Muslim Indiana

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
6/27 - St. Cyril of Alexandria

I'd leave Indiana.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Pio Nono' post='1303443' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:55 PM']JMJ
6/27 - St. Cyril of Alexandria

I'd leave Indiana.[/quote]
Chicken.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1303449' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:57 PM']Chicken.[/quote]

Beef.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
6/27 - St. Cyril of Alexandria
[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1303449' date='Jun 27 2007, 04:57 PM']Chicken.[/quote]
Not out of fear, but of anger.

[Socrates]

To get back to the original question of the poll, the Constitution would indeed allow Indiana to declare itself officially Muslim.
The establishment clause in the First Amendment applies only to the national Federal Government.
The individual states have the right to declare themselves officially whatever religion they want. In fact, in the early years of the Republic, most of the states had their official religions, though these were dropped with time, and the official state religions did not amount to much in practice.

I answered "yes" to the second question, not because I think Indiana (or any other state for that matter) [i]should[/i] be offically Muslim, but that it is not the place of the Federal government to restrict the religious decisions of the people of the various individual states. That is a case of the federal government overstepping its bounds (as it frequently does now, with federal judges removing the 10 Commandments from state courtrooms and such).

The federal government has no right to determine whether a state can have an official religion, or what it can or can't be. That decision is left to each respective state, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

[b]The Tenth Amendment[/b]:[quote]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]

However, if Indiana were to start implimenting Shariah law, that would create serious constitutional issues, as it would deny the people rights guaranteed in the Constitution, particularly by the Fifth Amendment.

[dairygirl4u2c]

very refined response soc. good job.

[homeschoolmom]

Why is this on the debate table and open mic....? Pick one!

[dairygirl4u2c]

it was a typo in open mic

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303097' date='Jun 27 2007, 08:42 AM']1.) The Establishment Clause prevents a State Religion. Period.[/quote]
Wrong.

The Establishment Clause prevents only an official [i]national[/i] religion.

[quote][b]Congress[/b] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/quote]
This refers specifically to the U.S. Congress, not the individual states.
Most of the individual states had an official state church at the time of the founding, and this was never ruled unconstitutional.

Whether to have a state religion is a decision which belongs to the individual states respectively, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment:[quote][b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people[/b].[/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

Okay... then I'm going to merge them and keep them here....

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wonder how the forteenth amendment affects it all. that one was to expand federal restrictiosn to states. obviously it wasnt' everything, but i wonder what exactly.


[quote]**2) It's unconstitutional. There were several states that had official state religions back in the day, but that was done away with early on in U.S. history.[/quote]

so it was done away with by US court judicial fiat? or by simple choice? soc says it was never done away with.

Edited June 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1303684' date='Jun 27 2007, 08:17 PM']Wrong.

The Establishment Clause prevents only an official [i]national[/i] religion.[/quote]


And if you think that Congress will hesitate to apply it to the States, in the situation given, you are kidding yourself.

It's a well-established principle that the States don't get to do things that are unacceptable on the Federal level. The 10th Amendment loses almost every time Congress or the USSC has half an excuse. You'll note the suppression of Segregation (not simply the Seperate/"Equal" schooling, but seperate water fountains, restaraunts, etc). Flip a coin on whether the cause is the Commerce Clause or the Establishment Clause.

Secondly, it's likely that a suit could be brought on the principle of "Freedom [b]from[/b] Religion" ("I'm not Muslim, but still a resident of Indiana and I should be free from overt influence of a Religion I do not share", etc). Federal Courts are fairly receptive to such arguments.

All this would likely be true if Indiani tried to Establish the Catholic Church. Or the Mormons. It's not workable under the current state of affairs. Change the Constitution or have some kind of mandate from the People (and it would have to be a nationwide mandate, as the States no longer enjoy the ability to operate in a semi-vacuum).

Edited June 28, 2007 by MichaelF

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303705' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:32 PM']And if you think that Congress will hesitate to apply it to the States, in the situation given, you are kidding yourself.

It's a well-established principle that the States don't get to do things that are unacceptable on the Federal level. You'll note the suppression of Segregation (not simply the Seperate/"Equal" schooling, but seperate water fountains, restaraunts, etc).[/quote]
Oh, I don't think for a second that Congress would hesitate to apply it to the states.
The federal government has been doing all kinds of unconstitutional things for some time now.

The Tenth Amendment and states' rights have been largely blatantly disregarded for well over a century now.

Once federal government officials have seized power, they are not inclined to let a piece of paper stand in their way.

The question here is not what the government would probably do in practice, but what is actually allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303705' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:32 PM']Secondly, it's likely that a suit could be brought on the principle of "Freedom [b]from[/b] Religion" ("I'm not Muslim, but still a resident of Indiana and I should be free from overt influence of a Religion I do not share", etc). Federal Courts are fairly receptive to such arguments.[/quote]
The fact is that the principle of "Freedom [b]from[/b] Religion" is nowhere stated in the Constitution.

Liberal activist courts have raped the Constitution.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1303692' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:25 PM']so it was done away with by US court judicial fiat? or by simple choice? soc says it was never done away with.[/quote]
I'd have to research the details, but the states basically dropped them on their own. The "state religions" were more a formality than anything else at this point.
They were never ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1303719' date='Jun 27 2007, 08:48 PM']The fact is that the principle of "Freedom [b]from[/b] Religion" is nowhere stated in the Constitution.

Liberal activist courts have raped the Constitution.[/quote]

No argument there.

We are, however, obliged to deal with the facts on the ground. At least the current (1990+) Supreme Court has been less than sympathetic to the blanket use of the Commerce Clause...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1303728' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:04 PM']I'd have to research the details, but the states basically dropped them on their own. The "state religions" were more a formality than anything else at this point.
They were never ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.[/quote]
Yes.

Connecticut disestablished its official Church in 1818 when it replaced its colonial charter with a new state constitution, while Massachusetts disestablished its state Church several years later (i.e., in 1833).

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1303678' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:09 PM']To get back to the original question of the poll, the Constitution would indeed allow Indiana to declare itself officially Muslim.[/quote]
Actually it would not. The Fourteenth Amendment applies all the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Incorporation Clause, it's called. Therefore the First Amendment, including establishment of religion, applies to states.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1303719' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:48 PM']The fact is that the principle of "Freedom [b]from[/b] Religion" is nowhere stated in the Constitution.

Liberal activist courts have raped the Constitution.[/quote]
Oddly enough, liberals would say that conservatives have had a similar effect.


Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Actually it would not. The Fourteenth Amendment applies all the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Incorporation Clause, it's called. Therefore the First Amendment, including establishment of religion, applies to states.[/quote]

I wasn't sure. I knew it was either soc's or your response when this poll started. I was thinking it was soc's, but I knew that that amendment existed, but wasn't sure how much it extended. I thought if it extended anything to the states to that it included the first amendment.

On a side note, I also wondered for awhile if 14th even included not allowing banning some sins, like sodomy. But, banning a sin isn't establishing a religion. Though, the draft first amendment was more vague, something like "no religion" instead of "establishment of religion", which often is cited to say they meant more than just an official religion established.
I think you could argue you could probably could ban sodomy as per the original intent of the founders, as every state banned it at the country beginning. Recently they invented the privacy theory to allow sodomy. I guess you could argue if nto that it's anything "religion" related, that if you start banning sins, you'd have to infringe on privacy. I think you coulud argue they didn't think through the statutes banning sodomy, and it wasn't in the constittuion, so it can be up to judicial scrutiny where it's thought through.
"no over eating". okay, but that's not gonna fly well with the rational public (even thoug hI'm sure there's some outlyeres here who think we should ban every sin)
But then, you could also argue that the public candecide which sins the ywant to ban. Plus with the rational basis test, you might argue that sodomy indicrectly affects actually other people, while other sins do not enough. That would be a big discretion question up to the Congress.

My cynacism is high, cause it seems you can argue anything to defend your position whatever it is, almost.

Edited June 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c