From a public FB post to your ears...regarding Separation of Church and State
This is a full page quote from someone's public post on a discussion about the questions the Supreme Court nominee was being asked about whether her faith was important to her and how much she went to church... One person in the FB discussion pointed out the Separation of Church and State with another asking for clarification...This followed: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI, Clause 3 and then someone else added...(quote again from another source)
The separation of church and state requires a government to be neutral in matters of religion. Such a government does not enact laws that are either overtly or historically traceable to concepts grounded only in religious beliefs, without any independent empirical verification. For those of us who are devoted to attaining this legal ideal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is tragic.
There has never been any rational basis for laws that automatically presume that men should have more rights than women. Until recently in human history, laws that deprived women of equal rights were prevalent in the overwhelming majority of societies. One of the traditional foundations for much of this was Genesis 3:16, in which Jehovah tells women that their husbands should rule over them. The first case that Ginsburg argued before the Supreme Court was Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 691 (1973).
Here, she persuaded the Court to strike down by an 8 to 1 vote a military regulation that allowed male service members to claim their wives as dependents automatically but required female service members to offer proof that their husbands were financially dependent on them.
In Edwards v. Healy, 421 U.S. 772, 773 (1975), Ginsburg argued that a Louisiana law was unconstitutional because it automatically allowed men to serve on juries but required women to file a declaration stating their intent to be a juror before being allowed to serve. The justices remanded the case to the lower court because by the time it reached the Supreme Court, Louisiana had apparently done away with this prejudicial requirement.
