DISSENTING JUDGES RIP
COLLEAGUES' 10 COMMANDMENTS RULING, 'Simply
having religious content does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause', by
Bob Unruh, 2/12/17, WND
Two appeals court judges are
asserting that court antagonism to religion is going too far these days,
because the law of the land allows acknowledgement of religion and even the
presence of religious statements and memorials in the public eye.
“Simply having religious content or
promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of
the Establishment Clause,” two judges from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals wrote in a dissent this week.
“Our cases should further the
meaning of the Establishment Clause as it was understood by the Framers. This
case presented a good opportunity to take another look at the map and reverse
course.
“Though returning to a more
historically congruent understanding of the Establishment Clause is the
ultimate province of the Supreme Court, there is much we could have done to
correct our law in this area while still operating within the proper boundaries
of an inferior court.”
The opinion came from Judge
Paul J. Kelly Jr., who was joined in the dissent by Chief Judge Timothy M.
Tymkovich. The majority of the court refused a
request for a rehearing in the case Jane Felix and B.N. Coone vs. city of
Bloomfield, N.M.
In the case, the city had a Ten
Commandments monument on the lawn of its city hall. Two observers complained
that it violated the First Amendment, and the court ordered the city to remove
it.
contended, however
that Americans “shouldn’t be forced to censor or whitewash religion’s role
in history simply to appease the emotional response of two offended individuals
with a political agenda.”
“As the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled, a passive monument, such as this display of the Ten Commandments,
accompanied by others acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be
interpreted as an establishment of religion. This court’s order failed to
recognize ‘the historical understanding of what an establishment of religion is
and what the First Amendment actually prohibits.’ Because of this
misinterpretation of the law, we are consulting with our client to consider
their options for appeal.”
While the majority of the court bench
rejected the request for a rehearing in which the city could again argue to
keep its Ten Commandments, the two judges took the extraordinary step of
dissenting.
“This decision continues the error
of our Establishment Clause cases,” they wrote. “It does not align with the
historical understanding of an ‘establishment of religion’ and thus with what
the First Amendment actually prohibits.”
They noted that the settlers
to America mostly came from countries that had established churches
supported by taxes. That also was the norm in the American colonies, they said,
even after the Revolution.
The Massachusetts constitution, for
example, declared that “the happiness of a people and the good order and
preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and
morality.”
So it established “the institution
of the public worship of God and the public instruction in piety, religion and
morality.” Eventually, the First Amendment’s
language was adopted: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
So states were free to continue
offering encouragement to religion, but they could not control churches.
“This distinction between religion
generally and the church specifically also made sense in light of the
historical practices of the First Congress. On the same day the House of
Representatives voted to ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’
it proposed a resolution requesting President George Washington to set aside a
‘day of public humiliation and prayer’ in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation,”
the judges pointedly wrote. In the present case, the decision didn’t even
follow the 10th Circuit’s precedents, they said.
“The panel opinion emphasizes that a
city must make ‘sufficiently purposeful, public and persuasive actions’ to overcome
any religious message and then provides examples of such remediation: accompany
the monument with other secular markers, avoiding religious ceremonies when
unveiling the monument, and displaying clear disclaimers.”
They continued: “Yet the city of
Bloomfield did each of those things. What more should the city have done,
besides not having a Ten Commandments display at all?”
Then came their plea. “It is time we
re-examine our Establishment Clause cases. The Supreme Court has ‘often noted
that actions taken by the First Congress are presumptively consistent with the
Bill of Rights. Those actions often took the form of supporting religion
generally but never establishing an official religion or church.
“According, this distinction should
inform our understanding of what the First Amendment allows, and what it does
not.”
Comments
US law was established to be
compatible with Judeo-Christian law and still has a majority of its citizens in
these groups. Seditionists are insisting
that we toss this under the bus, but laws haven’t changed.
Unwise anti-discrimination laws are
being used to “transform” the US and courts have waged a war on Christianity
lately, but there is some push-back by citizens. Trump won, in part, based on his position to
end the government’s war on Christianity. Now, the Seditionists are upset.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment