Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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?

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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 . . . . .



The show?


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?

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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".

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.