Hi Cog. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, or is it another problem you might have?
Oh great, another Scratch. Don't make me write a song about you Gramps. Yours will be the crowning achievement.
.I'm sorry you don't think what she is talking about has anything to do with the 1st Amendment. But, you are wrong. Plain, flat out wrong
And you don't have the slightest idea what your talking about. These aren't First Amendment issues, they are issues of civil and criminal law that can only be resolved after unlawful or abuseive actions have taken place. The First Amendment is a protection of free religous speech from govenrment and a mechanism to obviate either the creation of a state church or the lavishing of preferential treatment upon a specific demonimation or religius body. The First Amendment provides no basis for the regulation or oversight of the finances of religious bodies by the state. If you want that, fine, but don't bring the First Amendment itno it. It has nothing whatever to do with the issues that have been brought up here as to abuse. That's a matter for statute law, not the First Amendment.
You asked for a list of some of these abuses and I will just go over some of those briefly with you. When I read through more of the book, I will be able to share in more detail.
Just a few here: children as victims of religiously-motivated harm, including not only clergy sexual abuse, but also faith-healing, abandonment, etc.; marriage; land use; schools; the prisons and military; and housing and employment discrimination.
There is more, to be sure, but that should give you enough to chew your teeth into, no?
That's not the issue. The issue is the implied regulatory or oversight function of the government impled to be found in the establishment clause. None exists. It may exist in case law, and if not it can most certainly be created in that manner over time, but the establishment clause has nothing whatever to do with such a legal project.
Some of the above would also apply to the Mormon church. If you are not aware of clergy sexual abuse in the Church, I don't know what to say. You need to follow the news more closely. My heavens, there is just another allegation in the news today, is there not, about a missionary for the church (though it may amount to nothing, to be sure)? Why would this be a surprise to you? The church has settled out of court many times in the last few years over this very thing. How does this not have to do with the 1st Amendment? Please provide support for your assertion that this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Sexual abuse among ecclesiastical leaders in the Mormon church is at least rare enough that its almost unknown "in the news". I know of no specific cases in my lifetime anywhere I've lived, although I'm sure it does exist here and there. Now, what does the establishment clause have to do with a Bishop putting his hands down a young boys pants? The Bishop gets exed and goes to jail. OK, where is the establishment clause in all of this?
About the 1st Amendment and religions. Churches, as you know, have never had an absolute privilege to do whatever they want. Since Reynolds, it has become even easier to sue churches for various church actions, especially in property cases, and even more so in other areas in the last 10 years. This seems to be the trend.
Even in cases around the country involving resignation or excommunication of a church member, what policies a church is allowed to follow in their ex-communication procedures has been limited by doctrines such as active/passive control, pre-withdrawl and post-withdrawl resignation discipline, etc.
No entity can do whateve they want. That's pedestrian. I'm not really that concerned with various "trends" in the judiciary or in special interest law per se, as the entire thing has become so plastic in my lifetime as to render much of the "law" meaningless while at the same time having become heavily politicized. I'm much more interrested in what the supreme law of the land has to say about the case law and judicial activism and the 'trends" withing American law.
Quote:
The sole implied prohibitions in the amendment are to ensure that their[sic] will be no state religion nor any religion enjoying special preferred treatment by the state. That is where the amendment ends.
Well, that is how you would like to see it, but that isn't how it has worked out.
The liberal/conservative template aside, "how it has turned out" is the primary attitudinal if not ideological framework through which our legal system has been all but destroyed as a functioning arbiter of competing claims for justice in a constitutional Republic. The Constitution, as written, in its original intent, is the supreme law of the land, not "trends" or "the way things have worked out' legally over the past forty or fifty years. This is key. What you're essentially talking about here is the rise and donminance of procedure and process over priniciple in the legas system and our schools of law, and one reason the entire process has come to be so amenable to politicization.
You write even further:
Quote:
If there is compelling evidence or wrongdoing by a religious body, that's one thing. However, the overall tone of this thread so far seems to indicate a presumptive suspicion toward all churches broadly speaking, who handle large quantites of funds and an aconstitutional attempt to use the First Amendment as a regulatory stick to meddle in the private financial affairs of religous bodies on the presumption that that organized religious groups per se, to quote Anthony Quinn from High Wind In Jamaica "must be guilty of...something."
.Like I said above, the author used to be on your side, but after fighting in the trenches and seeing the abuses first-hand, her perspective has changed.
Madison was concerned with churches wielding their unequal power over the small guy. The author has found that some of Madison's concerns are well-founded through her actual experience
I don't see what this has to do with anything, that she disagrees with me. I disagree with her. She's not necessarily all that smart, and certainly not correct in her views, because she has a law degree, nor because of her ancedotal experiences in 'the trenches". The arguments rise and fall on their merits, not on stories of personal subjective experiences. You or I could have had the same experiences she did and come out Old Testament them with a different perspective.
So, cog, just have a discussion here. No reason to get huffy. I am interested in everyone's views. Let's see what people think about this and not take it , as best we can, into the ad hominem level. What do you think?
Just keep Scratch and Vegas out of it and all should be well.