|
|
 | | From: | buckeye-ELO at nospam.net | | Subject: | How important are Newdow's lawsuits | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:57:32 -0500 |
|
|
 | PART 3
Reactions to Newdow's New Pledge Lawsuit
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/138709.htm?nl=1
is very much like who this guy wrote about:
Monday, January 17, 2005
'S factor' still relevant in election
NEAL STARKMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/207960_firstpersonsfactor.html
They do not understand one simple little fact of life.
The theocrats have a goal and they work slowly and carefully (most of
the time) stealth like oftentimes towards achieving that goal. For
them to achieve that goal certain things have to happen, especially in
the courts.
They have to achieve certain things that forms a stepladder for them
to achieve more: Marsh v Chambers is an important step in that
ladder as is any and all forms of ceremonial deism.
That last thing on earth they want is for any ceremonial deism item to
be found unconstitutional That would threaten all the others and be a
major setback.
This sums it up half decently:
Dangers
The implications of ceremonial deism are far-reaching because
courts frequently employ this amorphous concept as a springboard from
which to hold that other challenged practices do not violate the
Establishment Clause. After all, the argument typically goes, if
practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance, to a nation "under God,"
legislative prayer, the invocation to God prior to court proceedings,
and the Christmas holiday are permissible notwithstanding the
Establishment Clause, then surely the practice at hand (be it a
nativity scene, commencement invocation, or some other governmental
practice)-which does not advance religion "any more than" these
accepted practices-must also pass muster under the Establishment
Clause: . . .
This syllogistic reasoning has been aptly named the "any more
than" test.14 Its central flaw is that no court has ever squarely and
faithfully probed the validity of the major premise under the Supreme
Court's long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If the major
premise is invalid, a court may not properly conclude that a
challenged practice is permissible merely because it advances religion
no more than the long-standing practices embraced by that premise.
Not surprisingly, the "any more than" approach has yielded an ever
expanding sphere of activities courts have found to be permissible
forms of ceremonial deism. Each step in the process is valuable
ammunition for the next . . .
Despite its increasing significance in Establishment Clause
litigation, the concept of ceremonial deism has received only scant
scholarly attention. Like the courts, most scholars have assumed that
the majority of practices constituting ceremonial deism are innocuous
and inconsequential in the grand constitutional scheme.2s No
commentator has systematically analyzed the constitutionality of the
various practices constituting ceremonial deism to determine whether
the major premise to the syllogism authorizing an expanding universe
of governmental religious activity is valid or flawed.
Source of Information:
Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, Steven B.
Epstein, 96 Colum L. Rev. 2087-89 (1996).
**************************************************
For more see
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism & Public Religion
From a Variety of Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
|
|
|
