General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConstitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/05/constitutional-horror-clarence-thomas-argues-states-can-establish-official-religion/Thomas believes the First Amendments Establishment Clause does not apply to the states. The Establishment Clause is that part of the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Establishment Clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, or none.
While Thomas believes that the Establishment Clause probably prohibits the federal government from establishing an official, national religion, he sees no problem with individual state establishing an official state religion.
Baitball Blogger
(46,700 posts)He was harboring very radical ideas.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)...conservatives have been making that argument for years.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)The big case was the Warren Court case in 1962 banning prayer and bible reading in public schools. The legal reasoning behind applying the Establishment Clause to the states is embedded in the 14th amendment.
"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."
This has been interpreted in numerous SCOTUS cases to mean that the Establishment Clause as well as all of the other protections under the Bill of Rights, apply to the states as well as Congress. It is indeed ironic that Clarence Thomas, a descendant of slaves, would be so ignorant about something based on the 14th Amendment, which was added mainly to prevent former Confederate States from denying the civil rights of former slaves. Indeed, the fight over school desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s would have been greatly compromised if states would have been allowed to support the religious "white academies" which were set up to help white parents keep their children out of integrated schools. A great deal of the effort to funnel state money into "charter schools" and private religious schools is based on similar sentiments, imo.
blm
(113,043 posts).
Stuart G
(38,416 posts)Thomas
Auggie
(31,163 posts)dsc
(52,155 posts)many states that ratified the Constitution, including amendment 1, had official religions. Maryland was officially Catholic for example. What applied that amendment to the states was the 14th amendment via incorporation.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts).......the states: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
rug
(82,333 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)is happening to this country when we are forced to accept mythology as an "official" policy??? Is there any place safe on the planet from this nonsense???
KansDem
(28,498 posts)n.
1.
a. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
myth (mĭth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Society, which Clarence is more than just a fan, is going how is this surprising? The federalist Society has been making this claim for decades. Why none belongs in the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the least radical of their lovely ideas.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That no state shall make laws depriving the People of the rights the federal constitution says.
Furthermore most state constitutions also have a version of the First Amendment.
CanonRay
(14,101 posts)Can't this guy get hit by a bus, or have a massive coronary, or something. Soon please. I know, I know, I'm nasty and over the top, but I'm just so sick of both him and Scalia.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Not that it matters, since Thomas is pretty whacked out, but that is a remarkably uninformative write up.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)A lesson far to many "journalists" have learned in recent years.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I just can't understand why a poorly written article from a year ago is news.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)But how would establishing an "official Religion" for a state deprive anyone of a right? An official religion would be largely ceremonial. Stupid, but ceremonial. For instance, there are official trees, official songs, official birds, etc.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)which means that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are also binding in full on the states, has been settled law for the better part of 100 years. Uncle Ruckus has been eating too many r*tard sandwiches. How the FUCK did this imbecile ever make it through law school?
This cretin has no business being a night traffic court judge in East Jesus, Montana.
Ratty
(2,100 posts)And I'm not even a lawyer. I figure there either must be some legal subtlety here which is beyond me or Thomas is just bat shit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I guess he took the bar so long ago, he's forgotten the basics of Con Law
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)"I was happy at the back of the bus"
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)ananda
(28,858 posts)Geez
jwirr
(39,215 posts)country to escape?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)were fighting wars over what religion they were supposed to be. Among the victims were of course the Puritans, the Pilgrims, the Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc.
Germany did not become a unified state but they had small provinces that all were able to dictate the religion you were supposed to be.
And of course when they got over here they started their own religions.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)They came to the U.S. and formed established ("state" religions.
"And of course when they got over here they started their own religions"
They started their own state (established) religions.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)churches. When the Quakers got into a disagreement with the people of Massachusetts they just moved to Rhode Island and established their own area.
You are the one who does not know what a state religion is: It is not an established church. It is a religion that is determined by the state to be the only religion of a certain nation. By the laws of a country. Also in a country that has a state religion other religions are not legally acknowledged.
In our nation the church and state are separate unless you are a rwer. They want to establish a state church - their own religion. In this context state and established are not the same. Established as you are using it means that these churches exist and have structure.
That is why freedom of religion was included in the Constitution. So that the country could not establish any religion and exclude any.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)"Established as you are using it means that these churches exist and have structure."
No. I'm using the standard dictionary definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Establishment+of+religion
"That is why freedom of religion was included in the Constitution. So that the country could not establish any religion and exclude any. "
No, the establishment clause (not freedom of religion) was included. Because people in established religions were afraid that congress would separate their churches from the state. Established religions weren't shut down when the constitution was ratified.
"When the Quakers got into a disagreement "
The "disagreement" was that they didn't want to have to pay taxes to support other people's established churches.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the only official church in England. A church that has the Queen of England as it head. That does not mean in recent years they haven't allowed other churches to exist but that is not what was happening when our ancestors left England. The other churches were persecuted. The dictionary definition is talking about my definition of a state church. We have never had a Church of the USA. And the job of president does not include being the head of a church.
As to the separation of church and state and freedom of religion - I do not know where you learned your history but it is not correct. That is what the rwers want you to believe today. I was a history major in religious history. World religious history.
That clause referring to "establishing religion" is saying that the government (the state) cannot establish a church - like the church of England and most of the other countries in Europe at the time.
So since you say the "established" churches were not shut down when the constitution was ratified - where are those churches today? As far as I know my government has no laws telling me which church I have to belong to.
And the disagreement between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Quakers was long before the constitution was written. Long before the Revolution. The constitution included a way to keep from further religious wars like the ones that had happened in Europe for centuries. It also freed the people of the USA so that they could belong to any religion they wanted to.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Paladin
(28,252 posts)What a miserable excuse for a SCOTUS justice.....
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Most people like to ignore Americas history regarding established religions.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)malthaussen
(17,187 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Antidisestablishmentarianism was the subject of one of our essays.
Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)which is to say, not a lick of sense.
Coventina
(27,101 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)malthaussen
(17,187 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)doesn't think Americans should have any individual rights.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Today.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Will wonders never cease.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to get that shoe out of his piehole.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)One of those "Ten Commandments in the courthouse square cases" I believe. But don't remember.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I was so worried that he had actually said something.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He didn't mention others. I suppose he has some legal theory for why only Christianity would work.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Orrin Hatch could be a High Priest.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Probably?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Reads kind of clearer than that to me.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Why?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)If policymakers in your state chose today to establish Christianity as the official state religion, Clarence Thomas believes that would be entirely permissible under the First Amendment.
It is a position Thomas has staked out before. In 2011 Thomas made a similar argument. Rob Boston, writing for Americans United, summarized Thomas position:
Perhaps most shockingly, Thomas once again states his view that the First Amendments religious liberty provisions apply only to the federal government. In his view, the 50 states are free to establish any religion they want. In Thomas world, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was apparently never ratified.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)I have yet to find one that was even close to being accurate. If Thomas has wrote these things it would not be hard to reproduce them.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Cerridwen
(13,257 posts)link to Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_bpm1.pdf
v.
SUSAN GALLOWAY ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT[/center]
thomas' opinion begins page 42
<minor snip>
As an initial matter, the Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. Cf. D Drakeman, Church, State, and Original Intent 260262 (2010). The text of the Clause also suggests that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Newdow, supra, at 50 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). The language of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law) precisely tracked and inverted the exact wording of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Congress shall have power . . . to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper . . . ), which was the subject of fierce criticism by Anti-Federalists at the time of ratification. A. Amar, The
Bill of Rights 39 (1998) (hereinafter Amar); see also Natelson, The Framing and Adoption of the Necessary and Proper Clause, in The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause 84, 9496 (G. Lawson, G. Miller, R. Natelson, & G. Seidman eds. 2010) (summarizing Anti-Federalist claims that the Necessary and Proper Clause would aggrandize the powers of the Federal Government). That choice of languageCongress shall make no law effectively denied Congress any power to regulate state establishments.
<snip because formatting .pdf to text sucks. bolding added>
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I love it when we can be proven CORRECT.
Cerridwen
(13,257 posts)to paraphrase thomas in various articles about the ruling.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)That opinion does not say what the OP said. Non-lawyers trying to summarize legal rulings and getting it wrong. SOP.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I grant you, the OP isn't 100% on point. Thomas is wrong. Do you agree with Thomas ?
I await your learned response.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Whether it is learned or not is anyone's guess. I don't think he is correct. I believe the Supreme Court has been correct in applying all of the Bill of Rights -- including the hated 2nd -- to state and local governments. Do I think there is an academic legal argument that can be made about state religion? Yes I do given the history of state and local religion in 1789 but society has moved on. It would have been an interesting debate in 1805 but is no longer relevant in 2015.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)None of the above states what the OP said. Thomas is recounting history. Six of the initial states had state religions at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. MA did not get rid of theirs until 1833.
Cerridwen
(13,257 posts)Since you said:
I have yet to find one that was even close to being accurate. If Thomas has wrote these things it would not be hard to reproduce them.
No need to "accept summaries;" I provided a direct link.
You're welcome.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)And it does not support the OP.
Cerridwen
(13,257 posts)Not here long enough to participate in that discussion.
Have a great day.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)seriously, how the FUCK did he get on the Supreme Court - UGH
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Apparently he was the best the conservatroids could dredge up.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"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."
olddots
(10,237 posts)he was appointed by royalty in The Royal Scam .
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)What would it take to impeach a Supreme Court Justice? Because he seriously needs to go, and take his pal Scalia with him.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)the best Supreme Court justices money can buy!
Way to go, Clarence. And some day, when people get sick of Christianity, they can establish Paganism as the state's religion! Yippee.
That's a door the fundies may not want to open, because it may give us a way to finally outlaw them altogether! WOOHOOO!!!!
"Sorry, but our official state god is the Flying Spagetti Monster, and you Christians are NOT eating your daily allotment of linguine! To jail with the lot of you!" Oooh, that could be so fun. Every state could have its own official faith!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Hell, I dropped out of law school, and even I know he's wrong. So dead wrong.
WTF.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)The argument is that it is a structural principle rather than an individual right, so it isn't incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.
The Roberts Court has not been shy about weeping aside established law.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Friday, September 16, 2011
The first of the First Amendments two religion clauses reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws respecting an establishment of religion. The establishment clause sets up a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in our society. It does so because the framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression.
For the first 150 years of our nations history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law . In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the liberties protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.
A very good article that covers the Establishment clause.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Our deeply held belief is that if he ever sets foot in our state we must -- to please our deity, of course -- push Clarence Thomas off of the highest cliff in the state.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)samsingh
(17,595 posts)i guess he doesn't believe in the Constitution.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)If one of those teahaddists get elected they will pack the SCOTUS with Thomas clones and you can kiss freedom goodbye forever in America!
lpbk2713
(42,753 posts)If he did he must have been playing with himself the whole time.