|
On May 30 2011 07:43 Cyba wrote:
I'll agree with you 100% when i see somebody of a different religion whine, not just 1 atheist.
How do you treat oldschool islamic students that need to pray every 4 hours or sum shit like that i wonder ? :D
when the school leads them in that prayer then there is an issue, when they do it in free period between classes, hey thats fine......do you notice the line there?
|
On May 30 2011 07:22 zalz wrote:
He didn't mean illegal as a hyperbole. It is literally illegal what they are doing.
Holding a prayer in the fashion that they did is utterly against the constitution. You can't even debate it, it's very clear. A seperation of church and state. Again, let me be clear, when we say it's illegal we don't just throw the word around to make a point, it actually is illegal in the sense that it's forbidden by law.
The words 'separation of church and state', contrary to popular opinion, appear nowhere in the US Constitution. The First Amendment literally states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". This means that the government should not set up a church. The Constitution makes no comment on whether a government funded body may offer a public prayer or not.
On the contrary, the notion that US government should not prefer one religion over another is a relatively modern idea of which there is no mention in the Constitution. For a hundred years, the president took their oath of office on a Bible, and prayers were offered in Congress and the Supreme Court.
Separation of church and state is one of the most important things for a modern civilized society. This is forbidden under that and regardless of how small you might consider it, breaching this would lead to very disturbing situations.
...
Separation of church and state cannot and should not be up for debate and permitting this stuff is a step in the worst possible direction.
We do alright here in Britain with no separation of church of state, thanks very much.
|
On May 30 2011 07:57 aoeua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 07:22 zalz wrote:
He didn't mean illegal as a hyperbole. It is literally illegal what they are doing.
Holding a prayer in the fashion that they did is utterly against the constitution. You can't even debate it, it's very clear. A seperation of church and state. Again, let me be clear, when we say it's illegal we don't just throw the word around to make a point, it actually is illegal in the sense that it's forbidden by law. The words 'separation of church and state', contrary to popular opinion, appear nowhere in the US Constitution. The First Amendment literally states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". This means that the government should not set up a church. The Constitution makes no comment on whether a government funded body may offer a public prayer or not. On the contrary, the notion that US government should not prefer one religion over another is a relatively modern idea of which there is no mention in the Constitution. For a hundred years, the president took their oath of office on a Bible, and prayers were offered in Congress and the Supreme Court. Show nested quote +Separation of church and state is one of the most important things for a modern civilized society. This is forbidden under that and regardless of how small you might consider it, breaching this would lead to very disturbing situations.
...
Separation of church and state cannot and should not be up for debate and permitting this stuff is a step in the worst possible direction. We do alright here in Britain with no separation of church of state, thanks very much.
It's not mentioned specifically in that manner, but it has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court, and it is illegal.
|
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.
|
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.
I disagree, the definition of unconstitutional is being inconsistent with the constitution, and it says make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and school sanctioned prayer is respecting an establishment of religion, in this case Christianity. A precedent like this would promote one religion over the other which is precisely what the first amendment is designed to stop. While not directly mentioned I do think it's inconsistent with the Constitution to allow government sanctioned prayer. And even if it isn't constitutional, separation of church and state isn't any less valid.
|
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.
There is no reference to "establishing Churches" either. It says the government shall make no law in establishment of religion. Any law or court precedent that would bolster any religious organization or institution is unconstitutional. To have one religion representing itself in our nation's public schools would be bolstering the favor of one religion over others. So the Supreme Court is right, you're wrong.
|
I think they should have lynched this atheist kid.
|
School sanctioned prayer is not a law.
|
On May 30 2011 08:18 Chilliman wrote:
I think they should have lynched this atheist kid.
As long as the lynching wasn't state sponsored, I don't see why not.
And no one better speak out against the mob. If everyone wants to kill somebody, one person can't stop them. Speaking out against the majority to uphold your morals and the law is wrong. You know?
|
I agree moolkey but I also think they should pray while lynching him.
They should only lynch him because he'll probably be a serial killer anyway, atheists have no morals. If there aren't cosmic consequences how can you be a good person like the fine, upstanding Christians we all know and love?
User was warned for this post
|
A lot of people in here are saying "he should have just sat through it, that would have been best for him." But if not him, who? Who would stand up for the minority that legally are protected from having any sort of government sponsored religious event?
It's really not important that its traditional, its prohibited by law.
|
find it funny this creates sutch an issue, but all the presidents, ANY soldier, cop etc and even immigrants have to swear an oath that ends with "so help me god" is oke in everybodys opinion...
how is that a seperation of church and state
|
On May 30 2011 08:14 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. There is no reference to "establishing Churches" either. It says the government shall make no law in establishment of religion. Any law or court precedent that would bolster any religious organization or institution is unconstitutional. To have one religion representing itself in our nation's public schools would be bolstering the favor of one religion over others. So the Supreme Court is right, you're wrong.
There is a reference to an "establishment of religion". An establishment of religion is not a religion. The Church of England is an "establishment of religion". It is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. It is not an "establishment of religion."
The First Amendment to the Constitution is not hard to understand, and you are abstracting meaning from it that does not exist. There is no reference to prayer or religious symbolism and a sanctioned prayer is not a law.
|
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.
|
|
|
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.
A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.
|
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity. A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.
You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.
|
On May 30 2011 08:41 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity. A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution. You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.
I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.
|
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity. A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.
Yes, if you're looking for something else than what was intended.
Just, fyi, that's not how law works.
|
On May 30 2011 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity. A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution. Yes, if you're looking for something else than what was intended. Just, fyi, that's not how law works.
How do you know what was intended? You don't. You read the Constitution, and precisely what it prohibits in this instance is very clear. It does not prohibit publicly funded bodies to hold a prayer in public. It prohibits Congress to pass laws about religious organisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
