The
United States Supreme Court is the highest ruling court in America. If a
court case reaches the Supreme Court, then the decision made is the
final one, being that the case can go no higher. Many changes have came
to our society in recent years via the U.S. Supreme Court. Once a
spotless and upright court, it is now questioned as to its correctness
in rulings and its righteousness before God.
Simon
Greenleaf (1783-1853), the famous Royall Proffessor of Law at Harvard,
succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law. To the
efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard
Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United
States.
Greenleaf produced a work entitled: A Treatise On the Law of Evidence,
still considered to be the greatest single authority on evidence in the
entire literature of legal procedure. Chief Justice Fuller of the United
States Supreme Court described Greenleaf by saying, "He is the highest
authority in our courts."
In
1962, the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the ...
Saying of prayers. In 1963, the Court banned the reading of the Bible in
our public school. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of
the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed
voluntary prayer without certain stipulations.
The
United States Supreme Court, 1789, was "ordained and established" by the
Judiciary Act of Congress. Originally consisting of 6 justices, it has
since been increased to 9. The Supreme Court Building in Washington,
D.C., designed by Cass Gilbert, was completed in 1935. Engraved in stone
above the head of the Chief Justice are the Ten Commandments with the
great American eagle protecting them. Moses is included among the great
lawgivers in Herman A. MacNeil's marble sculpture group on the east
front.
At the
beginning of each session of the court, as the Justices stand before
their desks, the crier opens with the invocation, "God save the
United States and the Honorable Court."
The
United States Supreme Court, 1844, in the case of Vidal v. Girard's
Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132, Justice Joseph Story delivered the court's
opinion. The case concerned one Stephen Girard, a deist from France, who
had moved to Philadelphia and later died. In his will he left his entire
estate, valued at over $ 7 million, to establish an orphanage and
school, with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed. The
city rejected the proposal, as their lawyers declared:
The
plan of education proposed is anti-christian, and therefore repugnant to
the law ... The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where
are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from
which a Christian man derives his faith the Bible ... There is an
obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., A pure system
of morality ...
Both in the Old and New Testaments [religious instruction's] importance
is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them
to thy children," and the New, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto
me and forbid them not ...’ No fault can be found with Girard for
wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not
valuable unless is has a fragrance of Christianity about it.
The
Court rendered its unanimous opinion, stating:
Christianity ... Is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and
blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the
public ... It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the
establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of ... Deism,
or any other form of infidelity.
Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country ...
Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as
well as ecclesiastics ...
And
we cannot overlook the blessings, which such [lay] men by their conduct,
as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful
pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without
note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the
[school] its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its
glorious principles of morality inculcated?
Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so
perfectly as from the New Testament?
It
is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the
common law of Pennsylvania ...
The
United States Supreme Court, 1878, rendered its opinion on the case of
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1878). The same men that
successfully passed the act creating religious freedom in Virginia, also
passed very strict laws against polygamy and sexual immorality, as
documented in the Supreme Court's decision of 1878:
It
is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the
passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the
convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights
that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience," [that]
the legislature of that State substantially enacted the ... Death
penalty ... [For polygamy].
United
States Supreme Court, 1884, in reference to the individual's God-given
rights:
These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the
Declaration of Independence, ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident’
that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere
statement "that all men are endowed" not by edicts of emperors or
decrees of parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘By their Creator with
certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ not grant them but secure
them ‘governments are instituted among men.’
In
1885 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey &
Others, 144 U.S. 15, 45 (1885), gave its opinion:
Every person who has a husband or wife living ... And marries another
... Is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished ... Certainly no
legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding
of a free, self-governing commonwealth ...
Than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one
man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; [the family is] the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
The
United States Supreme Court 1889, stated in the case of Davis v. Beason,
133 U.S. 333, 341-343, 348 (1890), that the United States considers
bigamy and polygamy as crimes. The State of Idaho also declared bigamy
and polygamy illegal, and declared that anyone who commits it, teaches
it or even encourages it, is forbidden from voting or holding office in
that Territory.
A man
named Samuel Davis was caught in the crime, fined and jailed. He argued
that he was being imprisoned for his religious belief and that he should
have the freedom to commit bigamy and polygamy under the First
Amendment. The decision of the Court was delivered by Justice Stephen
Field, who had been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It
stated:
Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and
Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States,
and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the
purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to
degrade woman and debase man ... To extend exemption from punishment for
such crimes would be to shock the moral judgement of the community. To
call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the commons sense
of mankind.
There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets
that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous
intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members ...
Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this
country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its
doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretence that ... Their
supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution of
the United States.
Probably never before in the history of this country has it been
seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for
acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world ... Must
be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect ... May be
carried out without hindrance. The constitutions of several States, in
providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such
freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness ... The
constitution of New York of 1777 provided:
The
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within
this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience,
hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness ... The constitutions of California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada and South Carolina contain a similar
declaration.
In
1890, United States Supreme Court, in the case of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890), forbade
the practice of polygamy in the United States, stating:
It
is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which
Christianity has produced in the Western world.
The
Supreme Court, February 29, 1892, in the case of Church of the Holy
Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226; Justice
Josiah Brewer rendered the high court's decision:
Our
laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the
teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be
otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our
institutions are emphatically Christian.
No
purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation,
state or national, because this is a religious people. This is
historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present
hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
The
commission to Christopher Columbus ... [Recited] that ‘it is hoped that
by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will
be discovered ... ’
The
first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 ... And the
grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the
proposed colony provided that they ‘be not against the true Christian
faith ... ’
The
first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 ... Commenced
the grant in these words: ‘ ... In propagating of Christian Religion to
such People as yet live in Darkness... ’
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of
that colony ... In 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various
charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less
emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be
one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the
Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the
Christian faith ... A voyage to plant the first colony in the northern
parts of Virginia ...’
The
fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government
was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ‘... And
well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God
requires that to maintain the peace and union ... There should be an
orderly and decent government established according to God ... To
maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord
Jesus which we now profess ... Of the said gospel [which] is now
practiced amongst us.’
In
the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of
Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘... No people can be truly
happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if
abridged of ... Their religious profession and worship ...’
Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence
recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:
We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
... Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
intentions ... And for the support of this Declaration, with firm
reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’
...
We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth ... Because of
a general recognition of this truth [that we are a Christian nation],
the question has seldom been presented to the courts ...
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal
language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and
reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual
sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances;
they speak the voice of the entire people.
While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has
seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v.
The Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general
Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law ... Not
Christianity with an established church ... But Christianity with
liberty of conscience to all men.
And
in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on
American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New
York, said:
‘The people of this State, in common with the people of this country,
profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their
faith and practice ... We are a Christian people, and the morality of
the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the
doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].’
And
in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, this Court ...
Observed:
'It
is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the
common law ...'
If
we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by
its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere
a clear recognition of the same truth.
Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally
prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of
opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with
prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen';
The
laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general
cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts,
legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the
churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and
hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere
under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with
general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every
quarter of the globe.
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation ... We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same
truth.
The
happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil
government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.
Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government,
the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.
The
United States Supreme Court, 1925, in the case of Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), stated:
The
fundamental theory upon which all governments in this Union repose
excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children. The
child is not the mere creature of the state.
In the
case of United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931) Justice
George Sutherland delivered a decision regarding a Canadian seeking
naturalization by reiterating the Court's decision of 1892:
We
are a Christian people ... According to one another the equal right of
religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience
to the will of God.
In the
case of Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939), the high court
stated:
Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially
been held in trust for the use of the public, and time out of mind, have
been used for the purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between
citizens, and discussing public questions.
In
1948, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of McCollum v. Board
of Education, 333 U.S. 203; Justice Felix Frankfurter rendered the
court's opinion:
Traditionally, organized education in the Western world was Church
education. It could hardly be otherwise when the education of children
was primarily study of the Word and the ways of God. Even in the
Protestant countries, where there was a less close identification of
Church and State, the basis of education was largely the Bible, and its
chief purpose inculcation of piety ...
In
1952, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 307 313, Justice
William O. Douglas delivered the court's decision, stating:
The
First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall
be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the
manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union
or dependency one on the other.
That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion
would be aliens to each other hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly
...
Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire
protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into
their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our
legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the
Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday;
‘So
help me God’ in our courtroom oaths these and all other references to
the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our
ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist
or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court
opens each session: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable
Court.’
We
are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being
... When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with
religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to
sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions.
For
it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the
public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would
be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a
callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those
who believe in no religion over those who do believe ...
We
find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to
be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to
widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain
neutral when it comes to competition between sects ...
We
cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to
religion.
The
United States Supreme Court 1962, in the case of Engle v. Vitale; as
quoted in Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 46 (1980) and Abington v.
Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963), stated:
The
history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.
The
Supreme Court 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township
v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 225 (1963), pp. 21, 71, records Associate
Justice Tom Clark writing of the Court's opinion:
It
is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and
government. As we said in Engle v. Vitale, 'The history of man is
inseparable from the history of religion.'
Secularism is unconstitutional ... Preferring those who do not believe
over those who do believe ... It is the duty of government to deter
no-belief religions ... Facilities of government cannot offend religious
principles ...
[T]
he State may not establish a ' religion of secularism ' in the sense of
affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus '
preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.
It
might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study
of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship
to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the
Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.
Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of
religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of
education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.
In
1969, high court 1969, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 512, 513 (1969), stated:
It
can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate. [Student's rights apply] in the cafeteria, or on the
playing field, or on campus during authorized hours ...
School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.
The
United States Supreme Court 1973, in the case of Anderson v. Salt Lake
City Corp, 475 F. 2d 29, 33, 34 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. Denied, 414 U.S.
879, stated:
But
this creed does not include any element of coercion concerning these
beliefs unless one considers it coercive to look upon the Ten
Commandments. Although they are in plain view, no one is required to
read or recite them.
It
does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument,
involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation
for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era.
In the
case of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42, 46 (1980), the stated:
Religion has been closely identified with our history and government,
Abington School District, 1963, and that the history of man is
inseparable form the history of religion. Engle v. Vitale, 1962.
The
Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history,
civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.
The
court, in the case of Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981),
stated:
Religious worship and discussion ... Are forms of speech and association
protected by the First Amendment.
In
1982, in the case of Chambers v. Marsh, 675 F. 2d 228, 233 (8th Cir.
1982); review allowed, 463 U.S. 783 (1982), Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger's delivered the court's opinion:
The
legislature by majority vote invites a clergyman to give a prayer,
neither the inviting nor the giving nor the hearing of the prayer is
making a law. On this basis alone ... The sayings of prayers, per se, in
the legislative halls at the opening session in not prohibited by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The
case of Bogen v. Doty ... Involved a county board's practice of opening
each of its public meetings with a prayer offered by a local member of
the clergy ... This Court upheld that practice, finding that it advanced
a clearly secular purpose of establishing a solemn atmosphere and
serious tone for the board meetings ... Establishing solemnity is the
primary effect of all invocations at gatherings of persons with
differing views on religion.
The
men who wrote the First Amendment religion clause did not view paid
legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that
amendment ... The practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued
without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.
It
can hardly be thought that in the same week the members of the first
Congress voted to appoint and pay a chaplain for each House and also
voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment ... (That) they
intended to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.
[Chaplains and prayer] are deeply embedded in the history and tradition
of this country.
United
States Supreme Court 1983, in the case of United States v. Grace, 461
U.S. 171, 177 (1983), stated:
Streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be
public forums.
United
States Supreme Court 1985, in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S.
668, 669-670 (1985): Chief Justice Warren Burger rendered the court's
opinion upholding that the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island did not
violate the Constitution by displaying a Nativity scene. The decision
noted that presidential orders and proclamations from Congress have
designated Christmas as a national holiday in religious terms since
1789:
The
city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, Annually erects a Christmas display in
a park ... The creche [nativity] display is sponsored by the city to
celebrate the Holiday recognized by Congress and national tradition and
to depict the origins of that Holiday; these are legitimate secular
purposes ... The creche ... Is no more an advancement or endorsement of
religion than the congressional and executive recognition of the origins
of Christmas ...
It
would be ironic if ... The creche in the display, as part of a
celebration of an event acknowledged in the Western World for 20
centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch,
Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so ' {taint} ' the
exhibition as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To
forbid the use of this one passive symbol ... Would be an overreaction
contrary to this Nation's history.
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three
branches of government of the role of religion in American life ...
The
Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state.
It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all
religions and forbids hostility towards any.
The
United States Supreme Court 1985, in the case of Wallace v. Jafree, 472
U. S., 38, 99, Associate Justice William Rehnquist rendered the court's
decision:
"It
is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken
understanding of Constitutional history ... The establishment clause had
been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly
forty years ...
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the
framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and
state] ... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the
language or intent of the framers."
United
States Supreme Court, 1986, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S.
186, 92 L Ed 2d 140, 106 S. Ct. 2841, p. 149, Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger delivered the court's decision censuring the act of sodomy:
Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian
moral and ethical standards.
Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the
laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In
1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but five of the 37
States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all
50 states outlawed sodomy ... Provid [ing] criminal penalties for sodomy
performed in private and between consenting adults.
United
States Supreme Court June 4, 1990, in the case of Westside Community
Schools v. Mergens, 496, U.S. 226, 250, (1990), No. 88-1597 Part III was
delivered by Justice O'Connor and No. 88-1597-CONCUR Part II was
delivered by Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia. By this 8 to 1
decision, the Supreme Court ruled to allow the formation of Christian
clubs on the campuses of public schools, provided they were student
initiated. Students were to be granted identical rights which other
non-curricular groups were enjoying:
There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing
religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech
endorsing religion, which the Free speech and Free Exercise Clauses
protect.
If
a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others,
then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.
The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion
and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as
such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique
disabilities.
Indeed, as the Court noted in Widmar, a denial of equal access to
religious speech might well create greater entanglement problems in the
form of invasive monitoring to prevent religious speech at meetings at
which such speech might occur.
See
Widmar, 454 U.S., At 272, n. 11.
I
should think it inevitable that a public high school 'endorses' a
religious club, in a common-sense use of the term, if the club happens
to be one of many activities that the school permits students to choose
in order to further the development of their intellect and character in
an extracurricular setting.
But
no constitutional violation occurs if the school's action is based upon
a recognition of the fact that membership in a religious club is one of
many permissible ways for a student to further his or her own personal
enrichment.
United
States Supreme Court, 1992, in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct.
2649 (1992), by only a one vote majority, Justice Kennedy wrote the
decision that a commencement prayer is not to be given by clergy. In a
strong dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White and Justice Clarence
Thomas, stated that invocations and benedictions may continue to be
offered provided a notice is included in the commencement program that
participation is voluntary:
The
Court lays waste a longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian
prayer to God at public celebrations ... There is simply no support for
the proposition that the officially sponsored nondenominational
invocation and benediction read by Rabbi Gutterman with no one legally
coerced to recite them violated the Constitution of the United States.
To
the contrary, they are so characteristically American they could have
come from the pen of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln himself ...
That obvious fact recited the graduates and their parents may proceed to
thank God, as Americans have always done, for the blessings He has
generously bestowed on them and their country.
In
pointing out the logical absurdity of the decision, Justice Scalia
observed:
If
students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the
invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced moments
before, to stand for the Pledge.
United
States Supreme Court, 1993, in the case of Jayne Bray v. Alexandria
Women's Health Clinic, Justice Scalia delivered the majority decision,
which held that:
A
value judgement favoring childbirth over abortion is proper and
reasonable enough to be implemented by the allocation of public funds.
United
States Supreme Court June 7, 1993, in the case of Lamb's Chapel v.
Center Moriches Union Free School District, rendered a 9-0 unanimous
decision, overturning a ruling by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. The case involved a New York school district that had rejected
the request for facilities, which are made available for other
no curricular uses, to be used for the showing of Dr. James Dobson's
film, “Turn Your Heart Toward Home.”
The
Supreme Court allowed the film to be shown, thereby upholding the right
of freedom of speech, including religious free speech, within the public
arena.
Free
speech, even involving religious content, cannot be restricted by the
New York education law, which permits public school facilities to be
rented for the purpose of:
Holding social, civic, and recreational meetings and entertainments, and
other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community.
During
the proceedings, Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioned the school
board's attorney:
Justice Scalia:
You are here representing both respondents [the school board and the
State of New York] ... In this argument, and the Attorney General of New
York, in his brief defending ... The New York rule says that 'Religious
advocacy serves the community only in the eyes of its adherents and
yields a benefit only to those who already believe.' Does New York State
- I grew up in New York State, and in those days they - they used to
have a tax exemption for religious property. Is that still there?
Counsel:
Yes, Your Honor, it still is.
Justice Scalia:
But they've changed their view, apparently, that -
Counsel:
Well, Your Honor -
Justice Scalia:
You see it used to be thought that that religion it didn't matter what
religion, but it some code of morality always went with it and was
thought, you know, what was called a God-fearing person might be less
likely to mug me and rape my sister. That apparently is not the view of
New York anymore.
Counsel:
Well I'm not sure that that's - that -
Justice Scalia:
Has this new regime worked very well?
(Laughter)
Justice White, writing the opinion, stated:
The
government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a
speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise
inculpable subject ... [The] First Amendment forbids the government to
regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the
expense of others.
Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion, wrote:
That was not the view of those who adopted our Constitution, who
believed that the public virtues inculcated by religion are a public
good. It suffices to point out that during the summer of 1789, when it
was in the process of drafting the First Amendment, Congress enacted the
famous Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1789, Article III of which
provides, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged.
United
States Supreme Court June 7, 1993, in the case of Jones v. Clear Creek
Independent School District, 977 F. 2d 963, 972 (5th Cir. 1992), upheld
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permitting student-initiated
prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, providing a majority of the
class votes to do so:
A
majority of students can do what the State acting on its own cannot do
to incorporate prayer in public high school graduation ceremonies.
There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing
religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech
endorsing religion, which the Free speech and Free Exercise Clauses
protect.
United
States Court of Appeals 6th Circuit, 1992, in the case of Americans
United for Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980
F. 2d 1538, 1555, stated:
What the members of Chabad House seek in this court is fully consistent
with, and does not violate, our traditional division between church and
state ... They merely ask that they not be spurned because they choose
to praise God. Instead of forcing them to remain on our sidelines, our
Constitution offers them platform from which to proclaim their message.
In a traditional public forum, as at the ballot box, all citizens are
insiders as they seek to influence our civic life.
United
States Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, 1992, in the case of Doe v. Small,
964 F. 2d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 1992), stated:
The
Supreme Court has refused to find the Establishment Clause to be a
sufficiently compelling interest to exclude private religious speech
even from a limited public forum created by the government.
United
States Court of Appeals 7th Circuit May 17, 1993, rendered its opinion
in the case of Walsh v. Boy Scouts of America. In 1989, Elliott Walsh of
Hinsdale, an agnostic, had sued the Boy Scouts on behalf of his 10 year
old son, Mark, claiming religious discrimination against the West
Suburban Council Tiger Cub Scout chapter.
The
court ruled that the Boy Scouts could keep the phrase "duty to God" in
their oath, and as a private organization they had the right to exclude
anyone who refused to take the oath.
Judge
John Coffey, in delivering the 2-1 majority opinion, stated the Boy
Scouts did not violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act as scouting was an
activity and not a facility, a membership organization, rather than a
"place of public accommodation":
The
leadership of many in our government is a testimonial to the success of
Boy Scout activities ... In recent years, single-parent families, gang
activity, the availability of drugs and other factors have increased the
dire need for support structures like the Scouts.
When the government, in this instance, through the courts, seeks to
regulate the membership of an organization like the Boy Scouts in a way
that scuttles its founding principles, we run the risk of undermining
one of the seedbeds of virtue that cultivate the sorts of citizens our
nation so desperately needs.
United
States Court of Appeals 8th Circuit 1980, in the case of Florey v. Sioux
Falls School District, 619 F. 2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir. 1980), stated that
the performance and study of religious songs, inclusive of Christmas
carols, is constitutional, provided the purpose is the:
Advancement of the students' knowledge of society's cultural and
religious heritage, as well as the provision of an opportunity for
students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is
likely to be of interest to the students and their audience.
{United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit} 1993, in the case of
Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F. 3d 775, 785, held:
The
Committee [seeking to erect the display], like other citizens of diverse
views, has a right to express its views publicly in areas traditionally
held open for all manner of speech.
{United States Court of Appeals 10th Circuit} July 12, 1993, in the case
of Cannon v. City and County of Denver, rendered a unanimous decision in
favor of two women who picketed near an abortion clinic, stating:
We
are convinced that here the message on the signs did not amount to
fighting words under the Supreme Court's standards ... Furthermore they
played an important role in the exposition of ideas. We hold therefore
that the rights of the protestors to picket on the public sidewalks in
front of the clinic with signs was a clearly established constitutional
right at the time of the 1988 arrests in question.
United
States Court of Appeals 11th Circuit. October 18, 1993, in the case of
Chabad Lubavitch of Georgia v. Miller, No. 92-8008 stated:
Because the religious speech is communicated in a true public forum ...
The state, by definition, neither endorses nor disapproves of the
speech. By permitting religious speech in a public forum whether in the
heart of a core government building, in the Georgia Governor's mansion,
or in the outer reaches of some state-owned pasture the state simply
does not endorse, but rather acts in a strictly neutral manner toward,
private speech.
United
States District Court, March 18, 1992, Western District of Texas Austin
Division, Word of Faith v. Attorney General, Civil No. A-92-CA-089, U.S.
District Judge Sam Sparks renders the decision:
On
January 13, 1992 ... The Attorney General of Texas sent to the
Plaintiffs, by facsimile transmission, a demand for documents ... Both
the nature and extent of the documents demanded were not reasonable and
included documents clearly the Attorney General was not entitled to
obtain from any religious organization and / or church.
The
church ... Clearly had First Amendment rights to assert ... Now, after
the filing of this lawsuit, the Attorney General admits its demand for
documents ... And its petition in quo warranto were inappropriate ...
The
Court finds from the evidence that the conduct of the Attorney General
and his personnel ... Was neither professional nor responsible,
bordering on the unethical and constitutes 'bad faith.' This conduct is
not what is expected of attorneys charged with the responsibility of
being the legal representatives of the State of Texas.
It
is beyond dispute freedoms of religious worship and of association are
foundation pillars of our country ... For generations Americans have
died and been persecuted defending these specific rights.
In
this particular case, the Attorney General of the State of Texas has
utilized its own interpretation of a statute ... To publicly accuse a
church of fraud and demand documents clearly constitutionally protected.
The
accusation and demand for documents and records are enforced by pleading
in quo warranto requesting dissolution of the corporate church,
appointment of a receiver to manage its affairs, and an Injunction
against its ministers from conducting the business of the church which
is admitted (by stipulation) to be a bona fide religious organization.
These circumstances satisfy, in this Court's judgment ... The conduct of
the Attorney General as 'bad faith, harassment or any other unusual
circumstance that would require equitable relief.'
...
The Court finds from the evidence that the Plaintiffs have established
that their declining to deliver the records and documents demanded by
the Attorney General was an exercise of legitimate and valid First
Amendment rights, i. e. Constitutionally protected.
Contributors to the church do not seek to purchase goods or services.
Plaintiffs do not advertise goods or services for sale. Contributors to
the church are not required to give donations in order to receive
pamphlets, books or other goods. Nor is a donation required before
[someone] will pray over a prayer request or perform other acts.
There is nothing to make contributors to the church believe their
contributions are in return for requested materials or acts by the
church ... In fact, not only do members sometimes make 'vows' or
contributions without requesting any materials or acts to be performed
... But the church makes it a practice to inform persons who seek to
'purchase' items that the church no longer sells anything ...
Contributors to the church are not 'consumers,' and the Attorney General
may not bring a DTPA action to protect their interests ...
The
Attorney General demanded, amongst other things ... [The] list of all
persons who have sent contributions to the Church ... Including name,
address, telephone number, amount and date of contribution ... The scope
and substance of these requests are clearly unconstitutional.
The
State has no constitutional authority to know a person's membership in
or support of any church. The State has no constitutional authority to
know what a person believes, how he or she practices religion, or how he
or she supports religious activities. Nor does the State have
constitutional authority to probe into the internal operations of a
church ... The First Amendment right to freedom of religious belief and
freedom of association protects this kind of information.
Implicit in these First Amendments freedoms is privacy of belief and
association ...
Disclosure of who belongs to a group or who contributes to a group, and
how much, has been vigorously safeguarded by the United States Supreme
Court ... The Court has recognized that disclosure to the public, or to
the State, of a group's members or contributors can harm the group by
subjecting them to harassment or causing new members to not join for
fear of disclosure or harassment or other reprisal.
In
order to withstand attack under the Establishment Clause, three
requirements must be met:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second its
principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive
government entanglement with religion ...
Plaintiffs' pamphlets, advertisements, television broadcasts, sermons,
etc., Would be subject to inspection and approval by the Attorney
General. Certainly this continual monitoring of the Plaintiffs'
activities by the Attorney General would constitute an excessive
entanglement ...
This would also require the Attorney General to make determinations as
to which representations are purely religious and which are secular. The
Assistant Attorney Generals assure this Court they can distinguish
purely religious assertions from secular assertions ... Despite the
Assistant Attorney Generals' confidence, this Court does not believe
they or any other state officials are authorized to make those kind of
determinations.
See e.
G. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305-06, 60 S. CT. 900, 904
(1940) (state could not give a state official the power to determine if
a solicitation was for a religious cause or not); Lemon, 403 U.S. At
618-19, 91 S. Ct. At 2114 ("With the best of intentions such a
teacher would find it hard to make a total separation between secular
teaching and religious doctrine").
It
is simply not the business of courts or the State to ‘approve, classify,
regulate, or in any manner control sermons delivered at religious
meetings’ or other forms of religious expression.
See
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 526, 527, 73 S. Ct. 526, 527 (1953).
The
Attorney General sought forfeiture of [the church's] charter and
dissolution of the corporation and appointment of a Receiver to take
possession of the affairs of the [church], to rehabilitate, reorganize,
conserve or liquidate the affairs of the corporation and sought a
permanent Injunction against the [church], its officers, directors,
stockholder, agents, employees, and representatives whomsoever from
conducting any business of the [church] ...
Application of these remedies to the Plaintiffs is clearly
unconstitutional.
It
is absurd for the Attorney General to think that it can deprive the
Plaintiffs of their rights to freely worship as a group altogether as
punishment for the Plaintiffs initial assertion of their First Amendment
rights to not produce constitutionally protected documents ...
A
fine for exercising one's First Amendment rights would clearly be
unconstitutional ... Imprisonment would also clearly be
unconstitutional, both as a punishment for exercising one's
constitutional rights and because it would wholly prevent ... Exercising
an important part of their religious beliefs, which is to spread their
religious faith to others.
The
Attorney General argues that because Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code includes a corporation operated for religious purposes the
Church is a charitable entity. This Court disagrees. A church is not
organized for a 'civic or public purpose.' If the Legislature had
intended to incorporate any entity described in the Internal Revenue
Code... It could have easily done so.
The
church is not a charitable trust, and because jurisdiction in the Travis
County Probate Court is based on the church being a charitable trust,
that jurisdiction is improper... The Attorney General cannot, in turn,
use allegations of fraud as a sword to violate the Plaintiffs' First
Amendment rights ...
Article 1396-2. 23A specifically exempts a religious institution from
having to maintain, and make available to the public financial records
'with respect to all financial transaction of the corporation' ...
The
Attorney General of Texas, is permanently enjoined from pursuing further
its ... Demand for documents and investigation.
United
States District Court July 1993, in the case of Black v. City of
Atlanta, ordered the City of Atlanta, Georgia, to adopt procedures
respecting the rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling encompassed:
1.
The fundamental rights of speech, press and religion includes the
freedom to engage in prayer, conversation, oratory, display and / or
distribution of literature, display of picket signs, reading of
scriptures, singing and chanting.
2.
City authorities will not interfere with, restrict, or deny the rights
of speech, press, or religion, unless an actual obstruction or
impediment occurs. Circumstances where physical passage is possible, but
discomfort with the messages of a speaker causes a person to avoid the
abortion location, are not considered an obstruction or impediment.
3.
Public streets and public sidewalks located adjacent to abortion
facilities in Atlanta are public forums. The City of Atlanta and its law
enforcement personnel shall respect the exercise of free speech rights
on these public forums.
Atlanta's law enforcement personnel must allow the greatest tolerance
for political and religious expression by its citizens. The Atlanta
Police Department's Field Manual will be revised to include the
guidelines set forth in the court order. Copies of the court order will
be distributed to all police zone and watch commanders.
America
Forsaken Chapter 7
America
Forsaken Chapter 9
