EPTStudent gets ostracized for refusing to pray - Page 83
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:42 aoeua wrote: 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. Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist. It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal. | ||
|
aoeua
United Kingdom75 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:49 sandroba wrote: Lol stop. Laws get interpreted different ways all the time, and as soon as there's a supreme court's rulling it becomes the stapple and creates precedent for any further rulling. That's all. Also separation of church and state is the logical choice. If your country does not follow this you are behind in human society evolution (monarchy?). I suppose you would have been in favour of the Jim Crow laws in 1953 then? Declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. Behind in human society evolution? Curious. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/505bv.pdf page 603 is where it begins | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
aoeua
United Kingdom75 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:51 RockIronrod wrote: Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist. It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal. I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just. What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers! | ||
|
aoeua
United Kingdom75 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:55 sandroba wrote: And yes, you are behind in that regard, as monarchy and state relgion have no practical use in modern society. Ah, I see. Thanks for the update. I shall move to Brazil posthaste. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote: I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just. What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers! Please show me exactly where it says I am not allowed to make love to giraffes. The Constitution is not all encompassing, and we can't exactly bring back the founding fathers to reconsider anything they hadn't thought of comes up. We can however legally declare something as unconstitutional by interpreting the intent of them as they wrote it. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote: I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just. What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers! the constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to an attorney either, yet it is your right isn't it? | ||
|
Timerly
Germany511 Posts
Apart from that, secular states are the only way to preserve equality between all religions and the non-religious. When a president has to swear "so god help him" but doesn't believe in god he's in a problematic situation, don't you think so? Discriminate much? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:48 aoeua wrote: 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. And the Supreme Court has clearly interpreted that passage to mean more than literally a law. They do this all the time. Forgive me if I trust the Supreme Court's opinion more than some random guy on the internet. | ||
|
tuggiesFTW
8 Posts
No one was required to pray. No atheists or agnostics mentioned it. None of the ultra-religious students had an issue with it. Seems like everyone was happy to me (or at least realized that the majority was happy and it wasn't worth stirring up a shit storm over) | ||
|
Chimpalimp
United States1135 Posts
On May 30 2011 08:48 aoeua wrote: 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. That's one way to interpret the constitution, but the supreme court generally does it differently. I mean if you want to be precise about how the Constitution should be interpreted, then allowing people to have guns only includes muskets and primitive firearms, as that is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote certain parts of the Constitution. My point is that interpretation is speculative, but it is commonly understood by law abiding officials that the separation of church and state is implied by the Constitution and is law. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
On May 30 2011 09:12 tuggiesFTW wrote: Should have just done what my school did. Tell the guest speaker, class president and valedictorian that if they felt it was appropriate, they could include a short prayer in their speech. Our class president talked to the other two people and included a brief, non-denominational prayer in their remarks. No one was required to pray. No atheists or agnostics mentioned it. None of the ultra-religious students had an issue with it. Seems like everyone was happy to me (or at least realized that the majority was happy and it wasn't worth stirring up a shit storm over) outlawed in lee v weisman 1992 | ||
|
BlackMagister
United States5834 Posts
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml Damon is introduced about 3 minutes in and talks for about 20 minutes. Jessica Ahlquist is protesting over a prayer banner at Cranston West in Rhode Island. It would deserve it's own thread, but it would end up with the same arguments here. http://www.projo.com/news/content/CRANSTON_PRAYER_LAWSUIT_04-05-11_HINCG5L_v55.1af71b3.html | ||
|
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
I would however like to say a hearty fuck you to his parents. Their own son is getting bullied and harassed by everyone in town, and they disown him. Honestly, I think that is the most fucked up part about this whole ordeal, and if hell isn't a place for people like them, then hell doesn't exist. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
On May 30 2011 09:58 DragonDefonce wrote: I won't get into the legal details (because I'm not a lawyer) and I won't even argue in favor of either party. I would however like to say a hearty fuck you to his parents. Their own son is getting bullied and harassed by everyone in town, and they disown him. Honestly, I think that is the most fucked up part about this whole ordeal, and if hell isn't a place for people like them, then hell doesn't exist. you can be most assured that they will most likely be headed to the 9th circle. | ||
|
BlackMagister
United States5834 Posts
Really it's not like his parents are demons incarnate, they just have horrible misconceptions that they've been raised believing. According to Damon he wasn't kicked out of his home when they found out he was an atheist (he was outed by someone else a few weeks before this incident), he was kicked out when they found out he opposed his prayer. His parents like many people in the community are too used to thinking of themselves as being in the right simply because they are the majority. Being an atheist is one thing, but to actually question them is another , the death threats and horrible comments were not by just a few people. Oh another interesting thing is Damon said he overheard them planning to jump him after graduation, but he got out of their as soon as it ended plus there was extra protection that the school had to provide because of the Freedom from Religion group. Although the school claimed it was to protect the students from atheists. http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml | ||
| ||
