What is the role of the supreme court?It has ruled on separation of Church and State & stated it is valid?

Question

How can the right wingers just dispute it like that?

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

Answer 1

It was first raised by the Supreme Court in 1878, which referred to Jefferson as the originator of the quote and treated his words as "almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [1st] amendment thus secured." So, it's been US doctrine for almost 130 years, and was referred to in 1943 as "our accepted belief" and "cardinal in the history of this nation and for the liberty of our people". So those who missed it must not have been paying attention.

The role of the Supreme Court, set forth in Article III of the Constitution is to hear all cases arising under the Constitution, and the laws of the United States, and to interpret these. Courts in general have had the job of interpreting legislation, and setting forth their opinions as part of the common law, for about 700 years, give or take.

Those who don't like the outcome of judicial decisions dispute them by calling the Supreme Court names like "activist judges", completely forgetting that it's the job of the court to interpret laws and to set things straight when the legislature is overstepping its bounds. That the entire concept of the balance of powers that this country used to be founded upon.

{edit} MarkD raises a good point about the swiss-cheese problem. But the rules are not that complicated, at least according to all the cases we read in ConLaw class. Secular seasonal displays are allowed. Religious seasonal displays are allowed as long as they fairly equally represent multiple different religions (more than just one or two). Religious symbols are allowed as part of a primarily secular display. It's a balancing test, like so many others in constitutional law. But not that difficult to apply, if people are willing to do so honestly and in the spirit of the law. The problem is, too many people try to get around a fairly simply legal concept, which requires constant adjudication.

People dispute the law because they don't like it. And as South Dakota and our Commander-in-Sheik have both done, any law that they don't like they simply choose to ignore.

Answer 2

Supreme court rulings are often overturned by later courts. This is a normal course of history. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld separation based on race. This was overturned 50 years later in Brown v. Board of Education. The Constitution doesn't mention separation of church and state. This phrase was coined in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The Court has ruled that the government can't support the establishment or promotion of religion. Thus it's okay for the ten commandments or other religious statements to be found in a historical context on buildings, but not the sole focus as was the case in Alabama. The same is generally true of nativity type scenes at Christmas. Religion is a part of life and shapes how Americans have traditionally participated in political life. Much of the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement were based on religious activitism and belief.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court cannot possibly rule on all matters of how and when to separate church from state. And it has certainly not been consistent about the topic. I think "right-wingers" are not just frustrated about being disempowered by the Court but are also perplexed about the Court's inconsistency. The Court has disallowed prayer in public schools -- even a moment of silence -- but has also said that Congress and the state legislatures may hire chaplains to lead prayer. The Court will allow city hall to put a nativity scene on the front lawn so long as Santa, Frosty, and Rudolph are also in the manger, but not if the nativity scene is only made up of the religious symbols. Is the Supreme Court supposed to erect a "wall" separating church from state or is it supposed to erect a slice of swiss cheese separating church from state?

Answer 4

Again, virtually no one is disputing its validity. Some of us just dispute how it is applied. No one is advocating the U.S. government setting up a State Church or requiring people to attend it. That is the definition of separation of church and state. But, on the other hand, there is nowhere that it says that a faith cannot influence officials or even laws, so long as they do not establish any church or religion as the standard. I think that some on the left have a severe misunderstanding of what separation means. It does not mean that people should be prevented from practicing their religion, nor does it mean that religious people can be barred from involvement in government. That would be an outrageous bias, yet that seems to be the intent of some on the left.

Answer 5

The so-called "right wingers" are who I refer to as the sadly mislead 'born-agains' who like to grandstand their newly found faith and pretend the have the market cornered on "moral decency;" yet they are often the very people that accept bribes, give bribes, pull off unethical business transactions, etc. They would like to create an American "theocracy" with themselves "ordained" as the high priests... if they were not so creepy and insidiously entrenched on the American political scene, they'd be seen as relatively innocuous and even comical... but they are trying to usurp the power of the Supreme Court, and that ain't funny! I, for one, will fight "tooth 'n' nail," if need be, to stop that from ever happening... this nation was founded on separation of church & state and it's gonna stay that way as long as I'm alive... or I'll be long dead - cold in the grave, if (when?) it ever happens. I don't put anything past the fear mongering Republicans... and the Democrats are only marginally better.

Answer 6

Separation of Church and State was intended to insure people could worship as they wanted. It was designed to prevent the very kind of situation that we see in the Middle East where one religious faction claims they are "the true way...", and use their political power to bully others who do not share their views.

Separation of Church and State was never intended to exclude any person(s) of any belief from participating in due process and political opinions.

In other words, no government sponsored/supported religion/church, but the right for all citizens to worship or not, and to participate in politics or not.

Answer 7

I'm a Christian; but, I'd believe my views might suprise you!

I'm a FIRM believer in the necessity of church and state being seperate.

I don't think school prayer is right for mainly two reasons..I want to be the one to instruct my children in matters of faith and I also know that as Christians, we were told not to pray publicly (as the pharisees did) in the first place.

I am apalled that our so called "leaders" in D.C. will not remove our embassie with the Vatican. This is strictly unconstitutional. Also, we have given our nations highest civilian honors (medals costing over $30,000 by unanimous consent in the Senate and only one nea in the House) to "pope" John Paul...and at tax payer expense, sent Bush and his entourage to attend the papal funeral.
Not to mention the Bush-Kerry election in which the papacy swung votes to Bush; by the "pope's" remarks on politicians that support abortion.

Is the vatican a sovereign state or the head of a religious body??? They pick which ever one is convenient to them at the time.

People are being unwittingly sucked in to Bush's, Rome's and many others dominionist theology...believing that the USA as a Christian nation will rule the world for 1,000 years. Christ himself told us not to be entangled in the affairs of this life; but, these men (Bush, Dobson, Graham and MANY others) think they know better than the Lord, and tell innocents that it is their DUTY as Christians to become deeply involved in politics. These evangelical "neo Christians" and Catholics have no problem with a theocracy.

The only theocracy I would support is with Christ himself at the helm...this will come in the end; but, not in the present world.

Answer 8

Rightwingers will dispute anything that encourages human beings to think for themselves and refuse to allow others to dictate their thoughts and actions.

That's why Rush Limbaugh is cranky all the time!

Answer 9

when was this, I must have missed that ruling.