Louisiana classrooms now required by law to display the Ten Commandments

[The Liturgist]

On what basis do you assess that HB71 will never be implemented? There are certainly more than five parishes in Louisiana. This doesn't block it in the other parishes. This is also in the 5th circuit, which has no regard for the precedent generally and the establishment clause specifically.

I myself feel that Stare Decesis has become a problem in the US judicial system, in that precedent should not vary between appellate court districts. Ideally, as part of the transition from common law to statutory law, we would move to a situation where only the Supreme Court could issue the equivalent of precedence, but this should be limited. Judicial overreach and the use of stare decesis as a legislative back-channel has been a consistent problem from the beginning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is an extreme benefit to this sort of legislation, and so my view is that the lawsuit should be thrown out as a matter of public policy, since belief in God is consistent with the national interests of the United States, and we need to de-emphasize the prevalent nihilism, which has taken over our society and resulted in an increasingly corrupt and materialist culture devoid of traditional moral values.

I think you might have misunderstood the nature of the United States. The national interests of the US have never depended on any uniformity of belief in deities. Finally, this legislation isn't even generic in the promotion of belief in the divine, but is is instead sectarian.

 

[The Liturgist]

think you might have misunderstood the nature of the United States. The national interests of the US have never depended on any uniformity of belief in deities

On the contrary, the unified belief in Christianity by the majority of the population was the key pathway to reconciliation after the Civil War ended, and also played an integral role in ending racism, since the majority of clergy, whether white or black, could see that segregation, as it existed in the South, was problematic (indeed segregation of churches is regarded as a heresy in Orthodox Christianity).

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution was not intended to make the US a purely secular state, but rather to preclude the creation of a state church along the lines of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland, which were very different, and Scottish Episcopalians and English Presbyterians had quite a bit of difficulty in each country despite living in the United Kingdom in which both churches were established, but in different regions.

One can have a Christian country without specifying a particular theology or denominational affiliation or creating a state-run church, and I would argue the state control of churches in Europe has consistently degraded their performance. The Orthodox Church of Finland, for example, due to government control, observes the Pascha on a different date from the other Orthodox churches.

 

[essentialsaltes]

On the contrary, the unified belief in Christianity by the majority of the population was the key pathway to reconciliation after the Civil War ended, and also played an integral role in ending racism, since the majority of clergy, whether white or black, could see that segregation, as it existed in the South, was problematic (indeed segregation of churches is regarded as a heresy in Orthodox Christianity).

Many white Protestant clergy/churches actively supported segregation.

Segregation academies are private schools in the Southern United States that were founded in the mid-20th century by white parents to avoid having their children attend desegregated public schools. They were founded between 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated public schools were unconstitutional,[2][3] and 1976, when the court ruled similarly about private schools.

A 1972 report on school desegregation noted that segregation academies could usually be identified by the word "Christian" or "church" in the school's name.[12] The report observed that while individual Protestant churches were often deeply involved in the establishment of segregation academies, Catholic dioceses often indicated that their schools were not meant to be havens from desegregation, which was buttressed by the reputation Catholic schools had in offering free or reduced tuition to children of color in order to afford them a parochial education.[12] Many segregation academies claimed they were established to provide a "Christian education", but the sociologist Jennifer Dyer has argued that such claims were simply a "guise" for the schools' actual objective of allowing parents to avoid enrolling their children in racially integrated public schools.

 

[Nithavela]

There is an extreme benefit to this sort of legislation, and so my view is that the lawsuit should be thrown out as a matter of public policy, since belief in God is consistent with the national interests of the United States, and we need to de-emphasize the prevalent nihilism, which has taken over our society and resulted in an increasingly corrupt and materialist culture devoid of traditional moral values.

Are there any other parts of the constitution you would like to see ignored because of "public policy"?

 

[rjs330]

I'm trying to recall, but has there been a Supreme Court ruling over states supporting a certain religion? I know tge Constitution expressly forbids a national law establishing a religion, but if i recall many states allowed Christianity to be in in state government. The Bible was a textbook. There were Chistian references all over state buildings, prayer in schools and government halls etc. Still is in some places.

I suppose this case could be one that helps establish what states can and cannot do regarding religious things.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I'm trying to recall, but has there been a Supreme Court ruling over states supporting a certain religion?

That is an interesting question. But then couldn't we potentially end up with Christian states, Jewish states, Muslim states, etc. depending upon a majority? I doubt state's rights is the best solution for this.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I suppose this case could be one that helps establish what states can and cannot do regarding religious things.

Substantially the same law in Kentucky was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1980.

Stone v. Graham​

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is an interesting question. But then couldn't we potentially end up with Christian states, Jewish states, Muslim states, etc. depending upon a majority? I doubt state's rights is the best solution for this.

Under the 14th Amendment, all which is is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights must be maintained under the States: in other words, the States cannot legislate in such a way that would undermine the guarantees of freedom enshrined in the First Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No person under the jurisdiction of the United States of America can have their right of religion (or lack thereof) violated. Neither on the Federal level, nor the State level, etc.

We cannot have a Christian state, a Muslim state, a Jewish state, et al; nor can we have a Baptist state, a Lutheran state, et al; nor can we have an atheist state.

These United States are, in their entirety, unable to establish or enforce a religious view upon the people.

However: This does not mean that all/anything is permitted, even if one claims a religious justification (See Reynolds v. United States 1878).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hans Blaster]

On the contrary, the unified belief in Christianity by the majority of the population was the key pathway to reconciliation after the Civil War ended, and also played an integral role in ending racism, since the majority of clergy, whether white or black, could see that segregation, as it existed in the South, was problematic (indeed segregation of churches is regarded as a heresy in Orthodox Christianity).

When did racism "end" in the United States? I must have missed it. (And Orthodox Christianity is but a few percent of the US population and has never been larger than that.) "Reconciliation" after the Civil War was largely achieved by allowing the ex-rebel southerners to suppress the voting and other civil rights of ex-slaves and place them in the role of second-class citizens. If you want to call that Christian, feel free.

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution was not intended to make the US a purely secular state, but rather to preclude the creation of a state church along the lines of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland, which were very different, and Scottish Episcopalians and English Presbyterians had quite a bit of difficulty in each country despite living in the United Kingdom in which both churches were established, but in different regions.

Certainly prohibiting a state church is the bare minimum in having a secular state and prohibiting the government establishment of religion and it is part of what is explicitly forbidden. Another part is not having religious requirements to take jobs in government (including elected ones). The "no religious test" clause is part of the original Constitution and it is an even stronger indication that the drafters of the Constitution wanted the government to be secular (neutral on religion).

(The United Kingdom didn't exist when the US Constitution was written, ratified, or amended to include the establishment clause.)

One can have a Christian country without specifying a particular theology or denominational affiliation or creating a state-run church,

And our country is a christian country in that the majority of the people are Christians. But we don't have a Christian state.

and I would argue the state control of churches in Europe has consistently degraded their performance. The Orthodox Church of Finland, for example, due to government control, observes the Pascha on a different date from the other Orthodox churches.

Then why would you want state promotion or interference in your religion?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Under the 14th Amendment, all which is is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights must be maintained under the States: in other words, the States cannot legislate in such a way that would undermine the guarantees of freedom enshrined in the First Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No person under the jurisdiction of the United States of America can have their right of religion (or lack thereof) violated. Neither on the Federal level, nor the State level, etc.

We cannot have a Christian state, a Muslim state, a Jewish state, et al; nor can we have a Baptist state, a Lutheran state, et al; nor can we have an atheist state.

These United States are, in their entirety, unable to establish or enforce a religious view upon the people.

However: This does not mean that all/anything is permitted, even if one claims a religious justification (See Reynolds v. United States 1878).

-CryptoLutheran

In principle, this is correct. The reality, however, is quite different. If you live in a nation that is 99% one religion and that nation is a democracy, the government and the overall culture will inevitably reflect that religion. It is unavoidable that the laws will shine from that religion. The framers knew that people would vote in their own interests. It happens. Freedom of religion will color a nation's laws and culture. We try to be fair and honest about things, but it will happen. Trying to eliminate this "shine" with oppressive laws against the free exercise of said religion will result in the opposite error - "freedom" from religion. The extremes either way are bad. It is a fine balance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In principle, this is correct. The reality, however, is quite different. If you live in a nation that is 99% one religion and that nation is a democracy

The reality is quite different from that hypothetical.

 

[Nithavela]

Substantially the same law in Kentucky was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1980.

Well, that's the point. Try every couple of years to see if the supreme court is right wing enough to change the interpretation. Then, when you finally succeed, defend that ruling as sacrosanct.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well, that's the point. Try every couple of years to see if the supreme court is right wing enough to change the interpretation. Then, when you finally succeed, defend that ruling as sacrosanct.

Yeah, that goes both ways. Roe vs. Wade was sacred for decades until it wasn't. It still is in the minds of many. It may swing back the other way someday, but I suspect the issue will never be resolved until one side or the other gets a constitutional amendment passed.

 

[JSRG]

I'm trying to recall, but has there been a Supreme Court ruling over states supporting a certain religion? I know tge Constitution expressly forbids a national law establishing a religion, but if i recall many states allowed Christianity to be in in state government. The Bible was a textbook. There were Chistian references all over state buildings, prayer in schools and government halls etc. Still is in some places.

I suppose this case could be one that helps establish what states can and cannot do regarding religious things.

The First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Their point was to provide further protection to states against the federal government. So the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, not state law, and several states did have official churches at the time. The Establishment Clause (prohibiting congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion") was therefore made to make it so that the federal government couldn't overrule state law by suppressing the states' opinions on the subject.

The Fourteenth Amendment (passed in the 1860's) was later passed to make the Bill of Rights--at least for the most part--apply to state law as well, which is called the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. This ironically inverted the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, which was to protect the states from the federal government; the Fourteenth Amendment turned it on its head and made the Bill of Rights weaken state law. At this point, no states had state churches or official religions anyway, though. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took quite some time to figure out that the amendment that was supposed to apply the Bill of Rights to state law... actually applied the Bill of Rights to state law. And I also have to admit that I have been largely persuaded that they were wrong to do so via the Due Process Clause ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") rather than the Privileges or Immunities Clause ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States").

At any rate, the specific Supreme Court case that applied the Establishment Clause to state law was Everson v. Board of Education. While I actually have become a bit more skeptical about whether the Establishment Clause should be incorporated against state law (unlike everything else in the First Amendment, or for that matter just about anything else in the Bill of Rights, no liberty, privileges, or immunities seem to actually be harmed by the simple establishment of a religion), at any rate that's the current precedent. Of course, accepting that the Establishment Clause applies to state law, we then run into all of the question of exactly what constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion" with some taking a broad interpretation and others taking a more narrow interpretation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yeah, that goes both ways.

That is the same way. Conservatives tried "every couple of years to see if the supreme court is right wing enough to change the interpretation" until Roe was finally overturned.

 

[rjs330]

Under the 14th Amendment, all which is is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights must be maintained under the States: in other words, the States cannot legislate in such a way that would undermine the guarantees of freedom enshrined in the First Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No person under the jurisdiction of the United States of America can have their right of religion (or lack thereof) violated. Neither on the Federal level, nor the State level, etc.

We cannot have a Christian state, a Muslim state, a Jewish state, et al; nor can we have a Baptist state, a Lutheran state, et al; nor can we have an atheist state.

These United States are, in their entirety, unable to establish or enforce a religious view upon the people.

However: This does not mean that all/anything is permitted, even if one claims a religious justification (See Reynolds v. United States 1878).

-CryptoLutheran

The question always lies in what that means. I don't believe having scrip6ure on a wall is not ENFORCING a religion on anyone.

 

[rjs330]

Of course, accepting that the Establishment Clause applies to state law, we then run into all of the question of exactly what constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion" with some taking a broad interpretation and others taking a more narrow interpretation.

That's what I'm talking about. The interpretations are widely different. Someone could be fine with a nativity scene in a classroom. Others, usually athiests, would through a fit and claim establishment. But in reality it's not. It's about allowing and not establishing. The left is so afraid that merely having the ten commandments will lead to everyone believing in God and becoming a Christian. Or that everyone will be required to recite the sinners prayer and believe Christ is the savior.

Allowance is not establishment. I wonder if it's becauae that's the tactic they use all the time. They use allowance of trans ideolgy in the school to force everyone else to proclaim the faith and express belief in it or get fired or disciplined. Maybe that's what they are afraid of with the the commandments.

 

[The Liturgist]

When did racism "end" in the United States? I must have missed it.

That was a slip, I meant to type “segregation” and have corrected the rest.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That was a slip, I meant to type “segregation” and have corrected the rest.

Even so, what did the ending of legal segregation have to do with the unified American belief in Chrsitianity? The fraction of Americans who were Christians did not change from the times of legal segregation to when it ended.