| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2004 09:00:43 AM |
| Object: |
Selected Writings church state |
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/oconrframe.htm
Sandra Day O'Connor
Justice, United States Supreme Court (1981-)
Sandra Day O'Connor[Excerpt]
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a
religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political
community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984) (see notes to Passage, below) ‡‡
[Excerpt]
Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not
full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to
adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political
community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984) (see notes to Passage, below) ‡‡
[Passage]
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a
religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political
community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal
ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may
interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions
access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by
nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political
constituencies defined along religious lines. [Larkin v. Grendel's Den,
Inc., (1982).] The second and more direct infringement is government
endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to
nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political
community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders,
favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite
message. [Abington School District v. Schempp, (1963).]
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, suggesting a "clarification" of Establishment
Clause jurisprudence, which effectively collapses the first two prongs of
the Lemon test, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v. Donnelly
(1984), 465 U.S. at 687, source citation commentary quoted from Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, Newdow v. U.S. Congress (2002) and edited by
Cliff Walker, the text and bracketed references are quoted from Lynch v.
Donnelly itself, except that the bracketed references have been edited (see
our copy of O'Connor's Concurring Opinion) ‡‡
The purpose prong of the Lemon test requires that a government activity
have a secular purpose. That requirement is not satisfied, however, by the
mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious
purposes.... The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit,
is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or
disapproval of religion.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984), 465 U.S. at 687 ‡‡
Focusing on the evil of government endorsement or disapproval of religion
makes clear that the effect prong of the Lemon test is properly interpreted
not to require invalidation of a government practice merely because it in
fact causes, even as a primary effect, advancement or inhibition of
religion.... What is crucial is that a government practice not have the
effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval
of religion. It is only practices having that effect, whether intentionally
or unintentionally, that make religion relevant, in reality or public
perception, to status in the political community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984), 465 U.S. at 687 ‡‡
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Selected Writings church state |
18 Nov 2004 05:37:42 AM |
|
|
Excellent reasons below for privatizing Education. At the present only
atheists are satisfied, for our educational institutions produce an endless
stream of amoral functional atheist, AKA secular humanist graduates, who
have no knowledge whatever of religion and its moral and ethical tenets,
values and principles.
Let government merely licence and regulate schools, and leave the
educational choices to parents who know what is best for their children,
more so than government. Government also should collect taxes and subsidize
those who can't afford tuition. This will provide freedom of choice to
parents and competition in the education industry, which only can benefit
all.
Voucher schools is a start, but we all hope Bush and a new conservative
slate of supreme court judges will free us from this intolerable atheist
monopoly on education, for to be a functional atheist one only needs to be
ignorant of religion.
Pastor Frank
SCRIPTURE
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness
-----------------------------------
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvj9p0dthshhbnlrfkfgrdjog28v356uc6@4ax.com...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/oconrframe.htm
Sandra Day O'Connor
Justice, United States Supreme Court (1981-)
Sandra Day O'Connor[Excerpt]
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a
religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political
community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984) (see notes to Passage, below) ‡‡
[Excerpt]
Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not
full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to
adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political
community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984) (see notes to Passage, below) ‡‡
[Passage]
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a
religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political
community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal
ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may
interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions
access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by
nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political
constituencies defined along religious lines. [Larkin v. Grendel's Den,
Inc., (1982).] The second and more direct infringement is government
endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to
nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political
community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are
insiders,
favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite
message. [Abington School District v. Schempp, (1963).]
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, suggesting a "clarification" of Establishment
Clause jurisprudence, which effectively collapses the first two prongs of
the Lemon test, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v. Donnelly
(1984), 465 U.S. at 687, source citation commentary quoted from Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, Newdow v. U.S. Congress (2002) and edited by
Cliff Walker, the text and bracketed references are quoted from Lynch v.
Donnelly itself, except that the bracketed references have been edited
(see
our copy of O'Connor's Concurring Opinion) ‡‡
The purpose prong of the Lemon test requires that a government activity
have a secular purpose. That requirement is not satisfied, however, by the
mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated by religious
purposes.... The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I
submit,
is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or
disapproval of religion.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984), 465 U.S. at 687 ‡‡
Focusing on the evil of government endorsement or disapproval of religion
makes clear that the effect prong of the Lemon test is properly
interpreted
not to require invalidation of a government practice merely because it in
fact causes, even as a primary effect, advancement or inhibition of
religion.... What is crucial is that a government practice not have the
effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval
of religion. It is only practices having that effect, whether
intentionally
or unintentionally, that make religion relevant, in reality or public
perception, to status in the political community.
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Concurring Opinion appended to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984), 465 U.S. at 687 ‡‡
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
