http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-12104-0.html
Author
AlonzoFyfe
Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:32 am
State Establishment of Religion May Soon Be Constitutional
In TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court held that a
state's requirement for a belief in God or any religious requirement for
public office violates the 1st Amendment.
Note: The Supreme Court actually does not strike down laws. Laws (including
state constitutional provisions) that the Supreme Court determines to be
unconstitutional are still on the books. The Supreme Court, however,
declares that such laws cannot be enforced. Thus, the provisions requiring
belief in God in these Constitutions, and any statute requiring belief in
God, are still on the books -- but cannot be enforced.
However, many of the judges on the religious right hold that this decision
should be overturned. Justice Clarence Thomas defended this position in his
concurring opinion in CUTTER et al. v. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT
OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. (2005).
Thomas wrote, "Congress ... need only refrain from making laws 'respecting
an establishment of religion'; it must not interfere with a state
establishment of religion."
This repeats statements that Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion on the
Michael Newdow pledge case, ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and DAVID W.
GORDON, SUPERINTENDENT, PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW et al. (2004)
Thomas wrote:
Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism
provision -- it protects state establishments from federal interference but
does not protect any individual rights. . . . .
[E]ven assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal
Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that
the Clause created or protects any individual right. . . . it is more
likely that States and only States were the direct beneficiaries. Moreover,
incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a particular
outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was
intended to protect -- state establishments of religion.
Justice Thomas did not spell out exactly how far a state may go in
establishing a state religion. It is reasonable to expect that they may
require citizens to donate a percentage of their income to a state church
and to require proof of membership in an approved church as a qualification
for employment or to run for office within the state , provisions that were
in effect in many states at the time that the Constitution was ratified .
The list of those who would be required to meet these requirements could
include all teachers in state-run public schools and universities.
Note that the Arkansas State Constitution holds that those who are not
members of an approved Church are considered incompetent to testify as a
witness in any court. It was, in fact, quite common in statute, if not
Constitutional provision, to ban those who did not accept an approved
Christian religion from testifying in Court.
The argument for this position is that, at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, many of the 13 states had state religious requirements. At
the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. By interpreting this as a
restriction on states, and not a guarantee of liberty to individuals, the
14th Amendment (which is interpreted as making the bill of rights on
individuals of the states) is considered inapplicable. The 14th Amendment,
in this case, is being applied to an amendment that says that the federal
government shall not interfere in a state's attempt to establish a religion
if they so wish.
President Bush has said that Justice Thomas is his favorite judge. It is
reasonable to expect that Mr. Roberts, when he joins the Court, will
provide supporters of this view with 4 of the 5 votes that are needed to
reverse TORCASO v. WATKINS and allow states to pass laws for the
establishment and support of a State church. There is a very real chance
that, within 3 years, the Supreme Court will reverse TORCASO v. WATKINS,
367 U.S. 488 (1961), and the religious right will be unleashed to establish
state religions wherever they have the numbers to do so.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
