7/14/2009 4:46:00 PM Letter: Court rulings on Establishment Clause
Editor:
Here is the Establishment Clause for those that are ignorant of the Constitution, or just ignorant.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental. In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah...simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society."
In 2001, Roy Moore, formerly the chief justice of Alabama, installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building. In 2003, he was ordered in the case of Glassroth v. Moore by a federal judge to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court's decision to stand.
On 2 March 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose.
Posted: Thursday, July 16, 2009
Article comment by:
praying for unity
I was raised as a christian and was taught to accept all people of all religions. In this country that is a right. So, I wonder if the town would make room for the star of David, or the symbols of other religions? Also, the cross is just that, a symbol and a symbol does not make a christian, if that is the focus of your belief, I would seriosly question the meaning of faith, as a christian I was taught to celebrate Jesus life and teaching more than a symbol. As an American I realize that one faith carries no more weight than any other. EVERYONE has the right to their own religion and opinion and in insisting "we are a town of Christians" is not correct as I know people of various religions live amung us. If there is one symbol in the building you would have to make room for all and that building is just not big enough. Most communities would never have allowed it in a govt. building to begin with- so be thankful that it was there as long as it was. I will pray for all the extremism in all religions as this is what lead to conflict, hatred and war.
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
to carlie androus
"Your mind is like a parachute. It only works if it is open."
Anthony J. D'Angelo (1972-)
And yours is like a rusted shut bear trap. Too bad closed minds don't come with closed mouths.
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Amazed
I don't believe Mr. Banks indicates he's against Ms. Androus' creator. Banks is simply expressing the legal mechanism for sparing the assembling public from any one form of religious domination on public property. Get over yourself, Androus. Pray for your own enlightenment.
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Article comment by:
carlie androus
Hopefullly we as a town of Christians will pray for you and the others like you that are so against our Creator. I pray that He will open your heart and your eyes, that you and many others will come to the saving grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.
