On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:47:21PM -0800, John Clogg wrote:
> The whole point of this discussion is that the constitution does NOT
> establish a "right" to have public meetings free of religious ceremony.

The Constitution guarantees that the people shall be free to exercise their
religion without state coercion or interference. A public meeting where a
religious observance is performed violates this requirement, for it forces
those not of that religion to either absent themselves from that part of the
meeting or participate, even if passively, in the observance. The former
discriminates against those who choose to leave; the latter is nothing short
of a coercion of religious participation.

> The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in
> the constitution.  All the constitution says about religion is that the
> federal government shall not pass any laws establishing a state religion,
> and that membership in a religious sect shall not be a condition of
> holding public office.  Period.

You forget the 14th Amendment, which imposes the same limits on state and
local governments as the Constitution imposes on the Federal government. If
it's wrong for the Federal government to do it because it violates a basic
right, it's just as wrong for any government to do it.

"...respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof" can only be consistently applied if it is read to draw a line which
government cannot cross, in any manner. Coercing people to participate in
religious ceremonies of any stripe is wrong, and the courts have recognized
that.

> The notion that any form of recognition of religious beliefs must be
> prohibited

...by the state or people acting in their capacities as officials of the
state. Neither the Constitution nor the courts says anything about anyone's
right to practice their religion as long as they're not doing it in their
capacity as an official of any government.

> is an invention of the Supreme Court, which routinely legislates from the
> bench, even though it is not empowered to do so by the constitution.

To change this, you'll have to overturn one of the oldest precedents in
American jurisprudence, Marbury vs. Madison, which, IIRC, was decided in
1804. Someone must act as the arbiter of the Constitution, and the Supreme
Court's power to do so is an absolutely essential check on what would
otherwise be unrestricted power of Congress to legislate at will in direct
opposition to the Constitution.

> The constitution does not guarantee freedom from being offended.  It does
> not establish freedom from having your feelings hurt, nor freedom from
> having your beliefs disregarded.  It does not say that anything displayed
> in a public building must be consistent with my personal beliefs.

No. However, it *does* guarantee that no government may promote any
religion. Prayers before a City Council meeting do exactly that.

> If the person sitting next to me at a City Council meeting wants to pray
> to Zeus, let him!  If I'm offended by that, it's my own thin skin that's
> the problem, not his beliefs.

No argument there. How would you feel if the mayor held a prayer to Zeus
before the meeting, though? Suddenly, it's not just the guy next to you;
it's a governmental official, doing it on government time, paid for by your
tax dollars. How about if he faced Mecca and prayed to Allah to smite the
infidels around him? Would that change your views?

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *