Hey, Hey! We don’t cotton to that sort of thing around here. Wool only put up with that in the Pit.
Sorry, I just thought this was funny. 
::shrug:: The fact that it seems to officially mark of less worth the religious and irreligious beliefs of a number of Americans kind of sucks any nobility out of it for me. Heck, the Muslims were excited just to have a chance to pray just once! I think that particular ritual is a lousy thing for a supposedly religion-blind goverment to do to non-Christian theists and atheists. Rituals can and do change, or are dismissed as superfluous; we can always make better ones. Let’s be a young, innovative, fast-moving country, not a stodgy old one that clings to “we’ve always done it that way”! Sodomy and gay marriage and buying beer on Sunday and atheism for all!
Oops, got carried away there… 
I think we both have a bit of the same problem; you don’t care all that much about it, but when you see people getting worked up about it you dive in. I don’t care all that much about it, but I didn’t much like it when you were gratified to see it dismissed as trivial by ol’ JM so I dove in. I do care more about other violations, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t state that I believe this particular one is wrong if given a soapbox, or that I enjoy seeing it dismissed. I may not get upset if someone steals a penny from me, but I’ll still strenously insist that it was wrong of them to do so.
[sub]Poly, manny, I’m going to slug you two invertebrate punsters if you don’t quit it…[/sub]
Mithras the Sun-God
Was a jolly happy soul,
And he slew a bull
On solstice day
So the world would not get cold.
As I have been told repeatedly while exploring this big 'ol net, “Amerika is not a democracy, it is a republic”.
Which leaves me wondering, do any of your states, commonwealths or other political groupings open the sessions of their respective legislative bodies with that fine old tradition of animal sacrifice with a duly appointed priest to read the omens contained in the entrails of the sacrifice.
After all, when in Rome (another Republic)… 
Put there by Salmon P. Chase, a fundie, who was Treasury Secretary during most of the war. Then, in late 1864, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he could strike down cases against it. I don’t know if those cases ever came up, however.
Can I just offer this as one possible option:
And/or this:
As a secular humanist (in the lowercase sense), I have to say that I’ve never really seen the point of legislatures maintaining a chaplain. Couldn’t they just have a regular rotation of local priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/etc to give opening prayers? I’m sure they could find appropriate people and pay them on a one-off basis (or not at all), thus being more ecumenical and saving the taxpayer money at the same time. Or would that just complicate life?
jr8
“As for those with whom you have made a treaty and who abrogate it every time, and do not fear God,
If you meet them in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, and that they may be warned.
For God does not like those who are treacherous.”
– al-Qur’an
Hey, Poly! That wasn’t MY typo, it was cut and pasted directly from the AP Newswire! Yes, the same folks who recently brought us the delightful headline, “TIPPER GORE TO TOP NATIONAL CHRISTMAS TREE FOR PERHAPS THE LAST TIME.” I’ve decided “AP” stands for “addle-pated.”
Now, on with the discussion—I have no more to contribute, but am heartily enjoying lurking and cheering on my adherents.
—The Artist Formerly Known as Flora
FYI, the Supreme Court has made a distinction between an opening prayer for Congress and prayer, etc. in schools. Since children are forced to be in school and are less able to filter out the influence of a religion in which they might not believe, the SC has said it is different than adults in a deliberative body voting to have a prayer.
The reason they pay a chaplain is that his job is not only to give an opening prayer but to provide counsel for the members of Congress. Apparently, this service is used quite a bit by the members.
I’m not endorsing the use of a chaplain, I just wanted to throw some more information into the debate.
No asbestos required for this one, but just to raise a mild counterclaim: I didn’t read the James Madison quotes as indicating that he actually thought the issue of legislative chaplains was trivial. It seemed to me that what he was saying was that this is indeed a definite breach of the principle of separation, but it will be better tactics for us to classify it as a trivial one, to avoid the danger of its being used as a judicial precedent for similar breaches in the future (such as putting God on the national currency ;)).
Here’s a legal question, then: did Madison call it right? That is, has de minimis ever been invoked to dismiss from judicial consideration complaints about legislative chaplains or prayer? Seems to me from the cites I’ve seen here that instead, the courts have defended these practices on the grounds that they’re “bonafide national customs” or something of the sort, not on the grounds that this is too trivial to bother about. Maybe if Madison had known his strategy wasn’t really going to pan out, he would have been more in favor of going to the mattresses on the chaplaincy issue.
KIMSTU:
So you think he personally thought it was important but simulateoulsy though it ought to be classed as trivial (though really constitutionally important)? I didn’t get that at all and I somehow doubt he would back so far down off the issue and agree it should be treated as trivial, if he himself didn’t think it was trivial.
It has, in a roundabout way, in the sense that one of the implicit tests for constitutional/unconstitutional is to look at the effect of the statute or enactment or action in question: does it have the effect of establishing religion or inhibiting free speech or whatever? If it does not have that effect – i.e., produce that result – than it is much less likely to be unconstitutional. (This is in keeping with the general legal principle that the law does not bother to concern itself with the the rightness or wrongness of actions that do not produce any damage.)
That it true, but the lack of effect is implicit, in the sense that if a government action has the effect of establishing religion, no amount of tradition or custom will save it; it will be unconstitutional.
This assumes, of course, that he had a “strategy” and that it did not in fact pan out.
Jodi: *I didn’t get that at all and I somehow doubt he would back so far down off the issue and agree it should be treated as trivial, if he himself didn’t think it was trivial. *
Well, admittedly it’s hard to get directly to Madison’s own train of thought on account of the mediation by his editor Brant. But it seemed to me clear from the quotes I cited above that Madison’s concern with “steps beyond the bounds of power” such as legislative chaplaincies was how to “disarm” them from having “the effect of a legitimate precedent” and not “erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.” That doesn’t sound to me like “Legislative chaplaincies are a trivial issue so we needn’t worry about their setting a precedent,” but rather like “We really don’t want these unconstitutional practices to set a precedent so let’s minimize their impact by classifying them as trivial.”
And thanks for the explanation about lack of effect!
[hijack]
Hey Formerly Flora, are you familiar with the sequel by Horatio Alger where you get married?! Love that one.
[/hijack]
Or Hindu.
There ARE eighty million of us.
“My Hindo Man is a prize,
With both his hypnotic eyes—
Oh, he can hyp-hypnotize;
You never saw!
If he would just name the day,
And with me slip, slip away
Why, I’d say hip, hip, hooray—
My Hindu Man!”
—Eve [who has a song for every occasion; just ask “One-Trick Pony Boy”]
Jodi, I don’t think I have quite grasped your argument. You seem to be saying that
a) the Constitution only applies to important matters
b) this issue is not important to you
c) you realize that other people consider it important, but it doesn’t matter what they think, just what you think
d) therefore the Constitution does not apply to this matter, and therefore it is not unconstitutional
Is this an accurate summary of your position? If so, what is the criteria of being able to decide what is “important”? Is this task assigned solely to you? Or is it up to the majority to decide what is important? If the latter, what purpose does the First Amendment serve, anyway? After all, the majority will almost certainly agree that it is not very important to separate Church and State.
THE RYAN:
Why, yes! :rolleyes:
Forgive my asperity, but c’mon.
A. “The Constitution only applies to important matters.” The Constituion applies whenever the question of consitutionality is raised. You look at the question; look at the document; look at the cases; argue about it and reach a decision – is this constitutional or not. But one of the tests for constitutionality is “effect,” as explained above. If a particular enactment doesn’t have a deleterious effect, the question of whether it is constitutional or not is much more likely to be answered in the negative.
B. “This issue is not important to you.” No, I must admit it is not.
C. “You realize that other people consider it important, but it doesn’t matter what they think, just what you think.” Exactly! Who gives a moose doot about the rest of you? Replace this with “the courts that have looked at this question have apparently decided it does not have an unconstitutional effect, and one can deduce from that lack of significant effect that the impact of the challenged activity is trivial.”
D. “Therefore the Constitution does not apply to this matter, and therefore it is not unconstitutional.” I did not decide that invocations were not unconstitutional; the court did. I admit the issue of the constitutionality of invocations is not one that gets my personal dander up – keep 'em, pitch 'em, whatever. I have never said this answers the question, however. That’s why I looked the answer up.
What Madison was saying is clear:
-
This practice violates the meaning and spirit of the First Amendment.
-
Despite the fact this was true, not enough people at the time would agree with it.
-
If someone challenged it, it would be cemented in law as legal precedent, thus becoming a corenerstone for even more such violations of the amendment elsewhere, outside this context.
-
Far better to look at it as a trivial violation with minimal impact than to try to fight a losing cause.
-
“[C]lass it with faults that result from carelessness or that human nature could scarcely avoid.”
ALL the framers understood that, to some extent, the good intentions that they enshrined in the Constitution would not always be allowed to rule the land; they were constantly having to decide where and when to fight the good fight. Fortunately, we continue to develop and refine our understanding of the meaning of the words so long ago agreed upon by men of wisdom. In time, in all likelihood, we will finally realize that there is never a positive effect from violating the plain meaning of the First Amendment, and then, finally, the worries Madison had will no longer apply.
That was pretty much how I read Madison, DSY, although I couldn’t have summarized it with such grace.
As Jodi undoubtedly knows, there’s a big difference between de jure and de facto. Just because the law says something, even if it’s the Law of the Land ™, doesn’t mean that public officials will follow it. Forms of school prayer that have long been put out of bounds by the Supremes continue to be practiced in individual public schools and school districts in more conservative regions of the country. Absent challenges from parents of children affected by these practices - who would have to take a lot of flak for doing so - the prayers remain.
My belief is that the government’s visible support for religion, and particularly the Christian religion, in other areas provides comfort and encouragement to those who would hijack such government-initiated occasions and semi-captive audiences in violation of the First Amendment.
The average citizen isn’t a Constitutional lawyer, or even as sharp as the average GDer; she sees legislative chaplains on the public payroll, “In God We Trust” on the currency, “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and concludes that Pastor is right - this is a Christian country, and we have every right to take back our slice of it, by instituting prayer in schools, putting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse walls, and so forth.
For those reasons, it’s hard for me to see this sort of stuff as too unimportant to be a First Amendment question. And I’d have to say Marsh is an instance of middlin’ cases making bad law, or some such.
I’d like to add that I believe that the power and truth of the Gospel message is sufficiently compelling to reach those who need to be reached, without any little assists from the gummint.
I feel that if my more conservative brethren and sistern had the courage of their convictions, they’d give up their insistence that the state support their beliefs in assorted ways. And they’d transfer the energy that has gone into trying to sneak prayer into schools and other public occasions, fighting against gay marriages and repeal of sodomy laws and so forth, into evangelism and works of compassion and mercy. And we’d all be the better for it.
[non sequitur]
Gaudere, don’t punch those punsters; hand me the pliers!
[/non sequitur]
[Eddie Izzard]
Do you have a flag?
[/Eddie Izzard]
[sub](This is a really great thread, guys…as someone who wants to get into con law, I’m enjoying the exchange)[/sub]
Let’s back up the truck for a moment – It is not merely my opinion that invocations before legislative sessions is constitutional; that is what the U.S. Supremes have held. Not, like Madison, that we’d better say it’s constituional but that it is, as a matter of law, constitutional. Why? Because invocations do not have the effect of advancing a particular religion or of establishing religion in general. There is nothing in Marsh that indicates that the perceived triviality of the issue ([perceived by me) had anything to do with how they ruled.
Therefore, I don’t think we need to look fondly towards that shining day when Madison’s rationale will not be “needed” since it isn’t even being used now.
My apologies for a confusing paragraph, Jodi - I meant those two sentences to be unrelated, but I’d read it the same way you did if I hadn’t written it.
While the invocations are presently Constitutional by the Rule of Five (or six, in Marsh), I think it was a bad ruling, regardless of reasoning. That the invocations are part of the “fabric of our society” doesn’t prevent them from (at the very least) promoting religion over nonreligion, in the same way that Jim Crow, despite being part of the fabric of Southern society for a century, deprived blacks of the equal protection of the laws.
The Supremes may have contended this, but I personally find that to be absurd. These invocations have government giving a leg up to religion relative to nonbelief. I’m no Constitutional law expert, but that seems to me to be an appropriate measure of whether the Establishment Clause has been violated.