[Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution]
This court's ruling is bogus even if the town DID purposely emphasize Christianity. It's up to the town. Seems even the courts cannot be trusted to adhere to the 1st Amendment. You see, when a COURT dictates that a town MUST include muslim prayer, or atheist rants, or buddhist monks, then the government HAS established a religion. And, to full stop the argument that the court is "only" saying all religions must be accepted, that in itself is exactly a religion itself - the anti-christ's religion.
28 comments
Ah, so it's fine for your religion to be spread in peoples faces, regardless of who is offended, but if someone else wants theirs (or lack thereof) out there then it's too far?
Acceptance is in no way a religion. There is no deity. There is no worship. There is no dogma. There is no tax exempt status.
Quit your bitching and do your praying in your house or something/
Seems even the courts cannot be trusted to adhere to the 1st Amendment.
Actually the court did, which is why the ruling was handed down that the prayer violated The Constitution.
I've modified my NeoPagan beliefs to a Universalist/Interfath/Theosophical bent rather than a strictly Shakta-Hindu bent, now. Makes more sense.
As usual, you idiots completely miss the point. By emphasizing only one religion, Christianity, your town's lawmakers made an unconstitutional law which defies the 1st Amendment.
MUST include muslim prayer, or atheist rants, or buddhist monks,
You do know that monks are not a form of writing, but actual people, right? That would be awfully silly to have all these writings from different belief systems plastered up in public view (or next to where ever this prayer was removed from) and then see monks standing next to them 24/7.
Oh and, atheist rants, really? Because, you know, Christians never go off on crazy rants or anything and there most certainly isn't a place on the internet that, in part, collects and compiles some of the best ones from throughout the internet. Oh wait...
Fundie Debate Tactic #23: Claim that all other views are religions, even those which support freedom of religion. That way, when confronted with the fact that you want the government to enforce your religion, you can accuse your opponents of the same.
It's up to the town.
No. Not too law savvy, are you?
There are laws on different levels: town/county, state, federal. No lower level law can stand in contradition to a higher level law. The constitution is the highest level and mandatory for all levels.
A town can't decide to ignore the constitution, no matter how much they want to.
But you already knew that, didn't you? You just want to lie and bitch around because this time things didn't go your way.
William Rooks? Are you sure that's not you, Rick Santorum?
It's interesting how often these people declare any contradiction of their opinions to be "a religion itself."
"Oh, you say say putting catsup and relish on a hot dog is perfectly OK, eh? Well that's a religion in itself."
If you don't want to be required to included other religions and atheism in public displays, simply don't include any religions. Requiring that other beliefs be included does not violate the establishment clause, it's when you include some at the expense of others that it becomes a problem.
You say "it's up to the town." Well, here's the thing: It's not. The first amendment clearly states that the government can neither endorse any one religion or prohibit anyone from exercising their religious freedom. As such, the government has two choices: Endorse all religions or no religion. As it is impossible to endorse every religion on the planet, the government can only endorse no religion, so, therefor, government backed prayer, even on a local level, is unconstitutional.
There are some places around the US where the dominant religion of the population is Islam or Judaism.
I'd like to see how fast your head would explode if you lived in one of those places and the town council there mandated, say, a Muslim prayer in its proceedings.
The courts don't say "all religions must be accepted". They say "no religion may be advanced by the government" - or more specifically, that the government can't take any action that has no secular purpose and is taken solely to advance a religious belief.
A court can't dictate that a town include muslim prayer, or atheist rants, or Buddhist monks. All of those would also violate the First Amendment; so that part of the argument is a straw man.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
