Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Feuer Frei!]

A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.
Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the school district is in the process of appealing the ruling, and his office has agreed to file a brief in their support.
“Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into “speech police.”
“I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott told Fox News Radio. “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”
Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.
“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”
Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”
The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”
“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
Ayesa Khan, an attorney representing the student and his parents, told KABB-TV she was delighted in the judge’s decision.
“It caused him a great deal of anxiety,” she said, referring to her teenage client. “He has gone to meet with the principal to try and talk in a civilized way about long-standing problems, and the school district has continued to thumb its nose.”
The judge did grant students permission to make the sign of the cross, wear religious garb or kneel to face Mecca. But that’s not good enough for some students at the high school.


SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/?test=latestnews)


suffer irreparable harm
:har:
Errr, right.
That sounds like a water-tight open and close case to me.




(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/?test=latestnews)

[Schroeder]

Being an atheist myself I find the whole thing pretty absurd. As long as I'm not forced to join in a religious ceremony I don't have any problem with people who are praying to their god(s) and don't see any reason to forbid them to do so.:doh:

[Feuer Frei!]

Being an atheist myself I find the whole thing pretty absurd. As long as I'm not forced to join in a religious ceremony I don't have any problem with people who are praying to their god(s) and don't see any reason to forbid them to do so.:doh:
Yea good point.
What made me laugh out aloud was the "suffer irreparable harm" B.S.!
That is the icing on the cake.

[Schroeder]

I actually wonder what qualifies as "damage"?:hmm2:

[Feuer Frei!]

I actually wonder what qualifies as "damage"?:hmm2:
Maybe they thought that praying involves kneeling and that their knees would be damaged beyond repair.

[Platapus]

I thought this was overturned?

[Feuer Frei!]

I thought this was overturned?
Correct:
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/03/136934940/court-lifts-ban-on-prayer-at-high-school-graduation?ft=1&f=1016

Hallelujah!
Pun intended.

[Skybird]

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.

[Bakkels]

Foxnews. Sorry, but don't you think they just might have overstated some tiny little things in the article?

Anyway, old news the ban is already lifted:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13757903

In the story it says
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation. The Castroville parents argued that traditions such as invocation and benediction excluded their beliefs."

Now that's a whole different description of their argument then the one in the first article. Amazing how Fox applies its own interpretation on things like this.

[nikimcbee]

Glad our courts have nothing better to do with their time.:nope:

[Castout]

Being an atheist myself I find the whole thing pretty absurd. As long as I'm not forced to join in a religious ceremony I don't have any problem with people who are praying to their god(s) and don't see any reason to forbid them to do so.:doh:

:up:

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.

Secularism must be embraced by states but NOT by individuals. Prohibiting people to pray in public is restricting their belief even banning them.

No one should be forced to pray as no one should be forced not to.

US and Europe are turning into atheist society and with that more and more atheists are filling governmental positions and high society structures. This, incident like this, is only following this trend.

The funny aspect about many of people who declared themselves atheist is that they are in all objectivity are not just an atheist but they are anti-religion whether specific one or all.

If the trend continues before long practicing and expressing religious belief will be banned from public events and places. The real motive to this is to hinder the propagation of religious beliefs and make the majority of population atheists or even better anti-religion.

The irony is that this anti religion atheists are only in all objectivity members of their own beliefs which is anti religion and anti God.

It's a sad thing especially for people like me who truly knows and not just believe that God exists and even had a glimpse/peek of Him.

My ordeal in Singapore whose rulers are atheists proved that they harbor a passion of hating anything genuinely religious. The irony is that they even engaged in spiritual warfare using spirit to break me and my faith. In other words they are fully aware of the power of spiritual worlds but gives no respect towards the idea of the Holy Creator. My life is a testimony to them which they seem to neglect or ignore. There's no point pointing out or even showing every single miracle if people have decided not to use their brain and conscience. The fools cannot be cured if they decided to stay as fools because there's no limit to man's foolishness, his lies and excuses and vanity and the comfort of their stupidity.

The catch is even religious establishment and religious people wouldn't help or stand with me and even blamed me!!! NO wonder there's no power in their worship. There's no knowledge in their spiritual life. There's nothing in them as their worship is just superficial. It's the kind of worship to make them feel better and nothing more than that. They pray their prayer and then think after that that God disconnects with them until the next time they pray again. It's worse than being an honest atheist, much worse. Because they admit with their mouth the power of God but deny Him with their actions.

[Platapus]

Prohibiting people to pray in public is restricting their belief even banning them.

No one should be forced to pray as no one should be forced not to.




Then people should have the right to pray silently and without calling attention to it. That's a win win situation

The prayers get to pray, those who don't wanna don't have to hear/see it.

Unfortunately, that is not what many of these theists want. They want it to be a big public thing. They want things to stop so that everyone notices that they are praying (or pretending to).

A person who is secure in their faith can pray in a crowded room and no one will ever notice. Why does it have to be a public "hey pay attention to what I am doing" thing?

That's what I don't understand. Why does praying need to be a formal part of a ceremony?

[Morts]

It's a sad thing especially for people like me who truly knows and not just believe that God exists and even had a glimpse/peek of Him.
hahahaha, thats priceless :haha:
you have people of every religion that they truly know, and dont believe that god exists. and both sides have so called "irefutable" proof, and its just the same old BS over and over

[tater]

The second they pray out loud in a public school setting, there is a problem, IMHO.

Would they let a couple stoner HS students pray to satan over the loudspeakers, for example?

Better to keep it all out.

[Sailor Steve]

When I was a believer I still had a problem with the whole public prayer thing. As I saw it, it went against the Lord's own words.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Snestorm]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The key word here is CONGRESS.

The US Constitution does restrict the power of the US Government, but it does NOT testrict the powers of state and local governments.

Why are US Courts involving themselves in matters which the US Government is prohibited from regulating?

I don't suport any religion, but I do suport Freedom Of Speech, which does include religiouse speech.

[mookiemookie]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The key word here is CONGRESS.

The US Constitution does restrict the power of the US Government, but it does NOT testrict the powers of state and local governments.

Why are US Courts involving themselves in matters which the US Government is prohibited from regulating?

I don't suport any religion, but I do suport Freedom Of Speech, which does include religiouse speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

Specifically: Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

[Aramike]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The key word here is CONGRESS.

The US Constitution does restrict the power of the US Government, but it does NOT testrict the powers of state and local governments.

Why are US Courts involving themselves in matters which the US Government is prohibited from regulating?

I don't suport any religion, but I do suport Freedom Of Speech, which does include religiouse speech.You're discussing the wrong side of the amendment.

A school allowing prayer is not a "law" enacted by Congress or any governing body. Now if the school required prayer due to a law, than it would be unconstitutional.

However, the amendment DOES read "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These days it seems that many atheists and anti-theists have forgotten what the word "free" means. Hint - it doesn't mean "free, EXCEPT in the following cases".

[August]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

Sorry but no. In my country the religious have a right to freely exercise their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

[Snestorm]

You're discussing the wrong side of the amendment.

A school allowing prayer is not a "law" enacted by Congress or any governing body. Now if the school required prayer due to a law, than it would be unconstitutional.

However, the amendment DOES read "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These days it seems that many atheists and anti-theists have forgotten what the word "free" means. Hint - it doesn't mean "free, EXCEPT in the following cases".

Gotcha.

Your approach is much better, and more fitting.

Thanks.

[Snestorm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

Specifically:

There is no, nor can there be a, federal law, as "Congress shall make no . . ."

How can a federal law, which is prohibited from being written, supersede any state law which is not prohibited? The word "Congrees" is again key.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

[Gerald]

There is no, nor can there be a, federal law, as "Congress shall make no . . ."

How can a federal law, which is prohibited from being written, supersede any state law which is not prohibited? The word "Congrees" is again key.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Nice Avatar my friend!

[Snestorm]

Nice Avatar my friend!

Just noticed it. Kinda like the old one better. Oh well.

[mookiemookie]

There is no, nor can there be a, federal law, as "Congress shall make no . . ."

How can a federal law, which is prohibited from being written, supersede any state law which is not prohibited? The word "Congrees" is again key. States cannot make laws that contradict the Constitution. If the Constitution says that no law can be made that blah blah blah, that doesn't mean that only goes for the Federal government. It means that it goes for the states also.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Not always: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption#2._Field_preemption

[Snestorm]

States cannot make laws that contradict the Constitution. If the Constitution says that no law can be made that blah blah blah, that doesn't mean that only goes for the Federal government. It means that it goes for the states also.



Not always: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption#2._Field_preemption

The Constitution does not say "No laws shall be passed".
It does say "Congress shall pass no laws".
The wording is very specific.

[Sailor Steve]

There is no, nor can there be a, federal law, as "Congress shall make no . . ."

How can a federal law, which is prohibited from being written, supersede any state law which is not prohibited? The word "Congrees" is again key.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The problem there is that Congress officially took authority over the states with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The states can't restrict the people any more than Congress can. Except of course the places where Congress tacitly agrees, like property taxes.

[Skybird]

:up:
Secularism must be embraced by states but NOT by individuals. Prohibiting people to pray in public is restricting their belief even banning them.
If their religion demands them to make others either going away in order to not witnessing them practing their relgion or accept to be turned into witnesses of it, the relkgious have oversteppoed the line. I do not tolerate people in the pedestrain zone running around naked becasue they are nudists. I do not accept my neighboiur playing his radio so loud tzhat I need to listen to every single tune and word. But I must accept that the relgious seize the public space with their zeremocies and pratcice, raising anonymous pressure that way as well as a side effect?

BTW, the public schools are tax-run, they are thus under administration of the state, and the state has to make sure his institutions and organisaiton he run are secular.


No one should be forced to pray as no one should be forced not to.
If you pray so loud that I am forced to note it or even get negatively effected in my own way of living, prepare to get troubles with me. Your freedom ends where you demand freedoms that go at the cost of mine.


US and Europe are turning into atheist society and with that more and more atheists are filling governmental positions and high society structures. This, incident like this, is only following this trend.
Really? I know plenty of zealots and boigts in politics - Amercan, international, German.


The funny aspect about many of people who declared themselves atheist is that they are in all objectivity are not just an atheist but they are anti-religion whether specific one or all.
Which is logical since the three big religions Christianity, Judaism and Muhameddanism all are theist religions.

If the trend continues before long practicing and expressing religious belief will be banned from public events and places. The real motive to this is to hinder the propagation of religious beliefs and make the majority of population atheists or even better anti-religion.
By the American example the state indeed shall stey away from propgation of relgious claims and statements. And certain fields like for exaple jurisdiction, tax systemns, schools and unvirsities, public funding, indeed should be left uneffected by relgious demnds to tailor these in on behalf of said relgion's cliams and interests. That is part of secularism.

The irony is that this anti religion atheists are only in all objectivity members of their own beliefs which is anti religion and anti God.['/quote]
The usual anti-athist propaganda that refuses to see how self-contradictory this claim is. Fact is theists refuse to believe in what you define as yoiur understanding of theist Christianity, and that you - and many other believers - take queer. We refuse your believing. We claim the right not to be bothered in our way of life by your relgious practices. Some of us beoieve in non-theistic conceptions. thers do not care for mamiojg their minds up over what they believe or not.

Just to claim that religion automatically means theism, is wrong.

[quote]
It's a sad thing especially for people like me who truly knows and not just believe that God exists and even had a glimpse/peek of Him.
Yes, you are truly enlightened. You have let us known often enough.

My ordeal in Singapore whose rulers are atheists proved that they harbor a passion of hating anything genuinely religious. The irony is that they even engaged in spiritual warfare using spirit ....
Okay, full stop here. I simpy don't care for the rest.

[mookiemookie]

The Constitution does not say "No laws shall be passed".
It does say "Congress shall pass no laws".
The wording is very specific.

States cannot pass unconstitutional laws. Supremacy Clause. This is Civics 101.

[Skybird]

Sorry but no. In my country the religious have a right to freely exercise their religion.
In your country as well as mine they cannot excersise tgheir relgion in the courts, rewriter laws because their relgions demands them to be so and so, they cannot rule the curriculum of schools and universities, they cannot sacrifice humans becasue their religions demand them to do so, and if they enter the property of a private person for baptising him agauinst his will, insome states this poerson has the right to shoot them dead right on place.

In your country other people not sharing the beliefs of a group also have rights. For example to stay free and untouched from said religion.

Else you would not be a democratic republic (on paper), but a religious theocracy in reality).


A persons relation he has to what he/she beoieves him, is a matter of the heart. It is intimate, private, and personal. Keep it there, in the private. Where you claim yur relgion demands you baptise others and to crusade for your deity and to soread the dogma, you are political, and you are nbot about spiritual developement, but earthl power-mongering, wanting to control others.

[August]

In your country as well as mine they cannot excersise tgheir relgion in the courts, rewriter laws because their relgions demands them to be so and so, they cannot rule the curriculum of schools and universities, they cannot sacrifice humans becasue their religions demand them to do so, and if they enter the property of a private person for baptising him agauinst his will, insome states this poerson has the right to shoot them dead right on place.

In your country other people not sharing the beliefs of a group also have rights. For example to stay free and untouched from said religion.

Else you would not be a democratic republic (on paper), but a religious theocracy in reality).


A persons relation he has to what he/she beoieves him, is a matter of the heart. It is intimate, private, and personal. Keep it there, in the private. Where you claim yur relgion demands you baptise others and to crusade for your deity and to soread the dogma, you are political, and you are nbot about spiritual developement, but earthl power-mongering, wanting to control others.

And nowhere does it say the religious have to hide their religious practices from your sight, yet you keep demanding they do so. Sorry, not gonna happen.

[August]

States cannot pass unconstitutional laws. Supremacy Clause. This is Civics 101.

Then every gun control law ever passed is just as unconstitutional.

[tater]

Then every gun control law ever passed is just as unconstitutional.

Yes to both.

Jefferson described his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as a "wall of separation," and this statute informed the 1st Amendment. It was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea.

Like it or not, any sanction given a Christian prayer (or even "nondenominational" prayer), must also be given to any other prayer that anyone wishes to speak. The state cannot judge between them. It could be blessings upon the graduates one minute, and telling muslim grads to smite infidels the next. Better to disallow both, and keep them where they remain, in the private sphere.

[mookiemookie]

And nowhere does it say the religious have to hide their religious practices from your sight, yet you keep demanding they do so. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Strawman argument. No one is demanding that the religious hide their practices. They're demanding that no state sponsored organization sanction or encourage them.

[razark]

Like it or not, any sanction given a Christian prayer (or even "nondenominational" prayer), must also be given to any other prayer that anyone wishes to speak. The state cannot judge between them. It could be blessings upon the graduates one minute, and telling muslim grads to smite infidels the next. Better to disallow both, and keep them where they remain, in the private sphere.
This. Exactly this.

[Snestorm]

States cannot pass unconstitutional laws. Supremacy Clause. This is Civics 101.

We aren't discussing Civics 101. (That class is 2 doors down, on your Left).
We are discussing the US Constitution.

[August]

Strawman argument. No one is demanding that the religious hide their practices.

Uhm, do you have Skybird on ignore or something Mookie?

A persons relation he has to what he/she beoieves him, is a matter of the heart. It is intimate, private, and personal. Keep it there, in the private.

We claim the right not to be bothered in our way of life by your relgious practices.

In spite of the bad spelling he is pretty clear that is indeed exactly what he wants. Your strawman argument accusation is denied.

[tater]

Religion does not have to be silenced in public. A graduation from a public school is different, however. It is an action by the state, granting an official document. It is a government function.

It's a terrible precedent.

[MothBalls]

Religion does not have to be silenced in public. A graduation from a public school is different, however. It is an action by the state, granting an official document. It is a government function.

It's a terrible precedent.

If I was there, I'd ask everyone to rise and say a prayer for the judge, and ask everyone to forgive him for making the decision to not allow prayers.

[Penguin]

What's all the fuzz about?
What about a pragmatic solution: Those who want, can attend church/mosque/temple/whatever before or after the grad ceremony and pray there, those who don't want don't go there. No freedom of religion infringed, no "irreparable harm" done either...

[August]

What's all the fuzz about?
What about a pragmatic solution: Those who want, can attend church/mosque/temple/whatever before or after the grad ceremony and pray there, those who don't want don't go there. No freedom of religion infringed, no "irreparable harm" done either...

How about an even more pragmatic solution? Get rid of graduation ceremonies altogether. Let the religious students go to their church/mosque/temple/whatever of choice if they want a ceremony and the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for it.

Of course it'd tear the town into separate (but equal) factions but that's probably the true objective of the objectors anyways.

[mookiemookie]

We aren't discussing Civics 101. (That class is 2 doors down, on your Left).
We are discussing the US Constitution.

"We're not discussing trigonometry. We're discussing sines and cosines."

"We're not discussing English. We're discussing sentence structure."

"We're not discussing biology. We're discussing cell reproduction."

:roll:

[Skybird]

August, if you play your radio so loud that you annoy others and they cannot live their lives without listening to you, then it is you who has to decrease the volume. It is not the others needing to take earplugs or move away or make more noise with their radios to "overtune" your radio.

That simple it is. And you know it.

Mookie is right, you are giving a strawman argument indeed - for distraction purposes.

[August]

- for distraction purposes.

Well if that's what you really think then discussing this issue with you is as useless as your opinion on the internal matters of my country.

[tater]

Can we at least get the other people who understand the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" between church and State to admit that virtually any gun control is unconstitutional as August added? :)

It has generally been ruled that while religious groups can use a school facility (say after school is out), they cannot do so during a school function (obviously a public school here). The bad precedent, however is that Congress opens with a prayer, which frankly it should not.

The bastardized pledge of allegiance should similarly be reconstituted to the original wording, leaving out "under god." Note that the preacher that wrote the pledge did NOT have under god in there, but "indivisible." The under god wording was added later, in the 1950s (along with the "in god we trust" nonsense on money). The Founders would be appalled.

Anyone pro-prayer at graduation. Would you be cool with next year the prayer done by an imam shouting "alah'u akbar!"? How about some stoner kids that want to do a prayer to satan? How about a polytheist prayer to all the gods? Zeus? Apollo?

A can of worms better left closed. In addition, they are all explicitly against the first amendment.

[Aramike]

August, if you play your radio so loud that you annoy others and they cannot live their lives without listening to you, then it is you who has to decrease the volume. It is not the others needing to take earplugs or move away or make more noise with their radios to "overtune" your radio.

That simple it is. And you know it.

Mookie is right, you are giving a strawman argument indeed - for distraction purposes.That's different. Listening to one's radio too loudly can actually impede others from going about their business. The problem is not whether or not they like the music, but rather that the music is so loud that it is infringing upon another's right to freely exercise their liberties.

Regarding religion, and specifically this discussion, that isn't the problem. The anti-religious crowd isn't feverish over the "volume" but the "content".

[Aramike]

Anyone pro-prayer at graduation. Would you be cool with next year the prayer done by an imam shouting "alah'u akbar!"? How about some stoner kids that want to do a prayer to satan? How about a polytheist prayer to all the gods? Zeus? Apollo?If that was the will of the people, while I wouldn't like it, I would support their right to do so.

"Free exercise thereof" doesn't mean "free and EQUAL exercise thereof"...

[tater]

That's different. Listening to one's radio too loudly can actually impede others from going about their business. The problem is not whether or not they like the music, but rather that the music is so loud that it is infringing upon another's right to freely exercise their liberties.

Regarding religion, and specifically this discussion, that isn't the problem. The anti-religious crowd isn't feverish over the "volume" but the "content".

The content matters because the government is sanctioning it. If the content was not religious, it would not be "establishment."

[Skybird]

That's different. Listening to one's radio too loudly can actually impede others from going about their business. The problem is not whether or not they like the music, but rather that the music is so loud that it is infringing upon another's right to freely exercise their liberties.

Regarding religion, and specifically this discussion, that isn't the problem. The anti-religious crowd isn't feverish over the "volume" but the "content".
Wrong, at least for atheists like me. I do not care so much for the content, but the volume. I never met any atheist bashing religious people over their content , but their "volume".

As I use to say: keep religion to thyself. What people do in their private sphere, in their own cabin, I do care as little for as I do care for what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Butwhen my kids need to get exposed to religiously pressure/concepts/rituals/claims in the public spohere, in public school, then that is when I call to arms - no matter wghat relgion it is about and no matter whether that religions claims it has a religious duty to missionise.

I despise missionaries. None of them has to expect anything good from me. I give them one warning. If they need a second warning in order to win ground, they already have behaved in an invading, aggressive manner. One "No" should be enough. And in public, state-run institutions, any such "No" should not even been needed - religious agendas have to stay out from the beginning there. That cames as part of secularism.

It comes down to this freedom of reliious practicing needs to accept peoples freedom FROMgion as well. Else said religion becomes a tyranny, a dicatorship of the religious sectarians over those not falling for that religion.

No religion has the right to demand non-followers to fall back, to give space to, to accept a degrading of their freedoms for the benefit of the freedom of said religion. This statement is non-negotiable. From this treshhold criterion on (at the latest), atheists and other non-believers speaking out against said religion are not acting intolerant, or aggressive, but in a clear and imminent case of self-defence. That is true regarding Islam. That is true regarding Jewish othodox and Jehovian witnesses. That is true regarding any sectarians . And of course it is true in case of American Christian fundamentalists as well.

Tolerance is no one-way road. It is a deal of reciprocity. There shall not be tolerance for the intolerant. In the end it is easy to get along with "atheists like me": don't claim what is not yours, don'T stick your nose into my/our private business, don't break the laws or basic human rights, don't try to turn the country into a theocracy basing on your beliefs, and I/we do not care much for what you claim to beieve in. Push your religious views into the public space, into a school curriculum, into policy- and law-making and access procedures for public services or public offices, or rub your stuff under my/our nose(s) in a missionising attempt - and find yourself meeting the more bitter resistence the more you try.

[MH]

Since religious people are so sensitive about their believes the removal of the practice from government institutions should actually work for the better.
Certainly in country like USA which is multicultural in many ways.
This way using religion as political statements as it often happens and possibly happened in this case will be avoided as well.

Sadly religious/atheist views are part of left/right conflict as well.

[August]

The bad precedent, however is that Congress opens with a prayer, which frankly it should not.

Actually instead of setting a bad precedent I believe it illustrates exactly how the founders intended the first Amendment to be understood.

We have the freedom to worship. Nobody can force you but nobody can stop you either. The modern notion that the 1st Amendment bans all references to God in public functions is something that I doubt any of the founders would have agreed to.

In fact read what the US Senates chaplain, yes they have one, says about it. http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation.

[tater]

That chaplain is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, clearly. "God" (singular) is already "establishment" in fact. Why not "gods?"

You say no one can force you, but no one can stop you---8212;when the prayers is said by a government official, it is the State engaging in religion, not the individual. The principal, etc, can say whatever they like on their own time, in their home, church, or even on a soap box in the park. I don't think they should do so in their official capacity, and if they do, they should be required to include every single possible belief.

A "sharper knife" wrote:
Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.




Should not the Senate chaplain be required to alternate "prayers" for every single practice in the US out of fairness? Branch Davidian prayer, the nuts who offed themselves waiting for the UFO, the flying spaghetti monster, satan, wicca, etc, ad nauseum. All it should take is a petition, and the prayer should be forced on him.

In general I'm rather loose about separation. I've posted here that some suits brought are absurd (like changing city seals that date back hundreds of years to remove crosses, etc). This comes up in NM all the time with towns like "Santa" this and that, and "Las Cruces" (the crosses)... where such cases are heard in our capital, "Holy Faith" (Santa Fe) which is nestled in the "Blood of Christ" mountains (Sangre de Christo). It can go too far. Prayer, OTOH, is way beyond this, and is in fact an overtly religious act by the state.

Yeah, I'm against the 10 commandments on the SCOTUS building, too (amazing anyone thinks those ridiculous commandments deserve to be there (they also seem to forget that the punishment for most all transgressions of them is in fact supposed to be death)).

[Platapus]

A

In fact read what the US Senates chaplain, yes they have one, says about it. http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

I don't think a chaplain would be considered an unbiased source on this matter. :D

I may be going out on a limb here, but I have a sneaky suspicion that a congressional chaplain might be leaning more towards a theist point of view.

Just a suspicion mind you. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Actually instead of setting a bad precedent I believe it illustrates exactly how the founders intended the first Amendment to be understood.

We have the freedom to worship. Nobody can force you but nobody can stop you either. The modern notion that the 1st Amendment bans all references to God in public functions is something that I doubt any of the founders would have agreed to.
The Founder who masterminded the Constitution would certainly have agreed with that ban.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
-James Madison, Detached Memoranda
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

Madison also believed that the military should not have chaplains, and that if Congress insisted on prayer then they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets rather than have the taxpayers do it.

[Aramike]

The content matters because the government is sanctioning it. If the content was not religious, it would not be "establishment."The government is not "sanctioning" it, it is merely not interferring with it. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is the limitation of government powers, and the 1st Amendment CLEARLY states that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

[mookiemookie]

The government is not "sanctioning" it, it is merely not interferring with it. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is the limitation of government powers, and the 1st Amendment CLEARLY states that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Listing "benediction" and "invocation" in the program make it pretty clear that these are part of the official ceremony put on by the school. That goes far beyond non-interference.

[August]

The Founder who masterminded the Constitution would certainly have agreed with that ban.

Madison also believed that the military should not have chaplains, and that if Congress insisted on prayer then they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets rather than have the taxpayers do it.

Yet a majority of Congress must have disagreed with Madison because they did do all of that.

I don't think we should base our interpretation of our Constitutional amendments by what individual members said or wrote. Politicians say all sorts of things before, during and after the passage of legislation, and for various reasons too depending on their audience, but the only thing that should really count is what is actually voted into law by the legislative body as a whole.

I think if Congress had agreed with Jeffersons total "Wall of Separation" then I think they would have said so, but they didn't. The First Amendment is pretty clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is nothing in that which implies a community free Americans cannot include prayers and benedictions in their civic ceremonies, just like the US Congress does.

[Aramike]

Listing "benediction" and "invocation" in the program make it pretty clear that these are part of the official ceremony put on by the school. That goes far beyond non-interference.So? The 1st Amendment regarding religion means two simple things: government cannot impose religious practices upon people and it cannot interfere with it.

Perhaps to you, a prayer is a massive intrusion. To me in this case its a respectful observance of the will of the majority that does NOT intrude upon anyone. There is no compulsion to participate.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that the 2nd Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO LAW..." This is not about any law. But if it were banned, it would be a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Sailor Steve]

Yet a majority of Congress must have disagreed with Madison because they did do all of that.
Yes, a majority of Congress did vote to have their religious preferrences installed into the National Government, thereby ignoring their own "No Law" rule.

I don't think we should base our interpretation of our Constitutional amendments by what individual members said or wrote. Politicians say all sorts of things before, during and after the passage of legislation, and for various reasons too depending on their audience, but the only thing that should really count is what is actually voted into law by the legislative body as a whole.
Congress has always had one law for themselves and another for everybody else. What's that old saw about "tyrrany of the masses"?

I think if Congress had agreed with Jeffersons total "Wall of Separation" then I think they would have said so, but they didn't. The First Amendment is pretty clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
But Congressional prayer, or any officially sanctioned public prayer is not free excersise, it's forced religious exercise, forced on anyone who disagrees with it.

There is nothing in that which implies a community free Americans cannot include prayers and benedictions in their civic ceremonies, just like the US Congress does.
As I said, what you described is not free exercise at all, but the religious forcing everyone in the community to be a part of their worship. That goes against the spirit of the Constitution, as well as what Jesus himself said. If you pray in public, out loud, you're a hypocrite.

[Aramike]

But Congressional prayer, or any officially sanctioned public prayer is not free excersise, it's forced religious exercise, forced on anyone who disagrees with it.How? No one is forced to participate, and if I'm not mistaken, no one is forced to even be in the chambers when the prayer occurs.As I said, what you described is not free exercise at all, but the religious forcing everyone in the community to be a part of their worship.By that logic anyone who worships openly anywhere would be "forcing" others to be a part of their worship.

[mookiemookie]

So? The 1st Amendment regarding religion means two simple things: government cannot impose religious practices upon people and it cannot interfere with it.

Perhaps to you, a prayer is a massive intrusion. To me in this case its a respectful observance of the will of the majority that does NOT intrude upon anyone. There is no compulsion to participate.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that the 2nd Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO LAW..." This is not about any law. But if it were banned, it would be a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS sees it differently:

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe: (http://supreme.justia.com/us/530/290/case.html)

The delivery of a message such as the invocation here—on school prop-
erty, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address sys-
tem, by a speaker representing the student body, under the super-
vision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly
and implicitly encourages public prayer—is not properly characterized
as “private” speech. I.e. it's officially endorsed. The court has ruled that this sort of thing is not, as you say, non-interference.

Your second argument, that there's non coercison has been addressed by the court as well:

The first part of this argument—that there is no impermissible government coercion
because the pregame messages are the product of student choices—fails
for the reasons discussed above explaining why the mechanism of the
dual elections and student speaker do not turn public speech into pri-
vate speech.

The way I see it, your arguments are left without a leg to stand on. It's public speech, endorsed by the school, and the fact that its not forced on someone doesn't make it any less so.

[Castout]

Anyone pro-prayer at graduation. Would you be cool with next year the prayer done by an imam shouting "alah'u akbar!"? How about some stoner kids that want to do a prayer to satan? How about a polytheist prayer to all the gods? Zeus? Apollo?



Sure why not even praying to satan as long as they don't break the law while praying whatever and however they do it.:DL

Really.:)

If it's a Muslim community event sure why not an Imam to lead their Muslim community to pray according to Islam tradition even in public venue.

The prayer leader should just say let us now bow our head in prayer according to each of our faith . . . . . . There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for atheists they just need to be silent as not to disturb those who pray and as a token of respect to other believers as their faith/belief is the nonexistence of God.

There! No one is forced to pray and no one is forced not to pray. Perfect!!

[Aramike]

Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS sees it differently:

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe: (http://supreme.justia.com/us/530/290/case.html)Actually it doesn't. That's a completely different situation. It's language: The delivery of a message such as the invocation here---8212;on school prop-
erty, at school-sponsored events, over the school---8217;s public address sys-
tem, by a speaker representing the student body, under the super-
vision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly
and implicitly encourages public prayer---8212;is not properly characterized
as ---8220;private---8221; speech. Emphasis mine, doubly on the word "and".

In any case, the 5th Circuit had this to say:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57111291/Schultz-v-Medina-School-Dist-6-3-11On this incomplete record at this preliminary injunction stage of the case, we are not persuaded that plaintiffs have shown that they are substantially likely to prevail on themerits, particularly on the issue that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school sponsored. We also observe in particular thatthe plaintiffs' motion may be rooted at least in part in circumstances that no longer exist.For example, the school has apparently abandoned including the words "invocation" and"benediction" on the program. The motion also did not expressly address the involvementof the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony.So the way *I* see it, the leg your argument is standing upon is ill-informed at best.

[Aramike]

Oh, and by the way mookie - for future reference Supreme Court rulings aren't immune from one believing that they are wrong, as did three justices in the case you cite. In fact the dissent which I'm referring to is far more in line with where I stand on the issue. You should read it - it's interesting.

I'm curious - what was your take on the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Oh wait, it's right here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160591

Well I've got news for you - all your opinions about that are wrong because the Supreme Court disagreed with you. :doh:

[Iceman]

Then people should have the right to pray silently and without calling attention to it. That's a win win situation

The prayers get to pray, those who don't wanna don't have to hear/see it.

Unfortunately, that is not what many of these theists want. They want it to be a big public thing. They want things to stop so that everyone notices that they are praying (or pretending to).

A person who is secure in their faith can pray in a crowded room and no one will ever notice. Why does it have to be a public "hey pay attention to what I am doing" thing?

That's what I don't understand. Why does praying need to be a formal part of a ceremony?

Yea good point dood...

Matthew 6 5-6
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "

Good point Platapus :up:

[Sailor Steve]

How? No one is forced to participate, and if I'm not mistaken, no one is forced to even be in the chambers when the prayer occurs.By that logic anyone who worships openly anywhere would be "forcing" others to be a part of their worship.
No one is forced? If I want to attend your church service I can, and if I don't want to I don't have to. If I want to attend the council meeting, or the congressional session I shouldn't have to also be a part of your worship. What? I can wait outside while you conduct your service? If I don't like it I don't have to come?

Can you really not see how arrogant that is? Using public time and money for your worship service is very much forcing your beliefs on everyone else, and is exactly what people like Madison, Adams and Jefferson were trying to prevent.

[Wolfehunter]

If it is a public school, the state has to make sure not to propagate or support any religion in the public space. It's called secularism, and is based on the 1st amendement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]

People' freedom ends where they practice it at the cost of the freedom of others, hence: keep away religion from state-run institutions and the communal public space. Leave it to the private sphere of the individuals.

That is where personal belief in the divine belong anyway. What is between you and your God, is your intimate business only for which nobody else must care. Where you claim the public sphere for your belief, you are supressing others, and turn from religion to politics.:yeah:this.

[Platapus]

The prayer leader should just say let us now bow our head in prayer according to each of our faith . . . . . . There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for atheists they just need to be silent as not to disturb those who pray and as a token of respect to other believers as their faith/belief is the nonexistence of God.

There! No one is forced to pray and no one is forced not to pray. Perfect!!

The event leader should just say let us now proceed with the ceremony. There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for theists, they just need to pray silently as not to disturb those who are there for the ceremony and as a token of respect to the other event participants.

There! No one is forced to pray and no one is forced not to pray. Perfect!!

That's how it should be done.

[mookiemookie]

Oh, and by the way mookie - for future reference Supreme Court rulings aren't immune from one believing that they are wrong, as did three justices in the case you cite. In fact the dissent which I'm referring to is far more in line with where I stand on the issue. You should read it - it's interesting.

I'm curious - what was your take on the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Oh wait, it's right here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160591

Well I've got news for you - all your opinions about that are wrong because the Supreme Court disagreed with you. :doh:

When you start interpreting the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendments with such certainty, it's helpful to point out that the branch of government who interprets the law has already done the interpreting.

The event leader should just say let us now proceed with the ceremony. There!! No endorsement to whatever specific religion. And for theists, they just need to pray silently as not to disturb those who are there for the ceremony and as a token of respect to the other event participants.

There! No one is forced to pray and no one is forced not to pray. Perfect!!

That's how it should be done.

Exactly. Why even stray close to the line and create a court case over it when there's no pressing need to do so?

[Platapus]

I think if Congress had agreed with Jeffersons total "Wall of Separation" then I think they would have said so, but they didn't. The First Amendment is pretty clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is nothing in that which implies a community free Americans cannot include prayers and benedictions in their civic ceremonies, just like the US Congress does.

But the constitution also says that there will be no religious test for federal government positions.

To me, this clearly indicates an intent to keep religion a private thing and totally separate from official duties.

[August]

But the constitution also says that there will be no religious test for federal government positions.

To me, this clearly indicates an intent to keep religion a private thing and totally separate from official duties.

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

[mookiemookie]

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion. Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.

It's not necessarily a bright line between the Federal and local governments, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[Penguin]

How about an even more pragmatic solution? Get rid of graduation ceremonies altogether. Let the religious students go to their church/mosque/temple/whatever of choice if they want a ceremony and the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for it.


The people who attend the graduation ceremony share a mutual interest: to get the HS diploma. Religion is not a common demoninator.
Another thing that those people share, is that they went to an american school, so while it is ok to sing the anthem at the ceremony, it would not be ok to sing the song of the HS football team, as not all students are part of the team or are interested in sports at all.


Of course it'd tear the town into separate (but equal) factions but that's probably the true objective of the objectors anyways.

I get your "separate but equal" phrase, nice implication you are trying to make there. Of course should theists and non-theist go to separate events, schools, toilets and believers should sit in the back of the bus...:yep:

However regarding that prejudice against atheists seems to be supported by many Americans (1), maybe atheists should be bussed to schools in christian districts. :know:

(1) a summary of different polls: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

[August]

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion.

Not quite Mookie. It is indicative of the position of one of the framers, not the framers as a group. There were those in Congress who voted against the 21st amendment too. That does not make their beliefs the law of the land.

Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.Again with the "they". Madison was an individual, not a group. We just cannot go by the recorded thoughts of one, two or even several individuals no matter how prestigious they were. We must only go by what the majority of the group decided.

Congress making no laws about the establishment and specifically not being able to prohibit the free exercise of religion was all that the majority agreed to and nothing more. That was all the states ratified and nothing more.

If you want to amplify that meaning to include things not in the original then fine. The proper way to do it is to convene a Constitutional Convention and pass another amendment. Any other way is simply unconstitutional.

[tater]

The government is not "sanctioning" it, it is merely not interferring with it. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is the limitation of government powers, and the 1st Amendment CLEARLY states that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I'm not suggesting they prohibit religion. Anyone who wants can pray silently at any time. Or the audience is welcome to be rude and pray out loud I suppose. Having even a moment of prayer set aside, however, is going too far, much less actually praying out loud using the PA system.

If you want a prayer meeting, hold it before or after the graduation for those who wish to attend. Not during the ceremony to hand out diplomas.

[Aramike]

When you start interpreting the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendments with such certainty, it's helpful to point out that the branch of government who interprets the law has already done the interpreting.Except that branch that interprets the law wasn't very certain either, ergo the dissent. :salute:

[Aramike]

No one is forced? If I want to attend your church service I can, and if I don't want to I don't have to. If I want to attend the council meeting, or the congressional session I shouldn't have to also be a part of your worship. What? I can wait outside while you conduct your service? If I don't like it I don't have to come?

Can you really not see how arrogant that is? Using public time and money for your worship service is very much forcing your beliefs on everyone else, and is exactly what people like Madison, Adams and Jefferson were trying to prevent.Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"

Steve, it's called "freedom". People have freedom to do things. Other people may not like that such things are being done, but that's why we Constitutionally limit our government.

There is a Constitutional Amendment specifically protecting the free exercise of religion. There is NOT a Constitutional Amendment that requires it to be behind closed doors or away from those who simply wish it didn't occur.

[razark]

Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"
By that logic, if 99% of people want to enslave the other 1%, it is right to allow it?

After all, if the majority want it, why should we stop them?

[tater]

Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"

Steve, it's called "freedom". People have freedom to do things. Other people may not like that such things are being done, but that's why we Constitutionally limit our government.

There is a Constitutional Amendment specifically protecting the free exercise of religion. There is NOT a Constitutional Amendment that requires it to be behind closed doors or away from those who simply wish it didn't occur.

Freedom for the minority is the whole point. "99% of us are C of E, you Puritans can just sit outside and like it!"

In the 2d part, you once again demonstrate that you entirely miss the point. At a government function—a public school graduation—it becomes endorsement by the State.

[mookiemookie]

Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"

Democracy is not mob rule without regard to the minority.

[Fish]

:up:



The funny aspect about many of people who declared themselves atheist is that they are in all objectivity are not just an atheist but they are anti-religion whether specific one or all.
.

Yes, in some way your right, I am anti-religion if it knocks on my door.
Keep your religion to yourself.
And then, I promise not to knock on your door to promote atheism.:up:

[Aramike]

Democracy is not mob rule without regard to the minority.Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.

Oh, and I hardly think that anything we're discussing here would or could be construed as "mob rule". The minority can just as easily respect the wishes of the majority in this case.

[mookiemookie]

Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.

Oh, and I hardly think that anything we're discussing here would or could be construed as "mob rule". The minority can just as easily respect the wishes of the majority in this case.

Or the majority could just as easily not drag religion into a non-religious event. :ping:

[tater]

UP the thread I posted Jefferson's letter that contains "wall of separation" (which is where "separation of church and state" comes from).

The letter was to the Danbury Baptist association. It was regarding their row with the... atheists? Agnostics? Nope, the Congregationalists. The baptists saw their religious freedom as granted by the state due to the way they were treated (government controlled by Congregationalists), and wanted clarification.

Separation is shown even in its very beginning as protecting religious freedom, not endangering it.

So it is today.

[Snestorm]

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

The answer is very simple.
It doesn't.

[Sailor Steve]

Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"
That's the exact same thing you used in the 'Gay Marriage' debate. "You're free to follow my rules. Why do you have a problem with that?" We're not talking about church services in church, we're talking about officially sanctioned prayer at government functions. There is a huge difference, and you keep trying to skate around it.

Steve, it's called "freedom". People have freedom to do things. Other people may not like that such things are being done, but that's why we Constitutionally limit our government.

There is a Constitutional Amendment specifically protecting the free exercise of religion. There is NOT a Constitutional Amendment that requires it to be behind closed doors or away from those who simply wish it didn't occur.
So in spite of that protection you still think it's okay for folks who believe in a very specific form of worship to force that worship on those who don't believe that way? We are talking about government functions here, not private worship.

Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.
But that's exactly what you do argue. The crowd wins, and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it. This is why I used the word "arrogant" in the first place.

Oh, and I hardly think that anything we're discussing here would or could be construed as "mob rule". The minority can just as easily respect the wishes of the majority in this case.
And you do it again. The "Protection" clauses in the Constitution are there to protect the minority from abuse by the majority. You want to use government buildings and government functions to push your religion on the rest, and if the rest is a minority, too bad.

[Aramike]

That's the exact same thing you used in the 'Gay Marriage' debate. "You're free to follow my rules. Why do you have a problem with that?" We're not talking about church services in church, we're talking about officially sanctioned prayer at government functions. There is a huge difference, and you keep trying to skate around it.No I'm not, and now you're being completely disingenous to boot. I find it interesting how you always pretend to be on the side of freedom, but are always against the freedom of the majority.

If you were actually interested in making an intellectually honest point, you would have asserted that my position on gay marriage doesn't jive with my position on religion, in that my belief in freedom is based upon the actual exercise of freedom through action. In other words I believe that all should be free in doing what they wish although it may cause others discomfort. However, those people can merely either avoid the situation or simply deal with it.

I cannot intellectually reconcile both beliefs (actually, I think I probably could, but for the sake of argument I'll say no). One thing is clear however - you do not believe in actual freedom. So in spite of that protection you still think it's okay for folks who believe in a very specific form of worship to force that worship on those who don't believe that way? We are talking about government functions here, not private worship.Your definition of "force" is funny, because according to any dictionary I've ever read it's not the English definition of the term. And there's a BUNCH of different definitions to the word, and one would have to pervert them in order to find actual relevance to the discussion.But that's exactly what you do argue. The crowd wins, and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it. This is why I used the word "arrogant" in the first place.Wrong.

If people don't like something, they have every right to avoid it. For some reason, you believe that people shouldn't have to avoid that which they don't like. Unfortunately for your argument, that means that no one would have any rights to do anything.

Not to go all "mookie" on you, but it seems as though the appelate court agrees with me on this.

In any case, there is nothing more arrogant than someone who believes they are so special that others shouldn't be ABLE to do something that DOES NOT ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM simply because they don't like/agree with it. In fact, it is SO arrogant that, in my opinion, it's an immoral display of pseudo-intellectual machination.

And that's coming from an atheist.And you do it again. The "Protection" clauses in the Constitution are there to protect the minority from abuse by the majority.And I disagree with this ... how?You want to use government buildings and government functions to push your religion on the rest, and if the rest is a minority, too bad. No I don't. Are you even making an attempt at intellectual honesty?

I want to allow private citizens to be able to practice their religion whereever they please - who said anything about allowing them to "push" their religion?

In fact, I find it kind of sickening that your side ALWAYS sees any practice of religion as some sort of proselytization effort - and like I said, that's coming from an atheist. Steve, please, explain to me how, when someone says "let's bow our heads and pray" that actually is an imposition of religion.

Oh wait - you can't. Because it's not. Why? Because no one has to do it. A suggestion doesn't "force" anything upon anyone. I do find it interesting however how your side ALWAYS seems to think that everyone is too stupid to realize that such things are actually suggestions rather than requirements.

Does it simply bother you that enough people WANT to do it that they actually go ahead and do so? Clearly it does.

Unfortunately, you being bothered is not a Constitutionally protected right. The free exercise of religion is.

[Aramike]

Or the majority could just as easily not drag religion into a non-religious event. :ping:But why should they avoid what they WANT to do?

Okay, let's take your argument here at face value. If they could "just as easily", that means "all things being equal". So why are you on the side of the minority when, all things being equal, it wouldn't matter if the majority were able to engage in an event the way they chose to do so? :cool:

Unless, of course, you believe the minority should be able to rule, which in my opinion is far worse than any mob rule.

[joegrundman]

OMG!

Are you even making an attempt at intellectual honesty?

lulz!:Kaleun_Applaud:

a blogman award for aramike!

[Platapus]

\ I promise not to knock on your door to promote atheism.:up:

Strange, I have never had any one knock on my door asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one accost me at an airport asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one interrupt my shopping in a mall asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one put unwanted literature on my car when it was parked asking me to become an atheist.

(the list can continue)

But I do get theists doing this.

[Skybird]

On a sidenote, in Germany the Protestant "Kirchentag" has ended a week ago or so. Speakers of the Protestant said they were proud that they managed to run the whole public show and discussions program without explicitly basing and refering to Christian belief and content, so that no members of certain foreign cultures and beliefs must feel offended or challenged and not being tolerated.

It's already bad enough that the churches of all confessions have distorted the teaching of Jesuus and abused it for poltical own interests. That now the Protestants are even proud in explicitly not witnessing and basing and referring to Christan teaches altogether, imo opinion is at least as laughable and hilarious. At least it is - slimy, somehow. unstraight, cowardish, weak.

If I were somebody putting importance on confessing to Christian religion, I would have made that modern Protestant policy and comment a reason to convert to Catholicism... I dislike the Catholic church very much. Point is I dislike the Protestants as much, if not even more. And when I hear "Margot Kässmann" (Germans here no who she is), I just want to vomit.

[Sailor Steve]

No I'm not, and now you're being completely disingenous to boot. I find it interesting how you always pretend to be on the side of freedom, but are always against the freedom of the majority.
:rotfl2:

I am on the side of freedom. Everyone is free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's freedom to do the same. On the other hand, you are campaigning for the freedom to force others to be subject to your desire to inflict your religion on everyone else at the taxpayers' expense. You haven't addressed that yet, and you continue to avoid it.

If you were actually interested in making an intellectually honest point, you would have asserted that my position on gay marriage doesn't jive with my position on religion, in that my belief in freedom is based upon the actual exercise of freedom through action. In other words I believe that all should be free in doing what they wish although it may cause others discomfort. However, those people can merely either avoid the situation or simply deal with it.
First, I'm not interested in showing that your positions may contradict each other. I'm not interested in playing intellectual internet games and calling them "honest".

Second, you haven't addressed my other accusation, which was that you believe in freedom for yourself, which is fine, but you deny the same to others and then accuse them of wanting to take away yours by simply asking for the same consideration.

I cannot intellectually reconcile both beliefs (actually, I think I probably could, but for the sake of argument I'll say no). One thing is clear however - you do not believe in actual freedom. Your definition of "force" is funny, because according to any dictionary I've ever read it's not the English definition of the term. And there's a BUNCH of different definitions to the word, and one would have to pervert them in order to find actual relevance to the discussion.
I love the way you pervert things to suit your special meanings.

Wrong.

If people don't like something, they have every right to avoid it. For some reason, you believe that people shouldn't have to avoid that which they don't like. Unfortunately for your argument, that means that no one would have any rights to do anything.
So having your prayers at a taxpayer-funded government function is exersizing your freedom, and those who don't agree are "free" to wait outside until you're done using my money to pay for your "free excersize". What you're doing is demanding special privilege and calling it "freedom", and then calling me "anti-freedom" for objecting.

In any case, there is nothing more arrogant than someone who believes they are so special that others shouldn't be ABLE to do something that DOES NOT ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM simply because they don't like/agree with it. In fact, it is SO arrogant that, in my opinion, it's an immoral display of pseudo-intellectual machination.
But I haven't done that. You are free to do whatever you want, and I not only support that, it's what I fought for. But what you insist on does indeed affect me, because you want to do it at my expense. If you want to pray on a street corner, I'm all for it, because I can indeed avoid it. If you want to use a room at the local school for Bible Study, I'm all for that too, as long as everyone is granted equal time. But you want a government institution to have taxpayer-funded organized prayer during a non-religious function, and anyone who doesn't want that is forced - excuse me, "free" - to either bear with it or leave. That's what I meant by arrogant, and again you're trying to insist on special privilege and call it "freedom".

I want to allow private citizens to be able to practice their religion whereever they please - who said anything about allowing them to "push" their religion?
If we're talking about organized prayer in a government function that's exactly what they're doing. You still haven't addressed that specific argument, and that's the only one I'm making. And opening a not-religious function with a prayer is indeed pushing your belief. Anyone who doesn't like it has to either sit through it or get up and leave, which is of course embarrassing.

In fact, I find it kind of sickening that your side ALWAYS sees any practice of religion as some sort of proselytization effort - and like I said, that's coming from an atheist. Steve, please, explain to me how, when someone says "let's bow our heads and pray" that actually is an imposition of religion.
"Let's not, and say we did." Of course if someone does that they get accused of being disruptive. How about waiting until the end of the prayer and then saying "Let's chant to Buddha." Oh wait, majority. Right. You're only free to do what the majority says.

Oh wait - you can't.
Oh, I most certainly can.

Because it's not. Why? Because no one has to do it. A suggestion doesn't "force" anything upon anyone. I do find it interesting however how your side ALWAYS seems to think that everyone is too stupid to realize that such things are actually suggestions rather than requirements.
My side? I have no side. I only oppose those who insist on "suggesting" doing things at places they don't belong and trying to call it "freedom".

Does it simply bother you that enough people WANT to do it that they actually go ahead and do so? Clearly it does.

Unfortunately, you being bothered is not a Constitutionally protected right. The free exercise of religion is.
So the freedom not to exercise religion in a place where it's not warranted has to be subjected to the tyranny of the masses again? You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, but you insist that anyone who is not religious listens to your prayers in school? If someone starts a pro-nazi chant before the public meeting, is that protected under free speech? How about if they make sure they outnumber everybody else so they are clearly the majority?

Again, I'm not denying anybody's right to pray in public (though Jesus himself calls them hypocrites). I'm disagreeing that they have a right to force their particular brand of worship on anyone else at a function that is clearly not religious. No dishonesty there at all.

[mookiemookie]

But why should they avoid what they WANT to do?

Okay, let's take your argument here at face value. If they could "just as easily", that means "all things being equal". So why are you on the side of the minority when, all things being equal, it wouldn't matter if the majority were able to engage in an event the way they chose to do so? :cool:

Unless, of course, you believe the minority should be able to rule, which in my opinion is far worse than any mob rule.

Or of course I could also believe that we shouldn't drag religion into state-sponsored non-religious events, regardless of what the tyranny of the majority wants.

[Aramike]

I am on the side of freedom. Everyone is free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's freedom to do the same. On the other hand, you are campaigning for the freedom to force others to be subject to your desire to inflict your religion on everyone else at the taxpayers' expense. You haven't addressed that yet, and you continue to avoid it.Here we go again. As is typical, if you either don't understand a point or disagree with it, you claim that it hasn't been addressed.

I have several times stated that I don't believe that a prayer is "inflicting" something on anyone. Now, if you'd like to continue to ignore that, be my guest, but don't be suprised at how circular and pointless of a discussion this will remain.

Would you like me to point out where I've stated this or can you actually find it on your own?First, I'm not interested in showing that your positions may contradict each other. I'm not interested in playing intellectual internet games and calling them "honest".Then why did you bring the other discussion up? Or are you simply not interested now because the logic has backfired?Second, you haven't addressed my other accusation, which was that you believe in freedom for yourself, which is fine, but you deny the same to others and then accuse them of wanting to take away yours by simply asking for the same consideration.I have repeatedly addressed this.

For the last time: WHAT FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON BY A PRAYER?

No where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to begin their participation at an event that involves prayer at the time THEY WANT TO begin said participation. And no one has the "right" to "not hear" what they don't want to hear.

So you can keep conjuring up fake freedoms then complaining that they are being infringed upon, or you can concern yourself with the freedoms that are explicitly detailed in the Constitution.

Personally I've chosen the latter.
Again, I'm not denying anybody's right to pray in public (though Jesus himself calls them hypocrites). I'm disagreeing that they have a right to force their particular brand of worship on anyone else at a function that is clearly not religious. No dishonesty there at all. There's that word again. "Force". Hmmm - where's the "forcing"? Or did you not read that part of my argument either?

Anyway I'm done here. As usual you are the authority on all things you debate in all the while, as usual, you refuse to even consider or discuss the other side.

Ironic considering you fancy yourself the board's policeman and love to brag about how you never consider yourself to "know" anything.

[Aramike]

Or of course I could also believe that we shouldn't drag religion into state-sponsored non-religious events, regardless of what the tyranny of the majority wants.And I could believe that if the majority isn't actually imposing participation upon anyone, the majority should be allowed to engage in Constitutionally protected freedoms.

[Sailor Steve]

Here we go again. As is typical, if you either don't understand a point or disagree with it, you claim that it hasn't been addressed.

I have several times stated that I don't believe that a prayer is "inflicting" something on anyone. Now, if you'd like to continue to ignore that, be my guest, but don't be suprised at how circular and pointless of a discussion this will remain.

Would you like me to point out where I've stated this or can you actually find it on your own?
A prayer, in and of itself, isn't inflicting anything on anyone. A prayer at a secular function is. That's where we disagree. You want your religion practiced at a non-religious public function, and I believe that's wrong. How hard is it for you to understand that?

Then why did you bring the other discussion up? Or are you simply not interested now because the logic has backfired?I have repeatedly addressed this.
No, the logic hasn't backfired. You took my point and deliberately skewed it to match what you wanted to see. My point was to show that in both those debates you insist that others have the "right" to do exactly what you tell them to, and when they object you twist it around so you look like the one being deprived of their freedom. You twisted that around so you could tell me what I should have said instead, blithely missing the point altogether.

For the last time: WHAT FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON BY A PRAYER?
The freedom from being forced to listen to your religion being preached at a civil meeting. It's that simple.

No where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to begin their participation at an event that involves prayer at the time THEY WANT TO begin said participation.
Huh? I'm not even understanding that sentence.

And no one has the "right" to "not hear" what they don't want to hear.
So prayer in schools is a good thing, and kids who don't believe the way you do can leave? No, they can't. The same holds true of adults. A civic function is not a religious service, and you have no right to turn it into one, majority or no.

So you can keep conjuring up fake freedoms then complaining that they are being infringed upon, or you can concern yourself with the freedoms that are explicitly detailed in the Constitution.
Is anyone trying to limit your belief, or your worship? Why do you insist on pushing it where it doesn't belong.

As usual you are the authority on all things you debate in all the while, as usual, you refuse to even consider or discuss the other side.
Looked in a mirror lately? That's exactly what you're doing.

Ironic considering you fancy yourself the board's policeman and love to brag about how you never consider yourself to "know" anything.
I don't fancy myself anything, and I'm not the board's anything. And it's not bragging - I really don't know anything, unless actual facts are involved. On the other hand, I do get my back up when it looks to me like someone is trying to push an agenda.

[Castout]

This world is fcuke* up. The only consolation is that a fcuke* up world will only bring the whole people and situation down.


The only good that can come from fcuke* up people is that they'll fight another fcuk*d up people. . . . of course for all the wrong reasons but who cares.

We all should welcome the age of conflicts, the age of wars. From neighbor against neighbor, pastor against pastor to nation against nation.

It would certainly make a good watch.

Bring in the popcorn . . . . .

http://files.myopera.com/Wakajawaka/blog/popcorn.jpg

The show?
http://www.dailyfreegames.com/images/thumbsfree/Puny_Humans_Must_Die_150.jpg

One as5hole lost to another as5hole is still one less as5hole. The world gains one.

[Aramike]

I was going to quit, but this is way too tempting:A prayer, in and of itself, isn't inflicting anything on anyone. A prayer at a secular function is. That's where we disagree. You want your religion practiced at a non-religious public function, and I believe that's wrong. How hard is it for you to understand that?MY religion?

Are you intent upon proving that you never read anyone's points prior to simply setting out to argue against them? How many times in this thread must I restate my atheism before you get it? How hard is "I'm an atheist" for YOU to understand?

Futhermore, I completely understand your point and have been arguing against it. What - do you think that your position is somehow magical and that if I only understood it I would agree with it? I know exactly what your position is, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking you to task to show specifically why you believe you are right.No, the logic hasn't backfired. You took my point and deliberately skewed it to match what you wanted to see. My point was to show that in both those debates you insist that others have the "right" to do exactly what you tell them to, and when they object you twist it around so you look like the one being deprived of their freedom. Wrong. I have never once ever stated that people should do what I tell them to. Ironic though how in this debate you are trying to tell people what activities can be engaged in and where.

You prove yet again that you do not bother to comprehend what is being laid out in front of you prior to your rebuttal. I know that in the gay marriage debate both myself and Skybird made some fairly complex arguments - but you're a smart guy. Instead, just like here, you merely retorted with line by line responses that were little more than "you're wrong because I think I'm right".

In this case you show another great example of doing just that. This discussion is premised essentially upon defining freedom. We define it differently. I use the Constitution as my resource, and I do not believe that a prayer at a secular function violates any freedom. But time and time again you base your argument on that very premise attempting to use it for self-justification. You are essentially saying that at a secular, government function a prayer is a violation of freedom because, at a secular government function a prayer is a violation of freedom. I'm saying it's not because nothing is being forced upon anyone, and that the prayer is NOT the government function but rather a shared, free exercise of faith by those engaged in the function.

That sentence you didn't understand? It means that people are free to avoid the prayer and do not have a "right" to show up at a function at whatever time they want and to have it be free of prayer. In other words, if Congress is scheduled to pray at 9am, one can simply show up at 9:05 and avoid it. They have no "right" to show up and dictate the session right at 9.Is anyone trying to limit your belief, or your worship? Why do you insist on pushing it where it doesn't belong.Oh, you know us atheists - always showing up and pushing our faith on everyone...The freedom from being forced to listen to your religion being preached at a civil meeting. It's that simple.Are you serious? It's just THAT simple, huh? Who would have thought! I mean, all the heated debate, divided courts, rulings on both sides almost always with strong dissents ... oh, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the ruling discussed in the OP!

But hey - it's just that freakin' simple, right Steve?

Oh wait - I don't see what you're referring to as a "freedom". Maybe it's not that simple. Looked in a mirror lately? That's exactly what you're doing.The "I know you are but what am I?" defense?

No, it's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the issue with some nuance and detail. I know that many will disagree with me and I'm fine with that. I'm just pointing out the reasons I think I'm right and you're wrong.

But maybe you're right ... I DID say that it was "that simple".

Oh wait, that was you.

I believe you're constructing a "freedom" that doesn't exist Constitutionally. I am not authoritative on it and I've presented that argument numerous times. Yet you keep repeating, essentially, that such a freedom just "is", without reasoning. That's what I see as attempting to be an authority on the issue. I don't take well to "because I said so".

Now, even if you do decide to at some point reason the basis of your arguments out that does not mean that I'll agree - I may think you're wrong just the same. Heck, early on when discussing this is August you used Madison's writings as a justification - a good start. I tend to agree with August's point that although those writings were from a Framer that language did NOT make it into the Constitution and the Constitution is what was ratified as law the of the land. But at least you weren't be pulling the authoritative crap you pull it seems every time we debate from other sides as you are now.

And I wouldn't mind the common courtesy of you actually reading what I write, either. If you did perhaps you'd realize that at an atheist I don't have a dog in this fight - I simply find it fascinating and am somewhat irritated that those who claim to be on the side of freedom always seem to ignore specific 1st Amendment language.I don't fancy myself anything, and I'm not the board's anything. And it's not bragging - I really don't know anything, unless actual facts are involved. On the other hand, I do get my back up when it looks to me like someone is trying to push an agenda. Yup! You caught me again with my fundamentalist atheist agenda!

Actually Steve, my agenda is simple: freedom should never be removed lightly and in the absence of strict clarity in the language of the Constitution, I default to the position of common sense and human understanding and basic decency. For you that means that a few hundred graduating kids shouldn't be allowed to pray because 1 or 2 who don't share their faith will hear it. For me that means let them pray because it doesn't actually affect the 1 or 2 kids who disagree.

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. But it's not "that simple", Steve.

[Platapus]

Ever wonder why religion and politics are those topics normally not recommended for discussion in social situations? :yep:

[Tribesman]

I default to the position of common sense and human understanding and basic decency
Sorry, but you are doing the opposite, the default would be no prayers in a non religious setting out of basic decency and common sense.

[Sailor Steve]

I was going to quit, but this is way too tempting:MY religion?

Are you intent upon proving that you never read anyone's points prior to simply setting out to argue against them? How many times in this thread must I restate my atheism before you get it? How hard is "I'm an atheist" for YOU to understand?
You're right, you did use the phrase in one post, and I did miss it. I apologize. On the other hand I've taken part in so many religious debates in the past that I've come to recognize certain techniques that seem to pertain mainly to those debates, and you argued so passionately for prayer that it seemed to be an innate part of your life. Forgive me for assuming. On the other hand this is the internet, and we don't know each other. How do I know you're telling the truth? And the opposite holds true as well, so my only point is that we don't know (I said that again, didn't I), and you argue like a True Believer, so I went with what I saw, or thought I saw. Also, you didn't say you were an atheist until you used it to strengthen the point you were making at the time, which always looks fishy to me.

A part of my problem is that I see the Religious Right argue that "Separation of Church and State" is not what the Constitution really means, and that we are, and should be, a "Christian" nation. When you argue for prayer in public schools it looks to me like you are taking that stance, and I respond accordingly. Again I apologize.

Futhermore, I completely understand your point and have been arguing against it. What - do you think that your position is somehow magical and that if I only understood it I would agree with it? I know exactly what your position is, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking you to task to show specifically why you believe you are right.Wrong. I have never once ever stated that people should do what I tell them to. Ironic though how in this debate you are trying to tell people what activities can be engaged in and where.
No, I don't think my position is "magical". I'm not even sure my position is right. That said, it looked to me like you were doing exactly the same thing, and as I said I get particularly argumentative when someone assumes their position is absolutely correct and turns from arguing it to trying to demean not my position but my integrity.

You prove yet again that you do not bother to comprehend what is being laid out in front of you prior to your rebuttal. I know that in the gay marriage debate both myself and Skybird made some fairly complex arguments - but you're a smart guy. Instead, just like here, you merely retorted with line by line responses that were little more than "you're wrong because I think I'm right".
And you resorted to yelling and personal attacks.

The reason I respond line-by-line is that sometimes the arguments I see need to be addressed that way, or at least to my simple mind. And no, I'm not very smart, and I recognize that. I know a lot of things, or at least I know where to look them up, but that's because I'm cursed with a very good memory. It's not intelligence, or at least not wisdom, and it doesn't mean I know I'm right, in fact just the opposite. But it does mean I don't lightly accede to people who argue from the position that they are right.

In this case you show another great example of doing just that. This discussion is premised essentially upon defining freedom. We define it differently. I use the Constitution as my resource, and I do not believe that a prayer at a secular function violates any freedom. But time and time again you base your argument on that very premise attempting to use it for self-justification. You are essentially saying that at a secular, government function a prayer is a violation of freedom because, at a secular government function a prayer is a violation of freedom. I'm saying it's not because nothing is being forced upon anyone, and that the prayer is NOT the government function but rather a shared, free exercise of faith by those engaged in the function.
And here I disagree the most. You say you use the Constitution as your resource, but many people on many sides of many arguments say the same thing, myself included. Literal construction is nice, and necessary to a point, but the actual intent is also important. We like to say that our forefathers left the Old World looking for religious freedom. In part this is true, but it wasn't the government that was denying that freedom, it was certain religions using the government to grant them special privileges and deny those privileges to other religions. The Founders didn't want the government interfering with any religious practice, but neither did they want any religion interfering with the government.

I live in a place where Separation of Church and State has always been a tentative thing. While we no longer have an established State Church, one faith has dominated the landscape and continues to do so, though in the present that domination is mostly by majority concensus rather than overt application. But it is there, and when someone in my state says they want prayer in schools or public functions, that prayer is almost certain to be laced with terminology specific to that faith.

So yes, I tend to be just a little proactive where this particular subject is involved.

As for the question of the Constitution not applying to the States, the 'Father of The Constitution' and primary author of the First Amendment believed otherwise:

"MR. MADISON Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people."
-The Congressional Record of August 17, 1789

That sentence you didn't understand? It means that people are free to avoid the prayer and do not have a "right" to show up at a function at whatever time they want and to have it be free of prayer. In other words, if Congress is scheduled to pray at 9am, one can simply show up at 9:05 and avoid it. They have no "right" to show up and dictate the session right at 9.
I say just the opposite. I have no control over what Congress does, because as previously stated they don't follow the rules they make for everyone else. Madison vehemently opposed Congressional prayer because it was most definitely mixing Church and State, and I agree.

I can, however, speak to local civic functions. If a meeting is scheduled to start at nine, the meeting starts at nine. If certain people want to get together and pray before that it's none of my business. But if the meeting is open and the leader says "Let us bow our heads and pray", he has introduced his personal religion to a non-religious event and everyone there, of other faith or of none, is obliged to either sit through it politely or make a scene by walking out. I don't like or encourage disorderly conduct (I'm a slave to my German background where rules and the law are concerned) so yes, to my mind everyone there is a captive audience and is thereby "forced" to take part in a religious function that is not a part of why they were there in the first place.

Oh, you know us atheists - always showing up and pushing our faith on everyone...Are you serious?
Your penchant for making things personal is one of the reasons I keep coming back to this. If I'm wrong about something you have to jab and dig and make it personal.

It's just THAT simple, huh? Who would have thought! I mean, all the heated debate, divided courts, rulings on both sides almost always with strong dissents ... oh, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the ruling discussed in the OP!
True, but we're discussing the ruling because we disagree with it. Are you saying the courts are never wrong?

But hey - it's just that freakin' simple, right Steve?
And there you go digging again. You may be right, but you also like to ridicule, which isn't proper in any debate.

Oh wait - I don't see what you're referring to as a "freedom". Maybe it's not that simple.
And I'll back down here, because while I take offence at your jibes in this case you are right. My view of the situation is simple, but I have to admit that my view is not the only one, or necessarily the right one.

The "I know you are but what am I?" defense?
No, the "Pot calling the Kettle black" defense. To my mind you're projecting your own quirks onto me.

No, it's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at the issue with some nuance and detail.
So you claim. I don't see it that way.

I know that many will disagree with me and I'm fine with that. I'm just pointing out the reasons I think I'm right and you're wrong.

But maybe you're right ... I DID say that it was "that simple".

Oh wait, that was you.
If you can't come up with an decent argument, make it personal.

Sorry, just once I couldn't resist digging and jibing myself. I get tired of that kind of game.

I believe you're constructing a "freedom" that doesn't exist Constitutionally. I am not authoritative on it and I've presented that argument numerous times. Yet you keep repeating, essentially, that such a freedom just "is", without reasoning. That's what I see as attempting to be an authority on the issue. I don't take well to "because I said so".
And I believe you're hiding behind the literal statements, keeping the "State" from interfering with the "Church" while allowing the "Church" to interfere with the "State". Using a public function to subject those of differing beliefs to your faith is indeed using the government to promote your church over others, and that is exactly what this is about. I have never once claimed that it just "is", and I think my reasoning is perfectly valid.

But of course that's just my opinion.

Now, even if you do decide to at some point reason the basis of your arguments out that does not mean that I'll agree - I may think you're wrong just the same. Heck, early on when discussing this is August you used Madison's writings as a justification - a good start. I tend to agree with August's point that although those writings were from a Framer that language did NOT make it into the Constitution and the Constitution is what was ratified as law the of the land. But at least you weren't be pulling the authoritative crap you pull it seems every time we debate from other sides as you are now.
"Authoritative crap?" Please be specific. I don't expect you to agree, and I'm not sure what I've said to make you think that I do. As I've said, I don't know or claim to know the answers, but I get very nervous when the government is used to promote someones beliefs, even in a seemingly benign way.

And I wouldn't mind the common courtesy of you actually reading what I write, either. If you did perhaps you'd realize that at an atheist I don't have a dog in this fight - I simply find it fascinating and am somewhat irritated that those who claim to be on the side of freedom always seem to ignore specific 1st Amendment language.Yup! You caught me again with my fundamentalist atheist agenda!
Again with the jokes and jibes. But you're right, I did miss that. My fault, and again I apologize.

Actually Steve, my agenda is simple: freedom should never be removed lightly and in the absence of strict clarity in the language of the Constitution, I default to the position of common sense and human understanding and basic decency. For you that means that a few hundred graduating kids shouldn't be allowed to pray because 1 or 2 who don't share their faith will hear it. For me that means let them pray because it doesn't actually affect the 1 or 2 kids who disagree.
As you pointed out, the disagreement seems to be on the definition of "freedom". How do you know the "few hundred" aren't really just a few, and the majority don't want to hear it? The answer is that you don't, and that is where I have the problem. Did anyone take a vote? If they did, and you're right, would it be acceptable for the few to just not show up for the ceremony? Should that have to be the case? To my mind it's still Government-sanctioned prayer, and that is wrong.

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. But it's not "that simple", Steve.
Point taken. It's simple to me, but I'm pretty simple anyway.

[mookiemookie]

And I could believe that if the majority isn't actually imposing participation upon anyone, the majority should be allowed to engage in Constitutionally protected freedoms.

They're imposing participation by virtue of the fact that they're turning a portion of a secular civic ceremony into a religious event, making everyone present a participant. There's no part of the Constitution that provides for that "freedom", regardless of the how many people there want to pray or have no problem with prayer. You can't vote away people's rights, so your "99% want it" argument holds no water.

[August]

They're imposing participation by virtue of the fact that they're turning a portion of a secular civic ceremony into a religious event, making everyone present a participant.


A persons mere presence at an event does not automatically make them a participant in all facets of it.

I'm sure the Government would just love if it did actually mean that. After all, no more having to prove a persons actual involvement in a crime! "If they were there then they are guilty".

[Tribesman]

A persons mere presence at an event does not automatically make them a participant in all facets of it.
Yet as all parts of an event are part of the event it means religion has no place in the event if it is a non religious event no matter how many people favour or object to its inclusion.