|
0 members (),
23
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,587
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
My friend, this may get complicated because you've embedded so many mathematical and statistical errors in your response they will be difficult to tease out. Let me start by responding to your first point. It [Separation of church and state] is not an issue because of decision by the current Supreme Court. It is because of decisions made by the Supreme Court decades ago. Decisions that misinterpreted the idea of the separation of church and state. This can be fixed by the Supreme Court making decisions based on what is the state supporting a religion. When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion. I apologize for my mischaracterization of your previous post. I thought you were being reasonable. My mistake. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[4] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Is pretty straightforward, and was an 8-1 decision. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the so-called "manger" case, however, they ruled the other way in allowing the nativity scene to be placed. In my view, it's been downhill ever since. I don't think it is appropriate for a government to display religious symbols in this manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person. The Republican Party has no governing philosophy, no values system that is interesting - except the fear of others. Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds. Simply put, the brains of Conservatives are hardwired to over-respond to fear and other threats. It turns out, the amygdala is larger in the Conservative than those who do not respond to fear. With study findings like these, it's no wonder that Conservatives hate science. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Thank you for showing you are not the expert know it all you think you are. The Lemon v. Kurtzman decision was an misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I suggest you do some research and find out what the establishment of a religion was for our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court got it wrong.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Since the amygdala in conservatives is bigger than in others that means they have a better chance at survival than those whose amygdala is smaller than a conservative's is. Thanks for brightening my day by telling me that conservatives have a better chance at survival than liberals do.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Thank you for showing you are not the expert know it all you think you are. The Lemon v. Kurtzman decision was an misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I suggest you do some research and find out what the establishment of a religion was for our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court got it wrong. Interesting that the vast majority of the legal and historical community, including most Supreme Court justices (past and current) are "wrong," but your view is the "right" one... because? And you accuse me of being arrogant? (Kinda rich, that. And why did you jump back on that wagon, again. I thought you'd grown up a bit.) Did I misstate the cases in any way? I would suggest, instead, that I am the one taking the conservative view, endorsed by none other than Thomas Jefferson, that no religion should be promoted by government - especially funded by government - and you are taking the radical view. Which "founders" are you suggesting endorse your view?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman was wrong because it did not establish a religion. By citing Lemon v. Kurtzman you did not use the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment clause. None of the three prongs in the Lemon test deal with the funding of a religion. That is why I said that Lemon v. Kurtzman was wrong. If you truly do believe in the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment of religion you would also say that Lemon v. Kurtzman is wrong. But you didn't. Instead you cited it as a good example of how the Supreme Court has correctly ruled on the separation of church and state.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people. Only in your fevered mind are Conservatives drama queens about immigrants and brown people.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
If you truly do believe in the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment of religion you would also say that Lemon v. Kurtzman is wrong. But you didn't. Instead you cited it as a good example of how the Supreme Court has correctly ruled on the separation of church and state. I'm sorry, SH, but you missed the principle point of the First Amendment Establishment clause. It does not say "a religion". Any where. Go look... I'll wait. Okay, no I won't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... Establishment comes in many forms, which is why the SCt established the Lemon test. Funding is just the most obvious. Putting up religious iconography is another (easy) one (Ten Commanments, Crosses). How about if the government established a policy of not serving pork or beef in any government cafeterias or exempting pork or beef products from FDA or USDA regulation? Your interpretation of Jefferson is... Unique. I see no conflict between Lemon and Jefferson. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Maybe you can explain that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people. Only in your fevered mind are Conservatives drama queens about immigrants and brown people. Your opinion on the SF Board of Supes thread validates my point above. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
