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

reply to post by Aggie Man

No, I rhetorically asked "define" Harm.

You did not rhetorically ask for the definition of harm, you asked me specifically to define, and then smugly announced you would wait for a definition.

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.

I am not the O.P. and do not understand what that has to do with your argument with me. Your argument with me seems to be that I "fell into the trap" that I was telling you or others that you were not harmed. It was an erroneous assumption, and your deflection of the O.P.s title is just you backpedaling.

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.

The National Enquirer reports of chupacabras and alien abductions, as do many threads in this site. Do you take those as genuine as well? In the matter of law, it is prudent to know the law. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
LOL

40 USC 6135 - Sec. 6135. Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds

vlex.com...

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

1st Amendment - United States Constitution

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.

Great point, in that one single law, almost every right guaranteed in the 1st Amendment is shredded, in the very place dedicated to the protection of those rights.

The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government are thrown to the wind. The only right they forgot to suppress is the freedom of the press.

You would think that, on the grounds where these rights are supposed to be protected, it would be more important to ensure these freedoms there than anywhere else in the nation.


Whether a person is religious or not, even if they find religion repugnant, they should have a problem with this law. It a suppression of a person's freedom of speech pure and simple!

You should be thankful that religious people have brought this clearly unconstitutional law to our attention before it is YOUR right to speak your mind and petition the government that is attacked.

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

 

No, I rhetorically asked "define" Harm.

You did not rhetorically ask for the definition of harm, you asked me specifically to define, and then smugly announced you would wait for a definition.

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.

I am not the O.P. and do not understand what that has to do with your argument with me. Your argument with me seems to be that I "fell into the trap" that I was telling you or others that you were not harmed. It was an erroneous assumption, and your deflection of the O.P.s title is just you backpedaling.

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.

The National Enquirer reports of chupacabras and alien abductions, as do many threads in this site. Do you take those as genuine as well? In the matter of law, it is prudent to know the law. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Based upon "Prima facie"; YES!. It behooves the the opposition to quash the accusation.

Otherwise, I have no "beef" with you; I only have issue with those that "harm" me by verbally practicing their religion on government property; which is suppose to be free of religious oppression....and believe me when I say "hearing prayer (in any verbal form) oppresses the right to my "pursuit of happiness"....

I know, "pursuit of happiness" is in the Deceleration of Independence; however; if you throw that out, then you might as well throw out all ensuing documents of freedom.

I have no problem with prayer, so long as I am not subjected to it.

Pray in silence and all is good.

Ultimately it's really not that big of a deal but considering what the Founding Fathers and other Revolutionaries fought for it is a huge deal. This in my oppinion defies everything our great nation was constructed upon.

reply to post by Aggie Man

I have no problem with prayer, so long as I am not subjected to it.

Pray in silence and all is good.

Where do people get the strange notion that freedom OF religion = freedom FROM religion?

The Constitution clearly states the government has no rights to pass laws regarding religion; this means it has no right to tell people where to worship or how. A people's right to worship is absolute and the government should have NO SAY in how or when a private person chooses to exercise that right.

This whole trend of people thinking they have a right to be "free FROM" certain perspectives is offensive to the whole idea of freedom of speech. When you say that you should be free FROM one thing or another, you are inevitably stepping on the rights of another.

Just as you claim to wish to be free FROM having to experience other's exercising their religion, those people may wish to be free FROM hearing YOUR atheist rhetoric. Where does the line to be free FROM anything end?

You might as well just go around wrapping every-one's mouths in duct tape to ensure that nobody violates anyone else's right to be free FROM something they may find offensive.


Freedom ensures one's right to act. It does not restrict the actions of one person in order to appease another.

[edit on 7/16/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by airspoon
we should never initiate force against someone else, key word being "initiate".

Per the U.S. Constitution, please define "initiate".

To me: hearing the verbal rambling of prayer constitutes "Initiation".

Therefore, since "Initiate" is subjective; then I am in the right.

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

Definition of initiate:
originate: bring into being; "He initiated a new program"; "Start a foundation".
lead up: set in motion, start an event or prepare the way for; "Hitler's attack on Poland led up to World War II".

Initiate as in "to start". When you initiate force against someone, you are depriving them of liberty. The initiation of force can be physical as in throwing a punch, blocking entry, pushing, etc... Initiation of force can also be fiscal, as in taxing. Break "force" down to its lowest common denominator to mean anytime someone forces you to do something.

Also, I'm not citing initiation from the Constitution, rather I'm citing it as a god-given (whomever or whatever you believe god to be) right, that is self-evident. You shouldn't need a document to tell you what your rights are or what rights another enitity can't take away from you.

--airspoon

reply to post by Aggie Man

Based upon "Prima facie"; YES!. It behooves the the opposition to quash the accusation.

Prima facie means on the face of it. A smoking gun is prima facie evidence. What you mean by using the term now is not so clear, and it is doubtful you understand what prima facie means.

As for "the opposition" quashing the accusation, again you are not so clear on what you mean by this. Since the people praying were not arrested, there is no prima facie evidence that their rights were abrogated or derogated, and it comes down to heresay. Had they been arrested simply for praying in public then there is prima facie evidence of injury.

Otherwise, I have no "beef" with you; I only have issue with those that "harm" me by verbally practicing their religion on government property; which is suppose to be free of religious oppression....and believe me when I say "hearing prayer (in any verbal form) oppresses the right to my "pursuit of happiness"....

Congress has been prohibited by the First Amendment from making any law that would prevent people from worshiping in public places. Thus, anyone who prays in public is not acting illegally, and since you feel compelled to place the term harm in quotation marks it is difficult to take you at you word that you have actually been injured, or could possibly be injured by people praying in public. However, if you decide you have been harmed then it is incumbent upon you to seek remedy through a redress of grievance, which is your right to do so. This will not guarantee you any remedy, as you still have to demonstrate that you were actually injured. You are not oppressed by religion simply because people pray in public and your histrionics will not make it any more true.

I know, "pursuit of happiness" is in the Deceleration of Independence; however; if you throw that out, then you might as well throw out all ensuing documents of freedom.

Pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right, but your insistence that people praying in public places is an abrogation or derogation of your right to pursue happiness is a dubious claim. It is incumbent on you to prove this is true, not incumbent upon others to prove it for you. You have failed to prove any injury, and rely on language such as "I have asserted", and "believe me", but if you have been injured then it is demonstrable. Demonstrate your injury.

I have no problem with prayer, so long as I am not subjected to it. Pray in silence and all is good.

You not only seek to abrogate a persons right to worship, but now you seek to abrogate and derogate a persons right to speech. You have no legal basis by which to support your claims, they are simply claims you are making, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to trample over other peoples rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Since the people praying were not arrested, there is no prima facie evidence that their rights were abrogated or derogated, and it comes down to heresay.

That is true, this whole case comes down to hearsay. I was somewhat reluctant to post this story until I looked it up and found out that there really IS a law suppressing peoples 1st Amendment rights on the grounds of the Supreme Court.

The story of the police officer stopping the prayer brought this atrocious law to light. Whether one supports or opposes religious expression, you should be upset that Congress could pass a law which so blatantly violates the 1st Amendment in every way imaginable.


Edit to add:

Whether or not the incident in question really happened is irrelivent, what matters is that that law is real and people should be jumping up and down mad that Congress could pass such a law.

[edit on 7/16/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by FortAnthem

The story of the police officer stopping the prayer brought this atrocious law to light. Whether one supports or opposes religious expression, you should be upset that Congress could pass a law which so blatantly violates the 1st Amendment in every way imaginable.

Congress does this all the time, which was why Citizens United took them to court on the matter of BPCFRl, and the SCOTUS wisely held in favor of the 1st Amendment in that regard, and Projectjimmy was spot on, and it is too bad that no one was arrested over this matter. It is too bad that those who were praying lacked the conviction of their beliefs and acquiesced to such chicanery. If they were Christian, then they had just perpetrated one more betrayal onto Jesus, as Jesus never would have acquiesced to such tyranny, and indeed, died on a cross for his convictions.

My friend, you and I are both Catholic, perhaps we should make a sojourn to the hallowed steps of the priest class Justices, the modern day Pharisees and stand on those steps and pray for their souls. Not silently pray, but openly and without shame, pray for their souls, and let the Roman guards do what they will. Congress has been prohibited from making any laws that would stop us from praying on those steps, and while Jesus declared we should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", the Constitution is quite clear and expressly forbids any form of title such as Caesar. In short, there are no Caesar's in this country, and thus, nothing to render unto Caesar.

May I ask why any of you need to pray together at the supreme court building anyway? Was there nowhere else to pray? Are you being prevented from praying in church, or better yet in private where you can really concentrate on your thoughts?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
May I ask why any of you need to pray together at the supreme court building anyway? Was there nowhere else to pray? Are you being prevented from praying in church, or better yet in private where you can really concentrate on your thoughts?

Read the law, it's not just the right to pray which is suppressed, it is every right guaranteed to the American people under the 1st Amendment that is outlawed here.

Edit to add: EXCEPT the freedom of the press, which was probably just an oversite on the part of Congress.

[edit on 7/16/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by evil incarnate

May I ask why any of you need to pray together at the supreme court building anyway? Was there nowhere else to pray? Are you being prevented from praying in church, or better yet in private where you can really concentrate on your thoughts?

For the Christian, Jesus in fact, instructs them not to pray in the streets like the hypocrites do just so they can be seen by other men praying, but instead to go into their room, and shutting their door, pray in private. Normally, this is what I do, but there is no crime in hypocrisy, and if there were, virtually all members of Congress would be outlaws. If Christians want to be hypocrites and pray openly in public so they can be seen, they have this right to do so. Further, if Buddhists, Muslims, or Satanists want to worship openly and in public, this is their right to do so as well, and there is not a thing government can legally do about it.

The funny thing about this...
is that people here mostly are complaining about their faith being violated by the police....
but I wonder how many of you would be OK if a Muslim group prayed there with the same decibel level as the Christian group.
I would be willing to bet a lot of you will say they are a nuisance.

reply to post by SaHasani1990

I would be willing to bet a lot of you will say they are a nuisance.

I'll take that bet, and I can practically hear the goofy guffaw of that silly emoticon laughing away, as it is posted directly below my assertion that not only Muslims, but even Satanists have the right to worship in public.

Is this really what the ats has become......I think some people come on here just to argue and try and prove how ignorant they are......I was injured, I felt like throwing up, it made me angry......dude if people praying caused you all of those problems, you need professional help. Get a grip, they are erroding everyones rights, and you have to argue over trivial symantics? As far as telling people they should pray in church, or better yet their home, who are you to tell them where to pray? Maybe, they belong to some sect that only prays out of doors, you aren't gauranteed to not be disgusted, though again, if it causes you physical and emotional harm, seek help. You keep complaing about your rights, what about theirs? Are they so easily dismissed by you? If so, maybe its why your position bears so little weight. One final thought, as a Witch, I have the same rights and protections as all other recognized religions....therefore, if it was to happen to me, yes I would make as much noise as these people did.

reply to post by adifferentbreed

Is this really what the ats has become......I think some people come on here just to argue and try and prove how ignorant they are......

We here at ATS call those people TROLLS. They have nothing of substance to add and only like to see the reaction their trolling provokes.

We all get drawn in by them from time to time.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Read the law, it's not just the right to pray which is suppressed, it is every right guaranteed to the American people under the 1st Amendment that is outlawed here.

What law are you speaking of? I asked a question about the people who were apparently prevented from praying. What law are you talking about?

Edit to add: EXCEPT the freedom of the press, which was probably just an oversite on the part of Congress.

[edit on 7/16/10 by FortAnthem]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
For the Christian, Jesus in fact, instructs them not to pray in the streets like the hypocrites do just so they can be seen by other men praying, but instead to go into their room, and shutting their door, pray in private.

I am quite well aware of this, being part of the reason I would ask such a question.

Normally, this is what I do, but there is no crime in hypocrisy, and if there were, virtually all members of Congress would be outlaws. If Christians want to be hypocrites and pray openly in public so they can be seen, they have this right to do so. Further, if Buddhists, Muslims, or Satanists want to worship openly and in public, this is their right to do so as well, and there is not a thing government can legally do about it.

I did not call anyone a hypocrite, did I? I also do not recall saying no one had a right to do anything. I am simply asking why a very personal private moment with your savior needs to be a public spectacle?

Originally posted by evil incarnate


What law are you speaking of? I asked a question about the people who were apparently prevented from praying. What law are you talking about?

*sigh*

Doesn't anyone read the OP anymore?

40 USC Sec. 6135 01/05/2009

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
SUBTITLE II - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
PART C - FEDERAL BUILDING COMPLEXES
CHAPTER 61 - UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS
SUBCHAPTER IV - PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 6135. Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the
Supreme Court Building and grounds

-STATUTE-
It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or
assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display
in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or
adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or
movement.
US Code

It was posted right in the OP, please pay attention next time.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Is this really what the ats has become......I think some people come on here just to argue and try and prove how ignorant they are......I was injured, I felt like throwing up, it made me angry......dude if people praying caused you all of those problems, you need professional help. Get a grip, they are erroding everyones rights, and you have to argue over trivial symantics?

Well, you get a star for that much.

As far as telling people they should pray in church, or better yet their home, who are you to tell them where to pray?

I have never told anyone where to pray. Perhaps emotion has gotten the better of you?

Maybe, they belong to some sect that only prays out of doors, you aren't gauranteed to not be disgusted, though again, if it causes you physical and emotional harm, seek help.

There are no places out of doors aside from the supreme court building?

You keep complaing about your rights, what about theirs? Are they so easily dismissed by you? If so, maybe its why your position bears so little weight. One final thought, as a Witch, I have the same rights and protections as all other recognized religions....therefore, if it was to happen to me, yes I would make as much noise as these people did.

Not sure who the rest of this rambling is for so go to it.