Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

States cannot pass unconstitutional laws. Supremacy Clause. This is Civics 101.

Then every gun control law ever passed is just as unconstitutional.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Then every gun control law ever passed is just as unconstitutional.

Yes to both.

Jefferson described his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as a "wall of separation," and this statute informed the 1st Amendment. It was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea.

Like it or not, any sanction given a Christian prayer (or even "nondenominational" prayer), must also be given to any other prayer that anyone wishes to speak. The state cannot judge between them. It could be blessings upon the graduates one minute, and telling muslim grads to smite infidels the next. Better to disallow both, and keep them where they remain, in the private sphere.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Strawman argument. No one is demanding that the religious hide their practices. They're demanding that no state sponsored organization sanction or encourage them.

[razark]

Originally Posted by tater

Like it or not, any sanction given a Christian prayer (or even "nondenominational" prayer), must also be given to any other prayer that anyone wishes to speak. The state cannot judge between them. It could be blessings upon the graduates one minute, and telling muslim grads to smite infidels the next. Better to disallow both, and keep them where they remain, in the private sphere.

This. Exactly this.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

States cannot pass unconstitutional laws. Supremacy Clause. This is Civics 101.

We aren't discussing Civics 101. (That class is 2 doors down, on your Left).
We are discussing the US Constitution.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Strawman argument. No one is demanding that the religious hide their practices.

Uhm, do you have Skybird on ignore or something Mookie?

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.

We claim the right not to be bothered in our way of life by your relgious practices.

In spite of the bad spelling he is pretty clear that is indeed exactly what he wants. Your strawman argument accusation is denied.

[tater]

Religion does not have to be silenced in public. A graduation from a public school is different, however. It is an action by the state, granting an official document. It is a government function.

It's a terrible precedent.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by tater

Religion does not have to be silenced in public. A graduation from a public school is different, however. It is an action by the state, granting an official document. It is a government function.

It's a terrible precedent.

If I was there, I'd ask everyone to rise and say a prayer for the judge, and ask everyone to forgive him for making the decision to not allow prayers.

[Penguin]

What's all the fuzz about?
What about a pragmatic solution: Those who want, can attend church/mosque/temple/whatever before or after the grad ceremony and pray there, those who don't want don't go there. No freedom of religion infringed, no "irreparable harm" done either...

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

What's all the fuzz about?
What about a pragmatic solution: Those who want, can attend church/mosque/temple/whatever before or after the grad ceremony and pray there, those who don't want don't go there. No freedom of religion infringed, no "irreparable harm" done either...

How about an even more pragmatic solution? Get rid of graduation ceremonies altogether. Let the religious students go to their church/mosque/temple/whatever of choice if they want a ceremony and the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for it.

Of course it'd tear the town into separate (but equal) factions but that's probably the true objective of the objectors anyways.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

We aren't discussing Civics 101. (That class is 2 doors down, on your Left).
We are discussing the US Constitution.

"We're not discussing trigonometry. We're discussing sines and cosines."

"We're not discussing English. We're discussing sentence structure."

"We're not discussing biology. We're discussing cell reproduction."

[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.

[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".