This is true of federal judges, not state or local judges.  (I wish they were all lifetime appointed.  Elected judges are always swayed by politics as much as the law, whereas lifetime appointments assure that there will be more evenhandedness, and since they are hand selected for their abilities instead of voted in by an ignorant public, in my experience they are by far better judges.)


I think our wires were just crossed.  I was trying to give a source to pin down the discussion to what is actually law, whereas you were focused more on the history of the phrase "separation of church and state" which is not in the Constitution.

I still don't know what exactly it is you disagree with.  What is it about the supreme court standard that you disagree with?  Do you believe tax dollars should go to support religious groups?  If so, how much is too much?  How much entanglement with religion is "too much"?  Obviously, there has to be a line somewhere between theocracy and restraint of religion.  Where do you draw the line?
This message was last edited by the player at 08:53, Fri 05 Nov 2004.

Who do you think should make the decisions?  Besides, judges only make law by interpreting law.  Usually, if you don't like their decision, it is simply because of the original law being bad.  They're not perfect, but I'm not sure what your alternative solution is.

I'd be fine with it if that is all they did, but contemporary judges seem to ge beyond the scope of what they are supposed to do.

That's so true I won't even expand on it. <*grumbles about personal experience and bad judges*>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...tus_ten_commandments

Yeah, this cleansing america of religion is just hog-wash, so maybe scripture offends, SO WHAT?!

What laws says people have the right to be offended?  And why does someone being offended make it ok to silence someone else's voice?

This one is cool too.

Crazy, huh. :)

Anyone see this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...shington/11sect.html

If a city accepts a donated 10 commandments monument for their park, should they have to also accept a donated "seven aphorisms" monument as well?  Is a donated monument part of the free speech of the government, or of the donor?  If the former, does displaying a donated religious statue indicate governmental preference of that religion, and rejecting one indicate governmental rejection of that religion?  If the later, can the government choose who gets to exercise their free speech in the public park?  Its an interesting twist on the 10 commandment monuments issue...

One more question if I may... Isn't it just splitting hair?

Not sure I follow, Tzuppy.  How do you mean?

Isn't the issue of one monument in one park too small to warrant scrutiny?

Well, every situation is just one thing in one place.  The ruling that courts make, though, will apply to all parks, and all government property probably.  Its a specific situation, but how it turns out will apply generally.  And, since it's a matter of the separation of church and state, and of freedom of speech, the core issues are quite important, even if the specific case that brings the conflict into consideration isn't particularly important.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:41, Tue 11 Nov 2008.

I don't believe separation of church and state applies to local governments, only to the federal and state governments.

That's an interesting take, and one I haven't heard before.  Do you know if anyone has made that kind of argument in these kind of cases before?

Do you think it would be legal for a state to select a state religion, then, and ban all others from being practiced within the state?

Put another way, are you saying the bill of rights only limits what the federal government can do, not what state governments can do?  If so, could states ban firearms?  Could city councils eliminate habeas corpus?

While I could see the argument from a purely legal standpoint, it would seem to open a very dangerous loophole if it worked.

No, banning religion is a violation of the first amendment.



No, the bill of rights limits what the states can do through the 14th amendment. City councils and the like MAY HAVE powers that are not limited as such. I don't believe city councils have the power to define criminal law (which would include Habeas Corpus issues) or even civil law (banning other religions from practice), but they can levy taxes, fund things, put in place minor regulations, etc. I believe a city could choose to support a church, or a religious ceremony, if it chose, but I may be wrong.

Hmm, that's interesting really.  I'd be quite keen to know just how much power local governments have, and how the constitution affects them, actually.

Heath (or anyone else in the know), can you shed any more light on how the constitution applies to local governments?

The separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of the federal constitution.  To my knowledge, all state constitutions have a similar provision.

It applies to ALL public entities.  A local government is always subservient to the state laws.  Think of it like this:  The states are sovereign in and of themselves.  They are like independent nations....EXCEPT to the extent they have ceded that sovereignty to the federal government (i.e., to be a part of the "United States").  So state law is really the most important one for local affairs, but the federal Constitution applies to all states (as part of the sovereignty handed over).  So separation of church and state trickles down and applies to all public bodies, local, state, and federal.

Local governments really don't have all that much authority.  They typically pass ordinances.  A really good example is San Francisco.  Its local government has passed ordinances such as banning discrimination against transexuals and androgynous individuals, a higher minimum wage, detailed requirements for employers providing health insurance, etc.  They all comply with state laws, but impose more restrictions in some areas (and could be challenged potentially as violating state laws, such as the gay marriage issue was challenged when the SF mayor was charged with violating state law by performing gay marriages which was against the law created by Proposition 22; then the supreme court created a new fundamental right to dignity and stature under the state constitution to justify the social issue of gay marriage (which 3 of the 7 justices said was completely improper), which then led to Proposition 8 to change the state constitution to ensure that marriage is between only a man and a woman--so now (or by Dec. 3) gay marriages cannot be performed by public servants because the state constitution says so.)

Cool, thanks Heath.

In light of that, what do people think of this case?  If the city rejects one religious monument, but allows another, is that violating the establishment clause?  Should the city allow the 7 aphorisms monument?  Get rid of the 10 commandments monument?  If the city tries to argue that the 10 commandments monument isn't really a religious message, do they have a strong case?

     From what I understand (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong <grin>), the 10 commandments thing was a private donation. If someone wanted to also make a donation of a different set of rules (7 aphorisms or 3 laws or whatever), then that ought to be allowed as well, but I can't see the legal basis for removing the thing just becos no one else donated a different one.

Yeah, that's basically what the case is about: should someone else be allowed to donate their monument as well.  The city doesn't want to let them.  So one option they could use if the court rule against them, would be to say "no donations of any religious monuments at all."  Then they could keep out the new monument, but they'd also have to get rid of the old one.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the city can't accept on monument if no other group also gives one.  I think they're arguing over whether the city is allowed to pick and choose which religious groups can donate monuments to the city's parks.

A similar battle has been raging for years in San Diego.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...ad_cross_controversy

Is it a war memorial or a religious monument?

That is bollocks. What is wrong is wrong. Like slavery. Individual states may not violate rights of its citizens.



Of course not. Everywhere in the world, (possibly except in US) municipal governments and councils are considered a part of executive (not legislative) branch of government.



Only a mind of a US conservative can fathom something ridiculous like that.



Again we're reliving a South Park episode.



That's my point. The matter is so miniscule that no court should bother with it.



And if a religion should decree that black skin is a mark of the devil or that women cannot attain salvation except by complete obedience to men?



That's a bit difficult to understand considering 14th amendment was passed some 77 years after the bill of rights.



Again slavery.



This is for a different conversation.



Precisely my point, splitting hairs. Should we obliterate every trace of majority culture to "preserve" the minority ones? In Belgrade we had a tax placed on public transportation for completing (Orthodox) Temple of St. Sava. Liberals rose the rout, of course, but courts didn't want to bother with 1 dinar (two US cents) per ticket. Of course they should have split the money proportionally among churches so only 85% should go to the Orthodox Church, but to say that government cannot put money or use a cross as a symbol of reverence for the dead is simply wrong.

I think it's offensive to try to remove the monument.  The only ones complaining are the atheists, not the Muslims or Jews, and not me, even though my religion does not use the cross as a Christian symbol.  This nation was founded "under God," and people need to remember that the government just can't support a particular religion (but could actually support its humanitarian efforts, education, etc., if reasonably applied) or suppress religious freedom.  But monuments and recognition of religion is important to the survival of a religiously oriented country (as opposed to a socialist country where the state is put above God in importance).

That's one key point of the whole legalized marriage issue.  It could end up causing the government to step on the free exercise of religion by taking away tax benefits of churches that refuse to perform gay marriages.

I don't think you know your American law very well. The 14th amendment was made for a reason, because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states prior to that (and some seem to think it still doesn't).



This is not the case in the US. A state is considered an independent political entitity. It does not have to answer to the federal government on most topics. It's only now that the feds have begun giving money to states that they've gotten serious leverage. An example is drinking laws. Prior to around 1988, each state set its own minimum drinking age, if any. The federal government, who was channelling funds for building highways to the staes, said if states wanted to continue getting that 'free' money, they had to set their minimum drinking age to 21. Everyone complied because, hey, it's free money. The federal government has continued to do this on a number of subjects. But ultimately, the state can give the federal government the finger. There are also a number of laws where the federal government has overstepped its bounds, but no one cared enough to challenge it. In short, state governments aren't any more a part of the federal executive branch than you are. They were, to the contrary, meant to be a balance of power agains tthem.

More local governments vary based on the state, etc. Some towns are incorporated, some are counties, some are public municipalities, etc. Based on that, that determines where they fall in regards to where they get their power.



It being a freedom of speech and religion issue, I think it very important the court deals with it. Maybe you don't, but I guard my freedoms fiercely.



I believe there are laws now saying you can't descriminate based on X or Y. I'm not aware of any religion which has attempted to limit people based on race, so I don't know if it came up. But for instance, I don't believe hair color is a protected trait (except as it relates to race). If I said blondes aren't allowed, and it was literally my town that I owned, I don't see why I couldn't exclude them.



What's difficult to understand about that?



That's slavery? Your comment is a little unclear.



Wrong in which way?