Protect church-state separation' during papal visit, group urges

[JonNC]

Self-government means self-government.

Self government within the context of the United States means a constitutional representative republic (Article 4, section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…). Unless SalusaSecondus is a properly elected or appointed official, serving in an office charged with this area of governance, he cannot carry out that responsibility.
And that is precisely the reason I disagree with him as well. The pope has no authority or power to establish a state church, which is one of the two things the constitution prohibits government from doing (1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…) . By definition, he cannot violate the Constitution. So, public money necessary for security and the like even during the religious aspects of his visit is not a violation of the establishment clause.

Jon

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Not in keeping with the way we treat foreign leaders. The fact that he is also a religious leader also doesn’t matter. He is incapable of establishing a state church in these United States. Public money can and should be used, for security, etc., and for treating him with the respect deserved by both of his offices, the leader of a foreign state, and the leader of a faith communion of which many Americans are members.

Jon

I totally disagree. Foreign diplomats are entitled to the protection offered by the US government. The pope is a foreign diplomat therefore he is entitled to this protection.

As a religious leader, he is not entitled to public money to support his religious activities any more than any other religious person or institution.

If the Catholics in the US want to take up a collection to cover these costs then more power to them.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Self government within the context of the United States means a constitutional representative republic (Article 4, section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…). Unless SalusaSecondus is a properly elected or appointed official, serving in an office charged with this area of governance, he cannot carry out that responsibility.
And that is precisely the reason I disagree with him as well. The pope has no authority or power to establish a state church, which is one of the two things the constitution prohibits government from doing (1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…) . By definition, he cannot violate the Constitution. So, public money necessary for security and the like even during the religious aspects of his visit is not a violation of the establishment clause.

Jon

Correct , also because of the supremacy clause ( a further protection of us and state sovereignty to make its own laws), and the fact that no foreign leader can make us law , ( article 2) , the pope cannot establish a state religion in the U.S.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Self government within the context of the United States means a constitutional representative republic (Article 4, section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…). Unless SalusaSecondus is a properly elected or appointed official, serving in an office charged with this area of governance, he cannot carry out that responsibility.
And that is precisely the reason I disagree with him as well. The pope has no authority or power to establish a state church, which is one of the two things the constitution prohibits government from doing (1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…) . By definition, he cannot violate the Constitution. So, public money necessary for security and the like even during the religious aspects of his visit is not a violation of the establishment clause.

Jon

What about public money to go to renting Madison Square Garden so he can say Mass there? Or to charter a plane to fly the pope to the National Shrine for the sole purpose of canonizing someone? These are religious activities that have no business being public ally funded.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Self government within the context of the United States means a constitutional representative republic (Article 4, section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…). Unless SalusaSecondus is a properly elected or appointed official, serving in an office charged with this area of governance, he cannot carry out that responsibility.
And that is precisely the reason I disagree with him as well. The pope has no authority or power to establish a state church, which is one of the two things the constitution prohibits government from doing (1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…) . By definition, he cannot violate the Constitution. So, public money necessary for security and the like even during the religious aspects of his visit is not a violation of the establishment clause.
Jon

Better watch out! Francis might try to drive his popemobile on public roads, thus creating a situation whereby the state endorses religion!

Public schools ban the merest breath of the Christian religion but sponsor clubs devoted to witchcraft. Years ago there was a case to resolve the issue of whether public school teachers could constitutionally be dispatched to parochial schools to provide special instruction for the handicapped. The parochial schools could not afford to hire them. The instruction was to be carried out in a large motor home like vehicle outfitted like a classroom. Those like you who were opposed to the plan, and lost, spent their dying breath demanding that the vehicle be parked on the street in lieu of the school grounds to avoid any possible appearance of “too much entanglement”. The hair splitting you are demanding sounds a lot like the same thing.

Meanwhile, up in Michigan the local Muslim imam owns the public schools, and no one says so much as “boo!”

 

[Starwarsfan2]

What about public money to go to renting Madison Square Garden so he can say Mass there? Or to charter a plane to fly the pope to the National Shrine for the sole purpose of canonizing someone? These are religious activities that have no business being public ally funded.

The establishment clause prohibits a state religion , but does NOT prohibit supporting people’s religious beliefs , big difference, public funding is fine .

 

[SalusaSecondus]

The establishment clause prohibits a state religion , but does NOT prohibit supporting people’s religious beliefs , big difference, public funding is fine .

Actually it does prohibit public money to go to supporting religious activities at least according to the Supreme Court in Bowen V. Kendrick.

Using public money to pay for the popes religious activities is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Actually it does prohibit public money to go to supporting religious activities at least according to the Supreme Court in Bowen V. Kendrick.

Using public money to pay for the popes religious activities is illegal and unconstitutional.

But not the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s.

 

[JonNC]

I totally disagree. Foreign diplomats are entitled to the protection offered by the US government. The pope is a foreign diplomat therefore he is entitled to this protection.

As a religious leader, he is not entitled to public money to support his religious activities any more than any other religious person or institution.

If the Catholics in the US want to take up a collection to cover these costs then more power to them.

Your argument would make more sense if it said that the federal government has no enumerated power to provide funding for these things, but the states have that power, and it is not a violation of the establishment clause.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Correct , also because of the supremacy clause ( a further protection of us and state sovereignty to make its own laws), and the fact that no foreign leader can make us law , ( article 2) , the pope cannot establish a state religion in the U.S.

I, as a public school teacher, lack the power to violate the establishment clause.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What about public money to go to renting Madison Square Garden so he can say Mass there? Or to charter a plane to fly the pope to the National Shrine for the sole purpose of canonizing someone? These are religious activities that have no business being public ally funded.

See my earlier response. It has nothing to do with religion, but with the lack of an enumerated power in the constitution. The state of NC, for example, can certainly do so, if allowed for by its constitution.

Jon

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Your argument would make more sense if it said that the federal government has no enumerated power to provide funding for these things, but the states have that power, and it is not a violation of the establishment clause.

Jon

The states and cities are similarly bound. That’s why Philly got sued in 1979 for shelling out public money for a Papal mass. I doubt they will make the same mistake twice.

 

[JonNC]

=unstoppable II;13268532]Better watch out! Francis might try to drive his popemobile on public roads, thus creating a situation whereby the state endorses religion!

Yeah, that’s nonsense. The pope is welcome on my street anytime.

Public schools ban the merest breath of the Christian religion but sponsor clubs devoted to witchcraft.

You’re involved in hyperbole here. The public school I taught at last year had an after school Bible Club on campus. It may depend on where you live.

Years ago there was a case to resolve the issue of whether public school teachers could constitutionally be dispatched to parochial schools to provide special instruction for the handicapped. The parochial schools could not afford to hire them. The instruction was to be carried out in a large motor home like vehicle outfitted like a classroom. Those like you who were opposed to the plan, and lost, spent their dying breath demanding that the vehicle be parked on the street in lieu of the school grounds to avoid any possible appearance of “too much entanglement”. The hair splitting you are demanding sounds a lot like the same thing.

Before you accuse me of something, be sure you understand where I stand. First, my daughter teaches in a parochial school. Its Lutheran, but parochial. Secondly, I would absolutely support the use of public school teachers and funds in a parochial school setting for the instruction of students. As long as it is state funds, as the federal government has no enumerated power in education in the first place.

Meanwhile, up in Michigan the local Muslim imam owns the public schools, and no one says so much as “boo!”

Source.

Jon