Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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; [...]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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!

Originally Posted by Vendor

Nice Avatar my friend!

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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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...eld_preemption

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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...eld_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]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

[quote]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.

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]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.