I saw on MSNBC this morning a polling place in a church in LA. It is not the first time I have seen this. In the last city I lived in, they had the same thing. How is this consitutional?
Would these same Christians mind a polling place in a Synogogue or Mosque or in "Atheist Station" in PA?
Sliced_Bread Newbie First Class
Joined: Jan 08, 2008
Posts: 27
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:32 am
I always thought it was odd that, at least in the part of PA where I'm from, that people would go to a church to vote. I do have a lot of atheist friends that feel nothing about it though. They go to church, do their part, and go home. No one is trying to pressure belief onto them, but it being in a church sorta does that for the people. It's just the way it always was. Personally, I don't like it and don't see why it's excepted today, but a lot of small towns probably held their town meetings in churches back in the day but still I don't see how its even remotely constitutional.
_________________ No god is better than no God.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:13 pm
Polling places are picked by states/cities, not the federal government.
Nimitz Grand Poster
Joined: May 10, 2004
Posts: 2899
Location: OKC OK
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:28 pm
I vote in a church here on OKC. It's kinda funny. But they do take all the jebus pics out of the room, but not the hallways!
"I'M WATCHING YOU VOTE" - Jebus
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:48 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Polling places are picked by states/cities, not the federal government.
So?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? It is still unconstitutional.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:37 am
No, it's not. It's not the federal government doing it. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:01 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, it's not. It's not the federal government doing it. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.
I knew where you were going to go with this line of argumentation.
Still a bunch of bull. Here is why.
If that were the case, the Catholosism could be the official religion of NY and Bapstist could be the offical religion of GA. Even before Thomas Jefferson had a hand in writing the First Amendment, he wrote the Virigna Religious Freedom act. THAT WAS AT A STATE LEVEL!
When the Constitution was written, the only mistake I think the founders made, was in assuming that their constituants had a clue. Much like most voters today couldn't pass a GED. If it stands to reason that the federal government cant play favorites to a particular religion, then why would a state be able to?
You are making the issue state vs federal. If everything were a state's right issue and we strictly went by that, then even today some states could still ban women from voting and keep segregation.
What overides states issues in every case is simple, the templet of the Constitution being a santuary for all citizens, even the dissentors.
It would be considered unconstitutional if it was within the parameters of establishing religion. Even a fairly strict guideline for applying the Establishment Clause, such as the Lemon Test, leaves room for an interpretation that would allow churches to be used in such a manner. I do not see excessive entanglement and can see a secular purpose even in the availibility and necessity of the policy in some areas of the country.
As far as the state question, the Supreme Court applied the Estab. Clause to the states in 1947. The Court has never adopted an absolute application at any level of government.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:20 am
Now, having said that, I do have to say that the "Big Brother" atmosphere of fear selling done by federal government politics on both sides is quite disturbing.
But, it is still a seperate issue than defending the rights of the individual, and not always, in America, does the majority have the right to dictate to the minority.
In three seperate places(FIRST AMENDMENT, NO RELIGIOUS TEST, AND OATH OF OFFICE), not to mention the lack of Jesus or Christianity, the Constitution goes out of it's way to warn the public of playing favorites on the issue of religion. Without a doubt, and to my dying day, I will never deny that it DOES defend freedom of religion, as it should. Not because I agree with deity concepts, but merely because I have human empathy. And since I like to think that I can think for myself, I have to value the right for those I am apposed to, to do the same.
"Freedom of religion" is not a Federal vs States right issue. It is an issue that the founders said, "We wont come after you, but we wont aid you either".
Putting those polls in churches is not what the founders would have wanted. It is a dileberate attempt to mix god with politics. All one has to do to see what a bad idea that is, is to look to the Middle east which has governments funding Islam left and right.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:20 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, it's not. It's not the federal government doing it. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.
Brian37 wrote:
I knew where you were going to go with this line of argumentation.
Still a bunch of bull.
Can't be. The amendment you want to invoke only applies to the federal government, and specifically only to Congress (since only Congress can make laws for the federal government).
Brian37 wrote:
Here is why.
If that were the case, the Catholosism could be the official religion of NY and Bapstist could be the offical religion of GA.
Yes, it could. However, I believe their state constitutions probably prevent that.
Brian37 wrote:
Even before Thomas Jefferson had a hand in writing the First Amendment, he wrote the Virigna Religious Freedom act. THAT WAS AT A STATE LEVEL!
Yes, and state things need to be done on a state level. The federal government doesn't have jurisdiction.
Brian37 wrote:
When the Constitution was written, the only mistake I think the founders made, was in assuming that their constituants had a clue. Much like most voters today couldn't pass a GED. If it stands to reason that the federal government cant play favorites to a particular religion, then why would a state be able to?
Because the US is supposed to be bottom-up, not top-down. The states formed the union. The union didn't form the states.
Brian37 wrote:
You are making the issue state vs federal. If everything were a state's right issue and we strictly went by that, then even today some states could still ban women from voting and keep segregation.
Only the latter, since the 19th amendment prohibits states from the former.
Brian37 wrote:
What overides states issues in every case is simple, the templet of the Constitution being a santuary for all citizens, even the dissentors.
The Constitution sets up and delimits the scope of the federal government.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:52 am
1. There are parts of the constitution that place restraints on the states.
2. There is no reason why a church building can't be the physical location of a polling place - it's not an endorsement of or restriction against the religion that owns the building. It's a convenient location with plenty of parking, as long as the church doesn't violate any campaign laws.
While my position is generally pretty rigid on church/state separation issues, having some of the polling places located in a church building isn’t particularly troublesome to me, especially when the church is making an effort to remove the religious paraphernalia from the actual voting room.
It is not new to have certain buildings serve multiple purposes in a community out of practical necessity.
_________________ Susan the Unbeliever
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:56 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
1. There are parts of the constitution that place restraints on the states.
Yes, there are. And this isn't one of those instances.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
2. There is no reason why a church building can't be the physical location of a polling place - it's not an endorsement of or restriction against the religion that owns the building. It's a convenient location with plenty of parking, as long as the church doesn't violate any campaign laws.
No, it's not. It's not the federal government doing it. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.
That is simply not true. The first amendment, as well as all other amendments 1-9, were expanded via Hugo Black's "incorporation doctrine" and the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
(Before you say anything, I am not arguing that this decision was correct. In fact, I don't like these decisions. But they have long been accepted as good precedent.
Be that as it is, I agree with a previous poster that there is no excessive entanglement between government and religion here, as government is not trying to establish a religion, and there is a clear secular purpose to the legislation (Lemon test).
No, it's not. It's not the federal government doing it. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.
That is simply not true. The first amendment, as well as all other amendments 1-9, were expanded via Hugo Black's "incorporation doctrine" and the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
(Before you say anything, I am not arguing that this decision was correct. In fact, I don't like these decisions. But they have long been accepted as good precedent.
Be that as it is, I agree with a previous poster that there is no excessive entanglement between government and religion here, as government is not trying to establish a religion, and there is a clear secular purpose to the legislation (Lemon test).
Almost everything in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated. Two exceptions come to mind- the Second Amendment and the right to a grand jury portion of the Fifth Amendment.
As you state, one can argue the merits, but this is what has been ruled by the Supreme Court.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file