I heard recently that the definition of a 'religion' in Oz law is something
along the lines of ' a charitable organization with a supernatural belief as
its core' . Seems something like this is necessary to justify their tax
exemptions in various areas, which stem from old English practices we
inherited. Probably only the Salvation Army really qualifies for the Charity
side much now.

jp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: 10 Commandments


> Erik,
>
> > > If the council members wish to meet on the front lawn and say a prayer
> > > before they enter the civil building and start collecting their
> paychecks,
> > > that is nobody's business but their own.  If, however, they wish to
use
> any
> > > portion of the time allotted for conducting the business of the
> government,
> > > that is equivalent to state funded religion and is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Not true. It only says...
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
> >
> > No law has been passed. You want to prohibit the free exercise.
> >
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to try this.
>
> You are both correct and incorrect.  You are correct in that no
legislative
> body has met and passed a law, and had it ratified by the appropriate
> executive.  The actions by the executive in this case (the Mayor) to
change
> the procedures of the publicly funded, political body (the City Council),
> however, can be scrutinized and addressed just as laws are.
>
> Generally, what would happen is someone would chose a venue (local, state,
> or federal court) and sue the council saying their actions (procedures)
> violated his/her rights or caused them harm.  The lawyers in the suit,
would
> use one or more laws or components of the constitution(s) to prove their
> position of the argument.  The first court will interpret currently
> applicable law to decide merit and award damages.  After that proceeding,
> one or the other of the parties to the suit will appeal to a higher court
> who will then either be asked to decide whether or not the law was
> accurately interpreted, or whether or not the law is constitutional.
>
> In this situation, and assuming the case were being heard in a federal
> appeals court on the constitutionality of the local law which allows for
the
> council to set its own meeting procedures and which allows or does not
> prohibit said procedures from including religious practices...the piece of
> legislation that would be applied is the First Amendment to the U.S.
> Constitution.
>
> The US Supreme Court uses three tests to determine whether or not a law is
> unconstitutional based on the First Amendment: the Lemon Test (is it
secular
> or neutral towards religion), the Endorsement Test (does it favor one
> religion over another and make "outsiders" of those who are not part of
the
> favored religion), and the Coercion Test (does it coerce support or
> participation of a religion).  [See:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm ]
>
> The Mayor and City Council must codify their procedures.  That
codification
> (law) can then be challenged.  Assuming it reached the USSC, it would be
> struck down based on the first and second tests.
>
> > This country was founded by God fearing people. The word 'religion' can
> > be interpreted as 'denomination' *not* cult or satan worship. There was
> > to be no coercing to worship the same God as a particular denomination
> > does it. I do not believe they were trying to provide protection for
> > every vile cult that man can dream up.
>
> (a) Your interpretation changes the meaning of sentence much more than the
> interpretation of the judges whose actions with which you disagree.  I
> suppose, six of one...
> (b) In numerous cases, the definition of religion has been used to show
that
> non judeo christian religions have equal protection under the law and
equal
> rights as do the sects of christianity and judaism.  Just as the rights of
> the KKK to yell their obscenities are protected by our freedom of speech
> clauses, religions which you disdain must also be protected.  Watch "The
> People vs. Larry Flynt" for an example.
> (c) The references on the public school prayer issue in the following link
> parallel the situation for including a convocation at the beginning of the
> council's meetings:
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prag.htm
>
> I'm getting allot of use out of that site today, and I'm suddenly aware
that
> the E in VE may still lurk or get passed postings from our list.
>
> Rs~
>
> Russ Smith
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * * * * * *
> The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to
reflect
> those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely
for
> the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.  Your mileage
> may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * * * * * *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

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