quote:

---

In order to secure the liberties of the people, in accordance with freedom of conscience and religion, the operations and powers of government shall be exclusive of religion.

1) Congress shall make no law without a secular justification, and no government entity shall institute religious rules or promote religious beliefs. "Secular justification" may include philosophical reasoning intended to protect or further the liberties and interests of the people, but may not rest on premises exclusively founded in religion or theism.

2) The free exercise of religion is reserved to individuals and non-governmental organizations.

3) Individual rights of the people, including government officials, to free speech and freedom of religion are hereby affirmed.

---

What it would do:
1) Prevent laws that have a solely religious motive. Congress could never pass a law exempting the Flying Spaghetti Monster from FAA regulations to honor his noodliness, or ban a food because it is not kosher.
2) Public institutions, such as school boards, would not be permitted to promote religious ideas. Government buildings could not post religious texts (thereby promoting them).

What it would not do:
1) Prevent anyone from voicing a religious opinion.
2) Prevent laws that have both religious and secular justifications. Returning to a previous example, if the FSM exemption was part of a treaty that got us a lot of free spaghetti, it'd be OK.
3) Set us up for legalized murder or similar problems. "Thou shalt not kill, saith the Lord" may not be the sole justification for a law, but "Killing is bad for everyone" would be fine.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I, of course, agree wholeheartedly.

I am certain the amendment would fail miserably though. Probably not worth the effort for another few generations.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Would be lovely. Not gonna happen.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The central tenet - a litmus test for legislation - is forbidden by the present constitution.

Additionally, the "secular basis" would have to be reviewed by someone. What a terrible idea to put so much power into so few hands.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
In other words, the second tenet is fine, if a bit fluffy and pointless. The first is precisely the kind of tyranny the constitution was created to avoid.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
katharina, if we amend the constitution, you can't really say that the new text is unconstitutional, can you?

I don't see how there's any sort of tyranny enabled by any part of what I suggested. Would you please give an example?

BTW, the process of testing the constitutionality of laws would not change. There's no additional power given to anyone - just a change in the rules they need to consider when something is challenged.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Raymond, Kate...do you think this will be perceived as an attack on religion? (While awaiting clarification from katharina on why she thinks it's a tyrannical rule.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Who decides if a law has solely a religious motive?

It will either be a rubber stamp - come up with any statement that has nothing to do with religion - or it becomes the ultimate tool of tyranny, with all laws needing to be run by a select group who decides if the non-religious reason is convincing enough.

How do those people get chosen? By vote? We do that already - they are called legislatures. If it isn't by vote, then it is creating a non-elected body that has the ultimate power, more power than all three branches of government, with no checks.

I prefer democracy and republicanism.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Considering that saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is considered an attack on religion - Christianity specifically, yeah, I think this would be considered an attack.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Considered by whom? You can find someone who thinks anything. That doesn't mean anything.

Don't wrap yourself in the warm glow of righteous persecution and pretend that makes this an intelligent move.

To be clear, my objection is as outlined above - it is either a meaningless gesture or else a massively antidemocratic move that vacates the power of our legislatures.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Who decides if a law has solely a religious motive?

It will either be a rubber stamp - come up with any statement that has nothing to do with religion - or it becomes the ultimate tool of tyranny, with all laws needing to be run by a select group who decides if the non-religious reason is convincing enough.

How do those people get chosen? By vote? We do that already - they are called legislatures. If it isn't by vote, then it is creating a non-elected body that has the ultimate power, more power than all three branches of government, with no checks.

I prefer democracy and republicanism.

---

quote:

---

Considered by whom? You can find someone who thinks anything. That doesn't mean anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
The Supreme Court reviews laws that have been passed an enforced. This would set them up to review proposed laws - in order for any law to get past, it has to pass the Supreme Court first.

---

How would this cause that change?

Is this the phrasing that bothers you?

"Congress shall make no law..."

If so, then I think it's worth noting that this text simply mirrors the beginning of the First Ammendment. And as far as I know, this wording in the bill of rights has never been interpreted in that manner.


If this isn't the part that bothers you, could you please clarify.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
katharina, please review the first amendment. I consciously imitated the phrasing there.

I am decidedly not suggesting that laws have to pass a preemptive secular stamp of approval committee, in the judiciary or elsewhere.

Any test would be the same as tests for other constitutional requirements, such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A law could be challenged in the courts after it passes, but I'm not trying to require the sort of pre-emptive challenge you are afraid of. (Just as there isn't such a thing for establishment of religion.)

(I'm guessing this conversation inherited objections you made in a thread a year or two ago. I think you misunderstood then, and those misunderstandings propagated to this thread.)

Importantly, this would not alter the checks and balances a whit. Note that there is no language in the proposed amendment about powers.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Not gonna happen, and I think that is a good thing.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Kwea, I'd like to hear about why you think that is a good thing. I'd like to hear an example of a law that would be held unconstitutional, and why you think that would be a bad thing.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Christine:

"So it doesn't really do anything."

I think it would do a couple of things.

1) It would provide a way to challenge silly blue laws and other encodings of religious preferences that can't be justified without a religious arguments. This sort of thing can harm people. (For example, in a county populated with 90% people who won't go out to eat on Sunday because of their religion, and 10% people who would like to have a restaurant open on Sunday, a law closing restaurants on Sunday is unfair to the 10%. I'd like to protect against this kind of thing.)

2) It may lend weight to the secularist side of current controversies such as the ones I mentioned in the OP. (This is something I want to accomplish, while also assuaging fears that the text of the Constitution doesn't matter as much as judges' agenda, and also reaffirming that this doesn't limit the freedoms of individuals.)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
If they list only a religious reason, the Bill fails. If they list any other reason, the Bill can be passed if people vote on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
If they list only a religious reason, the Bill fails. If they list any other reason, the Bill can be passed if people vote on it.

---

As determined by whom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:

1) It would provide a way to challenge silly blue laws and other encodings of religious preferences that can't be justified without a religious arguments. This sort of thing can harm people. (For example, in a county populated with 90% people who won't go out to eat on Sunday because of their religion, and 10% people who would like to have a restaurant open on Sunday, a law closing restaurants on Sunday is unfair to the 10%. I'd like to protect against this kind of thing.)

---

Aren't most of the blue laws you refer to state and local rather than federal? The proposed amendment is on a federal level.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
The proposed amendment provides a means for anyone in any state to challenge such laws, since the constitution supercedes state law.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
It's an interesting idea but even if you fix up the legal ramifications and tighten the wording significantly, it would be viewed as a massive attack on religion and be met with a furious response by conservative christians.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Completely apart from the pre-emptive issue, it is still a bad idea.

What if it said "Congress shall make no stupid laws."

It is forbidding a kind of law, not a topic area. In that matter, it is completely unlike anything currently in the Constitution. It, like the proposed above, gives extraordinary powers to whomever decides what is a "stupid" law.

Forget that the word religion is involved. This is bad constitution-writing.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kat's absolutely right about this, guys. I sympathize entirely with the desire behind such an amendment, but it's completely unworkable.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I'd really like to get a better explanation other than "unworkable."

(Though I concede that it probably seems threatening to the religious right and may not be passable for that reason.)

I'm having a hard time extracting a meaningful objection out of katharina, since she keeps knocking down straw men instead of exploring actual implications. Maybe you'd be so kind, Tom?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:
Kwea, I'd like to hear about why you think that is a good thing. I'd like to hear an example of a law that would be held unconstitutional, and why you think that would be a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

As Raymond noted, I don't want some kind of pre-emptive test (other than the intelligence of the lawmakers who, after all, aren't attempting to pass Official National Religion laws on a regular basis).

---

What other possible mechanism could there be for making the determination? The people pushing for laws founded in religious reasons are simply going to - quite easily - find secular justifications for what they're arguing for. Maybe not really good ones in all cases, but justifications nonetheless. And then you're in the position of determining if a given justification is actually good enough or if it's some religious disguise, and how on Earth would we go about that? Take gay marriage, just as the most relevant and easy example. A representative lobbied by Fred Phelps's church proposes an amendment to a bill guaranteeing marriage will only be between one man and one woman, citing studies that families are most well off in the 'traditional' nuclear family. Such studies do exist, though obviously there's a whole lot more to be said about the entire issue, and other studies broadening the understanding of it.

BAM! Secular justification for an obviously religiously-motivated addition to a law. Now...someone is in the position of deciding if the law is even fit to be voted on. And of course, what happens after this measure fails and Phelps realizes, "Hey, I need to get my guys into the committee that decides which laws are secular and which ain't?"

The best mechanism for what you're angling for is public persuasion to the point where the amendment is much, much less contentious and most everybody accepts that that's the way things ought to be. It's not a clear-cut issue.

And let's be clear: this wouldn't be 'interpreted' as an attack on religion, it would unabashedly be an attack on religion. Or at least religion as practiced by some people that a bunch of other people - myself included, actually - don't like.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"What other possible mechanism could there be for making the determination?"

Sigh. Rakeesh, this was already addressed. I've been trying to establish that there's no reason to suppose there would be a committee (see thread). I don't know why people think that's required. (In fact, I think it's only because katharina introduced the idea, and it's a bit difficult to dislodge for some reason. No other restriction on the government imposed by constitutional amendment has required any such mechanism.)

<big letters>There's no up front mechanism.</big letters> It's a constitutional requirement; the only way you'd find that it wasn't met was through the courts. After a law was passed. (There's nothing here that requires any legal mechanism that would be novel or unique.)

I disagree that it would be an unabashed attack on religion. It would be an effort to avoid religious government, which I would argue is a different thing - one that I don't think should exist.

I don't have much of a problem with the fact that religious groups will attempt to come up with secular arguments for things they want for religious reasons. As long as the debate is secular in its focus, it's an improvement, IMO. (I'll note that I think this already happens, at least in some levels of debate.)
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yes, I noticed that, scifibum. What I meant and should have been more clear about was: what other mechanism besides the courts would exist?

Dude, of course there would be a committee on the subject for any bill under consideration. Maybe even a committee explicitly for that purpose, but certainly a committee that will consider the question among other things-it would be irresponsible to otherwise, if laws can be overturned on 'religiosity' grounds, after all.

The legal mechanisms used to answer the question wouldn't be unique, but the question they'd be asking and answering would be incredibly arbitrary.

As for attacking religion, it would be an effort to completely eliminate any penetration of religion into government, scifibum. Particularly the part about 'operations of government' being exclusive of religion. It says, "We're a representative society until you try and bring your deepest personal beliefs into it. Then we'd appreciate it if you'd just but out." I can certainly understand the motivation behind wanting such a thing, and even share it to some extent, but don't kid yourself: it's an attack.

It's just that it's an attack on people you are already certain are doing something wrong. It's an attack...an attack you think ought to be happening.

Ultimately, the real problem with your idea is that it lets the courts decide if an argument is truly secular or secretly religious. They won't be deciding questions of law and precedent.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
scifibum -

If I might offer a possible alternative...call it a compromise that would structurally be far easier to pass:

Pass a parliamentary rule in the House and in the Senate saying that Congress must publish a reasoning behind why they want a bill to pass, and what they expect it to accomplish specifically.

That way, there are no grounds for the Courts to reject it, and thus no arbitrary reasoning is applied by a small body of individuals outside the democratic process. But at the same time, two things would be accomplished: Congressmen would be forced to preemptively defend their legislation, using whatever grounds they have at their disposal, and every bill would also have a measuring stick attached to it by which we could gauge success and failure when trying to ascertain whether or not a bill has achieved its stated purpose.

This way, it is left up to the people to decide whether or not the stated objectives and reasons are good or bad, and they can use their vote accordingly to compel Congressional behavior that they agree with.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
As long as you are eliminating kinds of laws, why stop there?

No stupid laws.
No laws created to pander to special interests.
No laws that rise from regionalism.
No laws prompted by an emotional news story instead a rational assessment of need.
No redundant laws.
No laws that unjustly privilege one population over another.

"No laws motivated by religion" fits right in there. It is just as bad an idea.

If you think my argument has been against straw men, then you fail to understand the ramifications of what you are proposing.

You could add:
"No laws created without the members of Congress fully understanding the consequences of it."

[ February 13, 2010, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I applaud in principle, but I see two problems. First, your Constitution already has a perfectly good separation-of-church-and-state clause; you're just very bad at enforcing it. Second, you can't legislate people's stupidity away. (And, perhaps surprisingly, religion isn't where I'd start anyway. I'd go for some plain math and statistics first, if I were legislating intelligence.) In a democracy where most people are religious and care strongly about their religion, you're going to get religious laws. All you can do is educate, and fight each bad law as it comes. Truth prevails in the end.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
Unfortunately, all aspects of the constitution are trumped by the Interstate Commerce clause and the "General Welfare". If you get a religious majority they could deem religion to be beneficial to the "general welfare" of the US. If they can attempt to subvert the second amendment and state's right under this argument, no amendment is sound.

A religious majority in power might decide the general welfare is best served by.......? They could decide that religion impacts interstate commerce.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
LOL
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I think katharina has said exactly what I would have said about this amendment, and in a much more concise manner.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
As long as you are eliminating kinds of laws, why stop there?

No stupid laws.
No laws created to pander to special interests.
No laws that rise from regionalism.
No laws prompted by an emotional news story instead a rational assessment of need.
No redundant laws.
No laws that unjustly privilege one population over another.

"No laws motivated by religion" fits right in there. It is just as bad an idea.

If you think my argument has been against straw men, then you fail to understand the ramifications of what you are proposing.

You could add:
"No laws created without the members of Congress fully understanding the consequences of it."

---

quote:

---

If you think my argument has been against straw men, then you fail to understand the ramifications of what you are proposing.

---

quote:

---

It would be an effort to avoid religious government

---

How about this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Neat and consise, addresses the central beef, doesn't create a board of inquisitors tasked with mind-reading, and it is clear that it is prohibiting laws that establish religion with the power of the state behind it, rather than second-guessing at motivations and vacating the power of the Legislative branch.

Even misguided people get to vote. Even if their motives are suspect and their ideas are stupid. Considering the opening post, this is something you should be grateful for.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
It'd be nice if someone could give me a good example of how this would go wrong.

(kat: you're still at the same game. ETA: mind reading, restrictions on voting, and the creation of a board...all false, all reflecting that you aren't really paying attention)
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
The smugness is cute, though.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Honestly, I'm not sure why your (katherina's) previous arguments don't apply just as easily to the actual first amendment. What exactly is the "establishment of religion?" Who gets to decide? This issue HAS in fact been the subject of much debate, which is the reason scifibum proposed this amendment in the first place.

I don't think this amendment would help all that much for various reasons, but I don't think kat's particular arguments are the reason why.

[ February 13, 2010, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

It'd be nice if someone could give me a good example of how this would go wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

It'd be nice if someone could give me a good example of how this would go wrong.

---

Okay, let's say I want to submit a law banning homosexual schoolteachers. I happen to be a conservative Christian, but I'm really motivated to do this because my son was abused by a homosexual schoolteacher and I'm not a particularly bright person.

How do I prove to the satisfaction of the Court that my motivation behind writing this law is to keep my son "safe" from predators, and not because my God tells me homosexuals are bad people? Do they just trust me when I tell them that?

---

Assuming you meant that such a law passed, and was challenged in court...(because I'd seriously wallbash if that's not what you meant at this point)...

This is addressed by katharina's "no stupid laws" amendment. just kidding.

The court could hear the arguments and determine whether the secular justification offered is sufficient. (Actually, in this case, wouldn't there be a more applicable equal protection test?) It'd be similar to the scrutiny applied in equal protection issues, at least how I imagine it. The default level of scrutiny could be "does this even make sense?" If there's no evidence that banning homosexual teachers will protect children, then it's tossed out.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

all you need is a secular justification. Not a secular motivation.

---

quote:

---

The court could hear the arguments and determine whether the secular justification offered is sufficient.

---

quote:

---

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

---

The Lemon Test was used in finding the ID materials in the Dover case to be unconstitutional.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Huh. Well, look at that.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Cool.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

The court could hear the arguments and determine whether the secular justification offered is sufficient.

---

Then you are giving to the Supreme Court the right to overturn any act of the legislature based on their opinon of its wisdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
The central tenet - a litmus test for legislation - is forbidden by the present constitution.

---

quote:

---

the Lemon test seems to pretty much provide what I would want, anyway. Thanks, Matt!

---

quote:

---

The central tenet - a litmus test for legislation - is forbidden by the present constitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
scifibum, you have been told, over and over again, why it is a dumb idea and bad constitution writing, and how it can and would go wrong. At this point, you are deluding only yourself.

That's okay. You can still vote. I trust the American people are smarter than you are.

---

quote:

---

Rakeesh, I'd like to know if you think that this would potentially actually push religious motivations out of government, rather than (as I suspect, and would like) just force people to justify their acts via government with something other than faith.

---

quote:

---

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be open to persuasion that this would be a bad idea, it's just that I don't think it's been shown yet.

---