Now, to the Separation of Church and State--Sotomayor ruled against

[rateyes]

a law banning a Menorah from a public park. Does anyone have anything else on this issue as it concerns Sotomayor?

The two issues that will largely decide my support or opposition to this judge are religious liberty and abortion rights.

Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on the court, and 4 of those six are the RATS Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia.

The Catholic Church hasn't been a big proponent of the Separation of Church and State, nor of abortion rights.

[sui generis]

1. religious liberty to do what?

if you want a menorah or a cross or a pentacle in your living environment, then put it in your temple/church/altar.

Leave public parks to the public.

What decides it for me is if Sotomayor has a history of supporting the rights of the corporate entity over the rights of the individual - I'll actively campaign against her.

If she views some Americans as less American on the topic of personal choice, whether that is the choice of whom to marry or what choices we make with our reproductive lives.

If Obama has given us a conservative judge out of political expediency, then he's a tool, and I'm done with him for once and for all. I'm hoping that the idea of hope still means something, and that I won't have to go there.

The fact that I'm not sure is not giving me happy rosy 0-face though.

[BlueJac]

2. this might help you out a little

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html

[defendandprotect]

47. Didn't study it . . . but didn't find that much help in it in a quick scan . . .

in fact, rather convoluted?

Guess I need a more serious interpretation and I'm hoping that this will work out!

[pnutbutr]

3. as long as they follow the constitution

and don't use the broadly interpreted "Separation of church and state" I'm fine with whatever in this area. I wish Jefferson had never coined that term. I'm pretty sure he would kick himself for it today.


As for the law you mentioned with the menorah. As long as it does not violate the state constitution where the park is located it is allowed by the US constitution as congress did not make the law.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

11. well good for you. Now go believe that at home

Because YOUR belief does not trump reality.

Reality is that government exists to administer shared resources and public safety. Period.

Churches are for all the other stuff you blathered about.

[pnutbutr]

12. One need only to look

at history and the numerous examples of why the blending of religion and government is not a good idea and inevitably leads to rampant corruption of both government and church along with violent oppression of the people.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

14. the very height of hubris and false-pride...

I would think it the very height of hubris and false-pride for a leader, any leader to proclaim that nation's righteousness-- as we are none of us in any position to judge our own righteousness.

Something we would do well to bear in mind as we render unto Caesar...

"I believe non-secular laws trump secular laws"

There is no law which denies or precludes you your faith and your belief. The only time laws enter the equation are when the format of that worship is extended beyond the national and state laws of neutrality. It begs the questions, how are you being denied the ability to worship...?

[Vickers]

17. "I believe non-secular laws trump secular laws. "

Tell it to da judge.

:rofl:

Welcome to DU yadda yadda yadda...

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. You can believe anything you want

but that's NOT what the constitution says.

If you belonged to a church that mandated child sacrifice, would that non-secular law trump secular law?

For that matter, it's not what the bible says, either. In the christian bible, Jesus said "give unto caesar that which is caesar's, and give unto god that which is god's". Without getting into the side-discussion of Augustus being venerated as a god, thereby making a conundrum of the caesar/god distinction, it is clear that He meant his followers are supposed to obey secular law, and that there IS a distinction between church and state, that they are two separate spheres.

So as i said, you can believe anything you want. Your beliefs do not make you right.

[me b zola]

19. I hear Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year

Since you are such a fan of religion determining law, I'm sure that you will quickly apply for citizenship in SA. :freak:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

27. Nice to Have Met You! Good Luck in the Future!

:hi:

[csziggy]

29. Thankfully the US Constitution protects me from your beliefs

Since I do not follow any organized religion and have doubts about the existence of a "higher power." Your faith is fine as long as you do not force it or its tenets on me or on people who believe differently from either of us. The President of the United States is not supposed to represent on narrow viewpoint, he is the head of state for everyone no matter what their belief system.

That IS what this country is all about - including Christian, Jewish, Islamic and all other beliefs in our culture.

[Gemini Cat]

30. That's your business.

You are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe in. You are not however, allowed to push your beliefs on me.

[konnichi wa]

37. You probably shouldn't smoke that shit.

...

[Renew Deal]

48. That's fine for you, but not everyone in this nation believes what you believe.

Different people believe in different things. But what we all believe in is the law of the land. You may believe what you like, but you must obey the law. If you can't live by your "belief's" in the US, then you might have to find somewhere more suitable.

[defendandprotect]

49. Fine to guide your life by your personal religious beliefs . . . however,

your personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with anyone else.

Meanwhile, there is a higher power -- NATURE.

Our natural state is to be free -- the laws we have are laws we AGREE to have.

[ismnotwasm]

54. Your God hates me.

He said so, in your bible. He's not exactly free of prejudices. I'll take secular law thank you. Not perfect, perhaps but waaaay better than some criminally insane creator Deity who thinks Genocide is a great solution, and kills his kids to make a point.

[Kalyke]

57. And Jesus said,

"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36)

In other words, state is a separate being from the Kingdom of God, which is on a higher plane, but that Man, including Jesus, are also subject to the laws of the state.

[nini]

61. go live in Iran

that's what you want

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DireStrike]

72. Good thing you're in the extreme minority then, eh?

[Arugula Latte]

77. You seem to love theocracy -- you should move to Iran.

Isn't it nice when fairy tales trump rationality?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

86. There is also a "rat" in Democrat . . . as GOP likes to point out . . .!!!!

[Iggo]

84. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

96. Welcome to DU, Mr. Taliban.

[Sinistrous]

15. State Constitutions and state laws must agree with

the tenets of the US Constitution.

Separation of church and state was one of Jefferson's core principles. I am sure he would be defending it today.

[pnutbutr]

16. congress shall make no law....

State laws are not created by congress and therefore cannot be in violation of the US constitution in this particular matter.

It was not a core principle. It was a statement he wrote in a single letter which wasn't repeated again until about 70 years later by the supreme court.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Constitution - Article VI, p. 2

This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When the constitution says it shall make no law, it obligates the states to the same standard. That is why Alabama cannot have a Baptist state religion, and why Massachusetts cannot require all citizens to attend UU services.

It IS a core principle - in the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT.

[pnutbutr]

32. I understand that but

It says congress shall make no law.... If you take this literally it in no way prevents the individual states from doing it. If it did then there would be no reasons for the states to have incorporated it into their state constitutions.

[defendandprotect]

50. The article also binds the states . . . "to make no law in regard to religion" . . .!!!

[pnutbutr]

60. you must be reading a different constitution than me

That is supposed to be in Article VI? :wtf:

Stay off athiesm.about.com :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

76. Simply a different Constitution than you want to acknowledge . . .

[pnutbutr]

82. seriously

post the section of the constitution that has that in there. I want to see it.

[defendandprotect]

85. seriously . . .

Congress shall make no law in regard to religion . . .

that doesn't say Congress shall make no law regarding boy scouts or

chocolate bars . . .

Organized patriarchal religion is a danger to democracy -- still is.

The Founders well understood this having seen the soil of Europe soaked

in blood.

[pnutbutr]

89. don't be fing obtuse here

Amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is what is in the constitution regarding religion.

If you are trying to quote the constitution do it properly. If you are trying to misrepresent something in the constitution just stop now.

[defendandprotect]

90. Where does the Constitution say we can have church rule . . .

or that we should give tax dollars to religion -- ???

The "establishment clause" is Separation of Church & State as you well know --

As Jefferson makes clear --

I leave you to your puerile pursuits --

[pnutbutr]

91. what the hell are you arguing here?

I have no clue anymore. I said nothing about giving tax dollars to religion. Jefferson said nothing about the establishment clause, that was the supreme court using a term he coined in a letter from 70 years earlier. You just seem pissed that I have shown how little you actually understand what you are talking about in regard to the 1st amendment and are trying to duck out with some sort of veiled insult against me.

[ctaylors6]

92. 14th Amendment extended 1st amendment rights to apply to states

Supreme Court incorporated 1st Amendment religion clauses into the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment in cases such as Cantwell v CT and Everson v Board of Ed.

[pnutbutr]

94. which contradicts the intention of

what was one of the most debated of amendments to the constitution before the final wording was decided upon. The word state was specifically omitted from the final wording because of the 10th amendment. The 1st was to prevent the federal government from creating laws respecting an establishment of religion. It was not intended to prevent states from doing so. At least that is my understanding based on my research. Primarily backed up by the fact that the individual states incorporated similar items in their state constitutions which would be unnecessary if that were not the case.

The supreme court has gone too far in it's interpretation contrary to what I believe was the original intention on many occasions IMO.

[ctaylors6]

97. it's the intention of the writers of the 14th amendment that would apply though

right? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point. The 14th Amendment clearly applies to the states, as intended by the drafters of the 14th, post civil war. The intention of the framers of the 14th amendment would supersede the intention of the framers of the original bill of rights, just as the 14th amendment would supersede any constitutional provisions it amended. I'm not sure what you mean by the supreme court going too far in its interpretation. Do you mean what rights the SC has applied the incorporation doctrine to?

[pnutbutr]

106. 14th does apply to the states

but should not apply across the board to any law related to religion. Like I said in another post, simply establishing an Alabama state religion in no way violates the rights of people as stated in the 14th. Forcing them to pray, worship or convert would though.

Supreme court precedent IMO has gone against the original intention of the constitution on occasion. It seems that they stretch and combine different parts to come to a conclusion. For example, take the general welfare clause. That could be expanded to mean a state where the government is responsible for every aspect of our lives. That was obviously not the intent but the supreme court could interpret it that way one day far off when the well versed in law judges know little of the history and intentions of the framers of the constitution.

[Sinistrous]

102. See the 14th Amendment and the rulings in which it is cited.

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Re: Jefferson: Resisting the establishment of religion was a constant theme of his writings. See his letter to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, his "Notes on Virginia", Query XVII, and his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801. And there are so many, many other examples of his thoughts on the relation of the state to religion. Yes, it was a core principle.

[pnutbutr]

105. Jefferson and more

I know he was vehemently opposed to a state religion. That's obvious.

The 1st amendment was worded very carefully for the explicit reason to not extend the restriction on religion to the states. That's the reason each state has it's own restrictions on government and religion in their constitutions.

The 14th amendment IMO does nothing to prevent the individual states from establishing their own as long as it doesn't "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which simply establishing a state religion in say Alabama would not do. Forcing people to attend church would. Forcing people to pray would. Erecting a ten commandments or menorah monument in a city park wouldn't.

Supreme court precedent can and has altered the original intent of the constitution. To say that the 14th amendment prohibits any law related to religion to be passed by the states is a big stretch. Some, sure, but not all.

[Joe the Liberal]

95. We got a live one! n/t

[Badgerman]

4. ...and THAT is my single worry about Sotomayor. And it is a BIG one.

However, to her credit she hasn't got thirteen brats, and sees Mary in cupcakes.
:evilgrin:

edited to add the content

[defendandprotect]

52. Sotomayer lives in Greenwich Village -- a good sign, let's hope!

But, even if Catholicism doesn't leave one with religious delusions . . .
it certainly turns out a lot of authoritarian bullies.

See Thomas/Scalia

eh . . . and in the case of Thomas . . . sexual perverts!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Was it a Menorrah by itself or surrounded by "secular holiday" symbols?

She may have been following Supreme Court precedence.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. "The Catholic Church hasn't been a big proponent of . . . abortion rights"

No....why should it be?

[EFerrari]

7. Obama didn't nominate the Pope.

[msongs]

8. next thing ya know you'll be against using taxpayer money to endorse/promote religion nt

[rateyes]

34. LOL. How did you guess?

:rofl:

[timtom]

20. Where are you coming up with this "separation of church and state" crap?

Perhaps those issues are best left to state and local levels, where they belong. All the Constitution says is"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The rest (of the 1st Amendment) talks about freedom of speech, right to assemble, etc.

[Zomby Woof]

24. Do you understand context?

The Constitution doesn't say "There shall be checks and balances between the three branches of government", but clearly, by delineating the specific powers and prohibitions of each branch, the Constitution clearly reveals this concept.

Same as the 'establishment clause' of the 1st amendment you just cited. The wall is constructed from that very concrete precept.

Love these would-be theocrats and church-state commingling apologists on DU. James Madison ought to rise from the grave and slap you all.

[timtom]

39. Never mind.

I'm too tired to fight. See post #35.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. See my post, #25, above. nt

[rateyes]

35. I got it from the First Amendment's author who said that

the establishment clause and the free exercise clause erects a wall separating church and state.

Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? That's where I got that "separation of church and state crap."

[timtom]

43. All right! All right!

I'm out-constitutionalized.

I yield. I have no further arguments.

[CreekDog]

28. You want separation of church and state, so you're judging her by her church

nice consistency there. :thumbsdown:

[rateyes]

36. I'm not judging her by her church. I'm asking a question about

her as an individual. :thumbsup:

[CreekDog]

41. well you were the one that made the connection between her church and those other justices

your intentions may be fair, but you posted guilt by association.

[defendandprotect]

56. We also have a ton of Catholics in Congress now . . .

that hasn't done much for civil liberaties and women's rights, either!

In fact, I understand there is now a pro-life Catholic group in Congress?

[CreekDog]

64. my congresswoman is Catholic and has a consistently good record on civil rights

and Nancy Pelosi, in our neighboring district is also a mass-attending Catholic and has an excellent record on these issues.

[defendandprotect]

69. Pelosi . . .

IMO, is a bigger threat as a DLC member --
and I'm more than unhappy with her failure to end the wars ---
which, btw, the day after the election she confirmed was why Democrats
were elected -- you can see that on film from that day.

So I'd be very happy to see Pelosi demoted from her Speaker position ---
and think also necessary to demote Hoyer and Reid.

However . . .

CNSNews.com - Pelosi Favors Repeal Of Defense Of Marriage Act
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would support Barack Obama in his plan to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act if he is elected president.www.cnsnews.com/public/cnsnewstv/video.aspx?RsrcID=33472 - Cached

this is good --

I was addressing rather the large number of Catholics now in Congress and I understand
there is now a Democratic "pro-life" group in Congress.

Also, even HRC and many other Catholics have for years been talking about seeking
"common ground" with pro-life groups!

I've been disconnected for quite some time from Congress/Senate -- C-span took the Senate
away two years ago -- so I'm only now catching up again.
I'd like to hear Democrats/Obama talking about women's rights in Iraq/Afghanistan --
protecting women and young girls there - education. America's homeless/impoverished
children.

Btw, I'm a recovering Catholic.

[CreekDog]

71. I'm with you --except Pelosi is NOT DLC

:wtf:

absolute BS that you would call her that. it shows you don't know squat about her and shouldn't be commenting on her at all.

:crazy:

[defendandprotect]

73. Certainly on the issue of re-funding the Iraq/Afghanistan wars for 2+ years . . .

Pelosi supports DLC ideas . . . especially in regard to re-funding Bush's wars --

Only three Democrats voted on the issue of the Iraq war, last Friday. The rest followed Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s directives, a continuation of her "strategy" of insulating the pro-war wing of the party, centered in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), from the wrath of the party’s base, which is now overwhelmingly anti-war. For the DLC’s sake, Pelosi smothers the party’s progressive wing - of which she was once a proud member. Thus, the San Francisco congresswoman maintains the fiction of a united House Democratic front, to disguise the flaccid reality: the pro-war faction has veto power over Democratic Iraq policy - a veto exercised by Pelosi, herself.

Of the 42 Black Caucus members in the House, only one dared buck Pelosi’s discipline: Cynthia McKinney (GA), joined by New York’s Jose Serrano and Florida’s Robert Wexler.

The three faced the choice of defying Pelosi (and, in McKinney’s case, the CBC leadership’s similar attempts to put forward a face of unity without purpose) or to take advantage of the only chance available since October, 2002 to express an unqualified NO to the Iraq war. <;b>

And . . .

THE PRO-WAR FACTION HAS VETO POWER OVER DEMOCRATIC IRAQ POLICY --
A VETO EXERCISED BY PELOSI, HERSELF

And . ..

THE REPUBLICANS DARED THE ANTI-WAR FORCES TO DECLARE THEMSELVES,
WHILE PELOSI ORDERED THAT THEY STAY HIDDEN.

The Republicans were baiting the Democrats, knowing full well that the last thing Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton - and yes, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean - want to allow the public to observe is the extent to which Democrats in congress support a continuation of the war. The GOP, through unscrupulous disregard for the rules and spirit of the House, were determined to flush out the Democratic double-talkers. Pelosi was just as keen to protect them - resulting in last Friday night’s spectacle, in which Democrats showered praise on Murtha and outrage at GOP shenanigans, but pointedly failed to voice support for Murtha’s redeployment out of Iraq. Republicans came off like the ruthless, lying villains they are, while Democrats railed over ethics and procedure, rather than substance.

There was no room for peace in this strange arrangement, with Republicans daring the anti-war forces to declare themselves, while Pelosi ordered that they stay hidden, so as not to reveal the shape-shifters in Democratic ranks. Cynthia McKinney refused to be put in a vise. She voted "yes":


http://www.blackcommentator.com/160/160_cover_see_war_clearly.html

[CreekDog]

79. But that's not what you said --you said Pelosi is DLC

i don't like being lied to by you.

didn't you pull this BS with the Duke students?

[rateyes]

58. Maybe I can make this a little more clear.

A person's religion is a very personal matter which goes to the core of who a person is. Sotomayor is Catholic. So was John Kennedy. Kennedy promised that his Catholic faith would not interfere with his governmental duties, and he kept that promise.

I don't know Sotomayor. Will she, when it comes to these issues, follow Kennedy's example, or will she follow the tenets of her faith?

It's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

Judge Souter was a very strong advocate for separation of church and state. I want the justice that takes his place to be one as well. Especially when the next justice will be the swing vote on the matter.

I haven't made ANY judgments of her. I'm just looking at the evidence, and asking questions. I will not support her solely on the basis that Obama nominated her, and neither will I fail to support her based on that fact.

I will judge whether or not I support her based on what I learn about her going into the confirmation hearings. If I feel she is not going to be a strong advocate for both abortion rights and separation of church and state, then I don't care who nominated her, I will oppose her. If I feel otherwise, then I will support her. Her Catholicism, though, worries me because the Catholic church has a very weak record on these issues.

Again, it's a legitimate question, and I'll keep asking it.

[defendandprotect]

53. Well, should we not presume that those who support a church support its beliefs??

Should we not presume that when members continue to sit in the pew when

a pastor spreads intolerance for homosexuals as an "abomination" believe

and support what the priest is saying?

When members give money to this church, shall we not understand that they

are supporting the church and its teachings?

[CreekDog]

66. you don't know much about Catholicism do you?

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

75. Answer the question . . .

Other than a number of religion medals -- no I know nothing!!!

Otherwise, I'll simply presume that you do support the church's teachings.

:evilgrin:

[CreekDog]

80. I'm not Catholic

and do you assume that Democrats support all Democratic positions?

[defendandprotect]

81. You don't have to be Catholic . . .

to be anti-female, homophobic or racist -- anti-Separation of Church & State --

or for dropping taxpayer money into the collection plates.

I presume that what people support they want more of -- money speaks!

[anonymous171]

31. I would probably need more information about that particular descision before I passed any judgment.

[rateyes]

38. Me, too. That's why I asked the question.

[bertman]

33. As a staunch non-believer I'm more than a bit upset that we have five Catholics on

our Supreme Court and are considering a sixth.

How many atheists are on there? How many Jews? How many Southern Baptists? How many Buddhists? How many Wiccans?

Are we really so lacking in non-Catholic judges that we can't find another qualified judge who isn't a Catholic?

Or is this a choice to win over more Catholics to President Obama's side?

Very disturbing because I really like the fact that she's a woman who worked her way up from humble beginnings.

[book_worm]

40. Here is the break down of Supreme Court by religion (to answer one of your questions)

Justice Affiliation
John Roberts
(Chief Justice) Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer Jewish
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jewish
Anthony M. Kennedy Catholic
Antonin Scalia Catholic
David H. Souter Episcopalian
John Paul Stevens Protestant
Clarence Thomas Catholic
Samuel Alito Catholic


I don't think that Obama was looking for "another Catholic" but rather a latino, which also deserves a place on the court. By and large, many latinos are Catholic. Could he have found one who isn't--probably. But I'm not going to hold her religion against her. I also recall that William Brennan a republican appointed by Eisenhower was a stout Catholic from NJ and he turned out to be one of the most liberal SC justices ever and even voted for Roe v Wade.

[bertman]

51. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts. Conservative. Catholic.

But, I'm sure their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their votes on the court.

Thank you for the list, book_worm.

My point is that we don't need a Catholic Supreme Court. We need at the least, a widely varying religious and non-religious view from our justices. If there were six out of nine Southern Baptists justices, Catholic and Jewish American advocacy groups would be foaming at the mouth with rage--especially if five were already on the list of top en conservative justices.

[defendandprotect]

59. Agree . . . and we especially need humanists on the courts ..... !!!

[rateyes]

68. Wow. Thanks. That means that if Sotomayor is confirmed we

will have six who are Catholics, two Jewish members, and one protestant. THAT doesn't seem to reflect the population of the country very well.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. I'm sure the Pope told him to do so. Obama takes orders from the Pope, dontcha know?

:eyes: :sarcasm:

Oh wait....what is this I'm hearing? You mean it's not 1960? Who knew!

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. Thanks for making a comment to this effect so I didn't have to

Ugly, ugly shades of the Al Smith and JFK "anti-popery" bigotry, on DU, no less.

[defendandprotect]

42. The Catholic Church still stands against "equality for all" and democracy . . .

The Catholic Church is certainly against Separation of Church & State --

and has long lobbied our Congress for financial assistance.

And, they've got it now with "faith-based organizations" receiving our tax dollars.

MOST of those organizations are Catholic.

The Catholic Church still does not acknowledge the full personhood of females as it

acknowledges the full personhood of males.

Disgusting!

[anonymous171]

45. Let it all out, it's ok. nt

[defendandprotect]

62. If you're against Separation, women's rights, government money for religion . . . just say so--!!

Don't hide behind puerile comments -- !!!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. A-boga-boga-boga-boga! nt

[Ganja Ninja]

93. Personally I hope they go after her for being Catholic.

Time and time again I hear right wing Protestant fundies that differentiate Catholics from Christianity by saying "Christians AND Catholics". Nothing would please me more than to see a big fight between right wing Catholics and right wing evangelicals. They don't belong together anymore than the KKK and Black Panthers.

[cbc5g]

55. I guess Obama should nominate the Pope next

Maybe he can be chief justice if something happened to Roberts?

[defendandprotect]

63. I think Bush was getting close to that . . . !!! Lotta money at the Vatican . . .

[anonymous171]

65. Source?

I highly doubt that Bush would be conspiring with the Vatican.

[defendandprotect]

74. What do you think tax money for "faith-based" religon was . . . ??????

[pnutbutr]

83. faith based

http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/

The Center for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives

The Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI) welcomes the participation of faith-based and community organizations as essential partners in assisting our country's neediest citizens. CFBCI empowers faith-based and community organizations to compete more effectively for Federal funds so that they may provide better human services to more people.




What are the rules on funding religious activity with Federal money?
Answer:

The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support “inherently religious” activities. Basically, it means you can not use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer.

Such organizations should also carefully account for their use of all government money. This does not mean your organization can’t have religious activities. It simply means you can’t use taxpayer dollars to fund them. Some faith-based organizations set up separate charitable organizations (so-called “501(c)(3) corporations”) to keep programs that receive government money separate from those that engage in inherently religious activities.

This rule of thumb is different if your organization receives Federal money that comes in the form of “vouchers” or other so-called “indirect aid.” In simple terms, an indirect aid program is one that gives funds or certificates to individuals in need, which can be used to obtain services from a number of qualified organizations. A good example of indirect aid is a child-care certificate that a parent can use for daycare at any participating child-care center. School vouchers are another example of indirect aid. The vast majority of programs affected by the Faith-Based and Community Initiative involve direct aid to organizations (that is, money that goes directly to the organizations themselves), not vouchers or indirect aid.

[HamdenRice]

88. By your standards, two people sitting on a park bench reading a Bible would be illegal

You are confusing separation of church and state with free exercise of religion.

The mayor forcing school kids to pray in a public school is a violation of the separation of church and state.

A private person having a religious service in a public park is free exercise of religion -- as would that same person standing on a soap box, ranting about the Second Amendment be free speech.

A menorah in a park -- or a Santa Clause or whatever -- is not a violation of the separation of church and state.

The First Amendment does not require the government to actively stamp out religious expression in public places.

[WildEyedLiberal]

99. We should ban Catholics from sitting on the SCOTUS

We should also ban them from high office (sorry, Biden.) Their loyalties clearly lie with the Vatican and not with the United States!!

Why? Because I LOVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT! (except for papists, fuck them!)

[ThomWV]

100. and then we should sieze their property, take their money, and deport them to Rome.

Or maybe you have another 'solution'.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. I should've known I needed a sarcasm smiley in my post

Because unfortunately, DU is SO BATSHIT that Swiftian satire isn't any more extreme than what passes for "commentary" around here.

[bertman]

103. Of course, some will take issue with the argument that six Catholics on the High Court

is nothing to worry about. And they have, with the smart-ass "Boga boga boga", and "why doesn't he nominate the Pope?" crap.

The point is that the highest court in our nation is going to have two-thirds of the judges who are from the same religious background. This is not a good thing in a pluralistic society where there are many excellent judges to select from. I wouldn't feel any better if two-thirds were going to be non-believers. The decisions of the court currently reflect many of the conservative views of the five-vote bloc of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Is anyone going to argue that their conservative views are not due in part of their religious upbringing and beliefs? I sure as hell am.

It's unfortunate that this has to be highlighted at this point in time when we need a smooth confirmation of a "liberal" justice--or at least one that isn't right-leaning. But, it's been brought up by our President and it's going to be aired out one way or the other. For better or for worse.

Religious influence over our society is a very touchy subject with lots of people on both sides of the aisle. I'm sorry that President Obama did not reflect on this and come to a different decision regarding this nomination.

[sl8]

104. Flamer v. City of White Plains, NY

http://momentmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-and-the-menorah/

[MindPilot]

107. That one looks like a pretty clear case of freedom of expression

It was not a permanent government endorsed or sponsored display; it was a private individual using a public place for religious expression.

I don't see that decision as being indicative of opposition to church-state separation; in fact I see that decision as coming from someone who has a very clear understanding of the "wall of separation" represented by the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause.

This is something I do know a little bit about since I am currently a litigant in a cross-on-public-land case.