06-03-2006, 07:41 PM
Hi,
Are you sure that the government 'leaders' were concerned about the religious rather than the sexual connotations. Some people are very up-tight;)
As to the Tenth Amendment, I do not believe that it applies. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In every case where there is a restriction on what the Federal Government can do, and there isn't a specific exemption for the states (as there is, for example, in the XXI Amendment), it has been assumed that the restriction carries over to the states. This is usually stated specifically in the later amendments, but appears to be implicit in the Bill of Rights. For more, as well as a brief impartial statement on Jefferson's wall, see this article.
Forgive me if I cannot take the interpretation of bigoted idiots as my model for the universe.
--Pete
Quote:A humourous related anecdote; this last Easter our city government made employees take down Easter Bunny decorations from their offices. Since, you know, on the third day, the Easter Bunny came and gave all the Apostles jellybeans and chocolate eggs.Especially funny, since 'Easter' is actually an amalgam of the spring rites of many religions, probably dating back to early Celtic times or before. The arrival of spring is the sign for fertility and reproduction for plants, birds, many mammals, etc. A renewing, so to speak. And what better symbols for reproduction than rabbits and eggs.
Are you sure that the government 'leaders' were concerned about the religious rather than the sexual connotations. Some people are very up-tight;)
Quote:I would say not unconstitutional, . . .Again, it is a mixed blessing that most of the Amendments to the constitution are so terse that they leave themselves open to interpretation. Given that the whole of the support for freedom of religion is contained in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (and the first five of these sixteen words are shared with other clauses), the limitations are unclear. When the Supreme Court took upon itself the right and duty to be the arbiter of the Constitution, and when that right became established through tradition, the meaning of that vague phrase was solidified over the years by case law of that Court's decisions. In that sense, I will maintain that the display of the ten commandments is indeed unconstitutional.
As to the Tenth Amendment, I do not believe that it applies. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In every case where there is a restriction on what the Federal Government can do, and there isn't a specific exemption for the states (as there is, for example, in the XXI Amendment), it has been assumed that the restriction carries over to the states. This is usually stated specifically in the later amendments, but appears to be implicit in the Bill of Rights. For more, as well as a brief impartial statement on Jefferson's wall, see this article.
Quote:I would be fine with the government not promoting religion, while not also interfering with it's exercise. Too often the "separation" clause is used to prohibit any religious activity done in public institutions.When that religious activity is forced on all those in that public institution, then the line is crossed. If I go to court, and object (as I do) to the 'In God We Trust' plaque on the wall, will the officials remove it at my objection? If not, am I then not being forced to plea my case in circumstances contrary to my conscience? If I attend a legislative session, at any level of government, and the session is opened with a prayer (and don't give me any crap about 'non-denominational' -- anyone who thinks that the way a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Taoist, even a Jew or a Muslim would pray isn't substantially different from how a Christian from any sect would pray is either ignorant or in denial), then isn't my freedom of religion being negated. Aren't I, in effect, being told that anything other than a Christian is not respected here and will not get a fair hearing.
Quote:I would ask you to re-read the context in which Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation".I have read it, numerous times. It pretty well speaks for itself. And to anyone who has studied Jefferson, and is familiar with his Bible, the interpretation given by your reference is at best laughable. I would ask you to find a more impartial source than an extreme right wing group like the Liberty Counsel whose stated goal of "Restoring the Culture One Case at a Time by Advancing Religious Freedom, the Sanctity of Human Life and the Traditional Family" is a bunch of buzzwords whose meaning boils down to "returning as fast as possible to a religious (i.e., fundamentalist Christian) dominated dark age of superstition and ignorance."
Forgive me if I cannot take the interpretation of bigoted idiots as my model for the universe.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?