Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Separation of Church and State case before SCOTUS

SCOTUS Establishment Clause First Amendment

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:33 PM

http://thinkprogress...urch-and-state/

Quote


Instead, the Roberts Court’s majority has thus far been content to chip away at the wall between church and state a piece at a time. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Court immunized many Executive Branch actions from suits claiming they violate the Constitution’s ban on “law[s] respecting an establishment of religion.” And in Arizona Christian School v. Winn, they empowered government to subsidize religion so long as those subsidies are structured as tax benefits and not as direct spending. But the core question of whether the government can “demonstrate . . . allegiance to a particular sect or creed” likely still must be answered in the negative.


The case the Court agreed to hear today, Town of Greece v. Galloway, is likely to change that. The ostensible issue before the Court is whether a municipal legislature violated the Constitution’s ban on separation of church and state when it began its meetings with overtly Christian prayers roughly two-thirds of the time. Yet the case also explicitly tees up the question of whether a government “endorsement” of religion of the kind rejected by O’Connor is permitted under the Constitution. If you’re placing bets, the odds are overwhelming that five conservative justices will say that such an endorsement is permitted.


With O’Connor gone, the much more conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy becomes the swing vote on questions of church/state separation. Kennedy has held that “government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise,” but it is not clear that he would forbid much else under the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion. By the end of the next Supreme Court term, however, it is very likely that his views will carry the day.


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:21 PM

in the Arizona case , it's not about religion, it's about tax write-off for giving; whatever giving to, if you disallow the credit for the giving to the one then you must to the other - and the town assembly thing, it's not government endorsing religion; it's just the people there, the members, wanting to open the meeting with a prayer, that's not endorsing a religion; it's basically group peer activity, and any member could say I don't want to participate in the prayer just the meeting, but then peer pressure or really just peer judgment comes in, you know how people always judge others it's the national past-time now. (then you get known for not wanting the prayer, in the bible belt town, and the next election comes up, and you are not in the assembly anymore, because the voters want those bible fearing, oh well you know how groups are)- but it's not a Constitution thing, or a suit thing, or a Supreme Court thing, so the SC will prolly not go with the suers.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:30 PM

If it's a "town meeting" it's under the auspices of the municipality.  Unless you're telling me that they're calling it a "town meeting" for no reason that has anything to do with the town itself.  Which makes zero sense but hey if that's what they're doing then that's what they're doing.
Posted Image

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:32 PM

And if you think that the question of whether a municipality is allowed to overtly endorse one religion over another is NOT a constitutional question then, um, you're just flat out wrong.
Posted Image

#5 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:32 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on 24 May 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

And if you think that the question of whether a municipality is allowed to overtly endorse one religion over another is NOT a constitutional question then, um, you're just flat out wrong.

Oh no.  I do think it is a constitutional issue.  So did O'Connor when she was on the court.  The state doesn't have to create a State Church [imo] to violate the Establishment clause.  They only have to act in such a way as to endorse one religion over others.  It establishes one religion as "favored", if not by word, deed.  A favored religion has a chilling effect on people who don;'t belong to that religion.  It could even send these un-favored religions underground, something the Founders tried to avoid with the first amendment.

This will be an interesting case to watch.  I believe they will blur the line and allow municipalities to  'favor' a religion.  It's a conservative court, and I  don't believe they will hold the line when it comes to a case like this.  But, we shall see what we shall see.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#6 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:33 AM

BTW LIl, thanks for coming into this thread.  I appreciate your input and wish you would drop by more often. :)  You are missed.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#7 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:46 AM

See a strict constructionist would argue that if it doesn't involve "Congress making a law" then it's not Constitutional.  But you know, that can cut both ways.  I.E. it can be read JUST as narrowly with regard to RESTRICTING religion.  But I'm sure the Scalias of this world would be up in arms over the idea of a two way street.

OT makes me tired.

But I'm moving and I'm stressed about it so hey if I'm gonna be all Ms. She-Hulk, I might as well not waste it, right? ;)
Posted Image

#8 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on 25 May 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:


But I'm moving and I'm stressed about it so hey if I'm gonna be all Ms. She-Hulk, I might as well not waste it, right? ;)

Exactly.  I hate moving, so I completely understand.  Hope the move goes smoothly for you.  :)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: SCOTUS, Establishment Clause, First Amendment

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users