Thread Options
|
#949219 - 04/24/08 11:08 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Jokerman
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,436
God Bless America
|
Hmmmm and here I thought Hinduism was the state religeon of Maryland. Things must have changed since I left..
_________________________
Tag you're it!!
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949231 - 04/24/08 11:58 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Jokerman
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,436
|
Or, put yourself on the Court. Splat. Splat. Splat. Splat. Splat. Splat. Splat. [Seven BOL posters' heads exploding.] Could have just been nausea!
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949254 - 04/25/08 04:11 AM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Jokerman
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 144
Dallas, TX
|
The 1st Amendment applies to Congress (the Federal law-making body), not the states.
The 9th Amendment does not preclude individual states from establishing a state-sanctioned religion. However, each state has adopted its own constitution and each of those constitutions (if I'm not mistaken) prohibit the establishment of religion.
Both of the previously mentioned points are academic. The selling of license plates does not establish a religion any more than a bird bath in my back yard creates an aviary or planting a rose bush makes it a botanical garden.
Even the late Chief Justice Renquist stated acknowledging religion (any religion) does not violate the "establishment clause."
The bottom line is there is NO federal constitutional basis for "separation of church and state." There is, however, a constitutional basis for the "separation of the state from the church."
You need to understand a little history here. Regardless of which religion they practiced, our ancestors did not flee England because they were fearful of the church's involvement in state affairs; they were concerned the state (AKA the king) would force religion (his) upon them and they would have no say in the matter.
In a representative-Republic, the PEOPLE can decide for themselves what they want (or don't want) by how they choose their elected officials.
_________________________
#RTR
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949289 - 04/25/08 12:37 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Pale Rider
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Membership in the K of C is limited to "practical Catholic" men aged 18 or older. IDK, sounds kind of religious in nature. The Knights of Columbus and the Knights of Peter Claver are both lay organizations for Catholics. The Knights of Columbus is focused specifically on Catholic men. The Knights of Peter Claver are focused on African-American Catholics. Both orgainizations are devoted to helping their members live out the teachings of the Church. They also provide fraternal fellowship. The Knights of Columbus is one of the largest private mutual life insurers in the U.S.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949298 - 04/25/08 12:50 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
B_F
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Membership in the K of C is limited to "practical Catholic" men aged 18 or older. IDK, sounds kind of religious in nature. So is the Masonic Lodge. Please clarify, as the Catholic Church expressly forbids joining the Freemasons. The Masonic Lodge is a religious organization, not Catholic, nor is it Christian. BF, you make a distinction between Catholics and Christians, as if Catholics are not Christians. I know you are not in love with the Catholic Church; you have your reason for it often enough. But Catholic Church is the original Christian religion; we trace our roots all the way back to Christ and his Apostles. I wish you be more accurate and precise in your comments.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949563 - 04/25/08 03:35 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Dallas Tide
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
The 1st Amendment applies to Congress (the Federal law-making body), not the states.
The 9th Amendment does not preclude individual states from establishing a state-sanctioned religion. However, each state has adopted its own constitution and each of those constitutions (if I'm not mistaken) prohibit the establishment of religion.
Both of the previously mentioned points are academic. The selling of license plates does not establish a religion any more than a bird bath in my back yard creates an aviary or planting a rose bush makes it a botanical garden.
Even the late Chief Justice Renquist stated acknowledging religion (any religion) does not violate the "establishment clause."
The bottom line is there is NO federal constitutional basis for "separation of church and state." There is, however, a constitutional basis for the "separation of the state from the church."
You need to understand a little history here. Regardless of which religion they practiced, our ancestors did not flee England because they were fearful of the church's involvement in state affairs; they were concerned the state (AKA the king) would force religion (his) upon them and they would have no say in the matter.
In a representative-Republic, the PEOPLE can decide for themselves what they want (or don't want) by how they choose their elected officials. You are correct about everything you said, until the 14th Amendment was adopted.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949585 - 04/25/08 03:45 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Because the 14th amendment stated that it was intended to apply the bill of rights to the states?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949649 - 04/25/08 04:17 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
The 14th amendment was intended to mean that all citizens have the same rights. It was not intended to incorporate the bill of rights into state constitutions. It was adopted in an environment where blacks were being treated differently under the law than whites. And it was designed to correct that, not to end federalism.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949682 - 04/25/08 04:39 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 144
Dallas, TX
|
The 14th Amendment does not effect what I said.
You're missing the point. Both the 1st Amendment and the various state constitutions prohibit establishing a religion.
Selling state issued license plates (even with a religious statement imprinted upon it) does not equate to establishing a religion.
Therefore, if the people (through their elected officials) wish to sell them, the 10th Amendment protects their right to do so.
By the way, the same defense/argument you're suggesting (applying the 14th Amendment unilaterally to the states), just like the federal government, it would also preclude the states from interfering in the "free exercise there of." Again meaning, should the voters opt to offer these plates (& the politians for once listen to their constiuents), it is THEIR choice.
_________________________
#RTR
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949704 - 04/25/08 04:56 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Jokerman
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
The 14th amendment was intended to mean that all citizens have the same rights. It was not intended to incorporate the bill of rights into state constitutions. It was adopted in an environment where blacks were being treated differently under the law than whites. And it was designed to correct that, not to end federalism. Then answer my hypothetical please. If Maryland adopted a law that said no Maryland citizen could practice a religion other than Catholicism, how would Maryland citizens then have the same rights as US citizens of other states?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949710 - 04/25/08 04:57 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Dallas Tide
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
The 14th Amendment does not effect what I said.
You're missing the point. Both the 1st Amendment and the various state constitutions prohibit establishing a religion.
Selling state issued license plates (even with a religious statement imprinted upon it) does not equate to establishing a religion.
Therefore, if the people (through their elected officials) wish to sell them, the 10th Amendment protects their right to do so.
By the way, the same defense/argument you're suggesting (applying the 14th Amendment unilaterally to the states), just like the federal government, it would also preclude the states from interfering in the "free exercise there of." Again meaning, should the voters opt to offer these plates (& the politians for once listen to their constiuents), it is THEIR choice. I don't think this is an establishment issue either, but the plates are not being attacked for that reason anyway. They are being attacked because these vanity plates are not charged the same fee as other vanity plates. Fox headline was misleading. Read the entire article please.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949755 - 04/25/08 05:26 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Dallas Tide
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,436
|
Both the 1st Amendment and the various state constitutions prohibit establishing a religion Actually the First Amendment is broader than that. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting "an establishment of religion". Not just "a religion" as you said, but "of religion" generally. Many people try to sneak that one-letter word "a" in there, but it isn't in the text of the First Amendment. Obviously, establishment of "a religion" would also be included in the broader phrase "establishment of religion".
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949767 - 04/25/08 05:36 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Yossarian
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
|
Both the 1st Amendment and the various state constitutions prohibit establishing a religion Actually the First Amendment is broader than that. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting( in respect to, in regards to, regarding) "an establishment of religion". Not just "a religion" as you said, but "of religion" generally. Many people try to sneak that one-letter word "a" in there, but it isn't in the text of the First Amendment. Obviously, establishment of "a religion" would also be included in the broader phrase "establishment of religion". fixed
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949824 - 04/25/08 06:13 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
The 14th amendment was intended to mean that all citizens have the same rights. It was not intended to incorporate the bill of rights into state constitutions. It was adopted in an environment where blacks were being treated differently under the law than whites. And it was designed to correct that, not to end federalism. Then answer my hypothetical please. If Maryland adopted a law that said no Maryland citizen could practice a religion other than Catholicism, how would Maryland citizens then have the same rights as US citizens of other states? First, establishing the Catholic Church as the official state church of Maryland would not necessarily mean that no Maryland citizen could practice another faith. Second, the 14th amendment wasn't intended to ensure that the citizens of each state were treated the same as the citizens of all other states - that would mean that each state would have provide, for example, equal welfare benefits, or opportunities for higher education, or transportation facilities, wouldn't it? The 14th amendment was to ensure that the states treated their own citizens equally under the law. Now, to take your question a step beyond, if Maryland was to require membership in the Catholic Church in order to vote, then that would certainly be an equal protection violation. But simply designating the church as Maryland's state church? In my opinion, no.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949826 - 04/25/08 06:14 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Blade Scrapper
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
As Straw pointed out, the case involving Indiana's "In God We Trust" plates was that the state established preferential treatment of a religious plate by pricing it differently than other vanity/affiliation plates.
The proposed Florida plate is a different matter since it celebrates a particular religious belief. The rationale is that the state legislature would vote to approve the plate, and the governor would sign it into law, establishing state recognition of a single religious belief.
Looking ahead to the notion that the appearance of a government preference for a single religious belief might be mitigated by proposing, voting on and approving other religious belief plates, that might be true up until the point where a religious belief fails the process. Then you have the opposite problem, the government, in an explicit way, has refused to recognize a religious belief.
As one of the Florida legislators was quoted in the AP article, they're better off not getting involved in it at all.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949848 - 04/25/08 06:22 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Well, congrats on vitiaing the 14th amendment. Even Scalia cannot go as far as you suggest. Sissy.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949860 - 04/25/08 06:28 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
|
The proposed Florida plate is a different matter since it celebrates a particular religious belief. The rationale is that the state legislature would vote to approve the plate, and the governor would sign it into law, establishing state recognition of a single religious belief. At least two other examples given in this thread promote a specific god. Furthermore, there are many religeions that don't support one god and thus you are excluding them. Your statement above is just not accurate.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949925 - 04/25/08 07:09 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Blade Scrapper
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,436
|
Both the 1st Amendment and the various state constitutions prohibit establishing a religion Actually the First Amendment is broader than that. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting( in respect to, in regards to, regarding) "an establishment of religion". Not just "a religion" as you said, but "of religion" generally. Many people try to sneak that one-letter word "a" in there, but it isn't in the text of the First Amendment. Obviously, establishment of "a religion" would also be included in the broader phrase "establishment of religion". fixed Is this supposed to be a joke? I used the language of the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949928 - 04/25/08 07:12 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Yossarian
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
|
I added interpretation based on 18th century english usage as to what "respecting" refers to.
Last edited by DoobyDoobyDung; 04/25/08 07:20 PM.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#949958 - 04/25/08 07:30 PM
Re: Here We Go Again....
Blade Scrapper
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,436
|
OK, that's fine, but how did that "fix" anything??????
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|