US Court upholds 10 Commandments on public land

[TheScout]

Eh, I meant can we as citizens write it off in our hearts and minds? LOL

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sure; I write off ALL religions as cults.

[TheScout]

And thats why you are so out of touch with Middle America!

[Trevorum]

"Religions are just cults with more members."

[Hunt]

"But using that standard leads to no challenges. It's never a "good time.""

 

Not at all. There are good times--they are when you have an attractive plaintiff, a strong fact pattern, and real-world impacts that will impress the judge. For example, if somebody wants to put up a new monument of this kind in front of City Hall, that's a good case. A 50-year-old one, not so much. As an example, it appears that the ACLU decided not to appeal the Winkler decision to the Supreme Court--I have to assume that's because they feared the risk of an even broader standing ruling, and they saw the weakness of their case on the merits as well.

[packsaddle]

Today we use the word 'cult' in the pejorative. Was it always so? Under the current definition, Jesus would be considered a cult leader. A communist one at that.

[le Voyageur]

It seems quite clear that if you were to have a state religion it would be Christianity . TheScout

 

 

Problem is, there are too many sects within Christianity. So, again the question is, which version of Christianity gets to be the top dog?

 

For myself, I will always prefer the level playing field of secularism to keep all religions, including Christianity equal in rights per the First Amendment....

[TheScout]

Well I never said we should have a state religion. It was asked what ours would be.

 

I suppose "Christianity" could exist as a state religion here if we wished. (With the appropriate amendments to the federal constitution of course).

 

Presumably such a declaration would have little practical effect as it would be a "state religion" not a "state church". State religions entail almost no government "supervision" which would allieviate the problem of so many Christian denominations.

 

Presumably such a declaration would also allow religious monuments to remain on public land and bring back prayers in schools.

 

So I doubt you need to determine a "top dog."

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, "prayer in schools" amounted to unelected school bureaucrats writing prayers that other people's children were required to recite, so bringing that back would entail gutting the first amendment and ignoring the rights of parents to determine what kind of religious instruction their own children receive.

 

Hunt, I still say waiting for "a good time" is not a reasonable standard. Certainly Loving v. Virginia wasn't a good time. It's also possible the current supreme court will rule against the Summum and make things much worse. I'll bet Scalia will rule against them at the very least.

[TheScout]

Funny you despise decison making by unelected bureaucrats, but are so willing to give it to unelected judges.

 

It's quite a jump to say prayer it schools "guts" the 1st Amendment.

 

Does this mean it was gutted for our whole history before Engel v. Vitale in 1962?

 

I don't see who a simple non-denominational prayer with no compulsion to participate is an "establishment of religion." It also doesn't seem to interfere with anyones "free exercise of" it.

 

The prayer struck down was very modest:

 

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

[packsaddle]

That might seem modest to you but I would consider it outrageous and I know many around here who would be deeply offended if the state demanded that their day include it.

Unless the "Almighty God" part met with unanimous acknowledgement of its existence and unanimous understanding of what it is, neither of which conditions exist, I see a big problem.

I would object strenuously if an attempt was made to bring that kind of thing back into our schools. I remember too well what happened to the minorities of the past.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Funny you despise decison making by unelected bureaucrats, but are so willing to give it to unelected judges.

 

Funny, neither one has the power to order children to pray, nor should they.

 

Also funny that you think judges' decisions should be about as authoritative as a movie review.

 

It's quite a jump to say prayer it schools "guts" the 1st Amendment.

 

I don't think it's a jump.

 

Does this mean it was gutted for our whole history before Engel v. Vitale in 1962?

 

Yes, it was being ignored. The bible riots weren't a high point in US religious freedom either.

 

I don't see who a simple non-denominational prayer with no compulsion to participate is an "establishment of religion."

 

I don't see how it could be anything else (and I don't consider any prayer to be "non-denominational"). And grade school kids being told by their school officials to pray IS compulsion.

 

It also doesn't seem to interfere with anyones "free exercise of" it.

 

Coerced prayers are the antithesis of free exercise.

 

The prayer struck down was very modest:

 

The specific prayer is almost irrelevant, since it could be changed by the school board to be anything at their whim. If they have the authority to have official "modest" school prayers, they have the authority for Allah Ackbar et alia.

 

(fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Gold Winger]

"And grade school kids being told by their school officials to pray IS compulsion. "

 

In my day, which was long ago and far away, you could just opt out if the Lord's Prayer wasn't your cup of tea. About once a month the lone Jew would lead us in a Jewish prayers and with about the same frequency, our resident pagan would sacrifice a virgin. If there had been atheists back then, I'm sure he would have been allowed to get up and lead us in saying nothing.

[TheScout]

So you really believe that before 1962 the First Amendment was "gutted." That is quite funny. Almost comedic. School prayer has historically been an important part of our country.

 

I still don't see the coercien. Nobody was forced to say the prayer. The New York Board of Regents in the casedid not even force districts to adopt it. It was left to local school districts, led by elected representatives of the people to decide or not whether to do so. That decision-making at the local level is the dream of the American republic!

 

Pat Buchanan wrote an interesting piece once on how the SCOTUS usurped the will of the people and started imposing its will on the United States instead:

 

May 17, 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 9-0 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. In the name of equal rights, the Warren Court had effected a historic coup detat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or in the constitution.

That the 14th Amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious. The amendment was approved by a Congress that presided over the segregated schools of Washington, D.C. But the Warren Court, fed up with the torpor of the democratic process, decided to desegregate America-by court order.

The coup succeeded. Though Eisenhower was stunned by Brown, he and the Republican Congress accepted the court ruling as federal law to be enforced by federal troops, as it would be at Central High School in Little Rock in 1957. And because we agreed with the goal-an end to segregation-we accepted, without questioning the implications, the means adopted: judicial dictate. Having written its views of segregation into the Constitution and imposed its will on the nation, a confident Warren Court now began to impose a social, cultural, and moral revolution upon America. Patrick Buchanan

 

And then came Engel v. Vital . . .

 

[evmori]

Lord,

Forgive Merlyn for he knows not what he does.

Amen