[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.