Wha--whatsgoingonhere.
I'm trying to hibernate.
The pentagram is one of the oldest christian symbols, seen as a human with the head turned heavenward.
|
It's also got pagan roots, but then again so does the christmas tree, easter bunnies as eggs, and a lot of other things. They sort of took a lot of local practices and melded their own religious stories with those practices so that the locals might better understand and accept the significance.
Later the pentagram, and more specifically the upside-down pentagram became more associated with various pagan/anti-Christian beliefs, as did the upside-down crucifix, despite it being an extremely common practice for most religious people to wear their crucifixes hanging upside down (say from their belt) so that when they grasped them for prayer it would be held upright.
Roughly the day of the winter solstice? ;)
Hey, the War on Christmas is serious business.
If I had to guess, I'd bet it means that companies now can't punish employees for saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. Like that happens on a noticeable scale.
Nope. It's about schools.
The measure allows schools to display religious symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees so long as at least one other religious image or secular icon is also included.Those godless liberal commies won't take Christmas out of Texas schools!
The cheerleaders attending the signing ceremony wearing "I cheer for Christ" shirts were a nice touch.
It's also blatantly unconstitutional. Church-state separation is controlled by Federal law, and Texas can't authorize schools to violate it.
But that never stopped Texas before. They would much rather spend money in lawyers that teachers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In related news, a West Coast man who shall remain nameless (but whose avatar is tentacley and eyeball-strewn) has nearly finished construction of a chainsaw large enough to cut Texas away from the rest of the continent. Sources report that his next invention will be a boot large enough to kick a whole state into the Gulf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also blatantly unconstitutional. Church-state separation is controlled by Federal law, and Texas can't authorize schools to violate it.How so?
Non-establishment of religion is demanded by the US Constitution (specifically in Amendment 1). As the Constitution is Federal, not state, law, the courts responsible for deciding such cases are the Federal ones. There's a well-established standard, most notably the Lemon test, that is binding on Texas, and indeed on all state governments.
So, basically, it doesn't matter what rules Texas passes. Lemon (and the related "endorsement test") comes down pretty firmly against putting up a huge nativity scene and adding a fig-leaf of "at least one other religious symbol" hidden in a corner out of the way where no one will see it, and the Federal courts will have no hesitation in telling any school that relies on the new Texas law so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's probably why the figleaf of "at least one other religious image or secular icon" is in there. Enough to make the court challenge more interesting at least.
I rather doubt it. Federal courts are actually very good at explicitly disregarding fig leaves, especially in the context of first amendment cases.
But mostly it's politics. He gets to trumpet himself as the defender of Christmas against the aforementioned godless liberal commies.
Yup. It will win him votes from people who think that Christianity should be an established religion, and so it shouldn't be possible even to challenge ostentatious public displays as long as they're Christian (and Baptist).
|
|
Non-establishment of religion is demanded by the US Constitution (specifically in Amendment 1). As the Constitution is Federal, not state, law, the courts responsible for deciding such cases are the Federal ones. There's a well-established standard, most notably the Lemon test, that is binding on Texas, and indeed on all state governments.So, basically, it doesn't matter what rules Texas passes. Lemon (and the related "endorsement test") comes down pretty firmly against putting up a huge nativity scene and adding a fig-leaf of "at least one other religious symbol" hidden in a corner out of the way where no one will see it, and the Federal courts will have no hesitation in telling any school that relies on the new Texas law so.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let me retranslate it for you. "Congress can not make any law regarding the establishment or exercise of religion." This basically means two things, 1.) that the federal government (though not necessarily the state) may establish a national religion, and 2.) that Congress can not make any laws that favor one religion over another, or restrict one religion over another.
The Lemon test however, stipulates that A.) Governments focus is in the secular, and can only make rulings if it does so for secular reasons, only, B.) May not favor/punish one religion over any other, and C.) May not become involved in any religion. If any one of those things "fail the test", than the Congress is acting unconstitutionally. So in essence it actually says the exact opposite of what you think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Let me retranslate it for you. "Congress can not make any law regarding the establishment or exercise of religion." This basically means two things, 1.) that the federal government (though not necessarily the state) may establish a national religion, and 2.) that Congress can not make any laws that favor one religion over another, or restrict one religion over another.
The Lemon test however, stipulates that A.) Governments focus is in the secular, and can only make rulings if it does so for secular reasons, only, B.) May not favor/punish one religion over any other, and C.) May not become involved in any religion. If any one of those things "fail the test", than the Congress is acting unconstitutionally. So in essence it actually says the exact opposite of what you think.
The school that relies on the Texas law will fail all three prongs of the Lemon test, and as a result the Texas law will be nullified based on the third prong (this whole mess is an unnecessary involvement) and possibly the first, as there are no valid secular purposes for this law.
The purpose of this law is to provide legal protection for schools that choose to put up religious symbols in violation of First Amendment as interpreted by current Federal case law. As far as I can tell, the sole purpose.
Let me retranslate it for you. "Congress can not make any law regarding the establishment or exercise of religion." This basically means two things, 1.) that the federal government (though not necessarily the state) may establish a national religion, and 2.) that Congress can not make any laws that favor one religion over another, or restrict one religion over another.
Oh, in addition. The state cannot establish a religion either. 14th Amendment, made explicit in Gitlow vs. New York, IIRC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gitlow vs New York is irrelevant. It's probably Cantwell vs Connecticut you mean, (1940ish) that establishes that the Freedom of Religion clause can be affected by state legislature, and that the 14th Amendment you noted, (specifically that due process also did apply to the state as well as federal) was also in play.
In other words one can exercise their religion or lack thereof unless it violates other existing state laws, in this case a breach of the peace. So, it doesn't matter if sacrificing a goat or smoking pot is part of your religion, if either the state or the federal law says that improperly killing an animal or possessing/using marijuana is illegal, that overrides your religious freedom.
The reason that I posted it that way was because it was clearly not intended to affect State government, and it was not always that way (kind of a grey area). Massachusetts's Congregational church originally the State's official church, disbanded in 1833 when the state changed it's taxation laws, (over 40 years after the Constitution was accepted).