dk

Toto: This is a bit misleading. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution as a religious document. (There is one case somewhere where they refer to the US as a Christian nation, but that was an observation and an aid in statutory construction, not a holding.)
dk: I never said the Supreme Court ever interpreted the Constitution as a religious document or the US as a Christian Nation.
Toto: The legal victories described above primarily grew out of Supreme Court interpretations of the 14th amendment, which was passed in the 19th century after the civil war but effectively nullified by the courts until the mid 20th century. The issues there were not religious interpretation vs. secularism, but federalism and the scope of liberty and equal protection.
dk: I agree Plessy v Ferguson that established the Separate but Equal Doctrine, and was later overturned by Brown v Board of Education had nothing to do with the Establishment Clause. I was speaking of Everson v BOE (1947). and McCollum v. BOE (1948) that interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean an impenetrable wall between Church and State.
Toto: the countried in the world that "don't let themselves be led by the religionists" are countries where the electorate does not vote for them. You misunderstand if you think that anyone suggested that Christians not be allowed to run for office. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you.
dk: You misunderstand what it means to be hostile to religion. The constitutions say nothing of education, so it stands to reason public education is reserved to the states or the people. The Supreme Court had no business confounding Religious Liberty with forced segregation with forced integration. They are separate issues that got intertwined with Civil Rights. As a remedy for religious liberty forced integration of public education produced a colossal failure, a tangled web of litigation that predictably fractionalized the nation along racial and religious lines. The high cost and inept character of today’s public education reflects the endless flood of litigation that holds public schools hostage to legal conundrums that run the length of Jefferson’s impenetrable serpentine wall. Thank You.

I'm really not sure if I should address this to rad or toto

dk

I'll take this as a statement of dogma.

Stephen Maturin

The "judiciary" is a branch of government made up numerous courts and numerous judges. Given the nature of judicial decision making, the judiciary certainly doesn't act as a single unit.

That admittedly anal retentive quibble aside, yes, it's certainly possible for a judge or court to favor secularists (or any other group) at the expense of justice. However, that didn't happen in any of the cases atheist_in_foxhole cited, unless of course one defines "justice" in a manner that mandates using the power and resources of government to ram particular religious beliefs up the collective backside of the citizenry.

admice

No, sorry dk, I didn't mean to sound dogmatic. I always want people to investigate questions and claims. Guess I misunderstood the way you phrased your question (or maybe i like to sound dogmatic, hmmm)

Shake

Let's see if I can get this to work: Check, one two, check, check!



PS. Hooray! It worked! By the way this is a poster from our good friends at EvolveFish!

Silent Acorns

Not only is this a gross misrepresentation of what GSH wrote, but it also implies that the only thing preventing the US, or any other country, from becoming as bad as China is the undying effort of Fundementlist Christians.

GSH was talking about "religionists" and the willingness of Americans to let themselves be ruled by them, not their willingness to let them run for office.

dk

Stephen Maturin: The "judiciary" is a branch of government made up numerous courts and numerous judges. Given the nature of judicial decision making, the judiciary certainly doesn't act as a single unit.
dk: Both appellate and trail courts operate within a strict hierarchy of non-overlapping jurisdictions. Conflicts arise for a number of legitimate reasons, but the nature of judicial decision making process is called stare decisis i.e. the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice). What are you talking about?
Stephen Maturin: That admittedly anal retentive quibble aside, yes, it's certainly possible for a judge or court to favor secularists (or any other group) at the expense of justice. However, that didn't happen in any of the cases atheist_in_foxhole cited, unless of course one defines "justice" in a manner that mandates using the power and resources of government to ram particular religious beliefs up the collective backside of the citizenry.
dk: As I noted in my earlier post I wasn’t talking about the cases atheist_in_foxhole mentioned. In effect the Supreme Court amplified their personal opinion of the Establishment Clause through the 14th Amendment to annex public education to the courts, and secularize government at every level, see EVERSON (1947) & MCCOLLUM (1948) v. BOE. Justice Jackson (assenting) wrote in McCollum, “It is idle to pretend that this task is one for which we can find in the Constitution one word to help us as judges to decide where the secular ends and the sectarian [333 U.S. 203 , 238] begins in education. Nor can we find guidance in any other legal source. it is a matter on which we can find no law but our own prepossessions. If with no surer legal guidance we are to take up and decide every variation of this controversy, raised by persons not subject to penalty or tax but who are dissatisfied with the way schools are dealing with the problem, we are likely to have much business of the sort. And, more importantly, we are likely to make the legal 'wall of separation between church and state' as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded.”
I question the decision at a number of levels, but unquestionably these two cases interpreted the constitution anew, as a purely secular document binding upon State and Local governments. More importantly the 14th Amendment was used again and again to expand the power of the Federal Courts virtually subjugating local and state governments to a self anointed judicial oligarchy called the Supreme Court.

admice

I'm not sure I followed all this but:

dk how would you answer your own questions?
Missed the jump from church/state separation to education. Would you elaborate?

What are the guidelines or criteria that determine when they can make this departure?

Thanks for any help.

dk

When the judiciary evokes the power of judicial review in a state or federal courts they exercise what I will term "raw judiciary power". I think the best example was Bush's contested presidential election in Florida. We saw the Florida Supreme Court rest control of a Presidential Election from the Florida legislative and executive branches, only to be trumped, in tern, by the US Supreme Court.

Conflicts between religious factions occur from time to time in a diverse socially mobil nation of immigrants. But to prefigure religion as a problem turns our differences from a strength into an insurmountable problem. Nations grow and prosper by solving problems, not hiding behind an wall. Local communities learn about tolerance and participatory democracy by resolving religious problems with reasonable accommodation, good will and mutual respect. The idea that the Supreme Court can with raw judicial power impose a cookie cutter solution on a nation of 300mil people only promulgates denial and ill will. Unfortunately good will can't be manufactured with a cookie cutter, but bureacrats and tin soldiers can. The best the Supreme Court can do is produce a society ruled by bureaucrats and tin soldiers. In my opinion the legions of bureacrats and tin soldiers that serve and protect us make the US a worse place to live, and the overhead in time will break the backs of productive people.

gravitybow

• Against the distribution of Bibles by outside groups like the Gideons (Tudor v. Board of Education, 1954)
• Struck down mandatory chapel attendance at service academies (Anderson v. Laird, 1972)

And if I may refine atheist_in_foxhole's fine list:

• Mandatory prayers banned from public schools based on establishment clause (government-constructed prayers) (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)
• Mandatory prayers banned from public schools based on free exercise clause (government-forced Bible readings and forced prayers) (Murray v. Corlett, 1963)