Current Topics
Al Franken 2020
by pdx rick
Today at 06:02 AM
sex assaults
by Spag-hetti
Today at 04:18 AM
the democratic plan to win
by jgw
Yesterday at 07:10 PM
Trump held his first VA listening session without veterans advocates
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 12:48 AM
Round Table for November, 2017
by pdx rick
Yesterday at 12:06 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/19/17 10:32 PM
Donald Trump Jr.'s Elephant Tail
by NW Ponderer
11/19/17 08:22 PM
Reign of Idiots
by rporter314
11/19/17 12:50 PM
Is keystone xl dead?
by pondering_it_all
11/19/17 06:05 AM
Let’s just cancel the Oscars
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/18/17 10:23 PM
Gun Control
by NW Ponderer
11/18/17 12:54 PM
Why Netflix’s ‘Godless’ is the Western you’ve been waiting for
by Golem
11/17/17 08:57 PM
NASA weather clip
by rporter314
11/17/17 12:26 AM
an amusement
by pondering_it_all
11/17/17 12:23 AM
The Common Sense Party
by jgw
11/16/17 09:01 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
57 Forums
16101 Topics
277436 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Topic Options
#301906 - 06/27/17 02:56 PM The Supreme Court's Continuing Trend to Establish Religion
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15528
Supreme Court sides with religious institutions in a major church-state decision - WaPo (subscription).

This case, TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v.
COMER
, continues a disturbing trend of the majority eroding the "Establishment" clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," in favor of the broadest reading of the "free exercise" clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That only two justices dissented is disheartening. I understand the simplicity of the majority argument - and why it is so fundamentally wrong.

These two clauses operate differently, but the religious majority of the court keeps using the "free exercise" clause as a sword to force others to accept religious purposes, rather than as a shield (as explicitly intended) to protect the religious from inhibition. By ruling as they did, the court literally required the State of Missouri (hardly a bulwark of separation) to fund a religious program - in other words, to establish religion. This wasn't even, really, a close call.

An argument, weak as it is, could be made that Missouri could allow a religious institution to participate in a neutral program, but the Court, here, requires the State to do so. That is what is so disturbing to me. Theocracy über alles.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#301916 - 06/27/17 10:36 PM Re: The Supreme Court's Continuing Trend to Establish Religion [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6206
Loc: Highlands, Tx
perhaps they envision a Dominionist or a Muslim government
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#301917 - 06/28/17 01:01 AM Re: The Supreme Court's Continuing Trend to Establish Religion [Re: NW Ponderer]
Irked Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 3461
Loc: Somewhere out in left field
I am so very pleased that they openly display the corporate nature of the Almighty in the plaintiff's legal name.
_________________________
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar

Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan

I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues - AB Breivik

Top

Who's Online
0 registered (), 29 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2