Acknowledging the above is to recognize constitutional prohibition of government sponsorship of "religion." "No religious test shall ever be required," means no religious test shall ever be required by government. "No law respecting an establishment of religion" means no law respecting an establishment of religion by government. No exceptions are given, and the Supreme Court cases you mention have no constitutional authority to give tests or make laws which permit exceptions.
The Constitution gives no authority to any court to rewrite or add exceptions to the words of the Constitution. Wherever the Court has allowed "government to sponsor or prefer religious speech" it has violated the Constitution's principle of separation between religion and government, as established by its religion commandments, and such decisions should be overturned.
For example, if anyone wishes to read my recent review of Van Orden v. Perry, simply click on the following link:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/breyer.html
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Douglas Laycock wrote:
The difference between the public square and government sponsorship is the point at which both sides in the culture wars start cheating with their claims about the current law. The Court has never held that private religious speech may or must be censored because it occurs on government property. Speech is private if the speaker is not a state actor and receives no preferential access or promotion from anyone who is a state actor.So private religious speech is constitutionally protected in the public square. Government sponsorship of that speech is restricted -- restricted pretty tightly but far from absolutely. For better or worse, Zorach v. Clausen, Marsh v. Chambers, Lynch v. Donnelly, the menorah/Christmas tree holding in Allegheny County v. ACLU, Van Orden v. Perry, and probably (if they had reached the merits) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, are all cases where the Court has allowed government to sponsor or prefer religious speech. There is no such list of exceptions to the rule that government cannot restrict private religious speech because of its religious content.Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:48 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The problem, in terms of conflict, it seems to me, arises, not from use of the public square, but from the desire on the part of some to use government space and property for the promotion of religion and for direct attacks upon the constitutional principle of "separation between Religion and Government," (James Madison, "Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).But this is the essence of the free speech and peaceable assembly principles that are the underpinning of the public forum doctrine: use of available public spaces (virtually always "government owned") for promotion of ideas of the speaker free from exclusion based on the disapproval of those ideas by others, whether government actors or private parties.Jim HendersonSenior CounselACLJ
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
