Freedom From Religion Foundation settles Satanic Temple discrimination lawsuit with Memphis-area school
Freedom From Religion Foundation settles Satanic Temple discrimination lawsuit with Memphis-area school
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has reached a settlement on behalf of The Satanic Temple, in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year against the Shelby County Board of Education in Memphis, Tenn., over serious First Amendment violations. FFRF represented the Temple in the suit and successfull...
You're viewing a single thread.
Another victory!
not exactly. a victory would have been for the court to disallow use to any religious organization at all - in accordance with the separation of church and state - but this (a settlement to allow equal use to all) is an acceptable compromise, imo.
I'll take what I can get. So much grim news on this front these days
I agree in spirit, but that's not what the lawsuit was. The lawsuit was victorious.
Eh, not quite what that means. Separation of church and state means no church in government decisions. It doesn’t mean “no church in the building.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote "a wall of separation" but since nobody ever reads his letter to the Danbury Baptists, this is how we end up where we are.
A secondary letter doesn’t really matter in this case. There’s nothing in the constitution saying “something owned by the government cannot be rented by a religious organization.”
The very concept is silly. Can’t have religious entities renting a room in a government building because government owns and operates those buildings. Okay. Ca they purchase land within city limits? Because the government owns and operates that land. And guess who controls the entirety of the US?
In reality, it is freedom of (and inclusively from) religion, with the government not being allowed to place any religion over any other. That doesn’t mean that religious groups can’t rent things from them, it means they can’t only rent to a specific religion, or give a specific religion a discount or extra fee.
The "secondary" letter is where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from and has been quoted innumerable times by judges, elected officials. The complete context is:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Thomas Jefferson took this notion so seriously that he did not attend church services while President.
Cool cool cool.
So can you explain what that has to do with not renting out space to religious groups?…
Says you. It could absolutely mean the latter. We decide that.
See: France as a counterexample.
It’s pretty clear in the constitution what it means.
We collectively decide what the constitution means.
Mostly the Supreme Court decides, of course, but we can vote for presidents that will pick justices that agree with us and congressional reps that will impeach justices that don't.
Congress shall make no law respecting can be interpreted in different ways. Every part of the constitution is open to interpretation.
I’m sorry, but if your argument is that the constitution means everything and nothing depending on “us collectively” than you don’t really understand it.
That shows your ignorance.