I don't have a problem with a group of praying parents, but a 'national prayer day' and 'teacher led prayer' DO violate the establishment clause, because they are administered by the government or government agents.
9/30/2006 12:50:04 AM
\"I think the ACLU (American Chuckleheaded Liberals Union)\"
Yeah, they're \"chuckleheads\" until they are defending a right YOU hold dear.
\"needs to read more of the amendment that they purport \"separates church and state\".\"
I think we can safely assume that the ACLU lawyers have read the constitution and the bill of rights.
\"It also says '... nor prohibiting the free practice thereof' (speaking of religion).\"
Free practice of religion doesn't mean that you can practice your religion anywhere you want and use the taxpayers' dime to do it.
\"And for the life of me I can't understand how you get separation of church and state out of 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.\"
I can. I'm sorry about your mental block.
\"By adhering to the 'nor prohibiting' part and allowing the 'free practice thereof', Wilson County is not establishing a religion.\"
Using taxes to fund religious activities is a violation of the establishment clause. Prayer lead by a government employee while on the clock is a violation. In public school, manditory prayer or prayer in a coercive environment is a violation. Spending taxpayers' monies on a religious play is a violation.
\"We musn't allow common sense to interfere with the system.\"
What you may view as \"common sense\" others see as a violation of our rights and a misuse of our taxes.
9/30/2006 12:59:24 AM
So you wouldn't have a problem if the teachers and majority of the parents were Satan worshipers and they took it upon themselves to lead the children in prayers to Satan?
9/30/2006 1:00:42 AM
Tim's gripe is with the Constitution, not the ACLU. Blaming the ACLU is like blaming the police for arresting you for a law you don't agree with.
And for the life of me I can't understand how you get separation of church and state out of \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion\".
That's because you misunderstand the word \"establishment\". \"Establishment\" has several different meanings (see the dictionary). In common use today, it means founding or creating. But the meaning in the Constitution is a different and older meaning. It means giving validity or recognition to. It survives in the expression \"establishing\" one's credentials, which means demonstrating one's credibility.
Using state property or state employees for religious purposes, or giving state sanction to religious ceremonies is \"establishment of religion\". It has the effect of giving state endorsement to religion, and therefore \"establishing\" the religion's credibility. This has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.
\"Free practice thereof\" doesn't include commandeering public property for the purpose. You're free to pray at home or pray in church. You're even free to pray in a school, if you go off by yourself privately and don't try to organize or involve others in it.
We musn't allow common sense to interfere with the system
We don't. You can' t apply \"common sense\" without reading the Constitution and knowing the English language. If you don't like it, move to a country like England or Iran where they have an \"established\" religion.
9/30/2006 1:04:16 AM
There HAS to be some sort of future award we can give to posts that are pure, normal fundyism right up to the last sentence, where the poster unwittingly says something so boneheaded and unintentionally stupid that it sends the post over the top to an 11 rating.
9/30/2006 1:34:30 AM
Crash landing award?
9/30/2006 1:45:43 AM
But by allowing state-sponsored religions events (which is what all these things legally are...), they are giving tacit \"official\" status to Christianity. That has the effect of subtly restricting the \"free practice\" of other, non-Christian religions.
It's one of the prices we pay to live successfully and peacefully in a multi-cultural society. Which is what we are, as much as the Fundies wish we wern't.
9/30/2006 2:00:43 AM
So who should I believe has a better grasp of Constitutional law, the ACLU or someone who resorts to calling said ACLU the \"American Chuckleheaded Liberals Union\"? Because your stooping to childish name-calling really doesn't help your credibility, Tim.
9/30/2006 2:01:56 AM
Last I checked, government was running the public schools. Sounds like it's breaking the \"no establishment\" clause to me.
9/30/2006 2:03:50 AM
Oh, why did I have to be born in this backwards state?
9/30/2006 5:33:13 AM
Wow, childish name calling, Tim must be right. How dare the ACLU infringe upon their right to destroy everyone elses rights.
9/30/2006 6:53:21 AM
Napoleon the Clown
I'm sorry, Mr. Dumbass, but those are examples of state endorsment. Next!
9/30/2006 7:57:27 AM
So, if I am a Catholic and say NO, what are my options?, and they say that they´re not building a religion. I mean, stop. I have met some Republican voters and have told me that the guys have given up BECAUSE THEY HAVE TALKED TO EXPERTS, not to culchies in Minnesota, and they have told them that, if a law like that was approved, to reinstate the school-led prayer, what would happen in Queens, where there are jewish, would you agree to pray the shema?. If the answer is no, there is no point of discussion.
9/30/2006 11:44:25 AM
It also says \"... nor prohibiting the free practice thereof\" (speaking of religion).
\"Free practice\" does NOT include teacher-led prayer in public school classes, because that is a violation of the establishment clause.
9/30/2006 1:20:16 PM
\"Free practice\" doesn't mean non-believers or those professing other beliefs have to participate in your prayers and practices. Grow up.
9/30/2006 7:04:32 PM
Tip C.; Maybe you need to sober up and these words will make proper sense to you. You seem to think 'religion' and 'christianity' are the exact same thing.
10/2/2006 8:08:41 AM
\"American Chuckleheaded\"? That's new. Isn't it usually \"American Communist\" or \"Anti-Christian\"?
10/5/2006 12:03:20 PM