Say goodbye 1st Amendment: It's illegal to pray on the grounds of the Supreme Court

reply to post by darkelf

If government can effectively deny that there is a God, they can effectively deny that God given rights exist. At this point all rights are given by the state and as such can be removed by the state. So then the state becomes god in they they have the power to give or refuse rights.

Frankly, the acknowledgment of God or "effectively denying there is a God, is moot. Inalienable is inalienable, which means it can not be transferred from one to another. All rights are not given by the state. I have all ready demonstrated that The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights. If by the state, you mean the several states, I would direct you to any given state Constitution, and you will discover that these state Constitutions acknowledge in one form or another that rights are inalienable. Here are a few examples:

California State Constitution

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

The Preamble was posted to establish that the State of California has not "effectively" denied the existence of God.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Washington State Constitution

Washington State Constitution PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER.

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Virginia State Constitution

ARTICLE I Bill of Rights

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Pennsylvania State Constitution

Section 1 . Inherent Rights of Mankind All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Maryland State Constitution

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Arizona State Constitution

Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Declaration of Rigths:

2. Political power; purpose of government

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

I have randomly chosen a few states to demonstrate that your assertions are erroneous. If you wish, and I encourage you to do so, you can go and check the remaining states for any language that might support your contentions. You will not find it in any state constitution, nor will you find support of your contentions within The Constitution for the United States of America.

I wonder if these people were Muslims or Pagans, if this group would be so up in arms about their "rights".

I have a feeling I know the answer....

reply to post by Aggie Man

Assertion is not sufficient? After all, it is my right...I asserted it; therefore, it must be so! Prove me wrong.

Are you asserting your right to be harmed, or are you asserting your right to not have to see others worship in public? As to asserting your right to be harmed, if you chose to not prosecute others who have harmed you, this is your right. As to asserting that you have the right to not witness others worship in public, one right can not abrogate and derogate another. The only way to prove you have the right is to prove you have been harmed by some other action. You still have to prove injury. If you have the right to not witness others worship in public then you should be able to establish and prove that this has caused you harm, in the same way that a person who has been denied their right to worship can demonstrate it by that denial.

No one is forcing you to witness anything, and you don't have to watch other people pray in public. However, if other people are told they can not worship in public and threatened with arrest or force, this is demonstrable harm. If you are going to assert a right, then you have to prove you have it, and the best and surest way to prove you have it is by establishing the harm caused by the abrogation and derogation of that right. Justice does no work in a positive sense, it always works as a negative. Justice is never noticed, until there is first an absence of justice.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


SOMEHOW, I must be right....after all; it's the law!!! Go argue that; then come at me with your rhetoric.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
you don't have towatchother people pray in public.

Key word....WATCH vs. HEAR!

I have no objection to "watching" (what I assume to be prayer). However, I object to the n "th" degree with being verbally subjected to such ramblings

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Misoir

But as long as tax dollars are funding that place, why should I being an Atheist pay for a place where you can harm me physically(sick feeling in my stomach) and psychologically(anger, annoyance, irritation)? As long as the place is paid for with tax dollars no religion should be allowed.

Tax dollars has nothing to do with the issue, and just because you pay taxes this does not give you any authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of others. Many homeless people can develop an odor that can be quite repulsive and make people sick to their stomachs, and even cause "psychological" pain, as in anger, annoyance and irritation. Anger, annoyance, and irritation is not injurious enough to declare that homeless people do not have the right to be where they are. The nausea that the odor of some homeless people can cause is not injurious enough to establish that they do not have a right to be where they are.

No one is forcing you to witness people pray in public. You have the ability to ignore it, just as you have the ability to avoid the nauseating odor of a homeless person. If you want to take someone to court and sue them claiming their right to worship has caused you harm you have the right to a redress of grievances, but your assertions must be demonstrable or they will not have any weight in a court of law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I am not arguing with you. My statement is that according to our federal and state constitutions, our inalienable rights are bestowed on us by a higher or supreme power. If government can effectively dismiss that there is a higher power, from whence do our inalienable rights come? And by state I meant the government.

reply to post by Aggie Man

SOMEHOW, I must be right....after all; it's the law!!! Go argue that; then come at me with your rhetoric.

What is the law? You haven't established any fact of law, and all you have done is blather rhetoric, ironically, in spite of the fact that I have pointed to facts of law, you accuse me of your sins. You are the one spewing rhetoric, and empty rhetoric. You have no case, merely empty rhetoric.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Apparently you are not understanding my true point. If I am paying taxes, and taxes are funding the maintenance or establishment of said place, then it should not be a place where I should be forced to 'ignore' someone who is publicly practicing something they can do privately.

A homeless person has nowhere to go and it is not their fault they might smell. But a religious person who is out there praying has a play to go, and it is called church or home!


[edit on 7/16/2010 by Misoir]

Its called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and is one of the principles the u.s was founded upon. The u.s is a republic with a democratic government (or was..) NOT a theocracy (religous state). If people want to pray then do so in church or at home NOT in government or public buildings. (i.e schools, courthouses etc.)

reply to post by darkelf


I got you. I am sorry. I thought you were asserting that the state had effectively denied the existence of God, and granted civil rights. I do agree with you that by acknowledging that inalienable rights are God granted that a distinction has been made about who has granted those rights, and who has the authority to take them away, and it sure isn't any human. I also believe that for some, the underlying form behind their attacks on God and religion is to undermine inalienable rights. As long as rights remain something immune to government discretion, then governments can not legally do anything to control those rights. I am sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Apparently you are not understanding my true point. If I am paying taxes, and taxes are funding the maintenance or establishment of said place, then it should not be a place where I should be forced to 'ignore' someone who is publicly practicing something they can do privately.

A homeless person has nowhere to go and it is not their fault they might smell. But a religious person who is out there praying has a play to go, and it is called church or home!


[edit on 7/16/2010 by Misoir]

I am understanding your point, and repeating your point doesn't make it any more valid. Your tax liability has nothing at all to do with your legal authority about what can and cannot take place on public property. The freedom to worship how people see fit is a fundamental right. Further, your insistence that churches are places where worship belongs ignores many forms of worship. The Apache, and Cherokee, and Lakota do not worship in churches. They still have the right to worship. Further, it is not true that homeless have no where to go, they can, if they chose go somewhere else. Just because they can go somewhere else does not give you the right to tell them they must go somewhere else, any more than it gives you the right to tell people worshiping that they must to this worship in a church.

reply to post by Expat888

Its called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and is one of the principles the u.s was founded upon. The u.s is a republic with a democratic government (or was..) NOT a theocracy (religous state). If people want to pray then do so in church or at home NOT in government or public buildings. (i.e schools, courthouses etc.)

There is no clause in the Constitution called "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE", it is officially called The Establishment Clause and it is a prohibition on government from establishing a national religion, it is not a prohibition on the people from worshiping religion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What is the law?

EXCUSE ME......I thought the topic of this thread was "It's illegal to pray on the grounds of the Supreme Court "

So, if it's not "Law" then what's the point of the thread or any ensuing discussion?

reply to post by Aggie Man

So, if it's not "Law" then what's the point of the thread or any ensuing discussion?

It is not illegal to pray in public. The O.P.'s title is not the law. What's the point of any ensuing discussion? I fully understand what my point is, if you see no point in this thread, then why are you posting in it?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

So, if it's not "Law" then what's the point of the thread or any ensuing discussion?

It is not illegal to pray in public. The O.P.'s title is not the law. What's the point of any ensuing discussion? I fully understand what my point is, if you see no point in this thread, then why are you posting in it?

So, the OP's thread is a HOAX? report it to the MODS...

to me:

illegal = a law preventing such activity


if it's not law, then this thread is a hoax; plain and simple.

fix that simple problem and I will succumb to your way of thinking; otherwise, I will go about my business and meet up with you when you bring a real argument.

reply to post by Aggie Man


A.) You chose to have an argument with me, not the other way around.

B.) The O.P.s thread is not a hoax, it is a reporting an event. It appears as if the LEO involved stepped out of the bounds of his jurisdiction.

C.) If you are going to declare this a hoax, then that is you declaring it a hoax and it is inappropriate to tell me to report it to the mods.

You seem to be highly emotional about something here, and this has clearly affected your judgment and ability to think rationally.

Thats stupid... I think people should be free to pray if they want to, where ever they want to.
If it were me and I was in a special mood I would pray to myself, however, if people want to make it a communal event that is fine by me. IMO this is much different than trying to instill religion into the government and its institutions.

My liberal friends, we should remember that our philosophy is supposed to be based upon tolerance and the freedom to be the person you are, whatever that may be. This act does not hurt us, or make us endure any tangible pain or suffering, therefore I think we should remember live and let live.

I hope you guys will think about it differently - force works both ways, its just one force might not appear forceful because it can be obscured by social practice or traditional schemes.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

A.) You chose to have an argument with me, not the other way around.

No, I rhetorically asked "define" Harm.

B.) The O.P.s thread is not a hoax, it is a reporting an event. It appears as if the LEO involved stepped out of the bounds of his jurisdiction.

So, it's either "illegal", as the OP stated, OR it's an unlawful intervention...either way, I did not pick the title of this thread....I am merely arguing the merits of this thread based upon the assertion that said activity is ILLEGAL.

C.) If you are going to declare this a hoax, then that is you declaring it a hoax and it is inappropriate to tell me to report it to the mods.

No, it's either legal or illegal; their is no gray area. The OP reports it as illegal; therefore, I take it as genuine. Therefore, I have no reason to report a HOAX. It's true...It's illegal! You doubt the legality; then YOU REPORT IT. Otherwise, it's an illegal activity.

You seem to be highly emotional about something here, and this has clearly affected your judgment and ability to think rationally.

likewise



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Janky Red


My good friend, it is people like you who bring honor and respect to the term "liberal", a term that should be spoken with absolute respect, and one that people should be honored to be called, not the pejorative it has become in too many political circles. Thank you for your considered thoughts, and plea for freedom and rationale.

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14
Sorry man, but it isn't confusing at all. Either you support the rights of others or you don't. I'm not a Christian, I consider myself more spiritual than the man-made and man-corrupted (IMO) religions, but I definitely support their right.

Sure, but that is individual interpretation of the reality at hand. I don't deny people their free right to express their beliefs.

I am not what is at question here.