In the spirit of abolishing thanskgiving, christmas, etc.

[eisely]

This guy doesn't give up. Has anybody asked him if he was ever a boy scout?

 

I would think that we should hire one chaplain per senator and representative if that level of chaperoning would help keep them honest.

 

'Under God' Critic Goes After Congress

Constitutionality Of Congressional Chaplains Questioned

Posted: 2:34 p.m. PDT August 30, 2002

Updated: 2:47 p.m. PDT August 30, 2002

 

SAN DIEGO -- The California atheist who challenged the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is now going after taxpayer-funded chaplains in Congress.

 

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Is Ruling Appropriate?

Changes To Pledge

U.S. Flag Through History

Text Of Pledge Of Allegiance

Senate Resolution On Pledge

Read The Decision

 

 

"If they want a pep talk, then go get a football coach, but stop getting chaplains and religious folks to come in. It's forbidden," Michael Newdow, a Sacramento-based lawyer and physician, said in an interview Friday.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court here this week, Newdow said House and Senate chaplain positions compromise a constitutional ban on government-sponsored religion and religious requirements for public servants. The suit names as defendants the Congress and other administrators.

 

Newdow's suit seeks to abolish the jobs, but makes no specific request for damages.

 

"It's a civil rights case, atheists are second-class citizens in this society," Newdow said in the telephone interview. "Even if (the chaplains) weren't getting paid, it's wrong for government to be saying that there's a God. These are religious ideals and the government's not supposed to be weighing in."

 

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said most people are "comforted by the fact that our chaplains lead us in seeking guidance from a superior power."

 

All House and Senate chaplains since 1789 have been Christians, the lawsuit notes. The House chaplain now earns $148,500, and Senate chaplain makes $130,000.

 

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with Newdow in June, finding unconstitutional the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That decision drew an onslaught of criticism from Capitol Hill, and the Justice Department has since asked the full 9th Circuit court to review it.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

OK, so Mr. Newdow is a troublemaker. It's not such a terrible thing to be. I think a democracy needs a few of them. I wonder, eisely, might not the honorable title "troublemaker" also be applied to someone who has started 6 of the last 9, and 5 of the last 6, threads in the "Issues and Politics" board?

[OldGreyEagle]

First things first, who has 2 days in the pool until merlyn leroy enters the fray?

 

next, I wonder why Mr Newdow didnt include military chaplains as well.

[evmori]

Someone please show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it says there is to be a separation of church & state. Not an interpretation but the actual text that states this.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Here goes:

 

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Now, as I understand things the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has been interpreted as no government money should go to any religion because governmental support could be seen as approval of that religion over another. If the Christams Creche costs the township $5,000 and the Hanukkah Light display costs the township $2,500 and nothing is spent on Ramadan there are those who say this is the township implying Christianity is worth twice as much as Judiasm and the Muslim faith is worthless.

 

Now the Muslims in the township could petition and perhaps get some kind of display, but some Atheists sit back and say why should any money go to celebrating the notions of any religion when the schools need books, the roads need to be repaired and the police cars upgraded. An Atheist may claim that looking at a display, funded by a governmental unit, prohibits him from exercising his right to practice his belief of non-belief. He may have to look at commercial and private displays, but public money spent on this God stuff drives him crazy.

 

Putting the ten commandments in a courthouse without any mention of the tenets of other religions may imply that the governmental unit only "approves" of the ten commandments and the other tenets are not worthy of display. And of course, even if all religions were posted in the courthouse, the Atheists would say by having all these relgions tenets posted here, the government is condoning religion, something its not supposed to do. (dont shoot me, I am only the piano player)

 

What I dont understand is how "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" came to mean all that I just wrote.

 

If a governmental unit passed a law that only Baptists could be mayor, that only Methodists could be policemen and you had to be Jewish to be a fireman, then I could understand. The amendment says "... No law..." What law is created if a governmental unit puts up a Creche, and Hannukah and Ramadan displays.

 

I thought a law was something either you had to do, or something you couldnt do. Having Boy Scouts get free mooring in a marina because they gave rocks for fill is not a law, its a tit for tat, payment for services/goods rendered, how does a law figure in the mix?

 

Allowing Boy Scouts, or any private organization, to set its own membership requirements doesnt create a governmental unit law does it?

 

OGE

Matt 22:37-39

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[NativeTexan]

Although I admire Mr. Newdow's tenacity and respect his 1st ammendment rights, I don't think I would enjoy breaking bread with him over the upcoming holiday season.

[Compass]

OGE, you are quite right. Very well reasoned post.

 

I personally am not in favor of governmental outlays for religious displays. Fairness issues like the ones you mention invariably come up. Fairness would necessitate other religions being promoted in likewise manner. I shudder at the thought of two displays, one Christian and one Satanistic (for example), simultaneously and side-by-side on the courthouse lawn.

 

My faith is in God and His power; He doesn't need governments or their tax money.

 

But also consider: look at history regarding government adoption/sponsorship of a particular religion or denomination (say in monarchist France, England, Tsarist Russia, Holy Roman Empire, on and on and on...), the supported (or enforced) church or religion was damaged by the association. Governments are corrupt, and they tend to bring down the religion they attempt to promote.

 

However, your post does open up other issues that are important that do not involve direct monetary sponsorship of religion.

 

For example, if an association of Christian (or Jewish or Muslim or...) churches wanted to set up a display, at their own expense, on public property? Or, if a group of high school students wanted to meet after school and have fellowship and prayer. In many places this activity was prohibited, which was a direct violation of the constitution, and was subsequently overturned by courts. Sometimes this is due to confusion or misunderstanding of the law and the Constitution (which relates to your post, evmori), and sometimes due to outright prejudice against religion.(This message has been edited by Compass)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE:

>First things first, who has 2 days in the pool until merlyn leroy enters the fray?

 

Two days? I'm insulted.

 

>next, I wonder why Mr Newdow didnt include military chaplains as well.

 

You can ask him at http://www.restorethepledge.com if you want.

 

...

>What I dont understand is how "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" came to mean all that I just wrote.

 

>If a governmental unit passed a law that only Baptists could be mayor, that only Methodists could be policemen and you had to be Jewish to be a fireman, then I could understand. The amendment says "... No law..." What law is created if a governmental unit puts up a Creche, and Hannukah and Ramadan displays.

 

You can read the recent decision striking down judge moore's ten commandments: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

 

It goes into the reasoning of how Moore's actions fall under the prohibitions of "no law"; basically, when he's acting in his capacity as a judge, he's acting under the laws the alabama state legislature passed to give him that authority.

 

>I thought a law was something either you had to do, or something you couldnt do.

 

The law also spells out what public officials can do, but such laws can't grant powers that the legislative body itself doesn't have; the alabama state legislature couldn't pass a law to put up the 10 commandments in the alabama supreme court, and the laws passed giving the chief justice the authority to decorate the court can't give him the power to do that, either.

 

>Having Boy Scouts get free mooring in a marina because they gave rocks for fill is not a law, its a tit for tat, payment for services/goods rendered, how does a law figure in the mix?

 

Apparently, Berkeley decided to stop that deal. Now they only offer free berths to organizations that meet the city's nondiscrimination requirements. The BSA claimed that doing this was unlawful, but the court didn't agree with them.

[OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, I should have completed my thought, that should have read "who has 2 days in the pool until merlyn leroy appears cause you are gonna lose"

 

And merl, no offense but I have a very hard time reading court decisions and understanding them, the results of borderline ADD as a child and residual effects today. Legalese all reads like stereo instructions, or stereo instructions read like a court decision, you pick'em.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Someone please show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it says there is to be a separation of church & state. Not an interpretation but the actual text that states this.

 

Ed, if you want to ignore all constitutional principles that are based on "interpretations" of the Constitution rather than the plain language of the text, you wipe out a great deal of law that you probably don't really want to wipe out. For example, it doesn't say in the Constitution that there is a right to "freedom of association" or "freedom of expressive association," and yet the Supreme Court says these are guaranteed by the First Amendment. (By the way, if they were not, the BSA would have lost the "Dale" case because there would have been no constitutional principle available to override New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, of which the BSA was otherwise in violation because it discriminates against gays. So before you insist on the "plain text" of the Constitution, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.)

 

There are other examples, for example the "right to marry" and the "right to travel" come to mind. (The first was used to strike down a Virginia law in the 1960s that prohibited marriage between persons of different races; the latter is generally understood to mean that U.S. citizens basically have a right to travel where they want, though apparently there is a "national security" exception to this because otherwise I don't know how the travel restrictions on Cuba would be valid.)

 

Indeed, the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the power to declare federal and state laws unconstitutional. This power is based on an "interpretation" of the words of the constitution, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. In fact, most of the major Supreme Court decisions on the Constitution are based on interpretations from the text, for the simple reason that if the text is clear enough, there is no reason for a lawsuit about it to even get to the Supreme Court.

 

And so, that's where it says that legislation must have a secular purpose and secular effect, among other things, that are usually lumped together into the oft-misunderstood phrase, "separation of church and state." The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to say it.

[evmori]

OGE,

Great post! However where does it state the church & state are to be separate. The 1st ammendment assures us the government won't force religion down our throats and we can express our beliefs freely.

 

I'm not in favor of the government sponsoring religious Christmas displays, either. But why does the manger scene have to come down yet the Menorah gets to stay put? And what about the Christmas tree & candy canes? These are religious symbols, too!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, some court decisions have said that Hanukkah Menorahs are ok on public property, some have said the opposite. The same is true for nativity scenes. I personally think that no religious symbol belongs on public property, whether privately funded or not. It is public property. A religious display by a governmental entity constitutes "establishment of religion" as that phrase has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. It doesn't belong on public property.

 

A "Christmas tree," by the way,is really not a religious symbol. It's just a decorated tree. In some cases it isn't even placed in the town square, it is growing there already, so what's the problem? I suppose that if the decorations are all religiously oriented, that might be a problem. Is there an angel on top? The angel might be an atheist, so it's ok.

[ScoutParent]

Merlyn, what will you do this thursday and why?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

>Merlyn, what will you do this thursday and why?

 

Eat a lot with my wife's family. Why do Christians celebrate pagan holidays like Saturnalia during winter solstice, and the spring festival for the goddess Eostre/Ostara celebrated on the first sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, using her fertility symbols like rabbits and eggs?

 

[eisely]

Because they're secretly wiccans.