Sure! Fortunately the only thing that is prohibited is school sponsored/endorsed prayer, and students may pray silently at any time, or out loud at times when it is not disruptive to the teachers, during lunch, between classes, and may meet in bible study groups on school property, hand out religious pamphlets, and so on. If you have a cite showing that the courts have upheld a ruling that students are prohibited from praying in school, I’d love to see it. 
I’d also like to see a cite re the librarian not being able to wear a religious pendant simply because it is a religious pendant, and not due to some sort of general ban on jewelry. If you can’t find one, I respectfully request that you withdraw those statements.
The PoA doesn’t specify a generic god. It specifies a specific God. As does money.
Otherwise, it would be “In god we trust” and “one nation under god” instead of “In God we trust” and “One nation under God”
Let’s change it to “In our dieties we trust” and “one nation under our respective dieties” if its just a generic term for god or gods.
Well, I had initially saw the report on a major network news cite, but the only thing I could grab real quick were these links.
ACLJ Files Suit Against KY Library After Employee Fired for Wearing Cross Necklace
Policeman Fired for Wearing Cross Takes Case to Supremes
Court takes another school religion case
Prayer Ban at the University of Florida Challenged in Federal Court
Maryland City Revokes A Policy That Prohibited
News Releases Regarding: Religion in Public Places Court Bans Pre-Game Prayer Graduation prayer banned
It does not give anyone the right to prohibit somoenes freedom of expression just because it may offend someone or they feel left out. There is no Constitutional right to not be offended. But there is a constitutional right for freedom of expression and freedom to assemble. And since the law cannot require that someone is free to assmeble on private property, it must mean they are free to do both on public property. And the government must give approval to those freedoms. It is in the Constitution. And just because you witness or are subject to those forms of freedom, you do not have a right to deny those citizens their rights.
Saen, I asked for a cite showing that the courts upheld a ruling that banned public prayer…not lawsuits showing that some official took it upon himself to prohibit prayer, etc. There will always be people who attempt to infringe on other people’s rights; the test is, are these held to be constitutional or not by the courts? I think you’re setting up a strawman by complaining that “you’re infringing student rights by not allowing them to pray!” in re SOCS when you can’t find a single standing court case that says that student cannot pray in public places or in school. The courts, have, as far as I know, never prohibited nondisruptive, non-officially endorsed prayer in public places (just to pick one example). I’m not sure why you’re getting peeved at SOCS, when the court’s ruling on SOCS have not done the things you’re getting so steamed about…the transgressors appear to be officials who take it upon themselves to ignore the unconstitutionality of what they do, and are so brought to court.*
*Though I see that at least some of your cites reference officially-mandated public prayer, officially endorsed specific religious texts on government property, etc., which does not prohibit any individual’s excercise of religion on public grounds, just their ability to secure official endorsement of their particular beliefs. They can still pray at football games, or carry around a copy of the 10c, and so on. Do you think that not being able to have goverment resources used to promote their religious beliefs is infringing on their right to practice their religion? I don’t.
LOL… every single cite I put up has everything to do with the SOCS ruling. That is the basis of the actions that denied those the rights in the first place.
YOu specifically asked for a cite on the librarian case. I gave you other links that the courts ruled for and against. And yes, an attempt to exercise your religious freedoms must be endorsed by the government and all public places. Should I show you where exatcly it says that? It is not the religion they have to endorse, but the exercise of it.
The cites have to do with a misinterpratation of SoCS, it seems to me–misinterprations made, in all fairness, by people who are not terribly familiar with constituional law, and whose job does not include being charged with binding interpretation of constitutional law. It is the courts who are charged with interpreting SoCS, and you have not shown that their interpretation restricts free excercise of religion. You have shown that some officials have done so, but they can do whatever they damn well please; it’s the courts that determine what SoCS entails. For example, let’s say some official interprets “separation of church and state” to mean that church and state should only be separate phsysically, and sets up a state church with government money and requires everyone to attend. Now, does this mean that SoCS is responsible for creation of a state church? No, it means that official is a moron. Unless the courts rule on SoCS in a way that infringes on someone’s freedom, I don’t think you can say that the tenet of SoCS is to blame for infringing religious freedoms. And even then, I would be inclined to think that the judges have it wrong if they can interpret SoCS to restrict someone’s freedom of religion, 'cause I don’t really see much in there that could be interpreted that way. If you think the establishment clause can be reasonably interpreted to ban unofficial, nondisruptive prayer in school, I’d like to see your reasoning.
But that’s not what I asked. I asked “Do you think that not being able to have goverment resources used to promote their religious beliefs is infringing on their right to practice their religion?”
If you would follow my links you would see that not all are just , but rulings by courts. And no, they cannot do whatever they damn well please when they infringe upon the rights of others. I am telling you that SOCS is a misinterpretation of the first amendment. And I can find many standing court cases wich I have already shown above. I will re-post them for you viweing pleasure.
And as far as your analogy goes, your damn right it would be just as wrong and as unconstitutional. And we would have to stop such practices. the same as we need to stop the practice of denying others first amendment rights. Alot of these cases the SCOTUS refuses to take. So thereforeit is an interpretation, to use your words, highly misused and missrepresented to the point of being equivocal and unconstitutional.
Absolutely. Especially if they are denied those resources because they are religious in nature. Allowing people to exercise their religion in public property is not establishment. It is a fundamental right provided by the constitution. Making laws prohibiting them from doing so is unconstitutional. Especially making laws on the basis that it may offend someone else.
Okay, then, Saen, when my Circle shows up to do an Autumn Equinox ritual in front of City Hall I expect you to be standing there in support of our right to do so.
Particularly in the face of those who will undoubtedly show up, tell us we’re going to Hell or those who protest our use of “public grounds” for our ritual.
It seems to me that such use of public grounds is only “okay” as long as the practitioners are either Jewish or Christian.
Let’s see what you say when the decision is overturned. 
Wow, what’s with putting my name in bold? Did any of my posts say anything about amending the constitution, either way?
My opinion is, if a constitutional amendment is passed, allowing “Under God” in the pledge, I have no problem with it.
Just out of curiosity, what’s involved in an Autumn Equinox ritual?
Alright Saen!!! I was wondering if I was going to be arguing this point of view all alone. I’m glad that someone else came along to back me up .
Joel:
If, not when, it’s overturned. Out of idle curiosity, exactly what point of law did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals violate or ignore? But, say the Supremes go ahead and overturn it, then I’ll agitate lawfully for them to revisit the issue.
Anyway, Congress has already admitted that the phrase “under God” does violate the Constitution. That’s why they’re threatening to have the document amended.
You can expect anything you want Sister. Nothing requires me to stand there and do anything. Bur until I try to ban you from excercising your religion (without breaking any laws) in the public arena anyone has every right to protest what they do not like. Do you understand the difference between protesting and making laws? Especially laws based upon the constitution? You get angry because people protest? Are they supposed to personally support your every decision? I am angry that my rights are being prohibited, not protested. I could care less what you think about what I do with them.
Does anyone know if this is true ? I know that in Maltese, the word Allah is used in prayer to mean the christian God.
Congress wanting to amend the constitution means that they’re admiting that they’re wrong? Then what does it say about judge Goodwin when he puts his own ruling on hold “to ensure school districts would not immediately stop the practice of having children recite the pledge in the morning.”?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/07/01/state1803EDT0124.DTL
If having “under God” in the pledge makes it so wrong, why doesn’t he immediately want to stop it from being said? Maybe he’s admitting that he’s wrong perhaps?
And at any rate, the rehearing will take place in front of the full 11 pannel 9th Circuit court of appeals, not the Supream Court.
As for why it could be overturned, well besides the fact that it’s had 12 of its 17 decisions overturned by the Supream Court this term because it’s such a liberal activist court
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/28/pledge.9thcircuit.ap/index.html
Let’s look at the words of Ferdinand F. Fernandez, the decenting judge
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_78649.html
In cases where a decision will reverse a long-standing practice and is sure to be appealed, it is common practice to stay the execution of the order so that the various groups do not have to run around accomodating each reversed decision as it wends its way up to the Supremes. By ordering an immediate stay, no one is put on the burner to make lots of changes or hire lawyers to seek outside stays from higher courts. The judge (unlike the president) was being polite.
Yes, let’s:
Especially ironic in light of the fact that Bush immediately declared that he was going to abrogate Article VI of the Constitution as soon as he heard about the decision.
Good grief, Joel. The judge stayed the majority decision so the administration wouldn’t have to jump through other hoops. Essentially, it was a legitimate shortcut to get the thing reviewed by the next level of appeal.
Congress is jumping up and down now (working on getting votes, obviously) and saying that if the courts don’t kowtow to them and overturn the decision, then they’ll go ahead and amend the constitution to show that the separation of church and state is a thing of the past.