“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

The outlawing of Polygamy is not favoring one religion over another.

Marriage laws are secular, there is no religious component. Yes, many people get married in a church...but legally they do not have to.

This is why same sex marriage is now legal in this country...because there was no secular reason to prohibit it.

There IS a secular reason to prohibit polygamy...but a person can legally marry one person and then "religiously" marry a second person and there is nothing the state can do. As long as the second (or third or fourth) spouse is not claiming any legal benefits then it's all good.

 

No you need to learn that your interpretation was rejected as policy by both the House AND the Senate. So clearly your interpretation is incorrect.

 

Why is it the states business to restrict polygamous couples from marrying whom they so choose and as many as they want?

And on what grounds is their definition of marriage anymore unacceptable than anyone else’s?

 

But hell since you don’t like that example how about we favor religious over non-religious because we have in God we trust on our money. And it’s a legal requirement to have it there.

 

Which is something I vehemently disagree with.

There have been court cases to try and stop it but the court has ruled (a ridiculous ruling in my opinion) that the phrase "In God We Trust" is not religious in nature. Through repeated use of the phrase as our National Motto has reduced it to "ceremonial deism" and has largely lost it's religious content.

 

Because there are legal ramifications of marriage that are unworkable with polygamy.

If a man marries two women...are the two women now married?
If a man has two wives and he divorces one of them, is she entitled to half the marriage assets or only 1/3?
If a man has two wives and he divorces one of them how is child custody handled? Is the second wife entitled to visitation even if she didn't actually give birth to any of them?
If a man has a wife and wants to marry a second woman, does the first wife have any say in the matter? What if a man marries a second wife and that second wife decides to marry a second husband, what is the legal relationship of that second husband and the first wife? How would divorce between two of the people affect all the others that are involved?

And that's just for starters. Again all we are looking at are the LEGAL and secular issues involved with polygamous marriage.

Another example would be human sacrifice. What happens if a religion has a practice of human sacrifice? Do we have to allow it because we don't want to create a law that prohibits them from practicing their religion? Of course not. There is a completely secular reason to prohibit human sacrifice. You can't just declare "It's my religion, you can't make a law prohibiting it"

 

Weird how your vehemently disagreeing with it hasn’t offended your sensibilities so much that you’ve refused to use it. It’s almost like being exposed to religious material doesn’t ACTUALLY impact your life negatively at all. It’s almost like if you had a teacher with the 10 commandments in her classroom or a judge with the 10 commandments in his courtroom would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER with your ability to receive a quality education or a fair trial.

To be quite honest it almost seems like you’re using an interpretation of the constitution which we KNOW is fallacious (given the debate on the text originally) in order to remove all semblance of religion from the public view… because you don’t like it. Not because it actually impacts you negatively in any way.

 

Well then the same goes for the other side. There are completely secular reasons for favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over non-religion.

Religious people are far less promiscuous on average. Resulting in fewer sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Religious people are less criminal on average. Religious people are less criminally violent than others. Certain religions have an ethical and moral structure which is comparable to our “secular system” whereas others do not. Resulting in less division and discord and threats to our way of life. Religious people are more likely to marry and produce offspring which contribute to society. Religious people on average take less risk resulting in less hospital visits. I could go on and on.

 

It DOES impact my life. But there is also nothing I can do about it. That's part of being an adult, realizing that sometimes you don't get your way.

I don't want to remove all semblance of religion from the public view....I just don't want it used by the government. You want to construct a 100 foot statue of Jesus on your property (and as long as you meet all the zoning and permit requirements) have at it. That same statue on city/state/federal property would be a Constitutional violation.

 

How does it impact your life? How does a statue of the 10 commandments on state grounds paid for with private money impact your life? How does having “In god we trust” on your money impact your life? How does a teacher having a picture of Jesus on her wall in her class impact your life?

 

No, religious people are NOT far less promiscuous on average. Catholic Priest Child Sex Abuse scandal ring any bells?

Furthermore we have seen direct harm of giving religious views some kind of deference.

In Arizona a court kicked out a case where a woman was suing the Mormon church because her father sexually abused her AFTER he had confessed to church officials that he was sexually abusing her. That's because there is a law in Arizona that gives deference to the idea of confidentiality in church confession. If he had admitted his abuse to any kind of secular authority there is a law mandating that child protective services (and other authorities) be notified. But the law specifically carves out an exception for "clergy-penitent confession". The church was under no legal obligation to report him. Not only did he abuse her but he then went on to abuse her younger sister when the younger sister was just six weeks old.

Did you know that teen age pregnancy rates are higher in states that also have the largest share of the population that identifies as religious?

Religious people are NOT "less criminal"

In the population in general atheists make up about 4% of the population. In prison? About 0.1%

 

Because it leads those who do believe into thinking that they have a right to push that belief in areas of legislation and justice.

 

We only know what the constitution says by what the Court tells us.

They have spoken. Now, accept it.

 

Did someone teach you that stealing is wrong?

 

Your little anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything. You know what does? This.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-021-01239-0

Groups most likely to have an abortion ie unwanted children, non-religious
https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/abortions-comparing-catholic-and-protestant-women/

And the idea that you can look at the prison population and get any significant findings is preposterous. Those people in there are attempting to get released from prison and they believe (rightly so) that they will be looked at more favorably if they’re religious Which gives them a greater likelihood of being released. Why? Because they’re less likely to commit crime if they’re highly religious.

As I said. There are completely secular reasons for favoring the religious over the non-religious.

 

That’s ridiculous and what you think MIGHT happen is not justification for denying them what is wholly constitutional.

Moreover does making the judge or the teacher remove the Ten Commandments from their wall make them any less Christian? So how do you figure that makes your life any less constrained?

It doesn’t it just makes you “feel better”.

 

Okay, let's take a deeper dive. The answers are in the constitution (the 14th amendment) and court rulings.

The original text of the Establishment Clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Initially, this was understood to apply only to the federal government. However, after Independence, there was widespread agreement against a nationally established church, and the clause was written to reflect this consensus. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Supreme Court, in the 1940s, held that the disestablishment applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This interpretation means that the Establishment Clause is not limited only to Congress but applies to all levels of government, including states and their subdivisions.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264

The interpretation of "Congress shall make no law" has been expanded through various Supreme Court rulings. The Court has held that the Establishment Clause encompasses not just the making of laws but also other forms of governmental action that could be seen as endorsing or establishing a religion. This broad interpretation aims to maintain a separation of church and state and to ensure religious freedom for all citizens.

The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) have specifically addressed the application of the Establishment Clause in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day, deeming it a violation of the Establishment Clause. Similarly, in Schempp, the Court struck down a policy requiring students to read Bible verses and recite the Lord's Prayer, as it constituted government endorsement of a religious tradition.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-important-supreme-court-cases-about-education

The Supreme Court, in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), established the "Lemon Test" to determine whether government actions violate the Establishment Clause. The test checks if the action has a secular purpose, does not advance or inhibit religion, and does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. This test is applied to various contexts, including governmental displays of religious symbols, like Ten Commandment displays in public schools or courthouses.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-important-supreme-court-cases-about-education

More recent cases have used the "endorsement test," which evaluates whether a reasonable observer would view a government action as endorsing religion. This test applies to cases involving religious symbols displayed by the government and assesses the potential message of religious endorsement or disenfranchisement.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264

So, to sum it all up, the Establishment Clause, initially seeming to apply only to Congress, has been interpreted through Supreme Court rulings to apply broadly to all levels of government. This includes public schools and entities receiving federal funding. The interpretation aims to ensure religious neutrality in the public sphere and protect the freedom of religion for all citizens.

Hope this helps.

And, to your point of 'judicial activism', that might be a charge to levy to a lower court, but the SCOTUS is there to tell us what the constitution says. One man's judicial activism is another mans 'sticking to the constitution' , so that argument, at least when it comes to SCOTUS, to me, anyway, doesn't wash.

 

Please reread my comment, more carefully, you know, the part where I said the 'preponderance of the evidence' was strong enough for us in the peanut gallery to hold the OPINION that trump is a criminal.

Your comment is a red herring to the point.

 

It is a justification and it isn't constitutional.

 

Asserting no God exists most certainly is a religious belief.
That is not even remotely accurate !!!!!

Religion is the belief in a superpower.
re·li·gion
/rəˈlij(ə)n/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   
   

 

Here are some inconvenient facts.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1006786/download
2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs.

 

Who's Ten Commandments are you going to display ?

 

Read my comment, more slowly and with a serious attempt at understanding: it was a ****ing civil trial, where the bar of proof is much lower than a criminal trial.

You're bragging because the standard of proof had to lowered to get something on Trump...LMAO!!

Winning a civil trial is the legal version of a participation trophy. Congratulations...lol

 

The Lord's

 

Which is why I do not assert that no gods exist.

I simply do not believe anyone's claim that one does. That's because no one has presented sufficient evidence to prove to me that a god exists.