It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Once again, he is not assuming that Congress is GOING to establish Christianity, he is assuming it already IS established.
Praying and preaching are both a form of him practicing his religion. A state rep at a state event PRACTICING his religion publicly as part of the event. If you allow him to do this, then you have allow public school teachers to lead the class in prayer, judges to pray to the courtroom at a trial, and police officers to quote scripture while arresting someone. This is not as trivial as you make it out to be.
First off, you twisted my words. I didn't qualify the first amendment to mean separation of church and state. I said it should be a LAW that comes before the 1st amendment. Just like the trespassing and harassment ANALOGY I used. It's not bait and switch. It's an analogy to make a point. Some laws come before our rights.
You have said a lot on here, but you don't seem to grasp this most basic concept. The principal has every right to practice his religion outside of his job while he is representing the state. While he is on the clock, representing the state, he should refrain from practicing his religion. The second he gets off that podium, he can pray in PRIVATE by himself or with a group. That's his first amendment right. He just shouldn't do it while he is representing the state.
§ 1. Powers of people
That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
§ 2. Doctrine of non-resistance
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
§ 3. Freedom of worship
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
§ 4. Political or religious test
That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall never be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.
§ 2. Atheists holding office
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.
Private worship doesn't mean you can only worship in your home. You can do it anywhere and with anyone. Hence the idea that everyone in the stands can pray on their own, with a private group. It's just that the STATE should not be leading the prayer. The LAW of separation of church and state should be in place, so that anyone representing the state must abide by that law BEFORE their first amendment rights.
Teachers shouldn't lead each class with a prayer, judges shouldn't say a prayer before a trial, police officers shouldn't quote scripture while arresting someone, and public school principals shouldn't lead the crowd in a prayer before a football game. They are all free, even while on the job, to pray PRIVATELY on their own or with a group of WILLING participants. They just shouldn't be able lead a group, unwillingly, while they are representing the state. That is in no way taking away their first amendment rights. It is them abiding by a law while representing the state. If they have a problem with that law, then don't represent the state.
They didn't ban prayer, they banned public prayer. And not playing the national anthem makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you not play the country's anthem, in the country that anthem is about? I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not (I would hope not).
Originally posted by Le Colonel
Im surprised good people are in positions of power also.. Well it was good for the principal to speak his mind.
I find nothing wrong with a prayer.
In fact if there is no more prayers, then sorry you cant play the national athem either. ever. And we should ban farting in public too, i mean cause why should we all hear and smell fart.. Oh oh, i thought of another one. lets ban breathing, cause dont you just hate that guy next to you in line with the heavy breathing, good god, lets just ban living.
This isn't about people being offended by a prayer. It's about the state practicing Christianity. It is a state event and a Christian prayer as part of the event. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with the roles of government. Practicing a religion is not a role of the government, in my opinion, and most laws back me up on that.
Just like the law that prohibits this principal from praying at a state event. Instead, he chose to preach and he should be fired for that.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
NOPE. That is a lie as well. Apparently that is the only hook you got. I never asked you to jump through any hoops. I am not asking you to find this, that, or the other thing.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
These are just the quotes from one page of three pages of your incessant crying and whining and demanding I quote you. I have now done so, and what do you want to bet you just keep demanding more? Give a tyrant an inch and they want it all.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
WHERE IS THE QUOTE OF ME TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WANT TO READ FROM YOU ASIDE FROM A RETRACTION OF THE CLAIM
I am not sure why you think I am going to acknowledge any of what you are trying to argue while a blatant lie about me told by you still hangs there.
FIX THAT IF YOU WANT ANY CREDIBILITY WITH ME OR STOP TRYING ALTOGETHER!!!!!!!
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I just cannot help but be entertained by religious types using lies and deceit to try and defend a religion where lying is one of the top ten rules.
Granted, the Constitution does not specifically say there should be separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean we can't learn and progress from a document written in the 18th century. Can't we learn from over 200 years of applying this document?
The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, does it specifically say that church and state shall be separate. No, not in so many words, but think about it for a minute. If a public school principal is leading a group in prayer at a state sponsored event, the state is practicing a particular religion. It is a state representative assuming the Christian religion established at a state event. He didn't even wait for a law allowing him to practice his religion as a state rep, he just assumed it. That's even worse.
§ 3. Vesting of legislative authority; terms of office
The Legislative authority of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, both dependent on the people. Representatives shall hold office for two years and Senators for four years from the day of the general election, except that the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each shall hold his office as Speaker for two years or until his successor is elected and qualified, provided however, that in the first general election after adoption of this amendment Senators elected in districts designated by even numbers shall be elected for four years and those elected in districts designated by odd numbers shall be elected for two years. In a county having more than one senatorial district, the districts shall be numbered consecutively.
§ 1. Separation of powers; branches of government
The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct departments: the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
§ 2. Separation of powers; persons belonging to different branches
No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.
That's why intelligent people, and most law makers, apply the separation of church and state. With out it, people like this principal will assume their religion as established with in the state. It's potentially dangerous and not one of the roles of the government. I don't care if it's not in the Constitution. It's called learning from our history and progressing. If the state assumes a religion is established with out a law in place to allow for that, then how could anyone have freedom of religion? Separation of church and state is just common sense.
Okay, but people don't go to a football game to take part in religious prayer and political speeches. There's nothing wrong with public prayer as long as it's not in a venue that people attend without the expectation of being caught up in one.
Like I said, Jesus made public speeches and people were invited to listen or they could ignore it. But he didn't go into places where people would be forced to listen to him preach the gospel or else leave and miss out on what they were originally there for that had nothing to do with religion.
The difference being that this thread is about debating this guys ranting at a high school football game. There's going to be rants here. A high school football game is not a place I go to to hear people rant about the injustices the think are being done to them.
This guy took the mic and ranted, over a loud speaker so that everyone could hear, about this and that. Was anyone given the chance to get up and contradict him? What do you think would have happened had someone taken the mic from him after he had his chance to speak and they said how they disagreed with him and "here's why"? I strongly suspect this would be an entirely different discussion we are having.