Senate Hearing Marks Buildup To New Attack on Gay and Lesbian Families

[Queersetti]

Re: Here you go

"...explained that she does not share the religious beliefs espoused by the majority of her schoolmates,"

- Right in the suit it states that most of the classmates share the religious beliefs, so I made the large assumption that most of those students would support a prayer at the graduation ceremony. Yet the ACLU, concerned about this feelings of this one girl, wants to pressure the school into cancelling the prayer. So basically the majority of students, who would support the prayer, are forced to go without it because of the feelings of one girl. You know what that is? Tyranny of the minority. The majority are prohibited from freely expressing their religious beliefs (a Constitutional right) because one girl feels bad. And the school board is not an agency of the state...they are all locally run and reflect the norms, values, and desires of the local community.


Seperation of church and state is a myth....where does it exist in the Constitution? It doesn't, and you know that.

Local governments, counties, cities, school boards, etc., do not exist as independent entities, but as sub divisions of the states, wield authority only at the suuferance of state government, and are subject to all laws and restrictions on the state government.

I am surprised that someone with a degree in political science doesn't know that.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Here you go

Local governments, counties, cities, school boards, etc., do not exist as independent entities, but as sub divisions of the states, wield authority only at the suuferance of state government, and are subject to all laws and restrictions on the state government.

I am surprised that someone with a degree in political science doesn't know that.

You beat me to it.

 

[Queersetti]

Even if the school boards were directly run by the Governor of each state....show me in the Constitution where it would prohibit him from allowing a school to open each day with a prayer?

How could that not be an establishment of religion, as prohibited by the First Amendment?

Oh, I know, you are going to claim that the First Amendment applies only to acts of Congress, as if that crackpot notion hasn't been dismissed by settled law for two centuries now.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Here you go

Seperation of church and state is a myth....where does it exist in the Constitution? It doesn't, and you know that.

The Constitution is old as the hills and to be relevant had to be interpreted as America has progressed along the path of freedom and equality that began in 1776.

 

[LarzMachine]

And please don't give me the BS about "seperation of church and state"...it does not exist. You can not show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that would prohibit a school choir from singing the Lord's Prayer at a graduation ceremony. Unless of course, you think a school board and Congress are one in the same.

Unfortunately, it does. The separation is implied in the wording of the 1st Amendment (if they weren't separate, then they wouldn't be specifying the state can't make laws prohibiting religion), and was later clarified by Thomas Jefferson.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

Also, if there is no separation of church and state, why do churches invoke exactly that when they demand they be given tax-exempt status?

Incidentally, I'd like to see anything in the Constitution that says schools can require one religion's ceremonies (prayer, for example) to be part of the school's curriculum or other standard practice.

 

[SensualMan]

You guys have been brainwashed...

"Oh, I know, you are going to claim that the First Amendment applies only to acts of Congress, as if that crackpot notion hasn't been dismissed by settled law for two centuries now."

- As I have stated numerous times before, laws are only legitimate if they agree with the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear in the 1st Amendment, only Congress in prohibited from passing laws regarding religion. And keep in mind that there was a time that the Supreme Court upheld slavery, and stripped blacks of their rights.....just because it is law does not mean it is moral or it is right.

"The separation is implied in the wording of the 1st Amendment.."

- Implied? How the hell do you figure that? I can imply just about anything I want from various parts of the Constitution, that does not make it right. The 1st Amendment is VERY explicit and clear about religion. And quoting personal letters means nothing...they are not legal documents. The Constitution is, and it is clear. Who cares what Jefferson may have written in personal letters later in life? Should we look though all of the founding father's personal letters and use them as legal documents to help interperet the Constitution?

As for tax exempt status, non-religious charities are tax exempt, and any church that is involved in the community with various programs deserves the same benefit. I also think that churches that aren't involved in their communties, and use their money to build multi-million dollar buildings, should lose their tax exempt status.

"The Constitution is old as the hills and to be relevant had to be interpreted as America has progressed along the path of freedom and equality that began in 1776."

- So why don't we liberally interperet the whole Constitution? We, as a country, have gone through great lengths to protect free speech because it is very clearly protected in the Constitution. We have not felt that maybe we need to interperet that part of the 1st Amendment. You have to be consistent in your application. If any part of the Constitution is able to be changed, then all parts of it are.

"Incidentally, I'd like to see anything in the Constitution that says schools can require one religion's ceremonies (prayer, for example) to be part of the school's curriculum or other standard practice."

- Do you think the Constitution is the source of our rights in this country? According to our founders, the Constitution was written to protect our natural rights, given to us by God. Unles the Constitution expressly prohibits it, the decision is left to the states. So the question becomes...does your state constitution or laws address the issue of prayer in schools? The framers intended issues like this to be decided by local communities, by the people in those communities. That is exactly what the school board is! It is a group of people from the local community that set standards for the local school district. The whole problem with education in this country is that we have let the federal beauracracy get involved and ruin it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even mention education as a function as the federal government! If a local community wants to allow prayed at the commencement ceremony, why do you care?

This country would be so much better off if the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

This country would be so much better off if the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression.

And you support racism and the traitorous actions of the Confederacy. Wow, what kind of American are you?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

And you support racism and the traitorous actions of the Confederacy. Wow, what kind of American are you?

He's certainly not a Poli Sci major. I don't even think he finished high school, based on his ignorance of government structure and the US Constitution. He's nothing more than an ignorant troll that enjoys posting lame rants.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

He's certainly not a Poli Sci major. I don't even think he finished high school, based on his ignorance of government structure and the US Constitution. He's nothing more than an ignorant troll that enjoys posting lame rants.

He probably reads nutjob right-wing rhetoric and counts himself as being informed.














Ok, maybe has someone read it to him...

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

He probably reads nutjob right-wing rhetoric and counts himself as being informed.

Ok, maybe has someone read it to him...

The more he posts, the more he shows himself for what he really is. He has no education. He can't use resources to back up his argument. He just rants.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

The more he posts, the more he shows himself for what he really is. He has no education. He can't use resources to back up his argument. He just rants.

This is the part where he'll claim discrimination against straight white southern Protestant males...

 

[Queersetti]

Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

This country would be so much better off if the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression.

I wish you would have said that in the first place and saved everyone the trouble of taking you seriously.

 

[Pookie]

Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

"The separation is implied in the wording of the 1st Amendment.."

- Implied? How the hell do you figure that? I can imply just about anything I want from various parts of the Constitution, that does not make it right. The 1st Amendment is VERY explicit and clear about religion. Who cares what Jefferson may have written in personal letters later in life? Should we look though all of the founding father's personal letters and use them as legal documents to help interperet the Constitution?

You are an idiot.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

When will you ever learn to do some research before you open your ignorant mouth and post your useless rants.

Let us know when you finish your high school equivalency.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

You are an idiot.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

When will you ever learn to do some research before you open your ignorant mouth and post your useless rants.

Let us know when you finish your high school equivalency.

This is the part where he will blast the Supreme Court for being 'judicial activists'...even though he didn't mind when they stole the election for Bush.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

This is the part where he will blast the Supreme Court for being 'judicial activists'...even though he didn't mind when they stole the election for Bush.

He will also have to live with his own words too ...

Now whether you agree with the issue or not is another matter, and an irrelevant one. The decision of he Supreme Court is final and becomes the law of the land.

I can't wait to see his next rant ...

"But ... but ... but ..."

 

[69forever]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys have been brainwashed...

He will also have to live with his own words too ...



I can't wait to see his next rant ...

"But ... but ... but ..."

God but how I love how you folks take their B.S. to task.
I'm not as well read and informed, so I'll just sit on the side-line
and cheer.

 

[SensualMan]

"And you support racism and the traitorous actions of the Confederacy. Wow, what kind of American are you?"

- Supporting state's rights somehow equates to being a racist....not sure I see that connection, but whatever helps you sleep at night. State's rights has nothing to do with race, it has to do with a federal government stripping power from the states and centering it in Washington DC. It is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. I knew that line would get you, that's why I put it in and made it so obvious.....Another example of how you can't argue facts, just call people names.

"He's certainly not a Poli Sci major. I don't even think he finished high school, based on his ignorance of government structure and the US Constitution. He's nothing more than an ignorant troll that enjoys posting lame rants."

- Your opinion of me means nothing, you should know that by now. The only comment I want to make is that there is a HUGE difference between how our government is run now, and how many people believe it was intended to be run. Maybe if you had a degree you would realize that.....

"He probably reads nutjob right-wing rhetoric and counts himself as being informed."

- I didn't know Bob Woodward, Stephen Spears, James Fishkin, Simone Chambers, and a number of others I read or have read, are generally considered writers of "nutjob right-wing rhetoric". If they are, then yes, that must be what I read.

"This is the part where he will blast the Supreme Court for being 'judicial activists'...even though he didn't mind when they stole the election for Bush."

- To be able to make that argument, you first have to show how the Court ruling in Bush v. Gore could be viewed as judicial activism. It was hardly activist to protect someone's rights...and before you say it, don't whine about how they stole the election. All they did was rule on a single point, which did not preclude Congress from exercising legislative power. I even got Pookie to admit to that...

"In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President."

- Now we get to the real meat of the issue, and it is beliefs about this ruling that demonstrate the difference between "conservative" and "liberal" in our society today. I will make a few points on this one, so try to stay with me.

The bottom line is that liberals, although they refuse to acknowledge it, know that the courts have become very activist. That is why liberals have such a deep fear of a conservative President being able to appoint new federal judges. Liberals know that much of the legal precedent of the last 40 years has been established through liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and if conservative judges are appointed, that interpretation can be challenged and overturned. Take for example, Roe v. Wade and the issue of abortion. Liberals know that it was based on a loose interpretation of sections of the Constitution, and because of this, a conservative Court might be able to overturn the decision. I am not saying that will happen, just using it as an example. The point is that if you accept the Court liberally interpreting the Constitution, the posibility that a conservative court could exist that would not interpret the Constitution so liberally and overturn much of the liberal precedent is a real threat to you.

"Now whether you agree with the issue or not is another matter, and an irrelevant one. The decision of he Supreme Court is final and becomes the law of the land."

- I stand by that quote, it is exactly right. Just because something is law does not make it right or moral though. While I have an obligation to abide by the laws, I also have the freedom to work to change laws that I feel are not in agreement with the Constitution. On the issue of "seperation of church and state", it is very obvious that the Court was really reaching to find that in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, they didn't. Like Pookie pointed out, they found it in a personal letter. Hardly a sound foundation for establishing legal precedent. Like I pointed out above, that while it may be difficult, the appointment of a conservative court could result in that seperation being ruled unconstitutional. Now this is the point where liberals start whining about judicial activism. Like I said, you can't have it both ways....if you want the Court to "interpret" what is black and white in the Constitution, you open up the possibility for conservative interpretation.

While we are on the topic of precedent, I think one that is important to this issue is is that of "legislative defference". This principle was established by Justice Frankfurter after many of the New Deal programs under FDR were ruled onconstitutional. The main idea is that the Court should assume that laws created by legislatures are Constitutional unless proven otherwise because those laws reflect the will of the people. This is the priciple that I, and many other people, believe that founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Anything that can be handled legislatively, should be. If you want to talk about issues like prayer in schools and seperation of church and state, read Justice Frankfurter's opinion in Minersville School District v. Gobitis.

I think that addresses most of the posts, at least those worth responding too. You guys must have been patting yourselves on the back, feeling very proud of yourselves. I hope the euphoria lasted long enough, because other than name calling, you still have yet to post anything with any substance. Pookie finally posted something with substance about the seperation myth, which I have to say I was surprised to see. Too bad that she fails to understand that I acknowledge the priciple exists in terms of legal precedent. My argument is that it does not exist in the Constitution, and that I will work to help get people elected that will appoint judges to "re-interpret" the 1st Amendment in a more literal way.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Now he stops, and uses big words to describe who he is anti-American.

 

[SensualMan]

Un - American?

Wasn't it liberals claiming at the start of the recent war in Iraq that questioning our government in not un-American, but it is actually very American? So why now, when I question certain assumptions others make about our government...I am labeled un-American? It is un-American to challenge the status quo and imagine that there may be a better way of doing things? I don't challenge your patriotism, and I was hoping you would be adult enough to not challenge mine. If you really want to get into it, we can...but you will lose.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Un - American?

Wasn't it liberals claiming at the start of the recent war in Iraq that questioning our government in not un-American, but it is actually very American? So why now, when I question certain assumptions others make about our government...I am labeled un-American? It is un-American to challenge the status quo and imagine that there may be a better way of doing things? I don't challenge your patriotism, and I was hoping you would be adult enough to not challenge mine. If you really want to get into it, we can...but you will lose.

Your ideas are un-American...your expression of them is not. You can say whatever you want, even as you preach against the ideas that make America great. You support the traitors of the Civil War. You are against religious freedom. You apparently think that freedom-defending groups like the ACLU are somehow wrong...

 

[Pookie]

Now we get to the real meat of the issue, and it is beliefs about this ruling that demonstrate the difference between "conservative" and "liberal" in our society today. I will make a few points on this one, so try to stay with me. ...

It figures that you would say "now we get to the real meat of the issue" when discussing the existence of separation of church and state, and go into a long rant about the difference between "conservative" and "liberal" in our society today. You're addle minded.

Address the ruling I presented. Why doesn't it support the idea of separation of church and state. Can you put together even one coherent rebuttal that actually addresses the issue being dealt with in your reply?

On the issue of "seperation of church and state", it is very obvious that the Court was really reaching to find that in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, they didn't. Like Pookie pointed out, they found it in a personal letter. Hardly a sound foundation for establishing legal precedent. Like I pointed out above, that while it may be difficult, the appointment of a conservative court could result in that seperation being ruled unconstitutional.

You REALLY need to seek out help for this reading disability of yours, or else you just enjoy misquoting me. I said ...

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

I went on to say ...

The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

I never said "they found it in a personal letter". You're pitiful.

I think that addresses most of the posts, at least those worth responding too. You guys must have been patting yourselves on the back, feeling very proud of yourselves. I hope the euphoria lasted long enough, because other than name calling, you still have yet to post anything with any substance. Pookie finally posted something with substance about the seperation myth, which I have to say I was surprised to see. Too bad that she fails to understand that I acknowledge the priciple exists in terms of legal precedent. My argument is that it does not exist in the Constitution, and that I will work to help get people elected that will appoint judges to "re-interpret" the 1st Amendment in a more literal way.

You're a fucking liar. You said it was "a myth" and that it doesn't exist, not that it "exists in terms of legal precedent." The US Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education was very clear in it's ruling that it does exist in the First Amendment ...

Insofar as the second phase of the due process argument may differ from the first, it is by suggesting that taxation for transportation of children to church schools constitutes support of a religion by the State. But if the law is invalid for this reason, it is because it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion [p*8] by law. This is the exact question raised by appellant's second contention, to consideration of which we now turn.

Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." These words of the First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity. Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the Nation moved toward it that the expression "law respecting an establishment of religion" probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be written into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an "establishment of religion" requires an understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes. Once again, [n4] therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to [p*9] maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them. [n5]

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. [n6] An exercise of [p*10] this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. [n7] And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes [n8] to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. [p*11]

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. [n9] The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. [n10] It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty. But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention, provided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established church. Thomas Jefferson [p*12] and James Madison led the fight against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. [n11] In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free, and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout Virginia, [n12] and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax measure until its next session. When the proposal came up for consideration at that session, it not only died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the famous "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty" originally written by Thomas Jefferson. [n13] The preamble to that Bill stated, among other things, that

Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are [p*13] a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern. . . .

And the statute itself enacted

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. . . . [n14]

This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective, and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states. [n15] Most of them did soon provide similar constitutional protections [p*14] for religious liberty. [n16] But some states persisted for about half a century in imposing restraints upon the free exercise of religion and in discriminating against particular religious groups. [n17] In recent years, so far as the provision against the establishment of a religion is concerned, the question has most frequently arisen in connection with proposed state aid to church schools and efforts to carry on religious teachings in the public schools in accordance with the tenets of a particular sect. [n18] Some churches have either sought or accepted state financial support for their schools. Here again, the efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of it have not been limited to any one particular faith. [n19] The state courts, in the main, have remained faithful to the language of their own constitutional provisions designed to protect religious freedom and to separate religions and governments. Their decisions, however, show the difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides funds for the welfare of the general public and that which is designed to support institutions which teach religion. [n20]

The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it [p*15] was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. [n21] The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. [n22] There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, [n23] quoted with approval by this Court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:

The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

We must consider the New Jersey statute in accordance with the foregoing limitations imposed by the First Amendment. But we must not strike that state statute down if it is within the State's constitutional power, even though it approaches the verge of that power. See Interstate Ry. v. Massachusetts, Holmes, J., supra, at 85, 88. New Jersey cannot, consistently with the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment, contribute tax raised funds to the support of an institution which teaches the tenets and faith of any church. On the other hand, other language of the amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion. Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a state could not provide transportation only to children attending public schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established churches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief. [p*17]

Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools. It is undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools. There is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children's bus fares out of their own pockets when transportation to a public school would have been paid for by the State. The same possibility exists where the state requires a local transit company to provide reduced fares to school children, including those attending parochial schools, [n24] or where a municipally owned transportation system undertakes to carry all school children free of charge. Moreover, state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children going to and from church schools from the very real hazards of traffic, would serve much the same purpose and accomplish much the same result as state provisions intended to guarantee free transportation of a kind which the state deems to be best for the school children's welfare. And parents might refuse to risk their children to the serious danger of traffic accidents going to and from parochial schools the approaches to which were not protected by policemen. Similarly, parents might be reluctant to permit their children to attend schools which the state had cut off from such general government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public [p*18] highways and sidewalks. Of course, cutting off church schools from these services so separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function would make it far more difficult for the schools to operate. But such is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment. That Amendment requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious, rather than a public, school if the school meets the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 . It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

Affirmed.



Try again, troll. Actually, don't try again. Your ignorance is clear enough.

 

[SensualMan]

Oh man, not agian.....

"The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President."

- Is that not a personal letter? You can call it anything you like, but the phrase "seperation of church and state" came from a personal letter.

Man, you are totally blinded by your rage. Yes, I said seperation of church and state is a myth, and it is my opinion. I feel it is a myth because it does not exist in the Constitution. Yes, the Court has ruled on it and has established it as a precedent....but that does not change anything in my mind. According to our founding document, there is no such thing as a seperation of church and state. So to me it is a myth that has been perpetuated by the federal courts, liberal or conservative. I used the term myth because I disagree with the legal principle established by the Court.

I should not have to take time to explain this to anyone over 5 years old, it is ridiculous. I am really sorry that you do not have the mental capacity to engage in a conversation without having every sentence or word choice explained to you! Wow.....

 

[SensualMan]

"Your ideas are un-American...your expression of them is not. You can say whatever you want, even as you preach against the ideas that make America great. You support the traitors of the Civil War. You are against religious freedom. You apparently think that freedom-defending groups like the ACLU are somehow wrong..."

- My ideas are far from wrong, they are in keeping with the intentions of the brave men that founded this country. The Confederacy were not traitors, they were some of the greatest men to have served this country. Try exposing yourself to something other than what you were taught in high school. I recommend "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" by James and Walter Kennedy. Now I know you will just dismiss it as right wing crap, but what do you have to lose? I have just started it myself and it is very intereting. What harm is there in possibly being open to other ideas....isn't that what liberals are all about? Keeping an open mind? I used to be just as much of a unionist and federalist as you appear to be, but then I started reading and thinking for myself, and my opinions changed.

As for religious freedom, I wholeheartedly support religious freedom. Religious freedom means people are free to express their religion how they choose! That means if a community gathers at a school board meeting and decides they want a prayer at their graduation ceremony, it should be perfectly legal. If there is one person that is offended, I'm sorry that you are offended by others exercising their religious freedom. Religious freedom is religion free from government intervention. If we had the kind of limitations on the freedom of speech that we have on the freedom of religion, the liberals would be up in arms. The fact is that the lefts definition of freedom of religion has nothing to do with freedom of religion, it is a freedom from religion.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Oh man, not agian.....

"The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President."

- Is that not a personal letter? You can call it anything you like, but the phrase "seperation of church and state" came from a personal letter.

Man, you are totally blinded by your rage. Yes, I said seperation of church and state is a myth, and it is my opinion. I feel it is a myth because it does not exist in the Constitution. Yes, the Court has ruled on it and has established it as a precedent....but that does not change anything in my mind. According to our founding document, there is no such thing as a seperation of church and state. So to me it is a myth that has been perpetuated by the federal courts, liberal or conservative. I used the term myth because I disagree with the legal principle established by the Court.

I should not have to take time to explain this to anyone over 5 years old, it is ridiculous. I am really sorry that you do not have the mental capacity to engage in a conversation without having every sentence or word choice explained to you! Wow.....

Yeah, you didn't have to explain...we knew you were against religious freedom from the begining.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Oh man, not agian.....

[BIs that not a personal letter? You can call it anything you like, but the phrase "seperation of church and state" came from a personal letter. [/B]

The PHRASE did. Not the concept. The US Supreme Court in their ruling elaborately outlined how the concept shaped the US Constitution's First Amendment. You're too lazy to read it though, even when I post it for you.

Fuck off, troll. Get back to class, recess is over.