Fourth Circuit Rules Against Prayer Before Legislative Meetings.....

delete duplicate

 

This argument is incorrect and will always be fundamentally incorrect no matter how many people make it. A: Just because you serve the government, does not mean that your individual freedom of expression has been taken away. B: The existence of a building(be it Congress, a school or a park. Yes, parks are city-owned. Would you ban prayer there?) does not in of itself make it government owned property. Strictly speaking, anything funded by taxes is 'owned' collectively by we the people.

There's only ONE thing the Framers wanted to prevent. The Framers wanted America NOT to be the Vatican. That's it! That is the Establishment Clause. It is to prevent a political-religious Establishment. Another example: The Roman Catholic church was sanctified by the British. This is what the Founders wanted to prevent.

A religious prayer or activity, etc has NO baring whatsoever on the Establishment Clause and should have never been used this way.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting............" and that goes to the States under the incorporation doctrine. The bill of rights applies to all government in the country.

 

A government official may not pray on government property. How absurd.

When President Obama spoke favorably of Islam and while on government property, obviously he was then violating the US Constitution and should have been sued in federal court according to federal court rulings, correct?

 

that's why religion is tax free so they can build their churches of ignorance and mythology, keep it out of the public

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 

Certain things can when you ARE ACTING AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

And government officials cannot use parks to conduct government incorporated religious ceremony and neither can you use them freely. You cannot decide to hold regular church services or regular gatherings on public property without a permit.

Or the Church of England or any other religious establishment and therefore religious establishments are to be given no respect.

The founding fathers knew what happened when you combine the power of the government with the power of religious faith and the mere humans who proclaim to represent that religious faith.

When it entangles the government or government officials it does. Why would you even want the government involved in religious faith especially yours?

 

• God is imaginary.

• God does exist, but he never answers prayers. Unfortunately, God is defined by the Bible to be a prayer-answering being. The contradiction between the reality of God and the definition of God proves that God is imaginary.

http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

 

That was an absurd concoction to erase the Constitution's "all other powers are reserved to the states." In addition, the wording of the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply. It is just a federal court power grab concoction.

Banning prayer is banning religion. That is easy enough to understand. The ONLY reasonable restriction would be prohibiting ordering people to pray.

 

He can to himself in his capacity as a private citizen. When he entangles that with his official government job and it's official duties is where he crosses the line.

Was he engaged in a religious practice or ceremony at the time?

 

No it is not it is established doctrine. Do you believe the state government can shut down all newspapers, if not why not? And no one is "banning prayer" why that stretch?

 

* An extra stupid message. The Bible does not say God is Santa Claus.

It is absurd when non-religious people declare what religious people must believe and what their religion is spiritually. Yes, we understand you hate Christians and oft give reasons why all Christians should vote straight Republican in every election for ever office.

 

The word "practice" or "ceremony" is not in the amendment. The argument is always made that prayer promotes the religion. President Obama was promoting Islam.

Or are you saying that a state legislature could start by reading prescribed Bible verses and praises of Christianity?

 

At heart of this, is the misguided perception that just because a person becomes a government employee, that person has essentially lost all right to his or her personhood(that is what you're arguing.) That's not it at all. You could have Jewish-Americans in Congress break toast to Ramadan, and there would be no ethical problems, whatsoever.

The argument is a violation of the First Amendment, it is a great affront to human rights and civil liberties, and it's happening right here in the United States. And I'm not even overly religious, I'm just arguing the facts. We have the most simplified language in the world: English. The whole argument that "we wouldn't know what the Framers intended" is just a lazily thought excuse to make "the constitution a living document".

 

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state shutting down newspapers.

The federal courts - out of thin air - declared they are the highest authority over everything and everyone - from the President and Congress on down - are mere employees and subordinates of ALL federal judges subject to the whims and ideologies of each and every federal judge.

For example, federal courts ruled that it could void state laws giving rights to blacks, to protect slavery and to criminalize free states assisting runaway slaves - also power concocted by federal courts out of thin air - and power you claim they should and do have. Literally, federal courts declared they could veto state laws and federally declare that even in free states blacks are non-human with no more legal rights than cattle.

Federal courts are heroes of the left now because they freely erase democracy and legislative process in ways they often want, except when they don't. As example, there was NO basis for the Supreme Court to overturn laws prohibiting corporate political contributions - another power the Supreme Court concocted out of thin air.

 

Meh, this will get over turned.

 

Non-religious people are mostly that way because they understand that mythology and fairy tales are rampant in the bible. It is not stupid to not believe in women turning to salt and talking snakes. But this is a subject for another thread.

Religion does not belong on government property or ingratiated into government policy and proceedings.

 

It's called frees speech, you fail.

 

Non-sequitur all.

 

Your response has zero to do with what I stated. Just another obtuse canned reflex rebuttal.

 

Can I walk into any courtroom and start giving a political speech?

 

The incorporation doctrine just like the state cannot violate your rights over search and seizures, habeas corpus, equal treatement and on and on.

I am not a leftist nor do I proclaim to argue on their behalf.

Yes there was, go read the majority opinion it's called the right to free speech and right to freely assemble and express and promote political opinion and support political causes.

 

Note that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Ask your 2nd amendment loving friends if this is not so.

 

yeah, school property isnt govt property

talk to a lawyer

 

Can they stop you? Where in the constitution does it say free speech is protected from infringement except on public property?

 

Actually it does. Try reading comprehension.