At the time of ratification, the Bill of Rights; like the Constitution itself was a Federal matter.
Except for the things that were specifically prohibited in the Constitution from the states were free to do what they would.
It's a damn short list.
Under the original Constitution and Bill of Rights an individual state could ban all but their pet religion, forbid the owning of guns, quarter the state militia in their citizen's homes et cetera.
It was courts constantly finding that concerning blacks which led to the passage of the 14th amendment.
Nominally the 14th applies the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Now the individual states may not declare state religions, ban guns and quarter troops.
Like other massive changes to government recently, the 14th was passed in a cursed hurry.
That there could be a ruling such as Slaughterhouse says a lot about how ambiguous the text of it is.
That said.
There's another problem creeping in the background because of the 14th's application of the 1st.
Godless Atheists. (heh)
Or rather, militant atheists. Fucking fanatics as a matter of fact.
All that matters to them is to be free of seeing any expression of religion and they will damn sure enlist the government to spare their delicate sensibilities. So much so they are definitely dictating THEIR beliefs onto the religious freedoms of others. And no matter how tangentially the discussion brushes this topic, they have something to say with all the bitter and bile of a Klansman.
Haters are like that.
I sometimes wonder if an atheists lack of faith is so tenuous that they are worried they will become believers should they be exposed enough.
I've yet to hear a decent answer to this: What is the difference between the court ordered elimination of all religious display and state mandated atheism?
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour rational and reasoned reply essentially means you're not who I was talking about.
DeleteThe question remains.
In defense of the 14th Amendment, The Slaughterhouse Cases weren't decided as they were because of any real ambiguity in the text, but because the SCOTUS at the time absolutely refused to apply the plain language (for the time) text as written in a way that would enable its actual intent. In fact, they had to do some pretty egregious legal backflips and contortions to get the results they wanted. It's one of the relatively few examples of true "legislating from the bench" there is.
ReplyDeleteIt's also one of the best examples of the dangers of the doctrine of stare decisis. Despite every legal scholar and virtually every currently sitting member of SCOTUS being on record saying that The Slaughterhouse Cases was decided wrongly, they still refuse to overturn it. Even the Justices that all but openly encouraged Alan Gura to challenge it turned around and ridiculed him for trying. Because, stare decisis, damn it! While there is certainly value in following precedent, it seems to have achieved the level of holy reverence in our current system, to the point of ridiculousness.
I'm generally in favor of the 14th applying the BoR to the states. What worries me is the founders clearly did not intend for religion to be barred from public display. They left notes.
DeleteI mention the 14th being written and passed in a cursed hurry. The notes about its creation and passage were clearly about gaining rights for blacks and former slaves and not removing baby jeebus from the public square at Christmas. Unintended consequences.
The public square cannot be used for... We'd best strip all the grass and trees from the courtyard because druids and other animist religions worship them, must be fair must remove ALL religion from the publicly owned land.
I don't know of any "militant atheists" who want to ban or remove religious displays from private property. If you want to festoon your house, your yard or your building with so much religious bling that people think you're the local franchise for the Vatican, and can do it on your own nickel, we don't give a damn. We might have some pointed things to say in private about your good taste, but that's permitted, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs for government buildings...the government is intended to be, and is supposed to be, absolutely neutral on the subject of religion. That means keeping religious bling of any sort off its property, since display of such objets d'rat implies, at least, support for the beliefs they represent. (And I found the POV of someone who tried arguing that a Manger display wasn't inherently religious profoundly insulting, both to Christianity and to my intelligence.) When I was in public school, most if not all of my teachers were churchgoers of one sort or another, and some were quite serious about it, but in class, you couldn't tell a Catholic from a Lutheran from a Methodist from a Baptist from an agnostic. And we all liked it that way. Being preached at for beliefs you don't share, or find actively repugnant, when you can't get away and can't tell the preacherman to STFU, is unpleasant at best. Take my word on it.
Being an atheist, and not being willing to keep completely on the Q.T. about it, is rather like being one of the smallest kids in a large, not-very-well-supervised gaggle of children. You often have to be twice as loud and twice as militant just to keep from getting run over roughshod. And a lot of people who wouldn't dream of insulting anybody's religious beliefs think nothing of saying incredibly vicious things about atheists.
Yes, the only display of religion is utterly indistinguishable from State Atheism. Atheists are the only arbiters of what is appropriate in the public space, not the 85% of everyone else who are also paying for that public space. If you believe in God you will NOT be represented here, now fork over the taxes!
DeleteBanning most of the people paying for it from using it is not neutral, it's the tyranny of the minority.
The "tyranny of the minority" is the difference between a republic and unlimited democracy. Otherwise, there'd be no Electoral College, and it'd take a 50%+1 vote to pass laws or render a guilty verdict.
DeleteI would personally resent and dislike the churches a lot less if they paid taxes on the same basis as everybody else, and kept in mind that if I am not a member of their fan-club, I do not consider myself bound by said club's rules. Keep in mind, for years and years my family had side-businesses (my mom's nursery school, the rentals, other stuff here and there) and we often had to face church-backed competition that:
1) Did NOT have to pay taxes, or not nearly as much as we did, and
2) Were treated much more leniently by government inspectors (fire marshals and the like.)
Any secular institution that had the problems with child-molestation (and out-and-out rape) that the Catholic Church had would have been blown out of the water decades ago. Penn State had one bad apple, and they'll take years and years to recover.
Anything to say about any religion EXCEPT Christians?
DeleteCricket is standing by.