(K C) wrote:
:|--(-@
:|
:|How does one establish a religion?
Here is even a third view
The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent government from
ENDORSING or SUPPORTING religion. [emphasis in the original]
SOURCE: emanuel law outlines, Constitutional Law, Steven L. Emanuel,
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1976, 15th Edition, Prepared with the assistance
of Jeremy Senderowicz, Columbia Law School J.D. 1999, Emanuel Publishing
Corp. (1997) p. 681
Now in case you don't know what the above is about, it is a law book used
as reference book in Law Schools across America
This particular book I bought at the Book Store of Regent University, a
University created by Pat Robertson for graduate students. One of the
schools at Regent U is a school of law. Emanuel Law Outlines books can be
found covering just about every area of law.
Now that I have established it's credentials I will repeat again that
comment:
"The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent government from
ENDORSING or SUPPORTING religion." [emphasis in the original]
Emanuel p 681
Both religious clauses, by their terms, apply only to action taken by
Congress. However, both clauses are interpreted to apply also to the
STATES, by means of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. [Emphasis
in the original]
Emanuel p. 681
The rules of law that were laid down with Everson in 1947 laid out the
general groundwork of that ban, the ban on ENDORSING or SUPPORTING
religion.
Throughout the years from 1947 to present the USSC have stayed pretty much
in line with that in most areas. The areas that have had the biggest
chipping away has been in the area of financial supporting of religion.
In recent years there has been some chipping away with regards to allowing
religious groups to use school buildings for pseudo religious services
after regular school hours.
The majority of cases over the years have been in the area of religion and
public schools of the k-12 variety though there have been a few cases
involving institutions of higher learning.
However, there have been cases in other areas as well, such as
Standing to Sue, Tax Exemptions to Religious Institutions, Sunday Work,
Religion and Labor Relations, Unequal Treatment of Religious Groups,
Legislative Chaplains, Government Sponsored Nativity Scenes and the Various
education cases .
"The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent government from
ENDORSING or SUPPORTING religion." [emphasis in the original]
Emanuel p 681
Now, to get to the nitty gritty here.
Government from endorsing religion
No matter what you would like to believe, no matter what you think, no
matter you say
A JUDGE/JUSTICE is a very direct representative of government.
And this particular Judge wanted to promote and endorse his personal
version of the Protestant Christianity. His rock was the physical
expression of that promotion and endorsement.
This particular judge even went so far as to say that other specific
religion he named weren't really religions.
This particular judge led religious services in his court room.
This particular judge ruled against a parent denying that parent custody of
that parent's own child because that parent was gay and this judge state
very clearly he based his ruling on the Bible, on his personal version of
the Protestant Christian religion.
********************************************
First and foremost, Judge Moore had acknowledged, on several occasions that
the purpose of his actions was to promote his religion.
A circuit court judge in another county ruled that, based on Judge Moore's
comments and the context of the display, the display was "purely religious"
in purpose and therefore unconstitutional.
The "Ten Commandments Judge" the ACLU helped elect.
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id12.htm#last_november_the_good_voters_of_1
Thus, his own words make the display unconstitutional.
******************************
BurtLaw's Court Gazing II BurtLaw.Com
- LawAndEverythingElse.Com - Copyright (c) 2001 Burton Randall Hanson
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
Some have asked, "What's so bad about what Moore has done?" That's somewhat
like the legendary question, "What is jazz?" If you have to ask, well,
maybe you'll never get it -- or maybe you'll never see it as I see it and
as other people who believe in the separation of church and state see it. I
think a better question is, Do I think there's a place for "The Ten
Commandments" in a court house or court room? My answer to that is "Yes,
come to the Supreme Court's main court room in the Minnesota State Capitol
in St. Paul or go to the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.
and see for yourself."
If Alabama's Chief Justice Moore weren't a judicial demagogue and if he
really wanted to "do it right," he wouldn't have done it the way he did.
He'd have talked it over with his colleagues, he'd have done some research,
and he'd have solicited input from legal scholars and historians -- and
there wouldn't be any "Ten Commandments controversy" whatever. Moore would
have had his Moses, and more.... But, in my opinion, politicians like Moore
aren't as much about Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition as they
are about using Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition to create
controversy and get votes. (11.04.2001)
******************************
Let me give you some food for thought:
Judges, justices, are in a unique position, be it a trial judge in a
District court, a judge on a Court of Appeals or a Justice on the USSC.
******************************
"Few persons more clearly act as a government official on behalf of the
state than a judge in his courtroom. He should always remember that the
democratic process gave him his office and that he is accountable as a
public agent to all who have business within his courtroom. Along with the
power to issue the state's criminal punishments upon offenders, a judge has
the power to compel citizens to serve as jurors, to require citizens to
testify before the court, and to punish by contempt any person who refuses
to yield to judicial authority. As long as a judge sits on the bench, he
acts not as a private individual, but on behalf of government. Thus, when a
judge directs an invocation to be given or displays religious art, it is a
religious act advanced by the state and not merely a personal expression of
faith. The state's imprimatur inevitably is placed on the prayer and the
display, and government can no longer be considered neutral in the purest
sense, because its powers are being used to endorse religion."
SOURCE: Editorial: Religion and the abuse of Judicial Power, Derek H. Davis
Journal of Church and State, Volume 39, Spring 1997, Number 2, p. 207
*************************************
.
|
