Interesting defense?

[Everon 0]

They want nativity scenes in public parks, the ten commandments in our courts and schools, school prayer, etc. The constitution guarantees "religious freedom," and this implies a strict separation of church and state. In fact, we're now hearing "separation" is never mentioned in the constitution (of course not, but it is implied as stated above).

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are pushing for a law requiring churches to disclose all financial and real estate holdings. The church's defense? Read:

www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4821035/detail.html

[storm1977 0]

What is your take on this situation?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

They want nativity scenes in public parks, the ten commandments in our courts and schools, school prayer, etc. The constitution guarantees "religious freedom," and this implies a strict separation of church and state. In fact, we're now hearing "separation" is never mentioned in the constitution (of course not, but it is implied as stated above).

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are pushing for a law requiring churches to disclose all financial and real estate holdings. The church's defense? Read:

www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4821035/detail.html

I completely understand.
"Separation of Church and State" as it is now refered to is designed to keep Government out of religion. It is not designed to keep religion out of government.

THe government members have a right to worship, pray, put up a nativity. The separation clause is to protect religion from Government infringement.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,435]

I don't have a problem treating religions like any other organizations for purposes of regulation, oversight or zoning - provided there is absolutely no difference in how they are treated compared to any other organization. However, I do have a big problem with this:

Democratic Sen. Marion Walsh: "People have a right, we believe, in Massachusetts to know when they donate money to their church where the money goes."

The government has zero to do with how people donate their money to various religions. That is exactly what the First Amendment is meant to prevent - governmental meddling in religious fundraising, evangelism, and development.

If catholics in Boston want to see how their money is being used, demand that information of the church. If they refuse - well, there are other religions that accept catholics that will be much more open about their finances.

[lawrocket 3]

I could not have said it better, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I completely understand.
"Separation of Church and State" as it is now refered to is designed to keep Government out of religion. It is not designed to keep religion out of government.

THe government members have a right to worship, pray, put up a nativity. The separation clause is to protect religion from Government infringement.

I think that you (and many others) need to re-read the constitution.

I think that ALL churches should be treated EXACTLY as other non-profits are.
If you can't be transparent and open, what are you hiding?

illegible usually

[Everon 0]

I agree with you on your point, but Walsh's concern is not without merit. Monies unaccounted for is enough of a concern to make them accountable - this is possible fraud. Even though I am an atheist, I do feel for the well-meaning good-hearted christian who may be a victim of such.

I know there are issues here, but my main reason for the post is the "all of a sudden the church is screaming 'separation,'" to protect itself, and blatantly disregards it when it comes to school prayer, etc. Hypocrisy at its best.

[billvon 2,435]

>Monies unaccounted for is enough of a concern to make them
>accountable - this is possible fraud.

It's only fraud if the money is donated to a "Orphan's Fund" and it is not used for that. If they just pass the plate, and then take all that money to buy the pastor a solid-gold Cadillac, then no fraud has been committed. Better that the people choose to not go to the church with the solid gold Cadillacs, rather than giving the government a role in religious regulation.

[sfzombie13 307]

in response to the seperation thing(2d ammendment), i think everyone needs to read it a little better. it does not say anything about "seperation of the church and state", and lawrocket i'm surprised that you didn't catch this. it says that the "govt shall make no laws respecting any religion over another" or something to that effect. meaning as i take it, there shall be no govt sponsored religion, or that the govt can't stop any one religion from having the same rights as any others. it says nothing about there shall be no religion in the govt, hence the motto in god we trust on our currency.
i am not a christian, and have no problem with prayer in school, creationism, or the 10 commandments in a govt building. what makes me sick is when people have no respect for my beliefs, and cases like the one i read about where the pagan priestess was not put on the list to open a govt meeting with rabbis, ministers, and preists. that is clearly a violation of the 2d ammendment.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Everon 0]

No, separation is not explicitly mentioned. "Religious freedom" is, and this implies a separation of church and state. One cannot possibly have one without the other!

As for you, billvon, perhaps you are correct. And if people are stupid enough to throw 10% of their hard earned money so pastor Mike can buy his hookers, then maybe they deserve to be scammed. In hindsight, maybe I don't feel for the good-intentioned. It would certainly be nice if the $70 billion or so donated to churches each year would be redirected towards something meaningful like, uh, education?

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

It would certainly be nice if the $70 billion or so donated to churches each year would be redirected towards something meaningful like, uh, education?

Some of it is. I'm actually the treasurer for a church. We're unusual in that we give away the vast majority of the money that we get -- we no longer have a building, or a regular minister, or even a telephone. Of course, like that, there won't be a church for long (we're giving away the money from the sale of our building).
Part of what a church does is maintain itself. Anyone who belongs to a church that's not really big has the opportunity to participate in deciding how that money is disbursed, and to vote with their feet if they don't like the answer.

Yes, some of the money goes to local synods. But, ya know, if they help to provide administrative coverage for the good works that the orphanage, college programs, university, etc. etc. -- maybe that's still a good work.

Give generously, and be a good enough steward of the money you give to pay attention where it ends up.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sfzombie13 307]

Quote

No, separation is not explicitly mentioned. "Religious freedom" is, and this implies a separation of church and state. One cannot possibly have one without the other!

if you are going to go with that implied bs, then you're clearly going to use the accepted societal values of the country today, and that is shameful. anyone can make a reasonable case about what is implied, but we just don't have the same outlook that was used in the framing of the constitution. if the founding fathers were alive today, they would be really old. seriously, though, they would be ashamed at the abonimation that the govt turned into: the very thing that they had just got done fighting. there are certain values that were lost in the past 200 years or so, some good, some bad. as long as people have this frame of mind, we are in serious trouble.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[billvon 2,435]

>if you are going to go with that implied bs . . . .

I suggest you check out "The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America" by Frank Lambert. A very good overview of how the First Amendment came to be, and what the values of the founding fathers were, based on the history of the early US and their religious and civil values.

[lawrocket 3]

The religious jurisprudence is divided up into two separate points: the "Establishment" clause and the "Free Exercise" clause.

The "Establishment" clause didn't have much action for the first 150 years. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment came by that it was applied to the states. it wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court held that government action is restricted by it.

By 1997, the SCOTUS determined that a good test for a law would be to ask whether the law has a bona fide secular purpose and ask whether the law would provide "excessive entanglement" with religion.

The SCOTUS has also defined it as a test of coercion - that is, would the government's law or policy coerce someone into a specific religion.

The problem with these tests is that some judges would come up with different conclusions from the same test. Look up Lee v. Wiseman and see what Kennedy and Scalia did. They reached different results with the same test.

The school prayer stuff is usually viewed under an Endorsement test.

So the problem that is faced is that jurisprudence is all over the place. It's shifty and different and different results are reached.
The problem with

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sfzombie13 307]

billvon: read it, found it entertaining.
lawrocket: your reply is a perfect example of how lawyers have taken (somewhat) simple document and twisted it around until only a lawyer can interpret it's meaning. this is the same thing as a minister telling me what the bible says. i can read the words myself. your post pretty much proves this point, the part about different people getting the same tests, but different conclusions. i'm not stupid, and i'm pretty good at reading comprehension. i've read the 2d amendment, along with the rest of the constitution, and it's pretty cut and dried.
take for example the ban on gay marriage. from my point of view (and i'm not a lawyer, thankfully), this would be unconstitutional. that is using a religious stance to determine what a citizen wants to do that is not harming anybody.
the part that really ticks me off about lawyers screwing with the constitution is the 10th amendment, the states right thing. if the state of ca wants to let its citizens use medical mj to help with their illnesses, screw the us govt, it's none of their business. but i digress.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[lawrocket 3]

You know, I'm searching these last couple of posts for anything that you've said where from a philosophical or political viewpoint I disagree with.

Quote

your reply is a perfect example of how lawyers have taken (somewhat) simple document and twisted it around until only a lawyer can interpret it's meaning.

It turns out that nobody can agree on an interpretation of its meaning or of its application. That's the reason why the SCOTUS has 9 justices - because nobody can get it right. (Hell, even I'll admit that Scalia isn't ALWAYS right, and Brennan was not ALWAYS wrong.)

I also think a federal ban on gay marriage would be unconstitutional. It turns out that the Administration does, too. That's why Bush has floated trial balloons about a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. But not on a 1st Amendment theory. It would probably be unconstitutional on an Equal Protection argument, although your First Amendment argument is interesting and I'd never thought of it that way, nor have I heard anyone else mention it as a method of attack.

Quote

the part that really ticks me off about lawyers screwing with the constitution is the 10th amendment, the states right thing.

Interestingly, states rights are mainly attackd from the left (although Scalia also found it correct - as I said, Scalia isn't ALWAYS right). These perversions of the commerce clause are nothing new - it really started back in the 30's. Google "A switch in time saves nine." It's where FDR planned to pack the SCOTUS with progressive judges who would push through his New Deal legislation.

A great deal of what FDR tried to do violated the Commerce Clause as it had been interpreted for over 100 years. This was in the "Formalist" tradition that laws reflected certain unchanging truths. Part of this was freedom to contract - if you are willing to work for 5 cents an hour you should be able to. This was an acceptance of the long-held belief that employers and employees were adults who could agree to whatever they wanted to agree. There had always been a fundamental right to contract and there were several decisions striking down minimum wage laws.

in the early 1900's there were some legal thinkers who though that laws reflect a given culture - laws are relative and not absolute. Of course this caused a problem - how do you know if a law is good or bad? These cats, led by Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that if a legislature thought it was in the state's interest to have a law that established a minimum wage for women, then the courts should abide by that determination.

Here's the rub - Homes and his ilk believed that legislators were in a better position to know what was best for the state - at that time - than a judge. Unstated in this is that legislatures also know more than the Constitution. Enter the New Deal, which was based on this concept. But the New Deal had to pass Constitution muster - an area ripe with difficulty. In order to fight the Constitutional restraints, these judges had to begin viewing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." Indeed, they figured it's time to make the Constitution mean not what it said, but what they thought it should now say. They would accomplish this by carving out exceptions or giving the words such broad meanings that governmental powers would be granted near full deference.

In 1936, Roosevelt and the Dems won convincingly. FDR believed that this was his endorsement to do what he wanted. It was, in essence, a good start to the modern politic that believes, "The will of the people is for this to happen, so screw the Constitution." FDR was gonna do what he wanted and in 1937 he had a plan. The SCOTUS stood in his way and he was gonna take it down.

in 1937 he sent a plan to Congress to reorganize the judiciary. He argued that the courts were overcrowded and inefficient because there weren't enough judges, and that the judges they had were too old to be efficient. His solution? When a judge who was on the bench more than ten years waits more than 6 months after his 70th birthday, the POTUS could appoint a new judge. He could appoint as many as six to the SCOTUS and 44 to lower courts. Sound dictatorial to you? It did to Congress, as well.

In 1937 there was a pretty good split on the SCOTUS - four were liberals and gravitating towards the Holmesian legal "realist" viewpoint. Four of them were conservatives and staunchly Formalist. To give a hint of the political campaign waged against them, they were called the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." The other judge was a centrist - a swing voter like O'Connor. In 1937 he went liberal. Many thought it was to save the court.

So, now there were five justice on the SCOTUS who were willing to change the direction of Constitutional law. The first thing they did was do away with freedom of contract. There was no longer a constitutional guarantee to freedom of contract. A consenting adult was no longer allowed to work for less than the gubment said he could. Of course, this has had the side effect of preventing many different contract, like gay marriage, so its effects are still being felt.

The next thing the SCOTUS did was strike a blow at Federalism and greatly enhance the power of the Commerce Clause. The court decided that the Federal Government could regulate private conduct in private industry by regulating labor affairs of a steel company. Why? Because even though the conduct regulated was private, a strike could cause a bad effect on interstate commerce.

Later, in, Wickard v. Fillburn, the SCOTUS penalized a man who grew his own wheat and stored it for his own use. Why? Because if everyone did what he did there would be an effect on interstate commerce.

Congressional power to regulate anything is now certain after the medical marijuana case. Private growth plus private use could affect interstate commerce.

Why is FDR one of the greatest presidents of all time? Because the effects of his policies are felt even more greatly today than when he was in office.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Everon 0]

I use implied here in the "mathematical" sense, meaning "it then follows." It's not B.S. If there were no "separation of church and state," then the government (and certainly this particular administration) would endorse christianity (ten commandments all over the place, etc.) This is a promotion of a particular religion, which violates religious freedom.

As far as the "accepted societal values" of the country today, you will not find anyone more unaccepting than me. Trust me.

As far as religion goes, here's an interesting read on the thoughts of our founding fathers. In this instance, they would be "ashamed of the abomination."

http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#madison

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If there were no "separation of church and state," then the government (and certainly this particular administration) would endorse christianity (ten commandments all over the place, etc.

Since you only say 2 things in the above statement, I find it funny to see 4 inaccuracies.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

in response to the seperation thing(2d ammendment), i think everyone needs to read it a little better.

Indeed, given that the 2nd Amendment is about gun rights.

[tcnelson 1]

i knew someone wouldn't let that one go. i would have done it myself but, i'm trying to cut back.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[kelpdiver 2]

if he had only done it once...I would have let the snide remark slide. But 3 times?

[sfzombie13 307]

that was a little thing on my part to show how people basically "can't see the forest for the trees". i tought for sure lawrocket would catch it, that's why it was directed straight to him. i can't believe it went that long before someone caught it.
aside from that, i remain firm in my stance that just because there is a 10 commandment plaque in a statehouse in no way endorses one religion over another, as long as, and this is very important, another equally significant religious symbol is allowed beside it.
ok people, this time read the bill of rights, and the constitution, and see if you can understand it. or do you need a bunch of lawyers to tell you what it really means?

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kelpdiver 2]

if that's your excuse, fine. snicker.

I'm more curious how you think that displaying a document/symbols of a particular religion "in no way endorses" it.

You're not even going to concede that it shows some preference by the government?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

in response to the seperation thing(2d ammendment),...

One of the Annotations to the 1st amendment states:

Regulation of Religious Solicitation .--Although the solicitation cases have generally been decided under the free exercise or free speech clauses, 158 in one instance the Court, intertwining establishment and free exercise principles, voided a provision in a state charitable solicitations law that required only those religious organizations that received less than half their total contributions from members or affiliated organizations to comply with the registration and reporting sections of the law.......

I assume that this applies to the topic at hand.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,435]

> i remain firm in my stance that just because there is a 10
> commandment plaque in a statehouse in no way endorses one
> religion over another, as long as, and this is very important, another
> equally significant religious symbol is allowed beside it.

If that ever happened I might agree. It never has, to my knowledge.

>ok people, this time read the bill of rights . . .

Pretty simple. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.