Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[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.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by August

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/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.