Leftist legislation from the bench

[Sigaba]

FWIW, some of state constitutions themselves are available here others are available at the Avalon Project. There, one can find how the framers of the various state constitutions viewed the intertwined issues of church, state, race, and religious freedom. For example, South Carolina took a clear position on Catholicism and Judaism by sanctioning the practice of Protestantism for all. That is, except for the 43% of the population who happened not to be white. They were forbidden to learn how to read or to write or to assembly lest they pursue their "wicked designs and purposes".

XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. To accomplish this desirable purpose without injury to the religious property of those societies of Christians which are by law already incorporated for the purpose of religious worship, and to put it fully into the power of every other society of Christian Protestants, either already formed or hereafter to be formed, to obtain the like incorporation, it is hereby constituted, appointed, and declared that the respective societies of the Church of England that are already formed in this State for the purpose of religious worship shall still continue incorporate and hold the religious property now in their possession. And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves In a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the State, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement fir union of men upon presence of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.

And that every inhabitant of this State, when called to make an appeal to God as a witness to truth, shall be permitted to do it in that way which is most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience. And that the people of this State may forever enjoy the right of electing their own pastors or clergy, and at the same time that the State may have sufficient security for the due discharge of the pastoral office, by those who shall be admitted to be clergymen, no person shall officiate as minister of any established church who shall not have been chosen by a majority of the society to which he shall minister, or by persons appointed by the said majority, to choose and procure a minister for them; nor until the minister so chosen and appointed shall have made and subscribed to the following declaration, over and above the aforesaid five articles, viz: "That he is determined by God's grace out of the holy scriptures, to instruct the people committed to his charge, and to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved from the scripture; that he will use both public and private admonitions, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure, as need shall require and occasion shall be given, and that he will be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the same; that he will be diligent to frame and fashion his own self and his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ; that he will maintain and set forwards, as much as he can, quietness, peace, and love among all people, and especially among those that are or shall be committed to lids charge. No person shall disturb or molest any religious assembly; nor shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive language against any church, that being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by engaging them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the professors, and that profession which otherwise they might be brought to assent to. To person whatsoever shall speak anything in their religious assembly irreverently or seditiously of the government of this State. No person shall, by law, be obliged to pay towards the maintenance and support of a religious worship that he does not freely join in, or has not voluntarily engaged to support. But the churches, chapels, parsonages, globes, and all other property now belonging to any societies of the Church of England, or any other religious societies, shall remain and be secured to them forever. The poor shall be supported, and elections managed in the accustomed manner, until laws shall be provided to adjust those matters in the most equitable way.

[PRB]

All true, right, wrong, indifferent it was a major player in how early Americans viewed their state of being.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by PRB

All true, right, wrong, indifferent it was a major player in how early Americans viewed their state of being.

Absolutely correct

[Roguish Lawyer]

This is an area in which I have read a great deal, although I did it many years ago. Here are some sources interested people might want to read if you haven't already (I am amazed by how many of these things are now on-line, found them all with google very quickly):

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...-contents.html

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...ocke2nd-a.html

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-House-D.../dp/0226391132

[PRB]

FWIW, some of state constitutions themselves are available here others are available at the Avalon Project. There, one can find how the framers of the various state constitutions viewed the intertwined issues of church, state, race, and religious freedom. For example, South Carolina took a clear position on Catholicism and Judaism by sanctioning the practice of Protestantism for all. That is, except for the 43% of the population who happened not to be white. They were forbidden to learn how to read or to write or to assembly lest they pursue their "wicked designs and purposes".

Yeah I remember this, wasn't there a civil war or something?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by PRB

Don't like revisionist history

QP PRB

With respect, all historical inquiry is an exercise in revisionism. It has been that way since Thucydides squared off against Herodotus.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

QP PRB

With respect, all historical inquiry is an exercise in revisionism. It has been that way since Thucydides squared off against Herodotus.

I think this is a fair point. The slavery provisions of the Constitution are a real challenge for those who want original intent to be a core principle of constitutional interpretation. Harry Jaffa's book, which I posted an Amazon link for above, may be the best attempt to address this issue. At least I thought it was 20 years ago when I was deeply interested in this stuff.

[Warrior pen]

Sorry for my bad English.

In Italy:

2009
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg upheld the action brought by a Italian town of Finnish origin has determined that the presence of crucifixes in classrooms is:
"A violation of the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs"
also a violation of
"Freedom of religion of the pupils"

2011
Second and final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg:
"Italy has not breached any law and the crucifix can be exposed in Italian schools"

It is surprising that the European Court to intervene heavily in an area very closely linked to 'historical identity, cultural, spiritual, of the Italian people.

"Religion must never be used as a source of conflict"
"Christians and Muslims, together with believers of every religion, are called to renounce violence in order to build a humanity-loving life, to grow in justice and solidarity"
Pope John Paul II.

"Peace is a gift from God, and a project to be implemented, the result of a process of purification and elevation of cultural, moral and spiritual life of every person and people, in which human dignity is fully respected."
Pope Benedict XVI

Unfortunately that is still the 'ancient Roman said ... "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ...

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

QP PRB

With respect, all historical inquiry is an exercise in revisionism. It has been that way since Thucydides squared off against Herodotus.

In that we see it thru our own eyes and experience.

When authors mislead purposely by misquoting or ignoring evidence that is blatant revisionism.
I am not arguing religion or rightness/wrongness. Simply that religion/God were important to the founders and the founding documents reflect that.
The primary concept of our freedoms eminate from this belief of God given rights not those given by Kings and Monarchs.
That's it.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by PRB

When authors mislead purposely by misquoting or ignoring evidence that is blatant revisionism.

Then what is to be said about those founders who ignored the abundant evidence that many of their every day practices were contrary to the values they professed? By not addressing the contradictions contemporaneously they--not the historians who study them and offer critical interpretations--undermined the legitimacy of those values.

[rdret1]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

It appears the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the ruling that started this thread. Personally, I am glad to see it.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Then what is to be said about those founders who ignored the abundant evidence that many of their every day practices were contrary to the values they professed? By not addressing the contradictions contemporaneously they--not the historians who study them and offer critical interpretations--undermined the legitimacy of those values.

Still not on the subject I was discussing.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by rdret1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

It appears the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the ruling that started this thread. Personally, I am glad to see it.

As am I.

Originally Posted by mugwump

I don't understand how this is legislating from the bench -- separation of church and state. People want to pray in school...go to a private one. I went to a high school where an awful lot of my graduating class didn't pray in Jesus's name.

You need to read and UNDERSTAND the Constitution. There is nothing there about separation of church and state, it only implies that the U.S. Government will not have a "State Religion" and be a Theocracy. This is clearly an infringement on their rights to free speech. Free speech to a liberal means you can burn the US Flag but you cannot pray? The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution but I don't think that a Circuit Court Judge has any business legistlating from the bench as this buffoon clearly is.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

If your personal beliefs are that fragile that you would suffer "irreperable harm" from such simple words, then perhaps you should take a harder look at yourself rather than point the finger at others.

"Buddha only gave you so many rocks."

CPT Remo Butler before a jump in high wind.