.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

It's a Fact, Jack..................Part 3

UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS - 11th CIRCUIT
October 18, 1993
Chabad-Llubavitch of Goergia v. Miller
"Because the religious speech is communicated in a true public forum....the state, by definition, neither endorsed nor diapproves of the speech. By permitting religious speech in a public forum - whether in the heart of a core government building, in the Georgia's Govrnor's mansion, or in the outer reaches of some state-owned pasture - the state simply does not endorse, but rather acts is a strictly neutral manner toward, private speech."

posted by HeavyHanded at 9:10 PM

5 Comments:

  • Another glimmer of rationality. Thanks, heavy, I needed that.

    Here is a question;

    I accept the notion of 'Separation of Church and State' even though the words themselves do not appear in the Constitutution. For that matter, neither do the phrases 'separation of powers' nor 'checks and balances' but clearly the principle is there. (Of course, the Constitution only and specifically forbids Congress from passing any laws respecting and establishment of religion and I am not aware that they had done so in any of the past notorious cases involving the Church and the State. Then again, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court can pass any laws at all, but the Libs believe they can.) My question is, what does it mean?. Can the Church be separated from the State. without the State being separated from the Church? Not by any rational logic. So then, when the Supreme Court is asked to ajudicate on any of these cases, why do they not refuse to take on the case on the grounds that they are Constitutionally forbidden from doing so? Hmmmmm?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:59 PM  

  • You have brought up some interesting nuggets. Things to ponder. HeavyHanded may in the near future post something more on these matters.More space would be needed than I want to use in the comment section. Thanks for your readership and intelligent interchange.But, for the record, I must say no, I don't think the Church can be separated from the State without the State being separated from the Church. Now I am going to be "Clintonian" and say it depends on what your definition of "separation" is.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 5:54 PM  

  • Yes, I agree and that is my point. Whatever anyone decides is the definition of 'separation', then it must be applied equally in both directions because it can not be argued that the Church is separate from the State without conceding that the State is separate from the Church. Therefore, if anyone accepts the positions the Supreme Court has taken on this matter on the basis of separation of Church and State then it follows that they had no constitutional business doing so in the first place. Kind of a catch 22 that the Libs ignore.

    I look forward to further discussion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 AM  

  • I do believe, and this is directly linked to this discussion, that one of the biggest problems, if not THE biggest problem, we face is where States rights end and Federal rights/laws/constitutionality/control, whatever you want to call it, begins.

    Both the left and the right (but I believe the left more so)are guilty of waffling on this issue depending on which one serves them best - sometimes we want more states rights and sometimes we want more federalism - again depending which level of government is most likely to get the results we want.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 10:24 AM  

  • Can't argue with any of that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home