Yes Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Set parameters for the public display of the Ten Commandmants? Whatever happened to the concept of secular gavernment, the separation of Church and State, in America? Is our Constitution so weak that it allows this issue to be "legislated" in the Courts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Haven't you heard the conservatives' latest line? There's nothing in the Constitution that speaks about a separation between Church and State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Someone should really change that title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Re: The title of this thread Is this the latest fashion replacing fig leaves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 ^^ I missed that at first. Haven't you heard the conservatives' latest line? There's nothing in the Constitution that speaks about a separation between Church and State. Strictly speaking they are right. The phrase "separation between Church and State: is not in the Constitution; it comes from Jefferson's writings. The Constitution prohibits an "estabishment of religion," which at the time meant an official state-sponsored church like the Church of England. It was not intended to prohibit all public displays of religion whatsoever, at least not explicitly. Now having said all that, I do think all public displays of religion should be prohibited (I just don't think that can be argued on strictly Constitutional grounds.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 The Constitution prohibits an "estabishment of religion," which at the time meant an official state-sponsored church like the Church of England. It was not intended to prohibit all public displays of religion whatsoever, at least not explicitly. Now having said all that, I do think all public displays of religion should be prohibited (I just don't think that can be argued on strictly Constitutional grounds.) Well, "strict grounds" usually refers to literal interpretation. As long as we understand "public" to mean "governmentally sanctioned", then I read the first amendment as saying that the government shall not act to establish in any manner any religion, including generically speaking, "religion of some type, any type, as long as it is the belief in the supernatural". It might be that the authors of the BOR were first and foremost thinking "Well, we don't want to have an official state church", but the wording "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is much broader than "Congress shall not establish an official state religion". Strict Constitutional interpretation means, taking the Constitution literally and at face value, without trying to reconstruct supposed "intent". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Set parameters for the public display of the Ten Commandmants? Whatever happened to the concept of secular gavernment, the separation of Church and State, in America? Is our Constitution so weak that it allows this issue to be "legislated" in the Courts? The court is not legislating here, it is not making up a law, but is being asked to rule on the legality of a disputed issue. Or, being asked to interpret constitutional meaning (although, from what I've read it seems the case is being argued in terms of non-essentials). Is this not exactly what the supreme court is for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 What I am saying is that you need to look at the literal meaning of the words at the time they were written, not today. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, though, so perhaps I am mistaken about what the words "establishment of religion" mean. In any case, Constitutional interpretation is not really all that relevant to Objectivism, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 What I am saying is that you need to look at the literal meaning of the words at the time they were written, not today. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, though, so perhaps I am mistaken about what the words "establishment of religion" mean. I agree that laws need to be interpreted according to the literal meaning at the time they were established; I don't think that the word "establishment" had a radically different literal meaning then. That is an interesting research question, though, and mebbe I can find some relevant data. In any case, Constitutional interpretation is not really all that relevant to Objectivism, is it? I think it is. One of the fundamental assertions of Objectivism is that the use of force should be under the objective control of the law. Objective law necessarily is stated in some way so that anyone can see it and understand it (it should also serve some objective purpose). The Constitution is relevant on both counts, though alas less so on the second count. The interpretation of law in the US has to be conducted with reference to this document which provides a fundamental guarantee of basic freedoms and procedures for constructing other laws. More importantly, objective law must be applied to new and "analogous" cases. How do you determine is the law is applicable to the specific case at hand? That's where interpretation comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I think it is. One of the fundamental assertions of Objectivism is that the use of force should be under the objective control of the law. Objective law necessarily is stated in some way so that anyone can see it and understand it (it should also serve some objective purpose). The Constitution is relevant on both counts, though alas less so on the second count. I see Objectivism as relevant only in saying that some part of the Constitution is flawed and should be changed (there's a whole thread about that somewhere). I don't see any point in debating (for example) what the general welfare clause means when Objectivism would say it shouldn't be there in the first place. Similarly, we can argue till the cows come home about what "well-regulated militia" means but Objectivism would still say there should be no gun control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted October 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Haven't you heard the conservatives' latest line? There's nothing in the Constitution that speaks about a separation between Church and State. I sure have. They even have their own interpretation of the First Amendment regarding religious freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.