that there are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are State residents and taxpayers and they may object... If we had waited for nobody to object, and everybody to approve, a particular course of action --any-- course of action, nothing in the world would have even gotten done.

...to the sanctification of the Nativity Scene by the State. The word "sanctification" has its roots in the word "sanctify" which means to make holy. His Holiness the pope may sanctify a cathedral, but the state, a secular institution, can not sanctify anything. The Department of City Services can not sanctify a drinking fountain at the local park.

1. If indeed the intent of the Constitution was Federal Gov’t religious neutrality, doesn’t it follow that State gov’ts WITHIN the Federation should be subject to the same interpretation?

No, because the approach of the Republic form of government was liberty, not a top-down reorganization of society. It enumerated specific, limited powers for the federal government, mostly for the protection of the states and the people and for the facilitation of the states' and the peoples' liberty. Were it not for the existence of the First Amendment, there would now be no Constitutional argument about religious liberty (something the anti-Federalists feared). But given

1. the specificity of the First Amendment for actions by the Congress of the federal government, together with
2. the Ninth Amendment declaring the existence of rights not cataloged in the Bill of Rights and
3. the Tenth Amendment affirming that outside the specific powers of the Constitution delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, all other powers being reserved to the states and to the people at large, together with
4. the then-current practice of official state churches,

the argument cannot really be made that the Founders intended that the Federal Government should be religiously intolerant to all expressions of religion, much less that this same sort of intolerance, known as "the empty public square", should be imposed by the Federal Government on the States (as in the school prayer case of O'Hair or in the Ten Commandments case in the south) and upon municipal governments within the states (no display of religious symbols at holiday times in public squares) or on the people (attempts, under a specious reading of the First Amendment, to force private citizens to take down displays of a religious nature that could be viewed by the "public" and "offend" someone with different religious or anti-religious sensibilities).

2. A nativity scene in a State building is essentially “respecting an establishment of one particular religion.” Consider that there are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are State residents and taxpayers and they may object to the sanctification of the Nativity Scene by the State.

Constitutionally, the "State" doesn't mean every form of elected government there is. The Amendments make this clear beyond any doubt. As I said earlier, the anti-Federalists were afraid that the federal government would become an all-powerful, oppressive dictatorship and believed that even the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights would be used to limit the peoples' rights. And even though the Ninth and Tenth Amendments spoke specifically to this issue, it hasn't stopped the attempt to make the federal government the only government and everything else an anachronism operating solely under the auspices of the federal government and as its agents.

‘2. A nativity scene in a State building is essentially “respecting an establishment of one particular religion.” Consider that there are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are State residents and taxpayers and they may object to the sanctification of the Nativity Scene by the State.’

Understand your concern, but establishment of religion means exactly what happened in England - TAX-PAYER SUPPORTED *CHURCH* (NOT SIMPLY SOME TEMPORARY DISPLAY) - WHICH THE STATE ITSELF RUNS!

The 1st Amend is not only to protect the State from Church(es), but to protect the Church(es) from State.