Supreme Court rules in favor of public legislative prayers

[Patroklos]

I am pretty sure the rules are such that the "prayer" doesn't even have to be religious. Or even have words. You just ask to give one, get scheduled, and do whatever you want. So this is a perfect opportunity for atheists to prefers their beliefs in another forum where they will be ignored.

[Berzerker]

So the argument is because they are paid employees that means they can't engage in prayer? I don't see how that's remotely enforeceable. Insofar as it doesn't hinder their performance, I don't see why it's in the purview of the federal government to regulate these things.

Its not about private prayer and is enforceable, thats why we have the case. But what I said was the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment doesn't protect them. That is an individual right and these people are playing with power, they're "taking" other people's resources to provide for this practice and that doesn't meet the definition of religious freedom. If they're gonna claim the "power" to do this what matters is the establishment clause.

And thats a trickier question, what does "no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Another question is if its even logical and possible to apply to the states and localities what were meant as restrictions on federal power? The principle should apply to both the feds and states but Congress was designed to represent the entire country with its diversity of opinion while leaving religious communities alone.

I think they gotta pass a law requiring me to participate and their prayer doesn't rise to that level, its neither a law nor obligation for me to act. But the Pledge of Allegiance does, that is a law and "uses" local govt employees - teachers - to coerce children into pledging allegiance to the federal god. Seems like that law is also violating the religious freedom of everyone involved from the school bureaucrats to the children and their parents paying the property taxes.

How the courts can ignore that reality shows the political limits to enforcing constitutional principles. I wonder how the Framers and Founders etc would react if some dude walked in and told them to stand and pledge their allegiance to his god. Then I'd like to see their reaction upon finding out thats what teachers are doing to millions of kids on a daily basis. Yeah, I'd pay to see that

[Felch]

And thats a trickier question, what does "no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean?

It means you can't establish a state religion. The "no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment means that you can't prohibit people from freely exercising their religion. Just as it would be wrong for Greece, NY to establish an official religion, it's also wrong to prohibit the members of that government from freely practicing their faith.

[Felch]

I think they gotta pass a law requiring me to participate and their prayer doesn't rise to that level, its neither a law nor obligation for me to act. But the Pledge of Allegiance does, that is a law and "uses" local govt employees - teachers - to coerce children into pledging allegiance to the federal god. Seems like that law is also violating the religious freedom of everyone involved from the school bureaucrats to the children and their parents paying the property taxes.

Good news. The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that there's no requirement that anybody pledge allegiance to the flag. Sorry if you had a teacher that thought otherwise.

[Berzerker]

if they're paying the bill then they're freely practicing their faith, if I'm paying its no longer religious freedom

I have not denied a pastor his religious freedom if I dont pay tithes

[Felch]

Paying what bill? The heating bill? So if I'm in a public building do I lose all my constitutional rights?

[Felch]

Can government employees be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments because you're paying their salaries?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Berz: Considering there was prayer at the Constitutional Convention, maybe it would not have been as crazy with the Founders as you think .

[Ben Kenobi]

Its not about private prayer and is enforceable, thats why we have the case. But what I said was the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment doesn't protect them.

It protects free exercise. Insofar as it's not a hindrance to their job performance, I can't see what right the state has to regulate prayer done on their time. Prayer is very broad. It could be simply someone praying silently or listening to the Liturgy of the Hours. I don't see what's the problem with a government official choosing to open and close with prayer.

That is an individual right and these people are playing with power, they're "taking" other people's resources to provide for this practice and that doesn't meet the definition of religious freedom. If they're gonna claim the "power" to do this what matters is the establishment clause.

I'm not sure I can abide by an interpretation of freedom that argues that freedom of religious exercise deprives others of their freedom, it's not a zero-sum game. If it were the entire edifice of liberty makes no sense.

The principle should apply to both the feds and states but Congress was designed to represent the entire country with its diversity of opinion while leaving religious communities alone.

We don't require speakers to present the opposite side, neither should we bar a particular expression of religion.

I think they gotta pass a law requiring me to participate and their prayer doesn't rise to that level, its neither a law nor obligation for me to act.

What requirement is there for you to pray anything?

But the Pledge of Allegiance does, that is a law and "uses" local govt employees - teachers - to coerce children into pledging allegiance to the federal god. Seems like that law is also violating the religious freedom of everyone involved from the school bureaucrats to the children and their parents paying the property taxes.

I don't think it's beyond the bar of the government to have their officials swear an oath.

How the courts can ignore that reality shows the political limits to enforcing constitutional principles. I wonder how the Framers and Founders etc would react if some dude walked in and told them to stand and pledge their allegiance to his god. Then I'd like to see their reaction upon finding out thats what teachers are doing to millions of kids on a daily basis. Yeah, I'd pay to see that

I think they would have quite a bit to say about a law barring them from opening with a prayer because it might offend some.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering there was prayer at the Constitutional Convention, maybe it would not have been as crazy with the Founders as you think

Hush you. Quit bringing facts!

[Berzerker]

Good news. The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that there's no requirement that anybody pledge allegiance to the flag. Sorry if you had a teacher that thought otherwise.

That was before the Pledge included a reference to God, once they changed it to battle the commies it became a violation of the establishment clause. And it was a BS decision in '43, it dont matter if children are coerced into pledging allegiance to a flag or god.

[Felch]

It's not a violation of the establishment clause because it doesn't establish a church. And why was the '43 decision BS?

[Berzerker]

Paying what bill? The heating bill? So if I'm in a public building do I lose all my constitutional rights?

They dont have a constitutional right to make me pay for their religious practices and I dont have a constitutional right to practice my religion in city hall. If there are financial costs attached to their religion they should pay them if they want to claim religious freedom. Why is that confusing?

Can government employees be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments because you're paying their salaries?

Of course not, cruel and unusual punishments are banned by the same Bill of Rights that bans laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Berz: Considering there was prayer at the Constitutional Convention, maybe it would not have been as crazy with the Founders as you think .

People get together and pray all the time, I'd be crazy to think that means they support a federal law coercing children into pledging allegiance to it's god. How did you reach that conclusion?

[Berzerker]

It's not a violation of the establishment clause because it doesn't establish a church. And why was the '43 decision BS?

The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about a church and I explained why the decision was BS, the Pledge was still coercive under their compromise.

[Felch]

They dont have a constitutional right to make me pay for their religious practices

okay...

and I dont have a constitutional right to practice my religion in city hall.

Of course you do! If you want to pray in a public building nobody is allowed to stop you. The first amendment protects your right to practice your religion.

If there are financial costs attached to their religion they should pay them if they want to claim religious freedom.

What financial costs? Is Greece, NY putting preachers on the city payroll?

Why is that confusing?

Because you're inconsistent and wrong.

Of course not, cruel and unusual punishments are banned by the same Bill of Rights that bans laws respecting an establishment of religion.

And which also bans laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Something you seem determined to ignore.

People get together and pray all the time, I'd be crazy to think that means they support a federal law coercing children into pledging allegiance to it's god. How did you reach that conclusion?

There is no coercion. I posted that link to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, and you said it was a BS decision, but for the third time, THERE IS NO COERCION.