I’d love to argue the larger question in another thread dedicated to that purpose, but not here. But there is no reasonable definition of “seperate” that would allow the Prez to invoke prayer. If we keep the reference books in a separate room, that means they don’t end up in the other room.
Additionally, your construct of the “seperation clause” isn’t the way it would end up if it meant what poeple often think it means. It would be worder more like: “no arm of the government may comingle in any official way with a church, or any religious organization”.
Appeal to authority? Citing the precedents of the Supreme Court? They ARE the authority. You are the one who has set yourself up as an authority on the matter, trumping every argument ever made on the subject. Why don’t you trot out a list of your credentials to convince me you know more about separation of church and State than the SCOTUS?
Credentials, nothing. It is based on the fact that the law is a constantly evolving thing, and that a private citizen can point to a ruling and say: “This is not right.”
However, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to me, save for the fact that you will hear my arguments when the laws get struck down.
Endorsing a religion is too close to a state establishing a religon for comfort. “A fence around the torah” to use the anti-loophole phrase of my childhood.
There may well be a time when the SCOTUS decides that the President may not utter the words “God” or “prayer” (and I’m not religious, it doesn’t make me a hoot one way or another) while in office, or outlaws National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. If and when that day comes, I’ll consider it to be so. But you saying it is so today, just by talking out your ass, ain’t convincing me.
And I’m still waiting on your answer to this, given your position on judicial activism.
I suppose one could call it a case of judicial activism, though I would more lean towards calling it by the very ackward phrase of “Damn Christians Presidents want everyone to worship their god-ism”. However, my position is not that there is no such thing but that 99% percent of the time it is being used to put down things that are most definitely NOT judicial activism.
Who decides if the “fence around the Torah” is better than just using the words? Who decides how tall and dense that fence is?
The Supreme Court? Well, they have… and their decision doesn’t agree with yours.
And in any event, the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from these actions. I guess you’re for extending the fence to include the President?
All these decisions… made by who? You? Or the Supreme Court?
See, Scott… you’re stuck. There is rationale for some of what you’re saying in Supreme Court caselaw. But since you’ve rejected that as a source of authority… you’re stuck with nothing but the raw words of text, and they don’t support you either.
Say what? I have said that all recent cases that disagagree with me do so because they conflict with the first ammendment/earlier drafts/intent/the writtings of the guy who wrote the whole thing and the fact that the signer KNEW ful well what he wrote.
However, that doesn’t mean I can’t say they were correct on other issues. I don’t have to throw aout the baby with the bathwater.
That approach leaves you as the only authoritive source on the meaning of the Constitution: when you agree with the Supremes, they’re right; when you don’t, they’re wrong.
More like “When The Supremes restrict a women’s right to choose, allow for a public show of Christianity, or do something else nasty, they are wrong, due to the fact that the ideals of freedom are integrated into the foundation of the country.” True, a tortured reading of the legal process can lead to restricting freedoms, but the foundation does not support that fact.
Now, I see there are a few screed I have not answered, but I need to actually get some work done, so I will come back later. For now, however, I feel the need to post this so that people can not just start out in this thread without having seen this.
However, my position is not that there is no such thing but that 99% percent of the time it is being used to put down things that are most definitely NOT judicial activism.