[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

School-sponsored prayer is STILL not a religious law.

Yes it is. "Regulation" and "Law" are interchangeable when interpreting the protection guarenteed under the first ammendment.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents employees of the state from practicing religion.

That's correct. Nor does anything else in the law. State employees may be of any religion they wish. What does that have to do with school-sponsored prayer? (BTW, I assume you mean "public school", as "private schools" may sponsor prayer to their hearts content)

I'm not wishing for anything. I'm discussing the law. If we're going to claim to follow the Constitution, then we should at least know what is says and doesn't say.

We are following more than just the constitution... if we were not, then there would be no government (how will you take and tally election results? who will do it? how much will they be paid? the Constitution doesn't say).

The constitution, through the first and twelfth ammendments, protects citizens from state-sponsored religion (public school = state). More than 200 years of law and court rulings spell out the details of that, much like they spell out how to actually hold elections.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The constitution, through the first and twelfth ammendments, protects citizens from state-sponsored religion (public school = state). More than 200 years of law and court rulings spell out the details of that, much like they spell out how to actually hold elections.

There may be 200 years of law and court ruling that spell it out, but we never heard about it. All we hear is "THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU CAN'T PRAY IN SCHOOLS!!!11!!" which is patently false.

And in any event, I'm not sure what this has to do with religion:

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

There may be 200 years of law and court ruling that spell it out, but we never heard about it. All we hear is "THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU CAN'T PRAY IN SCHOOLS!!!11!!" which is patently false.

And you are liekly mostly hearing it from fundamentalist Christians who are using this straw-man charaiciture to make other Christians feel oppressed to gain power and influence.

Since it is not, and never has been, the position of the government nor (to my knowledge) of anyone on this thread, I fail to see the relevence of what some random people tell you?

And in any event, I'm not sure what this has to do with religion:

Amendment XII

My bad. Try amendment 14:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[bobthecockroach]

Ok, ammendment 14. I still don't see how the Constitution prohibits school-sponsored prayer.

I'm not trying to prove that school-sponsored prayer is right. I'm trying to disprove the suggestion that it is unconstitutional. School-sponsored prayer is not equivalent to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And you are liekly mostly hearing it from fundamentalist Christians who are using this straw-man charaiciture to make other Christians feel oppressed to gain power and influence.

Since it is not, and never has been, the position of the government nor (to my knowledge) of anyone on this thread, I fail to see the relevence of what some random people tell you?

Actually, I heard it from someone in this thread and exaggerated it.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Things like school prayer have been rightfully voted unconstitutional because it tramples on both - especially if sanctioned by the school and for the school. It tramples on free exercise by forcing students to commit to a single religion (presumably American Protestant Christian), and the establishment as well by sanctioning a single religion of the United States - obviously a big no-no.

Note: I confess I've taken this thread way off topic. It won't hurt my feelings if it gets split.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Ok, ammendment 14. I still don't see how the Constitution prohibits school-sponsored prayer.

I'm not trying to prove that school-sponsored prayer is right. I'm trying to disprove the suggestion that it is unconstitutional. School-sponsored prayer is not equivalent to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Supreme court decisions have equated school sponsored prayer to a law that respects the establishment of a religion. Law these days has a very loose definition, it can simply be a policy of a governmental body.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Supreme court decisions have equated school sponsored prayer to a law that respects the establishment of a religion. Law these days has a very loose definition, it can simply be a policy of a governmental body.

Those supreme court decisions need to be referenced then when talking about what should or shouldn't be allowed in schools. I've never even seen these decisions. Has anyone who argues that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional actually seen them? Can they actually cite them? Does any actually have evidence to back up their claim that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional? As I have shown, pointing to the Constitution does not suffice. The Constitution prohibits only LAWS respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A school principal saying a prayer is not a law. It's not even the policy of a government body, for that matter.

Someone please actually cite something.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Ok, ammendment 14. I still don't see how the Constitution prohibits school-sponsored prayer.

Because "law"="sponsorship". Ammenment 1, which prohibits religious laws, also prohibits religious sponsorship by the fed, and ammendment 14 extends that prohibition to the state.

I'm not trying to prove that school-sponsored prayer is right. I'm trying to disprove the suggestion that it is unconstitutional. School-sponsored prayer is not equivalent to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There are two ways to understand law. Constructionist and activist. The former wants to know the intent at the time it was written, and the latter wants to know how it best suits modern society.

The intent of Ammendment 1 can be seen in the writings of the framers and early rulers. It was one of the framers who coind the term "seperation of church and state". They are the decendants of the people who fled Europe to escape religious establishmentism.

Activist judges have conclude about the same.

Those supreme court decisions need to be referenced then when talking about what should or shouldn't be allowed in schools. I've never even seen these decisions. Has anyone who argues that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional actually seen them? Can they actually cite them? Does any actually have evidence to back up their claim that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional?

All the court does is interprete the law. I can point out cites after I go home, but Google should answer you.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Someone please actually cite something.

While I really don't want to steal Jerry's thunder, I couldn't resist:

Originally Posted by USCourts.gov

Engel v. Vitale, 1962

School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

There are more. See Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), Abington School District v. Schemp (1968), and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Depending on the specific nature of hte incident inspiring the case, there are more.

[JerryLove]

Thank you for saving me he research

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Thank you for saving me he research

Yeah... anytime. While we're on this discussion, I should mention that I just read an interesting article in Church History (the scholarly journal of the American Society of Church History) stating that the "intellectual quickening" caused by religion in many young peoples' lives in 19th century America (e.g. reading as a result of the Bible, and developing critical thinking as a result of theology), came not at school, but at home. The author, R. Laurence Moore of Cornell, points to the fact that in-classroom use of the Bible was used mainly for "general" morals and aesthetic value - not theological debate. Something else that caught my eye: Massachussets enacted a law as early as 1827 stating that one religion cannot be promoted over another in a public school.

I guess they were all Unitarian scum anyway... with Harvard and all...

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Note: I confess I've taken this thread way off topic. It won't hurt my feelings if it gets split.

Yeah, and so have I. Too bad I'm not a mod anymore...

*kicks self*

...I thought I'd have no time for CGR. Apparently I do. Sorry, guys... and whoever has to split this.

[bobthecockroach]

Now we're getting somewhere.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Massachussets enacted a law as early as 1827 stating that one religion cannot be promoted over another in a public school.

Don't even get me started on this... it is impossible not to favor some religions over others.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Don't even get me started on this... it is impossible not to favor some religions over others.

I agree to an extent... although in a society such as America, pluralism should be the goal.

I just read a really good article in the book South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today on that same subject, actually. It was based off of the "Super Best Friends" episode... I'd go into it if it didn't get us even more off topic. The fact is, though (and I know you're not disagreeing with this) is that the law existed. Did it follow through? Probably not. But ideally, somebody somewhere believed that America needed to not promote religion. The Framers thought so too... and I think they overestimated the American people in thinking that they would.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

School-sponsored prayer is not equivalent to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When you think about it, laws against school-sponsored prayer are actually pretty explicitly laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Interesting.

But on to the actual topic:

I will vote for (and vote only for) a candidate who meets the following requirements-
1. Not completely full of crap (ie, not a politician)
2. Not a complete idiot (ie, not a politician)
3. Not in it for the fame (ie, not a politician)

C'mon Greenspan! I'm pullin' for ya! Or Bill Gates! Yeah!

But seriously, I've lost all faith in Washington politics. I'm convinced that none of them really help America, only hurt her. Furthermore, I'm convinced that none of them really want to help America. They're mainly a lot of distraction from the real problems America faces. Ultimately, the mass media are probably at fault for their distraction. Sensation's sell, and politicians need the media to win, so they must take a stand on a hot political topic (as determined by the media) and basically become a celebrity. Hell, what's most unfortunate is that some politicians seem to be neglecting their public office to run for president. Hillary began campaigning almost immediately after re-winning her senate seat. If I were a New Yorker, I'd be pissed that the candidate I just put in office started a new campaign. But I digress.

eff American politics