Pennsylvania Senate resolution recognizes period of Jewish High Holy Days

[rug]

July 1, 2012
Justin Vacula
Scranton Atheism Examiner

The General Assembly of Pennsylvania has recently introduced and adopted Senate Resolution No. 339 “[r]ecognizing the holiday beginning with Rosh Hashanah and concluding with Yom Kippur” months before the holidays which, as the resolution says, begin on September 16, 2012.

The resolution notes that the period beginning with Rosh Hashanah and ending with Yom Kippur is a “period of High Holy Days” in which “Jewish residents of this Commonwealth will devote ten days to representance, asking God for forgiveness for their sins and renewing their commitment to doing that which is right.”

Continuing, the resolution says, “Pennsylvania has a large and vibrant Jewish community that has made outstanding contributions to the Commonwealth; therefore be it resolved, That the Senate of Pennsylvania join with the Jewish community in celebrating the sound of the Shofar, proclaiming the New Year and wishing the Jewish community “L'Shanah Tovah,” a happy and peaceful New Year.”

This resolution would not be the first entanglement with religious matters for governmental bodies in Pennsylvania. In late January, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives declared 2012 as the “Year of the Bible.” In March, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives introduced House Resolution No. 609 declaring a “National Day of Prayer” in the state of Pennsylvania. In June, legislation was proposed to declare 2012 as “The Year of Religious Diversity.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-senate-resolution-recognizes-period-of-jewish-high-holy-days

Here's the complete resolution.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=R&billNbr=0339&pn=2344

How is "wishing the Jewish community 'L'Shanah Tovah,' a happy and peaceful New Year an "entanglement"?

[trotsky]

1. Lemon Test

1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Hard to see how any religious resolution - from the "Year of the Bible" to this one - passes even the first prong. It's grandstanding and pandering - and particularly pandering to Jews so that right wing Christians can give lip service using the code phrase "Judeo-Christian values."

[rug]

2. Somebody better tell Obama before Passover.

[trotsky]

3. Oh, was that a legislative action? n/t

[rug]

4. It was governmental action.

I'll ask the House Chaplain how he feels about it.

http://chaplain.house.gov/

[trotsky]

8. Oh, please do.

Fuck separation of church and state - so long as it's your religion, right?

[rug]

9. It helps if you understand what constitutes a state and what constitues an action.

BTW Judaism is not my religion.

[trotsky]

10. Clearly you don't understand either. n/t

[rug]

12. The less sensitive the skin, the stronger the eyesight.

[trotsky]

15. Did you make that up all by yourself?

Nonsensical and meaningless, but impressive!

[rug]

22. .

There, there.

[trotsky]

24. Thanks for your trademark Christian behavior, rug.

It means a lot.

[rug]

25. You're welcome.

[COLGATE4]

6. I disagree

1) Legislative pronouncements declaring 'anything an anything' are the daily bread of politicians. It's purely secular.
2) No
3) No

[trotsky]

7. "It's purely secular."

Have someone put up something about Islam. Let's see how secular it is.

[COLGATE4]

18. It's still secular - just that it would ignite

a RW idiot-fury that lawmakers are not willing to withstand.

[trotsky]

19. "secular" - You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[COLGATE4]

20. I'm a practicing attorney with a good

education in Constitutional Law. Do you really want to go down that path?

[trotsky]

21. And I'm the President!

Do you?

[COLGATE4]

28. Would you like me to p-mail you my

Certificate of Good Standing from the Michigan State Bar?

[trotsky]

31. Absolutely!

And then you can show me how endorsing religious practices doesn't violate the Lemon test.

[COLGATE4]

33. I can't locate instructions as to how to do this

through DU. Reply to me with your e-mail and I'll forward it.

[trotsky]

37. Just click the little envelope icon next to my name.

I will not be giving you an e-mail address.

[COLGATE4]

29. But to answer your question

According to Black's Law Dictionary (2d Edition), the gold standard for legal definitions:

Definition of SECULAR


Not spiritual; not ecclesiastical ; relating to affairs of the present world.


Read more: SECULAR | Definition of SECULAR (Black's Law Dictionary)

[trotsky]

32. Totally.

Which absolutely proves that governmental recognition of religious observances/practices is totally related to affairs of the world and not religious at all. I am convinced. Thank you.

[COLGATE4]

34. I should have taken the advice of an

old lawyer who years ago told me that 'arguing legal questions with a non-lawyer is like trying to teach a pig to sing - it doesn't get you anywhere and all it does is irritate the pig'. My mistake in engaging in a legal discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

35. That's pretty condescending for someone who only gave a Black's Law definition.

I mean, certainly, someone of your constitutional acumen and legal skills would
1. know that Blacks is not the best source of legal definitions; and
2. would have been able to get a definition from a case that is pertinent from your Westlaw account in just a couple minutes.

Right?

You learned that in your Con Law class, didn't you? Legal definitions are specific to the case they come from in many instances? Perhaps you could take some definitions from the Lemon case to support your point. You have read Lemon, right? Because this singing pig has.

[COLGATE4]

40. Then please give me the benefit of your legal analysis

as to why your reading of Lemon v Kurtzman would lead you to believe that this act of the PA Legislature is primarily religious rather than secular, thus meeting the first prong of Lemon . I'd be interested in hearing it.

[trotsky]

44. You have misstated the first prong of the Lemon test.

The actual wording is:

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose" (See http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html)

There is no requirement that something be "primarily religious" to violate it. And you're a constitutional lawyer?

Can you tell me what the secular legislative purpose is of a resolution endorsing a religious viewpoint, scripture, or practice?

[COLGATE4]

47. Merely restating the three prongs of the Lemon

test doesn't mean you necessarilyunderstand it. BTW and just to correct the record I never said I was a Constititional lawyer - I merely said I have a good background in Constitutional Law. OK. Let's look at Lemon:

1 - The law must have a (at least one) secular legislative purpose. It may have other purposes, but so long as it has a secular purpose as one of its purposes it passes this prong. Seeing as politicians in state legislatures spend most of their time issuing 'proclamations' naming the Honey Bee 'Insect of the Month' or 'Rotarians the Mens' Club of the Year', this doesn't look any different. Doesn't get much more secular as a legislative purpose than honoring a given group of political constituents. What is your legal contention that this is not a secular purpose?

2- Principal or primary effect of the law can't either advance or foster religion. Nothing about this advances or fosters religion. The Jews in PA gain nothing by it, nor does it promote Judaism or encourage people to go out and convert to Judaism.

3- Law can't foster an excessive entanglement between gov't and religion. The key word is excessive. Here, there's no entanglement at all. But in other cases even if there is some entanglement if the entanglement if it's determined to not be 'excessive' the courts have held the law constitutional: upholding prayers opening legislative sessions (Marsh v Chambers); state tax exemptions for religious organizations upheld (Walz v Tax Comm'n of New York).

[trotsky]

48. Ah, the truth comes out!

"a good background in Constitutional Law"... and the backsliding begins.

The title of the original article is: "Pennsylvania Senate resolution recognizes period of Jewish High Holy Days"

What is the secular purpose of this legislative action? This isn't recognizing constituents, as you claim. Read the headline again.

[COLGATE4]

49. Now you're just being silly.

'Recognizing' a group, a person, a thing, or a given group's special occasions is no more a religious activity than recognizing the Blackbird as an official State bird. Neither have either legislative weight or consequences. To the contrary, 'recognizing' special groups or things is the Mother's milk of politicians worldwide. In doing so there is no legislative action (creating or causing a law) involved. On top of that this particular proclamation does not even arguably advance religion (as opposed to proclamations that 'X' is the 'year of the bible', which have also been upheld as secular). Show me where I'm wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

45. Way to completely avoid my argument about definitions.

But that aside, why are you focused on just the first prong. You know Lemon isn't a hierarchy, right? That if it violates one prong, any prong, it is unconstitutional and not a does it meet the first prong then move on to the second prong.

I'd love to hear your constitutional analysis of prong two since trotsky beat me to the punch in pointing out the complete bastardization of Lemon in your question to me.

[COLGATE4]

46. ???

What conceivable point are you trying so hard to make? How does the principal or primary effect of this proclamation either advance or inhibit religion (the second prong). This is, even assuming that a proclamation by a state legislature has the same constitutional effect that a law does to even be judged under the Lemon standard.

[trotsky]

36. Classy response! Thanks so much!

It's been my observation that those who are really good at what they do can explain it to just about anyone outside their profession because they understand it so well.

[Goblinmonger]

38. Yeah, the "you just don't get it" response

is SUCH an indicator of someone who is an expert in the area. I remember watching Carl Sagan just stumble over himself not being able to explain anything to the lay person on Cosmos.

[COLGATE4]

41. Being able to do something is not

equal to being interested in doing it.

[trotsky]

43. I understand.

You can't. No biggie. Carry on doing your important constitutional lawyer things. You probably shouldn't even waste your time on a website like this.

[cleanhippie]

5. Why does the government need to "recognize" any religion at all?

This is not the purpose of government.

[trotsky]

11. Thankfully rug is on the spot to defend this.

At least we know where he stands when it comes to church-state separation.

[rug]

13. Where is that?

[Leontius]

14. If you don't say all religion is shit

then you must be in favor of theocracy. Hope that helps you understand where you must stand in certain posters eyes.

[trotsky]

17. Yeah, that's exactly it. n/t

[trotsky]

16. It's plenty obvious. n/t

[rug]

23. Something is plenty obvious.

It ain't what you think.

[mr blur]

30. I beg to differ -

We don't know where he stands on anything.

Other than "aloof", that is.

[Ian David]

26. There is a difference between recognizing the existence or a religious minority's holiday...

... and declaring the majority religion's holy book as a sort of official mascot for the year.

[rug]

27. That's precisely the point.

[cbayer]

39. These kinds of "recognition" resolutions are routine and pretty meaningless, imo. OTOH,

declaring the Year of the Bible is a step beyond that, and I find that pretty objectionable.

[COLGATE4]

42. You're right, and that's the difference here.

Recognition of things by Legislatures are so many and so varied that they are essentially meaningless, ranging from declaring the Hummingbird to the the official state bird to recognizing National Talk like a Pirate Day, to choose two hypothetical examples. It doesn't get any more secular than something that is 'politics as usual', 'let's recognize something that pleases a key group of our constituents', much less having its primary purpose be religious. Neither does it involve the State (much less entangle it) in religion, so on its face it doesn't violate Lemon and the First Amendment.