Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Truth7t7" data-source="post: 72434051" data-attributes="member: 321339"><p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421" target="_blank">Engel V. Vitale</a></p><p></p><p>I enjoyed reading the "disent" of Justice Stewart below.</p><p></p><p>I believe his disent is correct, and school prayer does not establish <strong><span style="color: #ff0000">"An Official Religion"</span></strong></p><p></p><p>This is why it's critical in appointment of "conservative" Supreme court justices, who will interpret in light of the forefathers who maintained the word "God" in their lives and belief.</p><p></p><p><em><em>There is a possibility Justice Kennedy will retire soon?</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>One more conservative Justice appointment in his retirement, and conservative Christian America can revisit Roe V. Wade and same sex marriage!</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>STEWART, J., Dissenting Opinion</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/319/624/" target="_blank">319 U.S. 624</a>. But the Court says that, in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established <strong><span style="color: #ff0000">"an official religion."</span></strong></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an <strong><span style="color: #ff0000">"official religion"</span></strong> is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/1" target="_blank">[n1] </a>Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer.<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/2" target="_blank">[n2] </a>Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has, upon assuming his Office, asked the protection and help of God.<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/3" target="_blank">[n3]</a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/4" target="_blank">[n4] </a>One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner " made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931,<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/5" target="_blank">[n5] </a>contains these verses:</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation,</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">And this be our motto "In God is our Trust."</span></strong></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>In 1954, Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation <em>under</em> God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/6" target="_blank">[n6] </a>In 1952, Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/7" target="_blank">[n7] </a>Since 1865, the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/8" target="_blank">[n8]</a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/9" target="_blank">[n9] </a>It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." <em><em>Zorach v. Clauson,</em> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/343/306/" target="_blank">343 U.S. 306</a>, 313.</em></em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><em><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has, by the actions and practices I have mentioned, established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation -- traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world.</span></strong><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/10" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">[</span></strong>n10]</a></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I dissent.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Truth7t7, post: 72434051, member: 321339"] [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421']Engel V. Vitale[/URL] I enjoyed reading the "disent" of Justice Stewart below. I believe his disent is correct, and school prayer does not establish [B][COLOR=#ff0000]"An Official Religion"[/COLOR][/B] This is why it's critical in appointment of "conservative" Supreme court justices, who will interpret in light of the forefathers who maintained the word "God" in their lives and belief. [I][I]There is a possibility Justice Kennedy will retire soon? One more conservative Justice appointment in his retirement, and conservative Christian America can revisit Roe V. Wade and same sex marriage! STEWART, J., Dissenting Opinion MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting. A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them[URL='http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/319/624/']319 U.S. 624[/URL]. But the Court says that, in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established [B][COLOR=#ff0000]"an official religion."[/COLOR][/B] With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an [B][COLOR=#ff0000]"official religion"[/COLOR][/B] is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation. The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/1'][n1] [/URL]Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer.[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/2'][n2] [/URL]Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has, upon assuming his Office, asked the protection and help of God.[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/3'][n3][/URL][URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/4'][n4] [/URL]One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner " made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931,[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/5'][n5] [/URL]contains these verses: Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation, Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just. [B][COLOR=#ff0000]And this be our motto "In God is our Trust."[/COLOR][/B] In 1954, Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation [I]under[/I] God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/6'][n6] [/URL]In 1952, Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/7'][n7] [/URL]Since 1865, the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/8'][n8][/URL][URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/9'][n9] [/URL]It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." [I][I]Zorach v. Clauson,[/I] [URL='http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/343/306/']343 U.S. 306[/URL], 313.[/I][/I] [I][B][COLOR=#ff0000]I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has, by the actions and practices I have mentioned, established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation -- traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world.[/COLOR][/B][URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#ZD-370_US_421fn3/10'][B][COLOR=#ff0000][[/COLOR][/B]n10][/URL] I dissent. [/I][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?
Top
Bottom