Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

- 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.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

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/found...ligions64.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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

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!!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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."