Although I may be biased by being “a person of faith” myself, I consider that complaints of this sort are just a bit frivolous. A citizen, including an elected official, has a right to his or her free practice of religion or declining to do so. What he or she does not have is a right to demand that others engage in the practice of his or her religion or failure to practice one. If Congress passes a law that gives a leg up to any faith, they’re in violation of the First Amendment. If all 535 of them decide to hold an all-night prayer vigil before voting down such a law, they’re not. Simple as that.
Besides, I thought that “the President is always on duty” and “the Congress is on duty whenever it’s in session.” Are you saying they have no right to participate in their chosen faith while in office?
Of course I’m not saying that, Poly. i’d think you’d know better of me. But this type of organized demonstration seems more like flaunting than an honest personal expression. Do you believe that this activity is nothing more that a group of citizens or elected officials simply engaging in the free practice of their religion? Do you consider me unnecessarily cynical for questioning the motivations behind proposals for “moments of silence” or “nondnominational prayer” in schools?
Exactly what tenet of what religion instructs you to make a public display of your devotion? (Well, actually I believe there are some such tenets. Those are the kind I tend to have the most problem with.)
When I see what I consider excessive public displays of affection, something in me says “Get a room.” Not a perfect analogy, but I always wonder why people feel that exercising their religion in their churches/etc, homes, and minds is not enough. Always suggests a little insecurity to me. But I’m sure a believer would choose to view things differently.
While you consider my “complaint … a bit frivolous”, I believe the same could be said for the political manipulation of what I think should be considered sacred beliefs. By their actions, these politicians demean what they proclaim to stand for.
Kalt, your position is unconstitutional on its face. Public speech is protected by the Constitution, whether you like it or not. Congress passing laws regarding religion are unconstitutional. Congress passing concurrent resolutions, which do not have the force of law are entirely constitutional and occur regularly on many different subjects and occasions.
Your disdain and contempt for religion does not allow, Thank God, you to determine the rights of any and all parents to raise their children in the faith of their choice, or lack of same. Arrogant and presumptuous on your part.
Well, one thing we both agree on, then. I didn’t and don’t consider it to merit removal either. The same could be said of this entire thread, which is a whine with no cheese. Religion in public gets some people’s hackles up at the mere mention. That’s my point. My entire point. If you still don’t get it, it ain’t for lack of trying.
Apparently the Supreme Court does not agree with your legal expertise on this issue. As Congress is making no laws, it is in fact NOT a violation of the constitution.
No, I’m equating use of public, taxpayer funded official government work areas to indulge in actions not directly the perview of the officeholders. One, a personal action, the other, a public expression of religiuous sentiment. One seems to ALWAYS offend the anti-religious, the other, at least according to your own statement above, actually offended most everybody. Neither is worthy of more than a driveby sniping. Threads like this are excessive.
The problem with it isn’t that it’s public prayer but that it’s official prayer. Granted, concurrent resolutions don’t have the force of law, but does that mean anything goes? Could Congress pass a concurrent resolution expressing the “sense of the Congress” that the Episcopal Church is the One True Faith and that all Americans should convert to Episcopalianism?
Damn, the Episcopalians get the nudge? Man, they get everything!
Seriously though, tell me this is just a hypothetical question rather than a ‘slippery slope’ tactic. Assuming that to be the case, I can’t tell if that action would be legal. To my mind, it’s a tossup. I’d argue that it still lacks the establishment of a religion, but I have to acknowledge that a specific selection and recommendation from a governmental body carries tremendous weight, even if it falls, perhaps only technically, short of the force of law. Hmm. It’s too close to call, I’d err on the side of caution and disallow such actions. Now that you’ve made me curious, I’d like to know what First Amendment legal beagles would say. Let me qualify that further, non partisan impartial lawyers, if there be such a beastie.
And hey, am I just really sloooow, or have you recently made MOD?
Recently made Mod? What do you mean? Check out any of my posts, all the way back to August 2000–I’ve always been a Moderator. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
No, all right, it’s just one of the peculiarities of vB–sig lines and member statuses and post counts and such are all retroactive. In fact, I started today.
I’m on the government’s dime. On 9-11-01, I had the audacity to pray fervently to God for friends in New York, while I was at work. I also shared my prayers with a couple other governmental workers. According to ssj man, I violated the Constitution. I don’t think so.
As to the assembly:
I disagree that this is some kind of establishment of religion. It is specifically non-religious (I know, I know, any reference to Providence must be a slam at those who don’t believe in Providence, but I disagree with that also), it’s non-denominational, it’s non-coercive, it has a definite secular purpose, it primary purpose does not advance religion, and it does not excessively entangle the government in religion.
MEBuckner, you are true to your Jeffersonian strict separationist view of the Establishment Clause, but I prefer the “mutual understanding” branch of thinking myself. Guess we have to agree to disagree, unless you want to admit I’m right.
Well, as one of your first official uses of your moderator superpowers, ME pal, could you reach through my computer screen and clean off my keyboard? That was hilarious!!
It would not bother me in the least if every single member of Congress got his knob gobbled (or the female equivalent, of course) in his or her office every single day of the week, as long as they get their work done.
It would, however, give me pause if Congress declared a two-hour Festival of Fellatio at noon in the Capitol Rotunda. It might also bother me a bit if Congress employed a full-time Official Suck Queen.
My apologies. Your point came across as that we lefties got upset about trivialities such as Congresspersons’ public prayers while not getting worked up about a comparatively more serious matter such as the Prez’ BJs - that we strained at gnats while swallowing camels. My mistake if I read you wrong.
I didn’t take a side for the Supremes to agree or disagree with. I stated that establishment of religion is unconstitutional.
OK, I misunderstood you. But if the Clinton BJs weren’t worth a drive-by sniping, why did it bother you that the people who sniped at the use of the Rotunda for a Congressional prayer meeting didn’t also snipe at Clinton over the BJs?
BTW, the best response to threads you think are excessive, in my experience, is to bypass them. YMMV, of course.
Dinsdale, please accept a public apology for something that clearly looked (and looks to me, when I reread it) as a slam at you. I meant my “you” in a generic sense, but considering that you were both the OP and the person I began my post in response to, I see how easily it targeted you personally, and yes, I have far more respect for you than that.
I’ll do a more substantive post later after thinking on the issue a bit more, but I wanted to get this apology up now.
