There was a time when 10 Commandment displays sat untouched in government halls and schools, when Nativity scenes were placed in parks and in front of government buildings, and when children sang traditional Christmas songs at holiday concerts. I remember my elementary school calendar, which read, “Christmas Vacation” marking a week or so off for the Christmas season.
Slowly and methodically, it’s all disappearing thanks primarily to two organizations that are on a mission to eradicate any vestige of God – particularly Jesus Christ – from the public square.
The Madison, Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation, (FFRF) and American Atheists, based in Cranford, New Jersey, are the leaders in filing frivolous and outrageous lawsuits aimed at eradicating any Christian signs, symbols, and words or prayers from the landscape.
American Atheists, founded in 1963 by the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair – once known as the most hated woman in America – will be celebrating its 50th year next year. A famous lawsuit by the group in the '60s put an end to Bible reading in schools and this was to be the beginning of the end of a form of religious freedom for Christians.
Sometimes quietly, but oftentimes not, the groups are filing lawsuits at lightning speed anywhere they claim to see a “violation of the Establishment Clause.”
Their modus operandi is similar to a search and destroy mission. Seek out Christian symbols and banish them. Both FFRF and American Atheists encourage their members to report “violations of the Establishment Clause,” also know as “separation of church and state” violations; this could be a 10 Commandments display, a Nativity scene, a statue of Jesus, it doesn’t matter; it just has to be a Christian symbol.
The “violator” is sent a letter from one of the organizations, which in effect threatens a lawsuit if the offending item is not removed. The mere mention of a lawsuit strikes fear in the hearts of school districts, towns and villages.
Since FFRF and American Atheists have won many of their cases over the years, towns, villages and schools recognize it could be a very costly and time consuming lawsuit that they simply cannot afford a to take on. So, they give in to the bullies by removing said offensive item(s).
The origin of “Separation of Church and State” - Thomas Jefferson and a phrase that became wrongly interpreted
The problem is this: the term “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. What anti-Christian activists are referring to is this portion of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Back in 1801, The Danbury Baptists Association had written to President Thomas Jefferson concerned that the government, particularly their state, would interfere with their religious beliefs. They weren’t concerned that say, Islam or Buddhism would be the established religion; they were worried a particular denomination of Christianity would be established.
In 1802 Thomas Jefferson replied to their letter and in part it states:
“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 & State.”
What Jefferson was saying is that the government could not interfere with their right to worship freely, that the First Amendment guaranteed their religious freedom. His statement had absolutely nothing to do with Christian displays of any kind, public prayers or any kind of public faith expressed.
1947 Everson v. Board of Education
Fast forward to 1947: in the case Everson v. Board of Education, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled on a case brought by a New Jersey resident. The resident claimed it was unconstitutional to provide reimbursements to parents who paid for their children to take a public school bus to a Christian school.
While it was upheld, in his opinion, Justice Black wrote these infamous words, introducing a new legal principle, which would be a guideline and shape the future of lawsuits and their outcomes by atheist groups:
“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
Suddenly “separation of church and state” took on a new meaning. It no longer referred to the federal government establishing a religion; it now meant that government could have nothing to do with religion at all, because by doing so, it would be “establishing” a religion. This new interpretation became a great gift to atheists.
Under the new definition, “separation of church and state” now meant government would be endorsing, favoring and forcing Christianity by allowing the very presence of a Christian sign, cross or symbol on public property. Therefore, these symbols must be banished.
What?
Sadly, the outcome of this new interpretation is the government violating the rights of Christians, by prohibiting their free exercise of religion. Remember, the First Amendment protects our right to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Big difference. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they could see what has become of the First Amendment.
To say this is what Thomas Jefferson intended in his letter or what the founding fathers meant is nothing but a big, fat lie. A lie that has been told and retold so many times that millions believe it, without knowing the facts. Activist judges have bought the lie and that’s why Christian symbols are disappearing.
Look at what else Justice Black wrote concerning religion in that same case:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.”
The Federal Government cannot pass laws favoring any religious group. OK, I can agree with that. And, the government cannot establish a religion be it Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, or whatever. Great. So then, how is a religious symbol establishing a church? It doesn’t!
The establishment clause, by Justice Black’s own words in the above paragraph, does not say that public schools cannot have bibles or government properties can not have a 10 Commandments or other type of Christian display. Displays do not force anyone to practice Christianity.
In fact, reading further in the statement, the good Justice says, “…no person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs…” It seems to me like Christians are very much being punished by denying our right to have Christian symbols in the public square.
Lawsuits, Lawsuits and more Lawsuits by Atheist Groups
American Atheist, FFRF and other secularist, humanist groups are on a mission. Eradicate every symbol and vestige of Christianity in the country. Nativity sets must go, prayer before football games, 10 Commandments displays, statues of Jesus; it’s all being wiped off our landscape thanks to the faulty and bizarrely reinterpreted “separation of church and state.” Let’s take a look at some of the lawsuits filed by atheist groups:
Steubenville - City Logo Threatened with Lawsuit
In Steubenville, Ohio, FFRF threatened a lawsuit if the city did not remove a cross from the city logo. The cross represents a replica of the chapel at Franciscan University. On behalf of the University, Michael Hernon, Vice President of Advancement said this:
“For more than 65 years, Franciscan University of Steubenville has proudly served as an integral part of this community and we are honored to have our chapel included in the new city of Steubenville logo.
“We find it particularly troubling that an out of town and out of touch group targeted the university for removal from the logo solely because of our religious identity.”
But Co-President of FFRF Annie Laurie Gaylor said, “Crosses do not belong on the logos of American cities. We are not a ‘Christian nation’ or a theocracy, but were first among nations to adopt a secular constitution wisely separating religion from government.”
There’s that phrase again: separating religion from government. How could one depict a Catholic University without a cross? Should the University be left off the logo completely because it is a religious institution? Maybe the University should move somewhere else, after all, it is in public sight; it may offend someone.
At first, the city backed down, and temporarily changed the logo, but several organizations have come forward offering legal help to defend the city, which has clearly irritated the folks at FFRF.
“Do not be duped by offers from religious right legal groups,” wrote FFRF staff attorney Patrick Elliot, in a letter to the organization. “They may volunteer their time pro bono but they never pick up the plaintiffs’ tab.”
So, threatening that the taxpayers will be forced to pay is yet another way of bullying the city to cave to their demands to remove the cross from the logo.
Pennsylvania – Two 10 Commandments Monuments Threatened
Two Pennsylvania schools, in Connellsville and New Kensington, are in the midst of lawsuits by FFRF. 10 Commandments Monuments, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the 1950s, have been outside the schools for some 50 years. The lawsuits were filed within two weeks of each other, keeping the folks at FFRF busy.
According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the monuments are an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause and a government endorsement of religion. The attorneys for the Connellsville school wrote in part:
“…the longstanding Eagles‘ Ten Commandments monument in this case makes passive and permissible use of the text to acknowledge, in part, the role of religion in our Nation‘s heritage.
“As the Supreme Court recognized, similar references to and representations of the Ten Commandments on government property are replete throughout our country.”
Absolutely right. Religion played a roll in making laws in this country and there is no denying that.
In the case of the Connellsville display, it’s not even good enough for FFRF if the monument is moved to a nearby church, because students can still see it. I suppose by viewing it they are in danger of turning to stone, like the statue itself.
Rallies and protests have been staged at each of the sites by outraged residents and each started Facebook pages; Save Connellsville 10 Commandments, and Keep the 10 Commandments at Valley High School. Residents are also fighting back with displays on their lawns.
Some, but not all, lawsuits have been successful in removing 10 Commandments displays.
9/11 Cross and the Memorial Museum Targeted
Perhaps the most offensive and well-known lawsuit is one filed by American Atheists. A twisted steel beam in the shape of a cross was found at the site of the devastation at the World Trade Center and is included in 9/11 Memorial Museum. American Atheists jumped on this, claiming its being there made them ill and caused other such calamities.
In an article by the Christian Post, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, defends their lawsuit, which seeks to remove the cross from the New York City museum:
"We're talking about public lands, we're talking about public funds, we're talking about congressionally ordered public funds. We're talking about an 18-foot memorial, this is grossly inappropriate," Silverman said. "We feel very strongly that this is an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it about Christians, even though it's not about Christians at all.”
As a Christian, I completely disagree with his statement that we are trying to Christianize 9/11. People of many faiths and probably no faith equally died horribly. But the cross is an artifact found in the wreckage; something that has great meaning to many people who died, the survivors, and relatives and friends of the deceased. This item being in the museum is by no means a violation of the separation of church and state. Keeping it out of the museum, though, is a violation of rights.
Edwin Kagin, legal director of American Atheists, said the display represents "a violation of both federal and New York law in that public funds will be used to establish the Christian religion on public land." Excuse me, but how does a cross in a museum establish the Christian religion? If the government came along and said, “You must practice Christianity,” that would be establishing a religion.
The museum has filed court papers to have the suit thrown out, and the case is still pending as of this writing. It called the cross an "important and essential artifact" that "belongs at the World Trade Center site as it comprises a key component of the re-telling of the story of 9/11."
Hawaii - Fund Raising Christmas Concert Stopped Hours Before Showtime
The Hawaii Reporter recently published a story about a high school concert that has for the past six years raised money that goes to a charity in Africa. American doctors provide service to poor villagers, those who, without the charity, would never see a doctor.
The students, who have performed at Carnegie Hall in New York City, have raised over $200K for the charity, had practiced for months and looked forward to performing – until that was, atheist activist Mitch Kahle came along and voiced a very sour note. Writing a letter to the Department of Education, on FFRF stationary, citing church/state violation, he demanded the concert be stopped. Officials cowered to him and the concert was cancelled. It has since been rescheduled to a different location.
California – 60-Year Tradition of Nativity Display Halted
In Santa Monica, Ca., Palisades Park was home to a Christmastime Nativity scene since 1953. A bitter battle ensued when atheists began putting up anti-Christian displays in the park. Many of the anti-religious displays were vandalized and the city council eventually banned all displays. The case was taken to court by Nativity Scenes organizers but the court ruled the City Council could ban the displays; ending six decades of its presence. The Nativity scene has now been relocated.
Rhode Island – Prayer Banner Removed after 49 Years
Earlier this year in Cranston, Rhode Island, 16-year-old high school student and atheist Jessica Ahlquist sued her school to remove a prayer banner, which hung on the wall in her school’s gym for 49 years. With the encouragement and assistance of atheist organizations she won the lawsuit and the banner was removed. The lawsuit paid off for her in a big way; she was awarded a $63,000 scholarship from the American Humanist Association.
Also in Rhode Island, the city of Woonsocket is currently facing a lawsuit, which seeks to remove a War Memorial on city property. Located in the parking lot of the fire department, it is unlawful says FFRF because it has a cross atop it. The memorial has stood unchallenged since 1921.
No End in Sight
These are but a few recent lawsuits but there have been many, many more. The good news is, FFRF and American Atheists have not won all their lawsuits and their funding is limited.
But, cities and towns across America are being targeted one by one. This minority of non-believers, who feel so threatened by a God they don’t believe exists, are on a mission. Like arrogant anti-God Caped Crusaders, sweeping into towns across America, they are bent on destroying our Christian heritage and our right to express our religion in public places.
Standing on the faulty version of “separation of church and state,” they have been empowered by wins, and their ultimate goal is to remove every single sign, monument and prayer from the public square.
Forget about a “War on Christmas,” it’s an all out War on Christianity. These lawsuits and the individuals and groups behind them are not going to stop. It is time for Christians to fight back, get involved with their communities that are under siege by these groups, and join in the fight with their finances, their voices and their prayers.
More details on the aforementioned lawsuits:
Steubenville - City logo debate continues
Ten Commandments monuments at Connellsville, New Kensington-Arnold are sign of different times
Christmas Grinch? Atheist Gets Hawaii DOE to Halt Winter Charity Concert Just Hours Before the Show
9/11 Memorial Museum Lawsuit
Santa Monica's 60-Year-Old Nativity Scenes Tradition Moves to Private Property
Rhode Island - Judge orders Prayer Banner Removed
19 comments:
It appears to me that each of these letters and lawsuits are written to a town or government body.
NONE are written to people exercising their right to have freedom of religion.
You Talk about the 1st amendment and Jefferson. You said that the 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state. I agree.
Perhaps you could explain what laws the government may make or what influence ONE religion can have on the government which doesn't take away someone else's religious freedom.
You want YOUR religion held in esteem but you get very testy when reminded that ALL RELIGIONS and NONE are equal.
True, the threatening letters are not written to individuals. But the result of the letters and subsequent lawsuits is an assault on the rights of individuals.
I'll reiterate: the government would only be establishing a religion if it declared and made laws that everyone in this country must practice that religion. That is what "establishment of religion means." Why can't atheists get that through their heads?
I addressed all of your points on the Christians Against the Freedom From Religion Foundation Facebook page, but I would like to address the three main important points on your blog.
First, before Justice Black appealed to Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), Justice Waite appealed to it in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). He wrote:
"[M]r. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, 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." 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. . . ." Reynolds, 98 US at 162-164.
Second, before the Supreme Court held daily devotional Bible readings violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the federal constitution in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963), state supreme courts as early as 1872 held that daily devotional readings of the Bible in their schools violated their state constitutions.
In Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211 (1872), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the use of the Bible in Ohio schools violated Section 7, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution which provided:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.”
The Court held:
"The real claim here is, that by "religion," in this clause of the constitution, is meant "Christian religion," and that by "religious denomination" in the same clause is meant "Christian denomination." If this claim is well founded, I do not see how we can consistently avoid giving a like meaning to the same words and their cognates, "worship," "religious society," "sect," "conscience," "religious belief," throughout the entire section. To do so, it will readily be seen, would be to withdraw from every person not of Christian belief the guarantees therein vouchsafed, and to withdraw many of them from Christians themselves. In that sense the clause of Section 7 in question would read as follows:
"Christianity, morality and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every Christian denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction."
. . .
If, by this generic word "religion," was really meant "the Christian religion," or "Bible religion," why was it not plainly so written? Surely the subject was of importance enough to justify the pains, and surely it was of interest enough to exclude the supposition that it was written in haste or thoughtlessly slurred over. At the time of adopting our present constitution, this word "religion" had had a place in our old constitution for half a century, which was surely ample time for studying its meaning and effect, in order to make the necessary correction or alteration, so as to render its true meaning definite and certain.. The same word "religion," and in much the same connection is found on the Constitution of United States. The latter constitution, at least, if not our own also, in a sense, speaks to mankind and speaks to the rights of man. Neither the word "Christianity," "Christian," nor "Bible," is to be found in either. When they speak of "religion," they must mean the religion of man, and not the religion of any class of men. When they speak of "all men" having certain rights, they cannot mean merely "all Christian" men.
We are told that this word "religion" must mean "Christian religion," because "Christianity is a part of the "common law of this country," lying behind and above its Constitutions. Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is a law of the State, like every other law, it must have a sanction. Adequate penalties must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might almost say, in this age of the world."
In another case, State ex rel. Weiss v. District Bd. of School Dist. No. 8, 76 Wis. 177, 44 N.W. 967 (1890), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the use of the Bible in Wisconsin schools violated Article X, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution which provided:
"The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 40 years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein; but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours."
The Court held:
"The clause that “no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein” was inserted ex industria to exclude everything pertaining to religion.
They are called by those who wish to have not only religion, but their own religion, taught therein, “Godless schools.” They are Godless, and the educational department of the government is Godless, in the same sense that the executive, legislative, and administrative departments are Godless. So long as our constitution remains as it is, no one's religion can be taught in our common schools. . . . Religion, as a system of belief, cannot be taught without offense to those who have their own peculiar views of religion, no more than it can be without offense to the different sects of religion. How can religion, in this sense, be taught in the common schools, without taxing the people for or on account of it? The only object, purpose, or use for taxation by law in this state must be exclusively secular.
There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter into our common schools, they would be destroyed. Those who made our constitution saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to prevent such a catastrophe. Those who made our constitution saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to prevent such a catastrophe.
It is said, if reading the Protestant version of the Bible in school is offensive to the parents of some of the scholars, and antagonistic to their own religious views, their children can retire. They ought not to be compelled to go out of the school for such a reason for one moment. The suggestion itself concedes the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile to the belief of many who are taxed to support the common schools, and who have equal rights and privileges in them. It is a source of religious and sectarian strife. That is enough. It violates the letter and the spirit of the constitution. No state constitution ever existed that so completely excludes and precludes the possibility of religious strife in the civil affairs of the state, and yet so fully protects all alike in the enjoyment of their own religion. All sects and denominations may teach the people their own doctrines in all proper places. Our constitution protects all, and favors none. But they must keep out of the common schools and civil affairs. It requires but little argument to prove that the Protestant version of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is the source of religious strife and opposition, and opposed to the religious belief of many of our people. It is a sectarian book. . .
Religion needs no support from the state. It is stronger and much purer without it. The connection of church and state corrupts religion, and makes the state despotic."
Third, there have been court challenges to non-Christian symbols on government property.
In Kaplan v. Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1989), the Second Circuit held that the Lubavitch of Vermont's 16 feet high and 12 feet wide menorah display with the sign "Happy Chanukah" located on the City of Burlington's City Hall Park violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held:
"As we see it, Allegheny teaches that the display of a menorah on government property in this case conveys a message of government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. We reach that result for the following reasons. As already indicated, three Justices believe that any display of a religious symbol on public property should be barred, or presumptively barred, and two Justices would rest their decision on the physical context of the display. The facts here with regard to the menorah are very much like those in Allegheny with regard to the creche. The menorah, like the creche in that case, is displayed alone on public property closely associated with a core government function. In Allegheny, the creche was inside the County Courthouse; here, the menorah is right in front of City Hall — the very phrase "is commonly used as a metaphor for government." . . . Indeed, the two members of the Court in Allegheny who engaged in intensive fact-specific analysis indicated that a menorah standing alone would be improper. . .
The menorah, like the creche, is clearly a religious symbol. All of the Justices in Allegheny agreed upon that, although some apparently believed that the menorah is also a symbol of a religious holiday that over time has acquired a secular component. Although there may be many — Jews and non-Jews — who would disagree with the apparent suggestion that a menorah itself has significant secular import, or that December is the significant holiday season for Judaism, we do not regard that as an important factor here. The parties in this case have stipulated that the menorah is a religious symbol recognized as such by the general public, and the menorah here, unlike the menorah in Allegheny, was displayed alone so that there was nothing to indicate that the thrust of its message was secular rather than religious." Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1028-1029.
In Ritell v. Village of Briarcliff, 466 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), the Southern District Court of New York held that Village of Briarcliff Manor's 9 feet menorah located at Law Park violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held:
"Clearly, upon observing the Village's display during daylight hours, a reasonable observer could not help but sense the selective approval of one specific religion: Judaism. The presence of the menorah — a well recognized religious symbol . . . — adjacent to an unlighted, seemingly unadorned evergreen tree can convey no other message. Unlike the Allegheny orLynch displays, wherein secular symbols and structures dominated the display, the present display is dominated by religious iconography, without a neutralizing, secular background. . . Moreover, even to the extent that the evergreen tree is recognizable as a Christmas tree, it still is distinguishable from the Allegheny display, in which a 45-foot tree — a secular symbol — temporarily erected in the entryway to a building overshadowed the menorah. In the present case, conversely, the menorah is nearly as tall as the tree. Additionally, the present tree is a naturally-growing, permanent fixture that is lighted only at night, rendering it even less conspicuous as a holiday display." Ritell, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 525.
"Why can't atheists get that through their heads?"
Perhaps it's because those who feel that separation of church and state aren't all atheists. Separation protects us ALL. And it doesn't have to be at the federal level to be illegal.. Local County State governments are all required to be neutral (14th amendment).
Putting up crosses on public school house doors - would you consider that a violation ? What difference does it make if it's a cross, the 10 commandments, a star and crescent, a mezuzeh ? These represent government endorsing specific religious beliefs and shun the others.
You might want to check out AU.ORG since they are christians involved in the same issues.
I know who Americans United for Separation of Church and State are nd their so-called Christian leader Barry Lynn. And while they claim they are aimed at protecting the rights of all, they are helping the cause of banishing Christian signs and symbols.
//I know who Americans United for Separation of Church and State are nd their so-called Christian leader Barry Lynn.//
Veiled attempts to discredit are not usually good tactics.
I could easily say you are a "so called" "self avowed" "wish you were" a christian ..
// And while they claim they are aimed at protecting the rights of all, they are helping the cause of banishing Christian signs and symbols.//
Banishing ? This is an accusation without merit or factual basis. They respect SOCAS and you do not. it is that simple.
Are you purposely ignoring direct questions so that you can be correct ?
Symbols do not "establish" a religion. Does a cross or 10 Commandment display force you to practice Christianity? No, it does not. Separation of Church and state the way it has been interpreted was not the goal of the founding fathers.
The big lie of separation of church and state has been bought by activist judges. THEY do not respect the First Amendment, twisting it to mean no Christian symbols can be on public property. Your right, I DON'T respect SOCAS the way it has been interpreted.
//The big lie of separation of church and state has been bought by activist judges. THEY do not respect the First Amendment, twisting it to mean no Christian symbols can be on public property. Your right, I DON'T respect SOCAS the way it has been interpreted. //
Nor Jewish Symbols - Nor Islam - Nor A's on a background. You are partially correct but you are excluding the full spectrum.
NO religious symbols are to be used by the government so that it cannot be misconstrued to mean the government is partial to that religion. I might as well say there is a way on Judaism since the government is not allowed to put up a Star of David on the town water tower.
About my original question:
Perhaps you could explain what laws the government may make or what influence ONE religion can have on the government which doesn't take away someone else's religious freedom.
Your answer ?
//The big lie of separation of church and state has been bought by activist judges. THEY do not respect the First Amendment, twisting it to mean no Christian symbols can be on public property. Your right, I DON'T respect SOCAS the way it has been interpreted//
I am now led to a second question: With ALL religious symbols 'banished' from the government/public space - how does that take away from the inidividual's right to freely practice their religion..
Or - does it reinforce the individual right by assuring that the government shows no influence or preference ?
"Perhaps you could explain what laws the government may make or what influence ONE religion can have on the government which doesn't take away someone else's religious freedom. Your answer ?"
Yours is a two-part question that I really don’t understand. You are melding two different principles together, which are not making sense. I will attempt to answer in the way I understand it.
What laws the government may make:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The government cannot make laws in regard to religion, favoring one over the other or establishing a national religion.
"What influence ONE religion can have on the government, which doesn’t take away someone else’s religious freedom… "
Christian signs and symbols have been a part of the American landscape for a very long time. It is only in the last 50 years or so, starting with the ban on school prayer and escalating with constant lawsuits by atheist groups that the symbols were found to be in violation of the separation of church and state.
So, one could say the Christian religion has had an effect on the government but I’m really not sure that is what you’re asking. Still, there are no “laws” that prevent us from exercising our freedom of religion.
However, the outcome of lawsuits has been to take away our right to free expression, which is in direct contrast to “prohibiting the free exercise therof.”
"I am now led to a second question: With ALL religious symbols 'banished' from the government/public space - how does that take away from the individual’s right to freely practice their religion..
Or - does it reinforce the individual right by assuring that the government shows no influence or preference?"
My article discusses the assault on Christian signs and symbols. In some communities, there are Christmas symbols along with Jewish and atheist ones. There is no “law” that all religious symbols must be banished, but in individual lawsuits where FFRF and AA have gone after Christian symbols and gotten them removed, that does take away from the individual’s right to freely practice their religion by acknowledging God in the public square.
The result of the lawsuits has been an assault on Christianity by removing Christian symbols from the public square. How many times are we going to have to go round and round with this?
//However, the outcome of lawsuits has been to take away our right to free expression, which is in direct contrast to “prohibiting the free exercise therof.” //
Individuals are free to express themselves in the public square. The operative word is "individual". The government has no such free exercise - in fact, it is forbidden from such displays. Each an every time a religious symbol has been removed (whether cross or menorah) it has been because that religious symbol was held in esteem over all others (others were not allowed).
While that appears oppressive to the one religion admonished it is because all other religions were being repressed by the government.
There is a large distinction between a person's right to free expression and the government taking a stance - it cannot.
//Symbols do not "establish" a religion.// Actually, they do per the supreme court. A cross on a water tower of a town cannot be interpreted as anything except a symbol of christianity.
//Christian signs and symbols have been a part of the American landscape for a very long time. It is only in the last 50 years or so, starting with the ban on school prayer and escalating with constant lawsuits by atheist groups that the symbols were found to be in violation of the separation of church and state. //
You're adding 'stuff' that is irrelevant. Religion is part of every landscape - private churches and homes etc are not in question.
The concept of Separation of church and state has not changed since 1776 - and The Virginia Declaration of Rights.
The ruling in 1961 Engle vs Vitale simply upheld the ORIGINAL intent of the 1st amendment:
A class action was brought by a set of ten parents who felt the prayer was contrary to the religious practices of both the parents and the students, and they maintained that the state's use of this prayer violated that part of the Federal Constitution that states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This clause was made applicable to state law by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
----
My original question remains.. wht influence can the 'church' have on government that doesn't affect someone else's freedom of religion ?
Meatless friday ?
Birth Control ?
Sunday Blue Laws ?
Gay Marriage ?
The list of things is quite long. How can these RELIGIOUS items be made into law without removing someone else's religious freedom ?
Please note: YOUR opinion of these things is not relevant - the question is a matter of juris prudence.
If my opinion is not relevant, I'm not compelled to answer...however, I have already answered your questions, over and over and over again.
"The government would only be establishing a religion if it declared and made laws that everyone in this country must practice that religion."
Because it's not true. Most nations in history with established religions didn't do that, including the European nations with established religions at the time the Constitution was written.
The First Amendment provides in part that "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof." (emphasis added). The word "respecting" connotes a series of degrees and when used in front of the word "establishment," implies that Congress cannot pass laws which "lead toward" or "favor" a religious establishment. The word "respecting" is also a term of art in that it is essentially subjective.
Based on all this, courts are allowed (and I'd argue even REQUIRED) to interpret such language when a matter involving the Establishment Clause comes before them. This duty stems from their power of judicial review, which is basically the power of the courts to analyze laws which conflict with the constitution and to strike those laws down (this power of judicial review, long criticized by conservatives who label the judiciary as "activists" in turn comes from the power of the federal courts to hear cases involving the Constitution which is stated expressly in Article III of the Constitution. You can read the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison for more information about this). Based on all this, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowed to make these interpretive positions with respect to separation of church and state, and while you may disagree with their interpretation, it's perfectly constitutional.
I'd also argue that the concept of uniting church and state is anti-New Testament and not in line with Jesus' principles. As such, the war you assert is occurring isn't so much a war against Christianity (as you claim), but against your INTERPRETATION of Christianity.
Mary, I would suggest you read Madison's "Detached Memoranda". Your views on the Framers/Founders and Church/State are askew.
@Nick - would love to hear a short explanation of how my views are askew? It is not necessary to cut and paste years and years of court cases, I have seen all that already. - M.K.
Post a Comment