School Prayer

[Astral]

@Kriswest

@Astral

Here is a really fundamental question. Is it really possible to not offend someone? By either allowing or restricting their religion, you in essence offend someone. Where in the consitution does it give the right to not be offended? The constitution does protect the freedom of practice… this does include gubermint employees. Just because they serve a public office does not mean they cannot practice their faith! This has gotten way out of hand!

They need to just flat out say… the Constitution does not apply to the government. We can restriction any Constitutional right you have if we deem in to be offensive to another being. And right now brother… some peoples lives are offensive an therefore there will be a regulary scheduled beheading at 3pm every friday evening!

This whole subject should be relegated to public opinion. Not a retro grade judge who usurps power that was not granted them.

I would say that based on Public Vote a religion may take national lime light and be regarded for primary consideration. So long as the tenets of the constitution are not broken. Faculty lead prayer is not against the constitution… neither at sporting events or locker rooms. Those who wish to no participate can simple abstain and take that moment to silently allow those to practice their religion! The requiring of a whole congregation of faithful to yield to the absolute few for sake of their inconsideration is the REAL abreechment of the Constitution of the United States of America! Because their rights to the free excercise of their Religion has just been DENIED! Allowing people to pray in public, government, or private is in no way an abridgement to anothers freedom of NO religion!

Well pray during recess or breaks or the five minutes between classes then, go for it. But do not take away from the education time. There is simply not enough hours in the school day for such things, Kids have too much to learn and really not enough time to do it in so the kids have homework, a hell of a lot more now then when I went to school. The “faithful” can be faithful during their already existing breaks.

While I understand some of your sentiment, you still are not entirely correct. At todays current education standards children waste more time than anything. I could produce far more capable children in half the time public schools can. Why? Because I will be rid of all that bull that gets politically hammered all over the place. School is a primary example of what a bureaucracy does! It ruins things! It stands around and hires basically 50 people to do what 5 can on their own. After so many people offer up and use their authority to manipulte the action its no longer distinguishable from rubbish!

[Kriswest]

I agree Astral, so why make it worse by taking away educational time? Pray at breaks, not mandate a special time.

[Astral]

@Kriswest

I agree Astral, so why make it worse by taking away educational time? Pray at breaks, not mandate a special time.

We dont disagree really on that part. I just wanted to bring up that they waste enough time already. I dont think that wasting part of the wasted time with praying should be that big of an issue.

And the other part would be… if the majority is of a particular religion the majority should be satisfied. Easy enough.

[Mastriani]

With regards to all,

I would accept any of a number of outcome resolutions for this issue, were it not for the one inherent aspect that has thus been ignored:

The intention clearly outlined behind this debate, now many years old, is fueled by those with a critically negative agenda towards the establishment of Christianity, and a wish to supplant that institution with another.

I won’t belabor the debate, as my mother is, and has been, an educator for over forty years, and although prayer, mention of Y’Shua, Christmas celebrations, Christmas identifiers are not allowed at any time; it is perfectly acceptable for signifiers and activities of other faiths as an ignominious political correctness agenda.

Thus swings the pendulum of the idiocy and self-serving, asinine banality of human sociology.

I think I’ll vomit my recognition now.

[Kriswest]

I do not consider myself of any religous belief although I am very spiritual. I respect all religions I may not respect its memebers who shove papers in my face and claim that I am going to hell and that christ loves me.

Christianity should be cut back at the knees, in our Gov’t. It has been way too powerful for too long. The other religions don’t stand a chance here. They are treated like dirt by our Gov’t. So if we can pull away from any past religious preference in our Gov’t I am all for it. Although I realise it is not going to happen, there will have to be a religious coup.

Prayer should not be allowed in a public educational venue. It is a waste of taxpayer money and kids time. And it will be taking up court time throughout the country and wasting more money that noone has.

[FtheNaysayers]

First of all, there is absolutely no mention of “God”, whatsoever in the US Constitution. Now, there was the mention of a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration is not the law of the land.

Furthermore, the fact that the founders purposely left out the mention of a creator in the Constitution, after mentioning one in the Declaration is telling. Now to the first amendment.

The first amendment reads…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice the FIRST WORDS in this amendment. It states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means there shouldn’t be ANY law that respects THE establishment of religion at all.

Many argue that this means only that there should be no state religion–unfortunately for them, they are mistaken.

If that is what the founding fathers meant, then they would have wrote “no law respecting THE establishment of A religion.”

However, it does not say that. Therefore the amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion [in general].

That means not one single law that establishes religion at all.

Thus, we are a secular nation.

There is also concrete evidence that the US was not even founded on Christian principles.

It is called the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

As of right now, we are a Christian “country” (since a majority of the population identifies as Christian) but We are–and always have been–a Secular Nation.

It is just a damn shame that people have been violating our Constitution for so long.

[MargaretAnne]

@FtheNaysayers

First of all, there is absolutely no mention of “God”, whatsoever in the US Constitution. Now, there was the mention of a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration is not the law of the land.

Furthermore, the fact that the founders purposely left out the mention of a creator in the Constitution, after mentioning one in the Declaration is telling. Now to the first amendment.

The first amendment reads…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice the FIRST WORDS in this amendment. It states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means there shouldn’t be ANY law that respects THE establishment of religion at all.

Many argue that this means only that there should be no state religion–unfortunately for them, they are mistaken.

If that is what the founding fathers meant, then they would have wrote “no law respecting THE establishment of A religion.”

However, it does not say that. Therefore the amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion [in general].

That means not one single law that establishes religion at all.

Thus, we are a secular nation.

There is also concrete evidence that the US was not even founded on Christian principles.

It is called the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

As of right now, we are a Christian “country” (since a majority of the population identifies as Christian) but We are–and always have been–a Secular Nation.

It is just a damn shame that people have been violating our Constitution for so long.

[i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof (First Amendment to the

Constitution for the United States of America, December 15, 1791).[/i]

This is from an essay by Gene Garman:

(1). The word “prohibiting” means completely forbidding. Congress cannot completely forbid the “exercise” of religion.

(2). Congress can make laws restricting activities of any kind. Actions, regardless of religious opinion, may be restricted. Actions of any kind, even religious, may be restricted. Actions of any kind, even religious, are subject to the laws of the land. Everyone is free to exercise religion within the limits of the laws of the land.

(3). James Madison understood English. He knew the difference between “prohibiting” and “restricting.” If he had meant to say “restricting,” it is what he would have written. Do you know why I am sure Madison did not mean “restricting”? He did not write “restricting”!

sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/rc101-1.html

How can the intent of the First Congress be unquestionably documented and verified to be as obvious as a simple distinction between the meaning of the all inclusive word “religion” and the limited-in-meaning word “church”? The answer is obvious in the words of the Free Exercise Clause. The adverb “thereof” in the Free Exercise Clause takes its entire meaning from the word to which it refers. In this case, “thereof” (of it) relates back to “religion” in the Establishment Clause, and “religion” is the only meaning ever given to “thereof” in the Free Exercise Clause. It would be absurd, for instance, to distort the meaning of the word “religion” into “a state church” because the meaning of the word “thereof” would then be limited to an understanding as follows: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a state church. Further, as strict constructionists emphasize, the word “church” does not appear in either of the Religion Clauses. It is the broad understanding of “religion” which was meant by the First Congress because that is the unmodified word it used.

In order to completely understand the intent of the First Congress in respect to “religion,” emphasis of this essay focuses on the active word of the Free Exercise Clause: “prohibiting.” It is obvious, to any open eyed reader of the First Amendment, the First Congress used a different word in regard to “the free exercise” of religion than it did to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition. If words mean things and if the First Congress chose its words in the Bill of Rights with care, why did it without question use “abridging” in regard to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition; but, in regard to religion, it used “prohibiting”? The answer is as apparent as the words themselves. The word “abridging” has a different meaning than “prohibiting.” The First Congress, then, meant something different in regard to religion than to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition.

It is prohibition which is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, not abridgment. A prohibition is total; an abridgment is merely a restriction, limitation, or reduction. The First Congress clearly commanded speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition shall not be reduced because that is what “abridging” means. It clearly commanded “the free exercise” of religion shall not be totally prohibited, because that is what “prohibiting” means. Thus, the thesis of this essay is: the free exercise of religion cannot be totally prohibited, but it can be abridged. If the majority in the First Congress had intended to use “abridging” in reference to religion, it would have; it did not! Failure to understand the First Amendment in the same terms as did the majority in the First Congress is to reject basic strict constructionist principle and to distort the Free Exercise Clause into a license for anarchy.

sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/anarchy.html
sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/lecture.html