Court precedent as related to "separation of church and state"

Started by fauxlaw

Replies
6
Posts
7
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 •••

Something curious about our American society and its insistence that a particular Court precedent, "separation of church and state," enshrined by the people and many in its government, as if statutory law [i.e., law as legislated by Congress]. But no, "separation" is merely Court precedent. Typically, though not by constitutional decree, but merely common sense, any precedent set by the Supreme Court ought to ultimately be codified by Congress, as happened following by some years, the effects of a severe heart attack suffered by President Eisenhower, who, as a result of his coronary, briefly passed the Captain's Chair of the presidency to Richard Nixon for a time. What followed that incident, several years later, somewhat precipitated also by Kennedy's assassnation, was passage and ratification if the 25th Amendment, codifying the succession of the presidency in the event of the president's removal from office, either temporary or permanent.


But to the subject at hand, shortly following WWII, in 1947, was the SCOTUS case, Everson v Board of Education, which was decided 5-4, setting the precedent of "separation of church and state," but that precdedent has never been codified by further congressional action, and stands today as mere precedent, which, though many believe it, is not the same thing as if it was codified. All it takes to change it is a separate, contrary decision by a later Court proceeding, such as happened by 2022's Dobbs. v Jackson Women's Health dismissing 1973's Roe v Wade. One of the most important citations from the Everson case is this commentary in the syllabus: “…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.” https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/the-separation-of-church-and-state--everson-v--board-of-education.html

Yet, in its present context, government has become religion's adversary. Witness the assault by government over abortion, trying to impose abortion or trans surgery on Catholic hospitals and care centers. "separation" in these instrances is hardly religion beating down the doors of government, but the reverse.



Edit comment

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#2 •••
Yet, in its present context, government has become religion's adversary. Witness the assault by government over abortion, trying to impose abortion or trans surgery on Catholic hospitals and care centers. "separation" in these instrances is hardly religion beating down the doors of government, but the reverse.

It's not adversarial to expect recipients of public funds to treat the public according to their needs as determined by their doctor.

Edit post

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens

#3 •••
@fauxlaw

Well, given that the basis of archaic Middle Eastern religious creation and existence theory is so non-sensical and outdated, then it's no wonder that the demands of a modern society and it's technological nature, will side line similarly outdated religious authority and reassess morality and ethicality according to the social wants and needs of 2026 and beyond...Even modern Islam changes...Though certain bastions of religious foolishness will nonetheless strive to persist...And not just Islam.


Though I guessing that things will shape up somewhat differently in an inorganic technological future...So ditch the nonsense and bring on AI...Such are the demands of progress.

Edit post

#4 •••
@SergeantLynch

Oh, I have no doubt that AI is/will be useful. I just wish we had better word coinage that "artificial." If the bloody thing can actually think on its own, why do we belittle it with an offensive name? Doesn't give one any confidence that it's a worthwhile effort to engage it. "'Artificial' intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#5 •••
@fauxlaw

I agree entirely...And always refer to AI as either Alternative Intelligence or Another Intelligence...I have long since ditched the word artificial.


Oxymoron indeed.

Edit post

#6 •••
@SergeantLynch

Both name alternatives are killer. I'll try to think of it that way. Thanks.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#7 •••

The separation of church and state is in the constitution.

Edit post