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

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ok, so you missed my point entirely.

You have to say no to everyone, no matter if they are praying quietly, or if they are screaming, if you allow even one group to worship on government property and exclude just one other group, you are saying the government endorses a particular sect.

It's just being fair to everyone. Don't mix politics and religion. Yes freedom of religion is a great thing, but when the government endorses one religion over others, it's a dangerous mix. There are thousands of places to pray, hell, you can pray in a public park, you can pray just about everywhere, but when you start praying on the property of the SC and they don't do anything about it, then it's unfair to the next group that tries to pray there, or scream foul garbage, or sacrifice a goat.

reply to post by evil incarnate

The last time I checked, separation of church and state was for equal protection from the undue influence of the other. What many of you are touting is freedom of religion so you obviously do not want this to be a Christian nation, right? So, do you want your Christianity Republican, Democrat, or Fake Doctor Rand Paul flavored?

You are now the second member to claim you have checked on this separation of church and state assertion. Why don't you show me where in the Constitution a separation of church and state has been mandated. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing one religion over another, it did not in any way grant the government authority to diminish the right to worship.

Your assumption that "many" of us touting freedom of religion want this to be a Christian nation is an erroneous assumption, and so far in this thread, I have gone on record as asserting that all forms of religious worship are protected by The First Amendment and a Wiccan has gone on record asserting the same. You are either selectively reading, or simply ignoring that in order to reach your erroneous conclusions.

Why would anyone want to make praying on government property a priority anyway? You are still free to pray. You even have buildings dedicated to just that? The only good to come from trying to jam religion into politics is the Bristol Palin Abstinence Only Teaching Czar.

"Government property" is public property, which means it belongs to the people. You may think yourself clever with your ad hominem attacks, but fallacious arguments are what they are, and they do not reveal intelligence. People have the right to worship, and as long as that worship causes no injury, then it matters not where this worship happens.

I guess I just do not understand the concept here.

Yep. That is pretty clear.

I see no one being prevented from praying anywhere. What I see are people getting upset and using prayer to fight for some right that dedication to the deity in said prayers actually precludes them from exercising. I guess I am still missing something.

The O.P. has gone out of his way to show where the prevention of this right has been legislated, and according to the letter he posted in the O.P. now being enforced. You do not see this because you do not want to see it. When you do not see, you are certainly missing something.

Are you all sure this is not just an excuse to angrily protest anything seen by this government as an excuse to angrily protest or is there a need to gather and pray in the SC building?

An abrogation and derogation of a right is a crime. For some people acquiescence to anything governmental is fine, and such sycophancy is just expedience. For others acquiescence to criminal acts is a crime in and of itself, and will not be tolerated. You certainly have the right to argue the sycophantic praise of government, but just because you have that right, does that mean you should?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are now the second member to claim you have checked on this separation of church and state assertion. Why don't you show me where in the Constitution a separation of church and state has been mandated. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing one religion over another, it did not in any way grant the government authority to diminish the right to worship.

You are tiring. I guess I have to ask if you are reading or ranting?

Where did I even mention the constitution?

reply to post by whatukno

Ok, so you missed my point entirely.

No my friend, I have not missed your point at all.

You have to say no to everyone, no matter if they are praying quietly, or if they are screaming, if you allow even one group to worship on government property and exclude just one other group, you are saying the government endorses a particular sect.

It is not up to the government to "allow" worship. All people, regardless of their religious preference are free to worship, and no one is excluded. Disallowing all worship is unconstitutional.

It's just being fair to everyone.

Abrogating and derogating every persons rights is hardly being fair.

Don't mix politics and religion.

Why not? Politicians do it all the time.

Yes freedom of religion is a great thing, but when the government endorses one religion over others, it's a dangerous mix.

Government has not endorsed religion in this case, and it can not be reasonably construed that if those people were left alone to say their prayers that government had endorsed religion.

There are thousands of places to pray, hell, you can pray in a public park, you can pray just about everywhere, but when you start praying on the property of the SC and they don't do anything about it, then it's unfair to the next group that tries to pray there, or scream foul garbage, or sacrifice a goat.

You can not sacrifice a goat in a public park anymore than you could sacrifice a goat on the steps of The Supreme Court. The sacrificing of a goat is a health issue, and injury to such an act in public places is demonstrable. Saying a prayer is not injurious, or at the very least, not demonstrably so.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You can not sacrifice a goat in a public park anymore than you could sacrifice a goat on the steps of The Supreme Court. The sacrificing of a goat is a health issue, and injury to such an act in public places is demonstrable. Saying a prayer is not injurious, or at the very least, not demonstrably so.

Handling venomous snakes is also a health issue but that is allowed in certain religious ceremonies. So should these snake handling evangelists be allowed to bring them to the SC building?

To be fair to everyone, you just have to say no to religious practices on government grounds. Otherwise it shows an unfair bias to other religions.

reply to post by FortAnthem


does this mean that the u.s. government believes the supreme court grounds are unholy?

no praying on their grounds??

there seem to be some defective law makers these days who enjoy their salaries while making laws that contradict one another more and more each day.

if this is a game what is the score?
if this is a joke, where is the punchline?
if this is a politician, where is their truth?

swear on a bible in court, but prayer is going too far. mind your first ammendment rights on the way up the ladder of law....

reply to post by evil incarnate


Are you sober? Your arguments have degenerated into non sequitors. I quoted Ecclesiastics based on this remark you made:

You are telling me that you understand Jesus wanted usto pray in private or at least not make it a show. So, you want to defy Jesus to make the point that you have the legal right to defy Jesus?

Then you turn around and claim:

Please, I have enough bibles I have little need for esoteric poetry from a crazy book. Thanks just the same but since I can not respond to the bible, I get tired of having it used in place of original thoughts here.

You disingenuously ask where anyone has been stopped from praying as if you haven't even read this thread. You make incoherent statements such as this:

You cannot use Jesus to say he commanded people pray when they prayed as an excuse while discounting the fact that he never detailed they must stop moving or gather in a group to do so.

Apparently thinking it is original thought. Incoherency is not original thought.

Were these people charged with a crime or asked to move along? I ask because public places have fire codes and I have looked. There is no provision that states prayer supersedes fire codes. I hope you can see where I might be going with that.

You jumped in right after I suggested Fort Anthem and I go to the Supreme Court and stand on the steps and pray in order to put this law to the test. People stand on the steps of the Supreme Court all the time and do not violate any fire codes. Have you seen the steps to The Supreme Court?

Show me where anyone was charged with the crime of prayer, please.

Again, you are either ignoring other posts I have made in order to now play this game of disingenuous, or you just haven't read them. I have all ready said that the letter is nothing more than hearsay. In fact, I took those Christians to task and openly called them betrayers of Christ by acquiescing to that LEO's demands. If you can not bother to read what I have said, this is your problem. Pretending I said what I did not say will get you nowhere.

reply to post by whatukno

Handling venomous snakes is also a health issue but that is allowed in certain religious ceremonies. So should these snake handling evangelists be allowed to bring them to the SC building?

Are you going on record as to saying that handling poisonous snakes in a public park is allowable? Of course you are not, what you are doing is pretending that government has the authority to allow religions to handle poisonous snakes in the privacy of their church. The Santeria uses all sorts of animals for sacrifice in the privacy of their churches. You are willfully mixing the two to make a disingenous argument. The Santeria also pray, and have the right to do so on the steps of The Supreme Court.

To be fair to everyone, you just have to say no to religious practices on government grounds. Otherwise it shows an unfair bias to other religions.

Neither you, nor any other person has any legal authority to say no on this matter. Your fallacious argument that it shows bias is just that, fallacious. All people have the right to pray in public, including on the steps of The Supreme Court. All people have the right to handle poisonous snakes in the privacy of their churches, offices, or homes, but not on the steps of The Supreme Court. The difference is in the harm that comes from poisonous snakes. No harm comes from praying, at least not demonstrably so.

...the supreme court building is NOT public property... its federal government property... like the white house, pentagon, military bases, etc - you can NOT visit just any ol' time the mood hits you - and - there has always been rules of conduct that apply to visitors... those rules have been added to and are more strictly enforced since 09.11.01...

...if the teacher of that group of students didnt take the time to read the rules for groups visiting the supreme court building, she should be fired... if she knew about the rules and chose to violate them, which put the students at risk, she should be fired...

...this is not a first ammendment issue... this is a case of a teacher being irresponsible...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...the supreme court building is NOT public property... its federal government property... like the white house, pentagon, military bases, etc - you can NOT visit just any ol' time the mood hits you - and - there has always been rules of conduct that apply to visitors... those rules have been added to and are more strictly enforced since 09.11.01...

The federal government IS public property. The White House is the personal residence of The POTUS and as such a certain amount of privacy and security is to be expected. The same holds true of military bases, in terms of security, but this argument does not hold any weight regarding the steps of The Supreme Court. The federal government has been granted a certain amount of authority regarding security issues, but that authority has been granted by the people. It is ludicrous to suggest that praying on the steps of The Supreme Court poses some kind of security risk. Even after 9-11.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But that is the basis of your argument JPZ, you are saying that one group can practice their religious rights on government grounds, but not another.

You are showing that you want to limit freedoms from some religious groups and give others free license. If one group is allowed to pray, another group must be allowed to sacrifice goats, and another group must be allowed to handle venomous snakes. Otherwise, it shows a distinct bias towards one religious group over another.



[edit on 7/17/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by prionace glauca
That cop needs to walk to the National Archives and read the US Constitution. And after he has read the Constitution, he should then fired for failing to uphold the Constitution.

Why should he be fired for "failing to uphold the Constitution?" He fits in quite well in the District of Corruption.

reply to post by whatukno

But that is the basis of your argument JPZ, you are saying that one group can practice their religious rights on government grounds, but not another.

No I am not saying that, and I have said several times now that all people regardless of their religious beliefs have the right to pray in public. You are attempting to confuse religious rights with religious rites. There was a time when the Judaic religion sacrificed lambs during Passover. I do not know if that religion still does this, but they could not do this on the steps of The Supreme Court, nor could the Catholics, Muslims, or Wiccans. However, all of these people are free to pray on those steps, and if a Thuggee wants to stand on the steps of The Supreme Court and chant some chant, a Thuggee has the right to do so. A right is a right until it causes injury to another. Praying on the steps of The Supreme Court causes no demonstrable injury.

You are showing that you want to limit freedoms from some religious groups and give others free license.

No I am not showing this, and quite the opposite, it is you who are demonstrably showing you want to limit the rights of all people. I, on the other hand, have consistently maintained that all people have the right to pray on those steps. You are the one who has argued against this, and in spite of a Constitution that tells you in plain language that Congress has no authority to make any laws preventing this. What Congress can do is make laws preventing injury to others. Certain religious rites practiced in public could do this, and your example of handling poisonous snakes is one of them. Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose, Wukky. This is not me limiting your right to throw a punch, this is me asserting my right to not be injured by that punch. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You can not sacrifice a goat in a public park anymore than you could sacrifice a goat on the steps of The Supreme Court. The sacrificing of a goat is a health issue, and injury to such an act in public places is demonstrable. Saying a prayer is not injurious, or at the very least, not demonstrably so.

Handling venomous snakes is also a health issue but that is allowed in certain religious ceremonies. So should these snake handling evangelists be allowed to bring them to the SC building?

To be fair to everyone, you just have to say no to religious practices on government grounds. Otherwise it shows an unfair bias to other religions.

Maybe I missed something... does this bar other sects from doing the same?

If not, I don't see what the harm is, honestly, they aren't hurting anyone, they are doing what they do. This issue in my eyes is the same issue one might have with two men holding hands in a gay type way. It is a public (civil) place, which may make
people uncomfortable, but its their "trip". I hate being preached to, I am not of faith, but I have better crap to do if I am at the SC, IDK? I think they law is not very sweet,
people should be free to do their thing,it might annoy me in a reactionary way if I were there, but thats my problem. My hair might piss them off (???? (: )and I believe we have bigger problems as a society. Would it ruin your experience if you were present during the prayer while on the premises?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think the confusion is that you attest that group prayer somehow does no harm to anyone. Even if there is no evidence of a physical wound, harm can be done.

What if they were praying for the death of all people of a certain race? While no physical wound exists, an emotional wound could be present in an idle passer by of that race.

While it's certainly the right of a person to worship as they see fit, there is a time and a place for everything, and having a prayer rally at the SC in my opinion is inappropriate. Just as it's inappropriate to hold court in a church.

Just christians with their feelings hurt, IMO. I think "free speech zones" for protesters are far worse (and a much more blatant violation of the first amendment) than some people being told to move along when they are praying in a group.

Religious freedom can't be upheld in the face of every other law. Pray in a GROUP (important detail of this issue) somewhere else. How about freedom of religion for violent islamists? Excuse them from murder? I know it sounds ridiculous but its really the same thing when the subject is kept to what it is:
Everyone has to follow the rules, or face repercussions, whether you love jesus or not. They could have been sitting around talking about how much they love sandwhiches or mud wrestling and they would have been broken up.

Just a police officer doing his job to enforce a statute to keep the streets from getting clogged. This has nothing to do with religion, just traffic.

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by prionace glauca
That cop needs to walk to the National Archives and read the US Constitution. And after he has read the Constitution, he should then fired for failing to uphold the Constitution.

Why should he be fired for "failing to uphold the Constitution?" He fits in quite well in the District of Corruption.

Now thats silly too... That feller was probably doing what he thought his job demanded of him. What if it were two bearded men smooching in front of a church group? In either case, it appears he was under the impression that is was his duty to police peoples self expression. It's misguided, yes, but he is a man, I bet you there are plenty of things you wouldn't want to be privy to. I never get tickets, does that mean the cops I meet are bad???

Could you imagine a man taking a tour of the white house repeating "god is great" (besides the president, I know your were thinking that ). We are all so damn serious about this petty crap people.

We all need to learn this stuff, both sides, theres only one world, we all have to share it, our diversity keeps us free. In measured freedom I would not change my views if it was a group that prayed to lucifer , not my business. + you look silly talking
to yourself, free entertainment, something to observe and reflect upon. Or, just walk on by... I should think we could all come to such a basic consensus

reply to post by whatukno

I think the confusion is that you attest that group prayer somehow does no harm to anyone. Even if there is no evidence of a physical wound, harm can be done.

If harm has been caused, then there must be evidence of it, or it can not be legally construed as harm. This is why I have been careful to state, demonstrable harm.

What if they were praying for the death of all people of a certain race? While no physical wound exists, an emotional wound could be present in an idle passer by of that race.

Psychological damage is a demonstrable harm. Indeed, psychological damage is often shown in a court of law. Where you earlier made the example of the Westboro Baptists screaming God hates gays, this would be hard to show any demonstrable psychological damage, however if the Westboro Baptists stood on public property and prayed for the violent death of all gay people, this is demonstrable harm. Beyond the psychological damage this can cause, there is the matter of inciting violence which is not a right.

While it's certainly the right of a person to worship as they see fit, there is a time and a place for everything, and having a prayer rally at the SC in my opinion is inappropriate. Just as it's inappropriate to hold court in a church.

The First Amendment has not placed any distinctions or restrictions on when and where people can worship, but has clearly placed a restriction on Congress, and that restriction is that Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion). You are entitled to your opinion, and as far as inappropriate goes, I would agree, a prayer "rally" on the steps of The Supreme Court is inappropriate, but certainly not illegal, since Congress has no authority to declare it so.

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


Govt 100 --- Christians 0

Once again folks Christians are being beaten down by government. Just above is a snipped of the title which says nothing about prohibition of prayer. What the Christians did that was illegal was to stop in a group. This is what got the attention of the guard. What the group was doing had nothing to do with it.

But in our times it is oh so fashionable to draw parallels between now and long ago when persecution of Christians was all the rage. Now it is the underlying message of the belief that our country is becoming a pagan, soulless place where the principles of the founders is being trod over by liberals that fuels the fearful, irrational reactions.

Had the Christians merely kept moving while praying they'd have had no cause for complaint.

Sheesh....

Get a Life, Christians. You people are sooooooo funny.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Prayer is illegal = Satan.

I hope those people are ready for Satan.