A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
The last SBC argument builds a “straw man” (i.e., a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition) by intentionally blurring the line between speech attributable to governments (federal, state, or municipality like Greece, NY) and private persons. U.S. Courts have always held that free speech rights (religious or otherwise) in a public forum (like a park) does not violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. But the Establishment clause is a restriction on government speech when considering whether any level of government is taking an official line on a religious proposition. Courts always have to decide such cases in very specific contexts (of which I am not aware from this short article), but I think the plaintiffs are on sold constitutional grounds to challenge whether the town board’s opening prayer engages in speech that endorses a particular religion, or religion generally.
I recommend that the Supreme Court glean the “original intent” of James Madison’s Detached Memoranda where he stated that, “Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated.” The town councilors or board members have every right to access religious instruction and inspiration before and after any official meetings.
I recommend that the Supreme Court glean the “original intent” of James Madison’s Detached Memoranda where he stated that, “Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated.”
Right after the Marshal opens the session by saying "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
3 comments:
The Baptists have a point.
The first 2 comments in the story read
BayAreaRob • 2 days ago −
How about no prayers at any government meeting.
phatkhat BayAreaRob • a day ago
That's the most obvious solution, isn't it? And the easiest. But the Christers aren't having it, unfortunately.
The "Christers." How hateful. Better 1000 flowers grow than crush the last flower. What's wrong with these people?
The last SBC argument builds a “straw man” (i.e., a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition) by intentionally blurring the line between speech attributable to governments (federal, state, or municipality like Greece, NY) and private persons. U.S. Courts have always held that free speech rights (religious or otherwise) in a public forum (like a park) does not violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. But the Establishment clause is a restriction on government speech when considering whether any level of government is taking an official line on a religious proposition. Courts always have to decide such cases in very specific contexts (of which I am not aware from this short article), but I think the plaintiffs are on sold constitutional grounds to challenge whether the town board’s opening prayer engages in speech that endorses a particular religion, or religion generally.
I recommend that the Supreme Court glean the “original intent” of James Madison’s Detached Memoranda where he stated that, “Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated.” The town councilors or board members have every right to access religious instruction and inspiration before and after any official meetings.
I recommend that the Supreme Court glean the “original intent” of James Madison’s Detached Memoranda where he stated that, “Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated.”
Right after the Marshal opens the session by saying
"God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx
Post a Comment