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.
I never once advocated that "certain people" should forfeit their rights. I said the STATE should not have the same rights as it's citizens in order to keep an unbiased state to protect our rights.
When you are representing the state, I believe that you should absolutely have to give up some of your rights, because when you are representing the state, you are no longer an individual, you are the STATE.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Reflection
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
What part of that do you not understand? Why do you ignore the part after the comma?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
You act as though simple recitations of the documents is the final legal word. It is not. You are limited in many ways, so that you cannot legally ' express' your ' beliefs' if they cause certain things to happen.
As for not restricting religion, read the cases where LEGITIMATE churches and believers are legally forbidden from practicing aspects of their beliefs. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, which was officially recognized as a bona fide entity by the Federal government, has as a practice the use of cannabis as a sacrament.
So I guess that means that as a government official they must give up the right to not believe in God. A right that all the rest of us hold. Hmmmm...that's not very consistent with what you have been saying. State reps should have all the same rights as everyone else...?
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by bagari
Some might call that a lack of tolerance on your part - a big no-no in today's politically correct society. Of course, it's quite clear that it's alright to show a lack of tolerance toward christians but no other group.
What makes you think I'm not Christian? Plenty of Christianity out there that doesn't support the teachings of Jesus. Sounds more like intolerance to anything but Christianity.
If you were islamic or jewish and tried to do a public prayer, it would be "more than a big deal" IMHO. And, I think those groups would simply not even bother trying such a "stunt" because it would cause uproar.
Can you imagine what havoc would be caused if everyone was left to worship whenever, wherever in public places.
Especially with the diversity of culture in America- you would have some truly pissed off Christians if Muslims were allowed to preach and praise to anyone they choose in public.
The thing is, they are allowed, they just don't.
The only time these 'rights' are limited is when you are an employee of the government or government run corporation/ institution, because it would be biased as the government is meant to be completely neutral.
How difficult is this to understand?
Muslims have an inalienable right to preach in public just as Christians do, and because they have this inalienable right, the government can neither "allow", nor disallow this practice.
The thing is, they don't need any allowance, they simply have the right to do so, and some most certainly do. I live in a metropolis of over 9 million people, including Muslims, and I have seen many Muslims preach and pray in public.
Inalienable rights can not be "limited", and this nonsensical mystical incantation of bias is just that, nonsensical and sounds every bit as mystical as any Christian can, Muslim can, or Buddhist can. Members of Congress pray before going into session, numerous Presidents in their State of the Union address have declared "God Bless America", and the same with Governors, and state legislatures, it is not just erroneous to claim they can't, they in fact do.
How difficult is it to understand your fantastical fiction? Not difficult to understand at all, but good storytellers are able to make the implausible plausible, you have failed miserably with your fiction to do so.
In Good News Club v Milford Central School (533 US 98 ), the Supreme Court ruled that a school may not exclude a religious club from using facilities in the school, after school hours, just because the club is religious in nature.
In other words, if the Chess Club can use school property for after school meetings, the Good News Club must also be permitted to use school property. To deny them access is to discriminate on the basis of the Club's religious viewpoint, which is a violation of the Club's free speech.
The point behind a policy to ban religious organizations in this way was to avoid Establishment Clause issues. But the Court found that it was clear that since the Club would meet after school hours, there was no way that it could be reasonably concluded that the school was endorsing religion.
The Good News decision is one of many Supreme Court decisions that weave a tangled web when it comes to school prayer. One thing is clear: the Supreme Court has consistently said that a school must not endorse religion or any particular sect of a religion. The trick is in the interpretation of this edict. Often times, as in the Good News case, schools have gone too far, failing the Lemon Test's second prong.
Another major issue that the Court has grappled with in recent years is that of prayer broadcast over the public address system of a school during extra-curricular activities, such as football games or graduation ceremonies. The latter issue was addressed in 1992 by the Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman (505 US 577).
The case involved the invitation by Robert Lee, a middle school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, to a rabbi to deliver an invocation and benediction at graduation ceremonies in 1989. Deborah Weisman was one of the graduates, and her father, Daniel Weisman, objected to the inclusion of the prayers in the ceremony.
The Court noted that the rabbi's comments, which are included in full in the Court's opinion, lasted no more than two minutes. Attendance at the ceremony was voluntary. The Court noted that the ceremony was held in school facilities. Weisman had sought a temporary restraining order to block the prayers, but had been unsuccessful. His case was filed at an attempt at a permanent injunction against future prayers.
The District Court had found the practice of invitation of a member of the clergy to offer prayers to fail the second prong of the Lemon Test. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court, and the city of Providence appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court also agreed with the ruling in Weisman's favor.
The Court noted that while the prayers offered were non-sectarian in nature, in that they referred to and thanked God without reference to uniquely Jewish or Christian belief, the prayer was still primarily religious in nature: The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause.
It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.
The Court noted that Lee gave the rabbi a pamphlet that was intended as a guide on how to structure and deliver non-sectarian prayers, but the Court indicated that this good-faith effort, rather than making things better, made things worse: "Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers."
The Court also looked at the effect of the prayer on students. It noted that discourse on issue like prayer in school, is positive, as is tolerating speech you disagree with. But the school environment, religious speech carries with it a "risk of indirect coercion."
What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. The Court has also tackled the stickier issue of prayer during extracurricular school-sponsored activities. In Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (530 US 290 ), the Court ruled on this issue.
At Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, one student was elected as student council chaplain. This student delivered a prayer over the PA system before home football games. Some Catholic and Mormon students and their parents sued the school district over the practice. After the suit was filed, the school held a referendum to let the students decide if the prayer should continue, and if so, to elect someone to deliver the prayer. The student body voted to continue the practice.
The District Court allowed the prayer only if it was non-sectarian, but the Circuit Court ruled both the old and new schemes to be unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed. Both sides of the issue referred to the previous Lee case. The school district argued that since the prayer was being led by a student, and not by a member of the clergy invited to the school by an administrator.
The Court said that it agreed that private-lead speech was much less restricted than public-sponsored speech, but it disagreed that the student's speech was private. These invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events... [T]he school allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation. The statement or invocation, moreover, is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message.
As with the Lee case's directives for the delivery of the invocation, the Court was troubled by the student-based election system, which was put in place to ensure that there was popular support for the plan: Santa Fe's student election system ensures that only those messages deemed "appropriate" under the District's policy may be delivered. That is, the majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.... [the] student election does nothing to protect minority views but rather places the students who hold such views at the mercy of the majority.
Despite all of the above, the school district had a trump card in its attempt to continue to allow prayer at the games: attendance at the football games is not compulsory. The Court was unconvinced — they noted that some students were compelled to attend games, such as cheerleaders, band members, and members of the team itself. The Court also raised the issue of peer pressure as making attendance less than completely voluntary. Leaving all of that aside, the Court still felt the policy violated precedent: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."
Cases like Good News seem like wins for religion, and cases like Lee and Santa Fe seem like losses. But the Court would probably argue that they are all wins for religious freedom, even if the practical application seems to point in different directions. The details make all the difference, and taken as a whole, the body of decisions about school prayer do follow a single line of reasoning.
Originally posted by jinx880101
I bet they are not government employees preaching at their place of work.
I bet they are not government employees preaching at their place of work.
05/28/2010 Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin
We believe in One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.
To say You are one is to hint at your perfection. To call you a trinity of persons is to bless you in your oneness of relationship. Yours is continual communication and relating.
We beg for your grace and power that we may be one. Remove all division and discord which cause dysfunction and confusion in our souls.
Make of our diversity a new strength; that will bind us to one another in purpose.
Heal our understandable wounds of the past and all paralyzing fears of the future. Help us to develop better skills in relating to others.
Shape our differing perspectives by respectful dialogue so we may be unified in serving the common good of this nation and be a light to the world.
Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
If the event took place on school grounds or school sports fields- (which are government property) the same laws count as the principal is still an employee of the government on government owned land.
Okay, I'll take that bet. Ante up, sweetheart. 05/28/2010 Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin
We believe in One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all. To say You are one is to hint at your perfection. To call you a trinity of persons is to bless you in your oneness of relationship. Yours is continual communication and relating. We beg for your grace and power that we may be one. Remove all division and discord which cause dysfunction and confusion in our souls. Make of our diversity a new strength; that will bind us to one another in purpose. Heal our understandable wounds of the past and all paralyzing fears of the future. Help us to develop better skills in relating to others. Shape our differing perspectives by respectful dialogue so we may be unified in serving the common good of this nation and be a light to the world. chaplain.house.gov...
This was the opening prayer for The House of Representatives before proceedings yesterday, May 28th, 2010. It was not a private prayer, but was given by the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin right there in the Chamber, openly and without shame.
One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.
OK...not counting that, like i have repeatedly said, the stadiums are often not owned by the schools. They are owned by corporations, such as economic development boards, or true companies (Grande Communications owns the one in Midland, TX). But, even given that....you get that belief from the first amendment. the very same one that says right after that, that you cannot limit free speech? Since, in your interpretation, those two phrases are totally conflicting...could your interpretation not be at fault? Shake off your years of programming, and think about it. Seriously...just think about it. The words are there, the logic is there and obvious. If this is how you think the constitution is written,
wow. please do not run for public office. I do not say that to be mean. i say it in all sincerity, out of love for my country. It is far enough astray from its principles already.