So, if there were a federal law establishing Christianity as the national religion, and it passed by 51% of the vote, you’d have no problem with that? Do you consider there to be any legal bar to such a bill? What about a moral or ethical bar?
The specific purpose of a police officer is to prevent people from breaking the law. Surely, instilling potential lawbreakers with a sense of moral purpose would be a major boon in the execution of their duties. With that in view, shouldn’t sermonizing to lawbreakers be not just allowed, but mandatory?
Contrarily, isn’t the specific purpose of a school to educate? Could one not just as easily argue that allowing prayer in school is interfering with the specific job of teaching kids how to read and write?
Also, you seem to be using “That’s what the majority wants,” quite a bit in your arguments. Is it ever possible that what the majority wants could possibly be bad? The will of the majority, for example, holds that the use of marijuana should be punishable by law. You earlier said you disagreed with the Supreme Court in it’s view that marijuana is covered by the interstate commerce act, but in it’s ruling on the matter, the Supreme Court is only acting in accordance with the will of the majority, by making it easier to impose large penalties against drug dealers. How can the Supreme Court’s action be wrong in this instance, if it’s actions are in accord with the will of the majority?
Not in any meaningful way, if the only reason people prayed in a public venue was to try to catch out persons of dissenting opinion to then harass later.
Now, I’m not denying that it very likely occurs that open dissenters are treated poorly, possibly in part as a result of them revealing their oppositional religious position - but that’s merely an unintended side effect. The idea that ferreting out such people is always or even often the reason for public prayer is laughable; obviously so.
The will of the majority does NOT trump the constitution or laws, ever. If the majority want to trump those, it has to jump through the hoops and change the constitution and laws! Until then, the will of the majority means exactly nothing, the instant it comes into conflict with an existing law.
Then, with all due respect, sir, you are positing a theocracy, not a democracy based on the document that most of the rest of us consider the starting point for our brand of government. That is a different issue, and an opinion not valid to the discussion of how the current Constitution of the United States and the SCOTUS should be applied to situations in the current society.
I didn’t want to bring this up during my discussion with ITR, but at one point slavery (and the granting of 3/5 status to “all other persons”) and the denial of the right of women to vote were also “wanted” by the majority. Appeals to the majority seem to me to be a weak argument in backing the imposition of one’s values on others.
Or have a nice, neutral moment of silence during which people can pray if they like, but don’t feel as if they’re being dragged into some other religion’s ritual.
I’m honestly shocked and appalled at some of the attitudes I’ve seen by a couple of people in this thread. Things like “…as long as they don’t do it in the manner that they want it, that logic and common sense dictate, and that traditional has usually had it…” just leave me with my jaw on the floor that an allegedly rational, intelligent person could hold such an opinion.
The persecution complex that some Christians seem to have in our overwhelmingly and often offensively Christian culture just makes me gag, at times. If there was ever a more favored and pampered group than the Christians in the US I’m not aware of it.
Utter garbage. Nobody is stopping anyone from praying, they’re just saying don’t do it over the microphone where everyone else is forced to listen to it. Have a moment of silence or gather later, or just pray to yourself while the boring speeches are going on. NOBODY is preventing people from praying. :rolleyes:
OK, let’s try this one more time. Freedom of religion protects freedom of belief 100%. It does not protect religious practice without limits. Human sacrifice, peyote use, polygamy etc have all been prohibited without freedom of religion problems. The restrictions placed upon religious practice must be of general applicability - see City of Hileah. There is also the Establishment Clause to be considered. Such religious practice cannot be state sponsored
Churches may be protected by the police without running foul of the Establishment Clause, but they may not be given a priviliged place. If a city were to pass an ordinance, for example, that required the fire department to put out a blazing church before any other building, that would probably by an EC violation. (I say probably because there is screwed up jurisprudence here, given that churches are granted ridiculous exemptions from planning/zoning requirements on a regular basis).
The schools here ARE choosing one kind of speech over another. Racist speech is not permitted. The school limits access to the forum. It therefore has a duty to ensure that religion is not endorsed from that forum.
Tinker just isn’t the relevant standard. It would be the standard to be used in a free speech case. But there is an extra burden/protection on religion. Religious belief is to be protected absolutely. But religious speech has to consider the Establishment Clause as well. This isn’t an open forum. Unlike the League of Women Voters, this is a state actor - a school. There are major differences in what the state can do with regard to speech and religion and what private entities can do.
If a city sets up a speaking podium in the town square, and allows anyone to reserve it for 15 minutes to speak to the masses, it probably is not establishment if the local RC Church uses it. If, on the other hand, the city selects the RC bishop as the only speaker, there is a much greater chance that it will be considered an endorsement of religion. Even more so if the city’s soup kitchen was set up in the same square, and while there was no requirement to eat soup there for the homeless of the city, there was no way they would be able to avoid the religious speech and get city soup.
I’d like to see people who are OK with the prayers read this article.
This is a good example of the shoe being on the other foot, and how it made him feel. Was it just a question of him being polite and being respectfully quiet during the prayer time? No, he quite reasonably viewed it as an endorsement of that religion and chose not to continue going to the football games because of it.
Can’t you imagine that in the mainland US, that’s exactly how non-Christians feel about being asked to sit quietly during a Christian prayer?
See, the problem is that when you claim “that’s the whole reason the custom exists”, you are making an untrue statement. Simply repeating it doesn’t establish anything, since it was false as to fact in the first place.
What I was asking for was an actual, real example of public prayers being performed at a graduation so as to identify non-believers and target them for beatings. That’s what you claimed happened, and I would like you to show that it was real.
(Obviously we all know it isn’t real, merely your foolish fantasies, but by my repeatedly pointing out this is meant to demonstrate how ridiculous your notion is.)
So now the ball is back in your court. If it were really the case that the primary purpose of prayers at graduation were to target unbelievers for later beatings, it would be easy for you to show this with some concrete examples. If you can’t, then you can [list=A][li]Come up with some real examples []withdraw your patently unfounded and ridiculous statement []slink out of the thread, repeat the statements without any kind of proof, or otherwise demonstrate that your allegation is merely the product of a bigoted imagination.[/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan
As has been mentioned, these are referring to student-led prayers. Students are not representatives of the state; they are private citizens. The actions of private citizens, even in public, do not make for an establishment of religion, which is forbidden (under SoCaS) only to the state.
So these are not state actors. Teachers, administrators, etc. - these are state actors, because they are paid and designated agents of the state. Students are not, anymore than churches are paid agents of the state because they are under the protection of the police.
Except, you were talking about the provider of the forum, not the candidates. The League of Women Voters is the provider of the debate forum. The candidates are the speakers. The school provides the forum, the school selected student is the speaker.
It doesn’t make any difference, which is why I gave the example of police protection for churches.
Candidates at a forum are not state actors. Students leading prayers are not state actors. Allowing candidates to speak does not constitute an endorsement of their views; allowing students to pray does not constitute an establishment of religion.
This is such a good example of why this practice is antiquated at best. Back when these kinds of traditions started, everyone in town was Christian, and the question was were they going to ask the Methodist minister or the Congregationalist minister to do it this year? Maybe if they really felt like going wild, they’d invite the local Catholic priest. But even small towns are more diverse than that these days. Personally, if I was at a graduation, even a public school graduation, where Buddhists were the vast majority and so they did a Buddhist prayer, it would not bother me. I would be quiet and respectful, as I would if I were at a sporting event in a foreign country and their nation anthem were played. But I can understand why others might not feel the same way.
I do disagree, though, with cases where students are not allowed to include prayers as part of their valdictory speeches.
It’s interesting to see portrayals of small, southern towns on TV & the movies, such as the show Friday Night Lights. The characters are portrayed as having religion steeped into their lives…everyone goes to church on Sunday, prayers are offered up by students before the games, etc. No one thinks twice about it. Of course, the point of the show isn’t to endorse anything, but to simply portray what goes on in these small towns, and my suspicion is that it’s pretty accurate. I think getting away from God is what big cities are for.
Of course it makes a difference. You are saying that the LOWV can organize a debate without being seen as endorsing the views. There are two major issues you are deliberately ignoring here. First - it doesn’t matter what they endorse because they are not a state actor, whereas the school is.
And second - they are presenting multiple viewpoints, and not controlling the content. The school is allowing a single viewpoint, and absolutely does control the content.
In my home town, the Methodist & Southern Baptist preachers alternated. Even then, school events with prayer were extremely rare. The school day began with the Pledgalegence & My Country Tis of Thee–no prayers–even in semi-rural Texas in the 50’s. As a Catholic, I was amused that they said the Our Father wrong. And a Hail Mary would have caused major panic. One more reason to plan my escape!
However, the old district now has a Hispanic majority & a significant Asian minority. Things do change.
The specific job of a school is to educate. Ergo, if it schedules prayers, it must schedule a prayer in every available religion… specifically excluding the relgion(s) of the students (the former is new knowledge, the latter is simply a repetition of stuff they already know and thus of no educational value).
