Originally posted by DoctorScribbles The pledge case is not hypothetical. Which criteria of a counterexample to the League's claim do you think it fails to meet?
The pledge case may have been unconstitutional - but not because it violated a citizen's right to religious freedom. Hence, it is not a counter-example to the League's claim.
[b]Students' religious freedom rights were being violated.
No, they were not. The Pennsylvania Law, for instance, permitted students to opt out on religious grounds.[/b]
You are being dense. The mere establishment of the pledge to a nation under God by a public institution is a violation of religious freedom rights, according to the Constitution. It is immaterial whether students are compelled to say it or may refrain from saying it. Do you agree or disagree?
Originally posted by lucifershammer The pledge case may have been unconstitutional - but not because it violated a citizen's right to religious freedom.
It sure did violate such rights, namely those acknowledged by the Establishment Clause. Do you deny that the Establishment Clause speaks to religious freedom rights?
Even if you do, you have already acknowledged that the League's advocacy obviously extends to the rights dictated by the Establishment Clause.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles You are being dense. The mere establishment of the pledge to a nation under God by a public institution is a violation of religious freedom rights, according to the Constitution. It is immaterial whether students are compelled to say it or may refrain from saying. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree. The mere existence of a State Religion (say) does not constitute a violation of my religious freedom (i.e. freedom to exercise a religion of my choice) per se.
EDIT: e.g. The Church of England is the official Church of England. That doesn't constitute an automatic violation of the religious freedoms of all non-Anglicans in England.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I disagree. The mere existence of a State Religion (say) does not constitute a violation of my religious freedom
Then you do not understand the Constitution, and you should have no problem with Lutheranism being the national religion, with a pledge of allegiance to Martin Luther.
Originally posted by lucifershammer EDIT: e.g. The Church of England is the official Church of England. That doesn't constitute an automatic violation of the religious freedoms of all non-Anglicans in England.
The U.S. founders disagreed. Until we amend their decision, we're stuck with it.
Many snake handlers like myself find that state sponsored prayers to be highly offensive as they are designed to be so bland as to say nothing so as not to offend anyone. How is that prayer? I want to keep my offensive prayers and snakes at home and my church.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It sure did violate such rights, namely those acknowledged by the Establishment Clause. Do you deny that the Establishment Clause speaks to religious freedom rights?
Even if you do, you have already acknowledged that the League's advocacy obviously extends to the rights dictated by the Establishment Clause.
Are you saying that the Establishment Clause is synonymous with the entire First Amendment?
If not, then the most reasonable reading (in the absence of no1's expert viewpoint) is that Establishment of Religion and Free Exercise of Religion are separate clauses of the First Amendment.
Even if you do, you have already acknowledged that the League's advocacy obviously extends to the rights dictated by the Establishment Clause.
I said that it might in a hypothetical situation that you raised. Under the "charter" of the League, it is not obliged to.
Growing up Lutheran, before I was old enough for catechism or anything like that, the one thing I knew about us Lutherans was that we were not Catholic! How many times do you have to hear that message in your early formative years—before you are exercising critical thinking—for the message to soak in. For Jews it was worse—“They don’t accept Christ!” said with sneers of contempt before I was old enough to know what that meant. Wonder what my reaction was when I actually met Jews in junior high school? “You’re a Jew?” And public school was a source of critical thinking, yes? No. When I was in junior high school, we said everyday the pledge and a Christian prayer (i.e. “we ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ&rdquo😉 led by the home-room teacher. Did the Jews in our community who attended the same school have an opportunity to lead the prayers without that addendum? No. (By the time I was in high school that may have been supplanted by a “moment of silence.” )
It doesn’t take inflammatory propaganda—just the osmosis by very young people of what’s going on around them. You think it doesn’t happen today? I don’t even want religious ideas that I might believe in being promulgated in the public sector.
A Lutheran state? Norway is a Lutheran state. In the U.S., I would think that an evangelical protestant state would be more likely—you know those Lutherans: they’re too close to the Catholics. Anyone willing to play the dangerous game of linking religion and the state as long as it seems to fit their religious doctrines, is doing just that: playing a dangerous game.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Then you do not understand the Constitution, and you should have no problem with Lutheranism being the national religion, with a pledge of allegiance to Martin Luther.
I have no problems with Lutheranism being the national religion, or a pledge of allegiance to Luther as long as I am exempted from it on religious grounds.
If not, then the most reasonable reading (in the absence of no1's expert viewpoint) is that Establishment of Religion and Free Exercise of Religion are separate clauses of the First Amendment.
Of course they are, but they both speak to religious freedom rights.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I have no problems with Lutheranism being the national religion, or a pledge of allegiance to Luther as long as I am exempted from it on religious grounds.
Then it sounds like you don't acknowledge the importance or need for the Establishment Clause at all.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles The U.S. founders disagreed. Until we amend their decision, we're stuck with it.
The U.S. founders disagreed?
Then George Washington clearly did not "recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November ... to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be".
Originally posted by lucifershammer I have no problems with Lutheranism being the national religion, or a pledge of allegiance to Luther as long as I am exempted from it on religious grounds.
Part of the rationale behind my post above is: How exempt is exempt? The right to send your children to religious school? That is only an option for those who can afford it--and it's costly.
Originally posted by lucifershammer The U.S. founders disagreed?
Then George Washington clearly did not "recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be".
George Washington didn't author the Constitution and his proclamation runs contrary to it. So do many aspects of our government, such as "In God We Trust" on our money and our federal holiday of Christmas. Where is the League when you need them, with all these religious freedom rights being violated?
30 Nov '05 00:20
The Catholic Church's influences on civil libe...
Back to Top