|
On May 30 2011 17:19 lachy89 wrote:
I may have missed something but I thought the US was meant to promote freedom of speech. This just seems the complete opposite of this.
A kid getting completely disowned from his community just for contacting the ACUL for which he has every right to do...
Its not a wonder why the rest of the world is confused as to what the US actually says when they call themselves 'the land of the free'.
It's like that in some part of the South.
They also send death threats over small thing such as high school or college football.
|
I'm probably also in the middle.
For me this just means:
I was brought up whiteout big religious influences (you get some, growing up in a christian country...). I really never questioned any of these, I only realised that it wasn't the norm when i would have to sign the "other/none" box in some questionaires.
Now, i'm an atheist due to religion not making much sense to me. Thats probably the whole reason i'm an atheist. It is unlikely that there is a god, therefore i don't believe in a god - case closed.
The only thing that really gets to me, ist he stuff that some religious (and some atheist) post here... Where is all the hate, from both sides, coming from? I don't get it and some of the stuff (mainly religious) people post really, really scares me....
|
On May 30 2011 17:26 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful. I'm just saying anybody with brains to know human nature would have known you'd get a rough time for stepping on people's beliefs. Why would i be bitter or defensive when i don't care and i'm an atheist myself. I like to consider atheists smarter then the flock so this guy offends me through his self victimization. I never claimed the mob of deuches was corect they were just a bunch of stupid assholes.
I'd take a single stupid atheist willing to stand up for what is right, over a million apathetic and cowardly atheists such as yourself any day.
|
Did it say why it got leaked that it was Fowler that contacted the superintendent? That seems a bit important.
|
the problem with arguing with fanatics is that they are fanatics
try arguing with a zealoth while he is chopping you with his twin light sabre
my life for aiur yeah right
|
On May 30 2011 17:58 azr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 17:26 Cyba wrote:No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful. I'm just saying anybody with brains to know human nature would have known you'd get a rough time for stepping on people's beliefs. Why would i be bitter or defensive when i don't care and i'm an atheist myself. I like to consider atheists smarter then the flock so this guy offends me through his self victimization. I never claimed the mob of deuches was corect they were just a bunch of stupid assholes. I'd take a single stupid atheist willing to stand up for what is right, over a million apathetic and cowardly atheists such as yourself any day.
Ye the don't sink to his level proverb was lost upon you i see.
|
On May 30 2011 17:26 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful. I'm just saying anybody with brains to know human nature would have known you'd get a rough time for stepping on people's beliefs. Why would i be bitter or defensive when i don't care and i'm an atheist myself. I like to consider atheists smarter then the flock so this guy offends me through his self victimization. I never claimed the mob of deuches was corect they were just a bunch of stupid assholes.
He's not stepping on people's beliefs. He's obeying the law. All of those people still have a right to prey, and you and everyone else who thinks he's stepping on people's beliefs and that it was somehow a TEENAGER'S fault that he got THREATENED BY ADULTS and DISOWNED by his OWN PARENTS for reporting ILLEGAL ACTIVITY are being hateful and pro-christian favoritism and everything that the rest of the world doesn't like about the US.
|
On May 30 2011 11:15 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +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 First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" A publically funded body receives funding from the government. This entails Congress passing a budget (which is basically a law) allocating funds to this body. If the body offers prayer, which is a religious practice, then Congress has enacted a law respecting the establishment of religion. This is a necessary conclusion because Congress has enacted law (providing funding to an entity), that entity then offers public prayer (a tool or vehicle by which religion asserts itself) making it an establishment of religion. There, I didn't even need to consult case authority. Re: Intention of the Founding Fathers. None of them were atheists, and the track record behind the American colonies (at least the northern ones) birthed from giving religious minorities a place for them to practice their religion free from the oppression of the larger more established religions. There was a desire to escape the Church of England, and other religions in other countries which existed in tandem with the government. This impetus carried through to the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the First Amendment. One thing to take note of was that the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was a sort of blackmail from the 12 States (Rhode Island did not contribute), who refused to ratify the Constitution without a sort of guarantee on the limits of the Federal government's power. From this you can consider the implication that the First Amendment was a codification of the states' wills and intentions. Most State Constitutions, on the other hand, merely guaranteed the rights of their citizens to free exercise of the 'Christian religions', or freedom to 'worship God' however they chose, not the freedom to be atheist and free of impression from other religions. The First Amendment, however, is much broader in scope than the individual State Constitution. Take from that what you will. Personally I do not think the theory that it was the Framers' intent to separate religion from the State, it was only their intent to keep one particular sect from being official within the State; on the other hand, basic generalities between the religions in practice at the time (i.e., the Christian religions) were perfectly acceptable as official government expressions. Most State Constitutions call upon God, or the Creator, and recognize God as an integral part of society, and I don't think the concept of 'separation of Church and State' existed then as it exists now. The only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent. I would also like to add that it doesn't even make sense to consider Framers' intent in the issue at heart. The First Amendment originally only applied to Congress, i.e., the Federal government. It did not apply to the States, or the cities and municipalities within the State. It is incomprehensible to ask what the Framers intended in cases like this, because the Framers viewed education as a State concern, not a Federal one; on top of that, the First Amendment didn't even apply to State laws. So how is it even possible for there to be Framers' Intent? How could the Framers have predicted that the 14th Amendment would be passed and the Bill of Rights (which they didn't even write) would be applicable to State and Municipal laws?
This is a good post and I learned from it.
Firstly we agree that intent matters very little. We also agree that, as you put it, "[t]he only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent."
But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion".
You seem to know a lot about the history of the Constitution. Public prayer in government bodies is not a new phenomenon. Do you think it more likely that for a hundred years the courts had missed this rather abstract subtlety (equating someone who offers a prayer with an establishment of religion)? Or is it the case that with our modern sensibilities we have abstracted the plain and concrete terms of the Constitution so far that judges on the Supreme Court can now decide what role religion should play in American government and education?
|
Uh, no.
a public body is an establishment of the state. public doesn't mean "anybody" it means "government owned"
christianity is an establishment of religion. religion, according to the constitution and critical thought among most first world countries, should not partake in the running of the state affairs, which means favoritism(IE allowing christian prayer in a state-funded school) should stay illegal.
|
Just because people didn't listen to it because they were too christian doesn't mean it was right.
|
On May 31 2011 06:47 aoeua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 11:15 MozzarellaL wrote:On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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! + Show Spoiler +The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
A publically funded body receives funding from the government. This entails Congress passing a budget (which is basically a law) allocating funds to this body. If the body offers prayer, which is a religious practice, then Congress has enacted a law respecting the establishment of religion.
This is a necessary conclusion because Congress has enacted law (providing funding to an entity), that entity then offers public prayer (a tool or vehicle by which religion asserts itself) making it an establishment of religion. There, I didn't even need to consult case authority.
Re: Intention of the Founding Fathers. None of them were atheists, and the track record behind the American colonies (at least the northern ones) birthed from giving religious minorities a place for them to practice their religion free from the oppression of the larger more established religions. There was a desire to escape the Church of England, and other religions in other countries which existed in tandem with the government. This impetus carried through to the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the First Amendment.
One thing to take note of was that the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was a sort of blackmail from the 12 States (Rhode Island did not contribute), who refused to ratify the Constitution without a sort of guarantee on the limits of the Federal government's power. From this you can consider the implication that the First Amendment was a codification of the states' wills and intentions.
Most State Constitutions, on the other hand, merely guaranteed the rights of their citizens to free exercise of the 'Christian religions', or freedom to 'worship God' however they chose, not the freedom to be atheist and free of impression from other religions. The First Amendment, however, is much broader in scope than the individual State Constitution.
Take from that what you will. Personally I do not think the theory that it was the Framers' intent to separate religion from the State, it was only their intent to keep one particular sect from being official within the State; on the other hand, basic generalities between the religions in practice at the time (i.e., the Christian religions) were perfectly acceptable as official government expressions. Most State Constitutions call upon God, or the Creator, and recognize God as an integral part of society, and I don't think the concept of 'separation of Church and State' existed then as it exists now. The only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent.
I would also like to add that it doesn't even make sense to consider Framers' intent in the issue at heart. The First Amendment originally only applied to Congress, i.e., the Federal government. It did not apply to the States, or the cities and municipalities within the State. It is incomprehensible to ask what the Framers intended in cases like this, because the Framers viewed education as a State concern, not a Federal one; on top of that, the First Amendment didn't even apply to State laws. So how is it even possible for there to be Framers' Intent? How could the Framers have predicted that the 14th Amendment would be passed and the Bill of Rights (which they didn't even write) would be applicable to State and Municipal laws? This is a good post and I learned from it. Firstly we agree that intent matters very little. We also agree that, as you put it, "[t]he only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent." But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion". You seem to know a lot about the history of the Constitution. Public prayer in government bodies is not a new phenomenon. Do you think it more likely that for a hundred years the courts had missed this rather abstract subtlety (equating someone who offers a prayer with an establishment of religion)? Or is it the case that with our modern sensibilities we have abstracted the plain and concrete terms of the Constitution so far that judges on the Supreme Court can now decide what role religion should play in American government and education?
Remember that the laws that are being discussed, while overarching in scope and applicable to the entire country, were written and passed by normal members of society. Many of which hold religion as a necessary belief. So when you speak of the actions of a court even as high as the Supreme Court, it must always be consider that humans are still the governing factor, and each human will support, even if only sub-consciously, their own beliefs. As such, when you have instances of public prayer in government bodies, you have people who are willing to turn their heads and cough while it passes before taking a political stand potentially at odds with their personal beliefs.
No matter how precisely worded, or absolute, a law may be, it still must be enforced by people who may or may not agree with it. As such every law is unfortunately malleable in the hands of those who enforce it. So when you question why, keep that in mind, as a hundred years of courts "missing" it may be legally unlikely, however a hundred years of people quietly ignoring it? Seems possible to me.
As for the matter at hand, I find it reprehensible that someone standing up for their beliefs is so thoroughly demeaned by people who I can only assume are perfunctory believers their religion. I find it hard to come to terms with these people acting as they have on the notion that their beliefs will find it ok, because the one rule that everyone knows from the bible, "Treat others as you would want to be treated", would seem to contradict their actions. I hope at some point they all feel the pain of having your friends, family, and community bully and ostracize you so they understand what they have inflicted on another human being. One who, no matter what people may think of his actions, was correct in telling a public school, a government institution, that it could not hold a public prayer. Because it can't and no matter how much people want to try to say that its ok, or he could have just ignored it, it's not allowed and they should face repercussions for even trying.
Also leaking the name of the individual who brought this to the attention of a supposedly higher authority is absolutely ridiculous. That's like being an eye witness to a series of murders and the police leaking your name to reporters. It's idiotic, and whoever is responsible for it should be fired along with the teacher publicly denouncing the actions of a student. (The teacher is welcome to hold their personal opinions on the matter and to even share them with people they know, but the moment they speak to press or a community at large they, as an employee of the institution, become representatives of it and it is unacceptable to act in such a manner.)
The obvious disclaimers will follow here as I do have a bias against religious institutions and against any and all who physically or mentally attack others for any reason since they themselves are as bad or worse than whatever they may attack. I don't condemn anyone for holding a religious belief, however, nor do I necessarily support those who don't hold such a belief (I am an agnostic). I do however have a very strict sense of morals, despite being apart from any religion (in response to the person who questioned the ability to hold morals outside an "absolute" moral structure of a religion (which is absolutely ridiculous btw)), and I support anyone, like the kid from this story, who is willing to take the risk of doing whats right despite the potential consequences. Sometimes it is more important to take a stand despite the consequences, rather than stand silent to what is right in front of you because you are afraid of what may happen.
|
On May 31 2011 07:38 Eknoid4 wrote:
Uh, no.
a public body is an establishment of the state. public doesn't mean "anybody" it means "government owned"
christianity is an establishment of religion. religion, according to the constitution and critical thought among most first world countries, should not partake in the running of the state affairs, which means favoritism(IE allowing christian prayer in a state-funded school) should stay illegal.
There is no Christian establishment. There is an establishment of the Catholic Church, for instance. But Christianity is a religion, not an establishment of religion.
The Constitution says nothing about favouritism for religion one way or another.
|
On May 31 2011 07:50 Sasashi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2011 06:47 aoeua wrote:On May 30 2011 11:15 MozzarellaL wrote:On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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! + Show Spoiler +The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
A publically funded body receives funding from the government. This entails Congress passing a budget (which is basically a law) allocating funds to this body. If the body offers prayer, which is a religious practice, then Congress has enacted a law respecting the establishment of religion.
This is a necessary conclusion because Congress has enacted law (providing funding to an entity), that entity then offers public prayer (a tool or vehicle by which religion asserts itself) making it an establishment of religion. There, I didn't even need to consult case authority.
Re: Intention of the Founding Fathers. None of them were atheists, and the track record behind the American colonies (at least the northern ones) birthed from giving religious minorities a place for them to practice their religion free from the oppression of the larger more established religions. There was a desire to escape the Church of England, and other religions in other countries which existed in tandem with the government. This impetus carried through to the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the First Amendment.
One thing to take note of was that the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was a sort of blackmail from the 12 States (Rhode Island did not contribute), who refused to ratify the Constitution without a sort of guarantee on the limits of the Federal government's power. From this you can consider the implication that the First Amendment was a codification of the states' wills and intentions.
Most State Constitutions, on the other hand, merely guaranteed the rights of their citizens to free exercise of the 'Christian religions', or freedom to 'worship God' however they chose, not the freedom to be atheist and free of impression from other religions. The First Amendment, however, is much broader in scope than the individual State Constitution.
Take from that what you will. Personally I do not think the theory that it was the Framers' intent to separate religion from the State, it was only their intent to keep one particular sect from being official within the State; on the other hand, basic generalities between the religions in practice at the time (i.e., the Christian religions) were perfectly acceptable as official government expressions. Most State Constitutions call upon God, or the Creator, and recognize God as an integral part of society, and I don't think the concept of 'separation of Church and State' existed then as it exists now. The only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent.
I would also like to add that it doesn't even make sense to consider Framers' intent in the issue at heart. The First Amendment originally only applied to Congress, i.e., the Federal government. It did not apply to the States, or the cities and municipalities within the State. It is incomprehensible to ask what the Framers intended in cases like this, because the Framers viewed education as a State concern, not a Federal one; on top of that, the First Amendment didn't even apply to State laws. So how is it even possible for there to be Framers' Intent? How could the Framers have predicted that the 14th Amendment would be passed and the Bill of Rights (which they didn't even write) would be applicable to State and Municipal laws? This is a good post and I learned from it. Firstly we agree that intent matters very little. We also agree that, as you put it, "[t]he only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent." But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion". You seem to know a lot about the history of the Constitution. Public prayer in government bodies is not a new phenomenon. Do you think it more likely that for a hundred years the courts had missed this rather abstract subtlety (equating someone who offers a prayer with an establishment of religion)? Or is it the case that with our modern sensibilities we have abstracted the plain and concrete terms of the Constitution so far that judges on the Supreme Court can now decide what role religion should play in American government and education? Remember that the laws that are being discussed, while overarching in scope and applicable to the entire country, were written and passed by normal members of society. Many of which hold religion as a necessary belief. So when you speak of the actions of a court even as high as the Supreme Court, it must always be consider that humans are still the governing factor, and each human will support, even if only sub-consciously, their own beliefs. As such, when you have instances of public prayer in government bodies, you have people who are willing to turn their heads and cough while it passes before taking a political stand potentially at odds with their personal beliefs. No matter how precisely worded, or absolute, a law may be, it still must be enforced by people who may or may not agree with it. As such every law is unfortunately malleable in the hands of those who enforce it. So when you question why, keep that in mind, as a hundred years of courts "missing" it may be legally unlikely, however a hundred years of people quietly ignoring it? Seems possible to me.
Essentially you argue that for a hundred years both the founding fathers and American society at large were in the grip of a religious ideology which blinded it from seeing the plain truth that the Constitution forbids religious symbolism in government funded bodies. But now I suppose, we're enlightened, and the true meaning of the constitution is revealed: "religion" is equivalent to "establishment of religion" and offering a prayer turns a government funded body into a religious establishment. Preposterous.
The wonderful thing about having a clear and plain Constitution is that it insulates against ideology. So far from unconscious biases, the matter can be settled by examining the very few first words of the First Amendment, which do not explicitly prohibit a government funded body to offer a public prayer.
|
aoeua, you're very, very wrong.
The Constitution is plain and clear? News to me, and probably two hundred odd years of people attempting to understand what the very poorly written thing means.
You seem to think "respecting an establishment" of religion requires some overt creation of a national church or something along those lines to warrant a constitutional violation, and decades of Supreme Court decisions and state SC decisions hearkening back to well before the Civil War prove you conclusively wrong. Any introduction to constitutional law class from any random university can easily show you the clear progression of the interpretation of the First Amendment down to the present day.
But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion".
...a budget is probably the single most significant form of a law, or at least in its effect.
Re-reading your posts makes it very apparent you aren't particularly well-versed in constitutional religious history. Might want to check out some of John Noonan's work for some more detailed explanations of why what you are saying reverses decades of SCOTUS interpretation of the First Amendment.
|
|
|
On May 30 2011 17:58 azr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 17:26 Cyba wrote:No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful. I'm just saying anybody with brains to know human nature would have known you'd get a rough time for stepping on people's beliefs. Why would i be bitter or defensive when i don't care and i'm an atheist myself. I like to consider atheists smarter then the flock so this guy offends me through his self victimization. I never claimed the mob of deuches was corect they were just a bunch of stupid assholes. I'd take a single stupid atheist willing to stand up for what is right, over a million apathetic and cowardly atheists such as yourself any day.
what?
i just don't think its a big deal, i've never even seen an atheist persecuted, in fact i only know most people are atheist after I've talked to them for a considerable amount of time. most of my friends are atheist, or only abide by their religion for cultural reasons.
i've been an atheist all my life, somewhere in between finding out that santa claus wasn't real and the 4th grade.
it didn't bother me that 'under God' was in the pledge, i think only like 1/3 of the classroom i was in even bothered to stand up for the pledge (there's homework to do in the morning). i just see it as a cultural value, and there isn't any real reason to disrespect it just because i don't agree with it.
|
On May 31 2011 08:27 Elegy wrote:aoeua, you're very, very wrong. The Constitution is plain and clear? News to me, and probably two hundred odd years of people attempting to understand what the very poorly written thing means. You seem to think "respecting an establishment" of religion requires some overt creation of a national church or something along those lines to warrant a constitutional violation, and decades of Supreme Court decisions and state SC decisions hearkening back to well before the Civil War prove you conclusively wrong. Any introduction to constitutional law class from any random university can easily show you the clear progression of the interpretation of the First Amendment down to the present day. Show nested quote +But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion". ...a budget is probably the single most significant form of a law, or at least in its effect. Re-reading your posts makes it very apparent you aren't particularly well-versed in constitutional religious history. Might want to check out some of John Noonan's work for some more detailed explanations of why what you are saying reverses decades of SCOTUS interpretation of the First Amendment.
More arguments from authority. I very much appreciate being shown why I am wrong, I do not find it so helpful to be told it.
A budget is the most significant form of law - at least in its effect? A law is a body of rules. I don't know what the effect of a law is and I don't know what the effect of a budget is. Is a budget a law? I don't think so, but perhaps someone could explain this to me?
"The clear progression of interpretations of the First Amendment to the present day..." This strikes me as a terribly suspicious statement. You claim the Constitution, a document which can be read in under an hour, is "very poorly written" and unclear, but 200 years of history and progressed interpretation is 'clear'? The Constitution is not an obscure document. It begins "[w]e the people". It is not a text which only specialists can understand.
In contrast, it is the history of interpretation and the dialogue over the role of interpretation which is muddy and unclear.
Future President Wilson wrote in "Constitutional Government in the United States",
+ Show Spoiler +“We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”
Decades of interpretation have served "the needs of the day". They have not altered the original text of the Constitution. If we wish to argue about whether a statute is constitutional or not, it makes sense to me, by definition, to look at the Constitution. And not at the "needs of the day".
|
Of course the Constitution is poorly written. It's vague, unclear, completely without any formal attached explanations, and extraordinarily short. Like others have said, breathing life into what "respecting" or "an establishment" actually means in day-to-day policymaking is supremely difficult. It's a document left purposefully vague in order for future generations and individuals to ultimately interpret what it means. Yes, it is a living document. (FU to Scalia).
If the Constitution was written better, it'd include a fat appendix of examples, scenarios, illustrations, maybe even diagrams !! to make it clear. Instead, it's a few lines that are apparently so simple to apply and understand in a multitude of varying scenarios that the Founders could have never envisioned.
The average layman can understand the Constitution properly? Really?
I wonder, would the average layman be able to use just the text of the Constitution and attempt to understand whether minimum wage laws are constitutional? Or whether Congress has the authority to regulate domestic level production in states? Or whether the President is allowed to use military force without prior Congressional approval?
The reason why Constitutional interpretation is so muddy at times is precisely because the damn thing is admittedly terrible for breathing content into a few vague lines.
Your point about "needs of the day" is aimless, at least without further explanation. Of course it suits the needs of the day, within reason. But it only suits the current needs of the day within constitutional limits, limits interpreted from this old and vague document. If you're arguing for textualism or originalism, it does not warrant further discussion as such methods of interpreting the Constitution are obviously foolish and ultimately naive. Even Scalia breaks with this...
With regards to the discussion at hand, tell me, would Massachusetts be considered an from the founding moment to the decline of the remnants of the old Puritan establishment in a series of court cases from 1810-1830s be an establishment of religion?
How about this: The government passes a budget wherein 1% of your property tax or what-have-you is allocated to a church of your choice. If you do not specify a denomination, the tax money would be given to a charity of your choice. Is that an establishment of religion?
What about military service exemptions for religious groups, and only select ones at that?
Subsidizing school transportation for children attending parochial schools? Buying those children textbooks, at taxpayer expense?
Chaplains in the military? Using the King James bible in state schools? Hiring missionaries, at taxpayer expense?
What does "respecting" mean? Does it mean regarding? Does it mean elevating? Does it mean favoring? What does establishment mean? Does it mean an official denomination (example, Catholic Church)? Does it mean a particular faith in general (Christianity, Islam)? Does it mean religion as a whole?
Does forbidding Congress to pass laws "respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" allow it to ban polygamy in federal territory when polygamy is a doctrinal practice of a particular faith?
-----------
The government and religion are two completely, utterly distinct spheres. The government is not allowed to endorse prayer, much less a denominational prayer. Likewise, tax dollars cannot be used to support an "establishment" of any type of religion. Tax dollars cannot be used to buy Bibles for religious instruction at St. Therese's preschool down the street. Tax dollars can't be used to pay the salary of Father John, who runs the church a few blocks over. Likewise, schools must divorce themselves from advocating religious content, and having an official school prayer at a graduation ceremony is exactly that- granting a seal of approval to a religious message.
Lastly, I think someone mentioned freedom of speech? Doesn't apply to whoever that was, few pages back I think
|
On May 31 2011 06:47 aoeua wrote:
But passing a budget is basically a law? Really? I would also disagree that a public body that offers a prayer is immediately transformed from a school to an "establishment of religion".
It's not technically a law. But Congress votes on budgets as if they were voting on laws, they debate and filibuster on budgets as if they were laws, and I believe the President has the authority to veto a budget, same as with laws. (I believe the technical term for the budget is resolution, but in any case it's an 'act' of Congress and since the Constitution refers to 'bills, laws, acts, resolutions, or whatever' of Congress, if the word 'law' appears elsewhere in connection with Congress enacting it, the Court will generally interpret the word to encompass everything Congress can vote on, based on statutory canon (a set of rules governing statute interpretation).
You seem to know a lot about the history of the Constitution. Public prayer in government bodies is not a new phenomenon. Do you think it more likely that for a hundred years the courts had missed this rather abstract subtlety (equating someone who offers a prayer with an establishment of religion)? Or is it the case that with our modern sensibilities we have abstracted the plain and concrete terms of the Constitution so far that judges on the Supreme Court can now decide what role religion should play in American government and education?
I think that as time went on, America drifted from a predominantly Christian nation to a country with many different religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court no longer thought it was acceptable for public entities to profess 'preference' for one type of religion to the detriment of say, Judaism or Islam or Buddhism. If you look at the line of cases involving school prayer and government professions on religion, they are all really very recent (starting in the mid-20th Century, even though 14th amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment to apply to state and local laws in the mid 19th century--it took over a 100 years before someone cared enough to bring a case before the Supreme Court--that alone should tell us something)
|
Hey guys,
I'm from Australia. I went to a public government school and there was no prayers done at school. We did have 1 40min class of Christian Education as a subject per week for one year (early in highschool), but if you didn't want to attend you could spend that 40min doing study, i.e. go to science labs and play broodwar. I'm guessing we probably have the same laws as America, or atleast they have the same goal.
I was reading the OP putting myself in that kids shoes. If I were to talk to my highschool who was ordering a state promoted prayer and said it cannot be done. There may be some red faces, but I don't see hate coming from it. I'd prolly get an awesome nickname like "The Grinch" lol. Since Christianity isnt inbred into the culture of my highschool i went to, I can escape it with little to no backlash whatsoever. I could imagine my chirstian ed teacher saying something like "Well son, i think it's a good idea to do a prayer for everyone, but since this is a gov school, we will have to orgainse it outside of the system. Maybe have a fairwell party after the ceremony and invite the whole school and engage in prayer then."
But, my other friends went to a catholic private school, they were expected to pray everyday. Some refused and got in trouble with the school teachers and what not. But only red faces, none of this witch hunting stuff, death threats etc. When told to bow their head in prayer at catholic school, my mate would sit there and say "I'm sorry but I do not wish to participate in this prayer" when asked why his head what not bowed. And that's all that would come of it.
Oh America...lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
