Nah, don’t shoot him. String him up. We have the chord.
sigh
What happened to the good ole’ days when judges only brought their vibrators to court and left their religion at home?
Well, I’m just going from the text of the constitution, which only talks about Congress enacting laws… The quote you offer, in fact, is an injunction against government interference with religioius institutions, not the that relgious thought or action should be banned from government. But the real point is that the quote, no matter what it says, is NOT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Even if Jefferson could be quoted as saying "We must have complete seperation of church and state. " it would still be just a quote from one man. The wording of the constitution is what actually was agreed upon as law, not the quotations of any one man.
Let me be clear: I don’t think judges should have the 10 Cs on their robes. But this isn’t about what you or I think, but about what the constution actually says. I’d be interested in what our legal folks have to say about that. It’s just unclear to me how a judge wearing the 10 Cs can be construed as “Congress making a law”.
I really, really, really wish the framers had been more explicit about the seperation of Church and state in the Constitution. But the fact is, they didin’t. And until we, as a nation, fix that with an amendment, we’re stuck wrestling with these issues. We are, after all, a nation of laws. We don’t get to declare something illegal just because we think it OUGHT to be illegal.
So what emanations and penumbras protect ceremonial deism? Nothing in the text about it.
Enjoy,
Steven
Wait. Save the bullet. Use it on this one.
Quick! Everybody look busy.
I agree that no emantions or penumbras protect ceremonial deism.
But “ceremonial deism” does not represent an establishment of religion. It doesn’t offend the black-letter law of the Constitution. No penumbras need apply.
What an utter tautology. Your saying that an endorsement isn’t an endorsement as long as it falls under the imaginary rubric of"Ceremonial Deism, " which is a completely synthetic and and hoc construction contrived for the sole purpose of protecting Establishment violations. It’s a purely invented category with no textual support in the Constitution whatsoever. It DOES violate the letter of the law and “Ceremonial Deism” does not exist as a Constitutional exception. It’s a purely activist pronouncement of new law.
I thought it was the executive branch that was supposed to enforce the law. I thought the judicial branch was supposed to interpret it.
That’s correct but it’s also pedantic.
Surprise.
Query: Is the robe the official uniform of a judge or can he wear whatever he wants?
No.
No, no, no.
Also: no.
A court performs its traditional function when it applies the law to a set of facts.
The law forbids an establishment of religion.
That’s black-letter law.
Whether a particular practice constitutes an establishment of religion is a matter of law.
For example, you might claim that the presence of a Bible in a public library constitutes an establishment of religion. It is for the courts to determine whether it does or not.
“Ceremonial deism” is not an extension of the law. It is simply a description for the acts which the government performs that may refer to religion, but are in fact devoid of any religious significance.
Forget “ceremonial deism.” It’s obviously confusing you. No one is claiming that “ceremonial deism” is part of the Constitution. Each case is decided based on a question of law: does the practice in question constitute “establishment?” Yes, or no. Very simple.
And if it does constitute establishment we will call it “Ceremonial Deism” and leave it standing. It’s an imaginary loophole. It doesn’t just apply to references to religion but to actual endorsements of deities and even expressions of faith. 'In God we trust" is an expression of faith. Calling it CE is just a way to quarrantine a virus instead of deleting it.
Establishment Clause jurisprudence is many things, but it is not “very simple”.
If I remember correctly, it was not a vibrator, but a penis pump.
Why pedantic? Because it’s me, or because there actually is no difference in your view between enforcement and interpretation?
No, not because it’s you. I’m not one of the people that ever does the eyeroll thing at you and I’ve never joined a jump-on-Lib dogpile. I said it was pedantic because there’s a difference between the informal manner in which I used the word “enforce” and the manner that its used to delineate the formal separation of powers. This isn’t a high school government class. My context was different. I only meant it in the sense of keeping order in a courtroom and ensuring that legal procedures are carried out.
Just thought I’d pop in here and say **atheism is not a belief system! **
Carry on.
Or it is a convenient legal middle ground invented out of whole cloth to dump cases which would otherwise be violations of the establishment clause.
Not at all. The invention of the doctrine of Ceremonial Deism has made it at least a three outcome choice. Not establishment, establishment but for the ceremonial aspect, or religious and offensive to the establishment clause. What the founders set up as a binary choice became a trinary choice because of the political realities associated with following a strict SOCAS doctrine. So to keep the deists happy the deism is included and a legal status of “ceremonial deism”, which has no constitutional support, is invented to contain those acts which would otherwise offend the establishment clause.
Enjoy,
Steven