Artwork

A tartalmat a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast alkalmazás
Lépjen offline állapotba az Player FM alkalmazással!

Episode 50: Church vs. State

47:31
 
Megosztás
 

Manage episode 335964451 series 2520073
A tartalmat a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.

Episode Notes

Lemuel: I am Lemuel Gonzalez, repentant sinner, and along with Amity Armstrong, your heavenly host, I invite you to find a place in the pew for today’s painless Sunday School lesson. Without Works.

Amity: This week we are discussing church and state - how it is supposed to be separate and how our activist court is eroding that separation.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

In two cases this term, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there’s little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework.

In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine’s tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections. In fact, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, explicitly warned against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has previously respected states’ ability to restrict taxpayer support for religious educational activities. Indeed, for decades, the court rejected efforts to direct government funds to religious uses. In Carson, however, six justices disregarded these longstanding, historical church-state concerns. According to the court, state funding of religious indoctrination is not only permissible, but now required in some circumstances. The Carson majority thus firmly placed the free-exercise rights of the Christian plaintiffs over the Establishment Clause rights of the broader populace.

One week later, it did the same in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public-school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Ignoring well-established precedent that prohibits school officials from participating in prayer with students, the majority embraced what one lower court judge called a “deceitful narrative” spun by Kennedy and his lawyers. The court characterized the coach’s prayers as “quiet” and “personal,” but they were nothing of the sort; Coach Kennedy delivered his prayers audibly, at the 50-yard line, immediately after games, often surrounded by students.

The court said that Kennedy had abandoned any intent to pray with students, but in fact he repeatedly demanded that he be able to continue praying with his students, declaring that he was “helping these kids be better people.” The court also claimed that no students were coerced into prayer, but the record shows that at least some players joined Kennedy in prayer solely to avoid separating themselves from their team. And in any event, that misses the broader point: As the court had recognized for over a half-century, merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” John 6:15

“And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to atrap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, j“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Mark 12 13-17

“So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18: 33-36

https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-court-benches-the-separation-of-church-and-state

Amity: That brings us to the end of this week’s episode. If you like it, please subscribe and leave us a review - and share it with a friend.

Lemuel: We have an internet home: withoutworkspodcast.com. Our show notes, links to stories we talk about, and notes for our episodes can be found there.

Amity: We are also reachable at withoutworkspod@gmail.com, on twitter @withoutworkspod and on Facebook at Without Works podcast.

All that information is on the website as well, so go there and have a look around.

I’ve been Amity and he’s been Lemuel, and we urge you to stay inside, and do something good.

Find us on Twitter: @WithoutWorksPod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/withoutworks Email @ withoutworkspod@gmail.com

Our Internet home: www.withoutworkspodcast.com

  continue reading

66 epizódok

Artwork
iconMegosztás
 
Manage episode 335964451 series 2520073
A tartalmat a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Amity Armstrong and Lemuel Gonzalez, Amity Armstrong, and Lemuel Gonzalez vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.

Episode Notes

Lemuel: I am Lemuel Gonzalez, repentant sinner, and along with Amity Armstrong, your heavenly host, I invite you to find a place in the pew for today’s painless Sunday School lesson. Without Works.

Amity: This week we are discussing church and state - how it is supposed to be separate and how our activist court is eroding that separation.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

In two cases this term, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there’s little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework.

In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine’s tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections. In fact, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, explicitly warned against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has previously respected states’ ability to restrict taxpayer support for religious educational activities. Indeed, for decades, the court rejected efforts to direct government funds to religious uses. In Carson, however, six justices disregarded these longstanding, historical church-state concerns. According to the court, state funding of religious indoctrination is not only permissible, but now required in some circumstances. The Carson majority thus firmly placed the free-exercise rights of the Christian plaintiffs over the Establishment Clause rights of the broader populace.

One week later, it did the same in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public-school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Ignoring well-established precedent that prohibits school officials from participating in prayer with students, the majority embraced what one lower court judge called a “deceitful narrative” spun by Kennedy and his lawyers. The court characterized the coach’s prayers as “quiet” and “personal,” but they were nothing of the sort; Coach Kennedy delivered his prayers audibly, at the 50-yard line, immediately after games, often surrounded by students.

The court said that Kennedy had abandoned any intent to pray with students, but in fact he repeatedly demanded that he be able to continue praying with his students, declaring that he was “helping these kids be better people.” The court also claimed that no students were coerced into prayer, but the record shows that at least some players joined Kennedy in prayer solely to avoid separating themselves from their team. And in any event, that misses the broader point: As the court had recognized for over a half-century, merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” John 6:15

“And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to atrap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, j“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Mark 12 13-17

“So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18: 33-36

https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-court-benches-the-separation-of-church-and-state

Amity: That brings us to the end of this week’s episode. If you like it, please subscribe and leave us a review - and share it with a friend.

Lemuel: We have an internet home: withoutworkspodcast.com. Our show notes, links to stories we talk about, and notes for our episodes can be found there.

Amity: We are also reachable at withoutworkspod@gmail.com, on twitter @withoutworkspod and on Facebook at Without Works podcast.

All that information is on the website as well, so go there and have a look around.

I’ve been Amity and he’s been Lemuel, and we urge you to stay inside, and do something good.

Find us on Twitter: @WithoutWorksPod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/withoutworks Email @ withoutworkspod@gmail.com

Our Internet home: www.withoutworkspodcast.com

  continue reading

66 epizódok

ทุกตอน

×
 
Loading …

Üdvözlünk a Player FM-nél!

A Player FM lejátszó az internetet böngészi a kiváló minőségű podcastok után, hogy ön élvezhesse azokat. Ez a legjobb podcast-alkalmazás, Androidon, iPhone-on és a weben is működik. Jelentkezzen be az feliratkozások szinkronizálásához az eszközök között.

 

Gyors referencia kézikönyv