Religions > Atheism > Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run Religions
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2006 07:39:43 AM |
| Object: |
Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run Religions |
Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run
Religions
http://www.bloggernews.net/13041
[excerpt]
Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run
Religions
This post was written by John Bambenek on 14 December, 2006 (21:16) | All
News, US Politics, Society and Culture, Government News, US Government
News, US News, Religious News, Civil Rights, California News
The City of San Francisco recently labeled the Catholic Church to be a
hateful organization and engaged in a tirade of anti-Catholic rhetoric.
It’s not surprising that the City of San Francisco would engage in a
childish rant because the Catholic Church reiterated a theological position
that has been held for thousands of years, after all, they same council
expressed support convicted cop-killers. What is surprising is that the
attempt of the City to intervene in a purely ecclesiastical matter was
ruled “constitutional” by a Carter-appointed federal judge.
In writing on the case, the federal judge states:
In view of Article IV, section 10, of the Considerations statement,
Resolution 168-06 is a measured response. It does not constitute excessive
entanglement under existing case law. There is no regulatory enforcement,
no law adopted nor other action taken by virtue of the Resolution. It is
merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders.
In sum, Resolution 168-06 does not create an impermissible entanglement
between government and religion. Because plaintiffs have also failed to
establish that Resolution 168-06 lacks a primarily secular purpose or a
primarily secular effect, plaintiffs have failed to plead a cause of action
under the Establishment Clause.
In short, that the public action of these officials in speaking on
religious matters, in dictating that local Church officials should
disregard Vatican directives, does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Yet, somehow, when a public official prays in Jesus name that
“entanglement” is so severe that the entire weight of the federal judiciary
must come down upon it. Taking the common interpretation of the Separation
of Church and State (despite that is not what it really means), how can
this be reconciled? How can the Establishment Clause at once seek to avoid
religiously-run states yet simultaneously allow state-run religions?
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Governmentto Run Religions |
16 Dec 2006 01:50:38 PM |
|
|
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--0-987910528-1166298638=:21842
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 wrote:
Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run
Religions
http://www.bloggernews.net/13041
[excerpt]
Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run
Religions
This post was written by John Bambenek on 14 December, 2006 (21:16)
| All News, US Politics, Society and Culture, Government News, US=20
Government News, US News, Religious News, Civil Rights, California News
The City of San Francisco recently labeled the Catholic Church to be
a hateful organization and engaged in a tirade of anti-Catholic=20
rhetoric. It=92s not surprising that the City of San Francisco would=20
engage in a childish rant because the Catholic Church reiterated a=20
theological position that has been held for thousands of years, after=20
all, they same council expressed support convicted cop-killers. What
is surprising is that the attempt of the City to intervene in a purely=20
ecclesiastical matter was ruled =93constitutional=94 by a
Carter-appointed federal judge.
<snip>
If a pro-gay city government is allowed to pass resolutions having
childish rants against the Catholic church for reason of its
theological position on gayness, then it should be OK for an anti-gay
city government to pass resolutions having chidish rants against the=20
Episcopal church for reason of that church's theological position on
gayness. The anti-gay city governments won't do that though because
they don't pass resolutions having childish rants.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
--0-987910528-1166298638=:21842--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Rules that Establishment Clause Allows Government to Run Religions |
16 Dec 2006 09:59:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:50:38 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
The anti-gay city governments won't do that though because
they don't pass resolutions having childish rants.
Because they don't need to - homophobia is inherently a childish rant.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Rules that Establishment can protect itself against meddling by relgion |
16 Dec 2006 08:26:33 AM |
|
|
In writing on the case, the federal judge states:
In view of Article IV, section 10, of the Considerations statement,
Resolution 168-06 is a measured response. It does not constitute excessive
entanglement under existing case law. There is no regulatory enforcement,
no law adopted nor other action taken by virtue of the Resolution. It is
merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders.
In sum, Resolution 168-06 does not create an impermissible entanglement
between government and religion. Because plaintiffs have also failed to
establish that Resolution 168-06 lacks a primarily secular purpose or a
primarily secular effect, plaintiffs have failed to plead a cause of action
under the Establishment Clause.
In short, that the public action of these officials in speaking on
religious matters, in dictating that local Church officials should
disregard Vatican directives, does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Yet, somehow, when a public official prays in Jesus name that
"entanglement" is so severe that the entire weight of the federal judiciary
must come down upon it. Taking the common interpretation of the Separation
of Church and State (despite that is not what it really means), how can
this be reconciled? How can the Establishment Clause at once seek to avoid
religiously-run states yet simultaneously allow state-run religions?
[end excerpt]
You didn't tell us what resultion 168-06 was about.
Appearantly th RC Church was meddling in state-affairs.
for the court rules that the rsultions had a secular purpose.
I trust the judges to be sane.
Peter van Velzen
December 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
