The Supreme Court notwithstanding, I was compelled to recite it when a schoolkid.
(Don’t tell my old second grade teacher, but I just stood and mumbled. Still, that I was made to stand is, itself, a violation of the law.)
One area where 90% of us should agree though is that schools should not be mandated as a religion-free zone in all circumstances. for example, if football players want to pray in the endzone, they shouldn’t be sending administrators to break that up. There’s not establishing religion and then there’s actually stamping out religious practice by force. That is also alien to the 1st amendment concept of religious freedom.
Depending on when that happened, your teacher was in the wrong. But note that my question was phased in the present tense, as was the claim I was responding to.
The funny thing about this issue is that my fellow atheists in this thread act as if they have some God-given knowledge of what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution should say what we, the people, want it to say. And as much as I wish Scalia was wrong, his view is in line with the vast majority of the American people, the vast majority of our representatives in Congress, and the vast majority of our state representatives. And being that we are a country with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it’s hard to argue against something that is so popular and that is not objectively wrong as an interpretation of the constitution.
But if football players don’t want to pray in the endzone, there have to be protections against peer pressure and extortion of various sorts.
Sometimes, merely allowing them to opt out – “Okay, we’re gonna pray in five minutes, so if you don’t want to, you can leave now” – is extortive, because it singles people out, putting unique focus on them. It makes prayer appear to be the norm, and only specific persons want to be excused from it.
By making religion the norm, it violates the constitutional provision against an establishment.
ETA: As so often in these cases, apply a “Golden Rule” assessment. The Santeria kids are going to slaughter a chicken in the endzone. Or do so symbolically, with a plush chicken toy and some colored water. Still acceptable? The Islamic kids are going to unroll their mats and kneel to the east in the endzone. Okay with that?
Sure. But it doesn’t matter whether I’m okay with it or not. Once you start breaking up religious practice with force, you are trampling on religious freedom. I see no reading of the 1st amendment that allows that. The “wall” between church and state is inferred. THe prohibition on government interfering with religious practice is explicit. Explicit> inferred.
Teachers all over the US make their students recite the Pledge regardless of what the SC ruled seventy years ago. Even if they have the absolute legal right not to say it (which they may or may not be aware of, what with beings kids and all) the kids risk a scolding or being set apart from the class should they dare make a stand. Or even making the news, which is never a good thing especially in small communities.
And sometimes, it’s not even kids and schoolmarms at work butpeople who really should know better. So there’s that, too.
But more fundamentally, the notion that saying the pledge is “opt out” rather than opt in is problematic. Also the pledge is really creepy in and of itself :p.
Those teachers are breaking the law. Your beef needs to be with them, not with the law, since they are breaking it. If a cop fails to read a suspect his “Miranda rights”, are you going to say there is a problem with the jurisprudence or a problem with the police?
This Christian would be fine with IGWT not being on currency. “We” should mean all Americans, and that just isn’t accurate. Not sure it works with my concept the F-man, either.
It is certainly an unfortunate event when our own beliefs are in conflict with the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens. But that is the price we pay to live in a democratic society. Anyone claiming that the 1st amendment objectively and unquestionably forbids what we commonly call “ceremonial deism” simply wishes to impose his own world view on his fellow citizens. And that I find more troublesome than “In God We Trust” on our currency.
This is meaningless. The government does not have freedoms. It has obligations and rules.
If the Governor of a State declares Tuesday to be “Holy Spirit Day,” and he is reproved by the courts, his “religious freedom” has not been trampled on. Indeed, he trampled on the religious freedom of every citizen of his state by his misdemeanor.
I strongly disagree. Instead, I take issue with those who would misuse “ceremonial deism” as a fig-leaf to shoehorn religious beliefs into the public sector in violation of the 1st amendment.
Personally, I might be willing to shrug off the ceremonial deism issue. I don’t really give two shits about “In God We Trust” on money. But it is being used as a lever to pry more concessions, such as open prayers before city council meetings (to which non-Christians are, somehow, rarely, if ever, invited) and other intrusions.
If you could promise me that it would stop with a motto on coinage, I’d be delighted. I’m willing to surrender that limited amount of my rights. (Others aren’t, however.) But it doesn’t stop there. It keeps popping up, such as religious people demanding exemption from the Affordable Care Act, religious people insisting they can withhold medication from patients, and so on.
I’d agree with you that Scalia’s statement was not strictly correct. The framers of the Constitution surely had the Church of England in mind, knowing that only members of that church were allowed to vote, run for office, attending university, and so forth. So they wrote the establishment clause to ensure that no religious body would ever have special legal privileges of that sort.
However, I have never seen the slightest bit of evidence that James Madison or any other framer intended the First Amendment to put limits on purely aesthetic decisions, such as the monuments in a courthouse or the walls of a public school. Plainly governments throughout the USA put up monuments of a religious nature on government property for decades after the First Amendment went into effect. As far as I know, no one made a stink about this before the 20th century. So as I see it, those who are trying to destroy such monuments on First Amendment grounds are dishonestly projecting onto the Constitution something which flatly isn’t there.
That’s okay as far as it goes, but it does have the disadvantage of encouraging toerags like Scalia in their views, which carry a certain camel’s-nose-under-the-tent-flap peril.
One thing that the founding fathers were very clear about - they generally didn’t like Catholics. (A lot of people don’t realize there was virtually no Catholic community in the United States in 1776. And the founders preferred it that way. Why do you think the Canadians weren’t invited to the Continental Congress?)
“I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act, or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” - Sam Adams
“A religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world” - John Jay
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government” - Thomas Jefferson
So maybe Antonin Scalia might want to rethink his “originalist” beliefs.
as a matter of law, originalism is a perfectly legitimate way to look at legal interpretation. After all, it’s what liberals want the courts to do when reading the health care law. And I assume that 200 years from now, they’ll want it to be read the same way it is today.
Of course. But it also makes sense to take into account changing situations, most especially those driven by technology.
The framers, for instance, would not have been able to predict the private viewing of pornography, as we enjoy it on the internet. They would have had to have seen it in light of printing presses and printing shops of their time. That a guy, all on his own, could use Photoshop to create porn, and send it, encrypted, to his friends, makes it a very different enterprise from what the framers understood.
Little Nemo’s cites regarding Catholicism also show the importance of recognizing social and cultural changes when it comes to interpretation. To us, today, those quotes are odious, but at the time, they were conventional.
The ACA was enacted in 2010 and virtually all of the people who enacted it are still alive. So they are making a valid point when they say they know what they meant.
Antonin Scalia claiming he’s entitled to speak on behalf of James Madison is a whole different thing. Especially when he claims Madison sounds exactly like Antonin Scalia.
It does if the plain language of the law in question allows for such changes. Regardless of how the Founders felt about Catholics, they wrote the 1st amendment to protect them too.
Different, yet still the same in many ways. Now instead of the printing press being primarily available to the well off, it’s modern equivalents are available to all. Which makes the freedom even more important today.
I think a better example of how things can chance is the “cruel and unusual” phrase in the 8th amendment. The founders clearly allowed some leeway for us to judge for ourselves in each time period what is cruel and unusual.
Yet they were smart enough to look past their prejudices and not create a document that enshrined them. It would not surprise me at all, in fact, if they simply understood that the future would be more liberal than the past. After all, they were more enlightened on race and religion than their own ancestors 200 years previous.
Even in Scalia’s case, textualism trumps originalism. You only fall back on originalism when it’s unclear how the text applies to a case.
Do we draw the line at the point where all the original writers of the law are dead?
There’s another big difference: the framers actually wrote and debated every little detail of the Constitution. They knew intimately what was in it. Who wrote ACA? Is there even a person alive who understands it all? Originalism is useless when interpreting such a law. Textualism is the only valid way to interpret a law that few have read and fewer understand. Originalism assumes the people who ratified it knew what was in it. Valid for the Constitution, not so much with huge, complex laws.
Unfortunately, yours is a fringe view. I wish we had a mile high wall of separation between church and state but the fact is we don’t and we never did. That’s not what the people want. At any rate, it looks like you have a lot of work cut out for you if you want to change things, because the laws, and even the constitution, are written by the people. And the vast majority of Americans “strongly disagree” with you. As I said, I’m more concerned about people thinking their fringe view is the one and only true view than I am about accepting the fact that the constitution does not say what you and I wish it did.