Lawsuit Challenging Day of Prayer in Arizona Tossed Out of Court

Thank you. This is exactly why the idea of a nation state is flawd. Many original Arizonans were made to get out and loose their homeland back then. We only ask questions. They had to leave physically. So it is logical that their grand children consider crossing the Mexico-Arizona border a homecoming rather than immigration.

 

Whether or not you like it, that decision has already been rendered here in the US by the Supreme Court. Here in the US, Atheism is a religion for the purpose of the 1st Amendment, and therefore qualifies the Atheist organizations to have the same protections and benefits of other RELIGIONS.

 

Riiiiight.

 

Are you learning Spanish?

(By the way there are many more reasons why the nation state is a bad idea, but that is not relevant here.)

 

Of and from, according to the Framers and to the SCOTUS.

 

Yes and the citizens of this country have enjoyed religious freedom for hundreds of years. As I keep saying there is no State church. Despite the fact that the majority of folks have been Christian there is STILL no State church. Despite 'religious symbols' being carved into stone on our public buildings there is STILL no State church. Despite 'forcing' children to say 'under God' there is STILL no State church.

You are wrong...the Establishment clause reads.......

"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."


Please show me where is says 'endorse.' In fact it doesn't. It is very specific, there is to be no LAW respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. Moreover, it then goes on to say: or PROHIBITING the free excercise thereof.

There is nothing there about not allowing PRAYER in public buildings/places. There is nothing there about any prohibition of the word God, or Creator or anything else to be uttered in a public place. There is no prohibition in the Establishment Clause in celebrating a national religious holiday.

No the intent of the Establishment Clause is to prohibit the making of a LAW to either establish or prohibit religion. A Nativity display on a public school campus DOES NOT come anywhere near close to that intent.

 

Then all atheists are 'guilty' of defying the 'establishment' clause as well because they constantly display their 'belief' where no religious symbols exist.

 

If you insist, I will not argue with you.

 

Just putting the 'shoe on the other foot' to reveal the abject foolishness Atheists exhibit when they whine about religious displays.

 

No issue here with a day of prayer. I don't agree with it, obviously, but I still don't have an issue beause its not like anyone is forced to take part in it.

 

Well lets take a look at what the establishment clause actually is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

THAT is the Establishment Clause.

So you see, the lawsuit wasn't just dismissed because it was frivilous, it was dismissed because the lawsuit itself is an action that is aimed at blocking the free exercise of reigion.

So you see, BOTH the SCOTUS and the Framers disagree with your interpretation - which is itself, little more than an attempt to block someone else's faith ...

And the ironic part is you justify your the thrusting of yoru faith onto others out of fear of waking up and having them do exactly what you do to others right back at you ...

Seems downright ... circular.

Probably why the case didn't get very far.

 

I am doing no thrusting, and would oppose a similar government action which favors atheism. You keep trying to make this about you, and infringing your rights, or the rights of Christians, or the rights of the Governor, but it's not. No one is saying that the Governor can't be a Christian, or even that he can't be one publicly. He can even endorse prayer in his personal capacity. However, when he moves to his professional capacity, he becomes a representative of these secular States, and to betray the constitution by endorsing religion is betraying his responsibilities as that representative.

By the by, the FFRF won this case in the district court. Courts of appeals cannot set binding precedent for all circuits and are commonly split on the issues. We will see if the SCOTUS decides to make a ruling on this issue.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

establishment (ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt)

2. a. a business organization or other large institution
b. the place where a business is carried on

Finally, the 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to all constituent governments in the Union, making it illegal for a state, county, city, and even a school to make a law respecting any establishment of religion. That includes nativity scenes, as any decision by a legislative body or any body empowered by such a legislative group (as in a school board) is a law for the purposes of the Constitution.

 

So, you DO think that government should intervene, under the judicial authority, to block a prayer event. So, yes, you clearly support the use of government in a way that favor atheism.

I run into this all the time when debating atheists who support the more egregious actions of atheism, its all fire and brimestone and creeping theocracy, bt when examined under the STANDARD of teh Establishment Clause, supported by SCOTUS, the creeping theocracy that drove this suddenly seem silly. Indeed, you, as an atheist, would never support the use of government to further atheism ... even as this case appears to be just that, does it not?

You cannot have two mutually opposing standards and then claim to have a standard - if you did, this law suit would never have happened. Rather the standard behind this lawsuit is clearly a desire to impose atheistic values and block Christian ones. Nothing more than that, and the courts see it the same way.

A govenor, in your words, is allowed to be Christian. That means he is allowed to be Christian, and if he or she think bringing multiple faiths together to pray for good things for this country is helpful, he is FULLY allowed and even encouraged to do such a thing while holding office. A govenor does NOT need to supress who and what he is govern. The very practice of multi-denomination prayer days is an act of tolerance and diversity.

Once again, you can be Christian but cannot pratic Christainity while holding office is little more than two mutually exlcusive standards that are not standards at all. Once again, the standard is very clearly finding an excuse to block someone else's faith.

Thankfully, the courts seem to agree with that assesment.

 

Holding a prayer day is not a law.

 

Yes...In other words leave religion ALONE. The government is to neither establish a religion nor prohibit a religion. Prayers in public places do not establish a religion. Graven images do not establish a religion. Saying 'under God' does not establish a religion. Nativity scenes do not 'establish' a religion.

'respecting an establishment' does not mean that the government is establishing a religion by having a Nativity scene on government property. The People are free to exhibit whatever religious beliefs they have as long as they don't preclude others from doing the same...Like the Atheists did to the Christians in Pallisades park.

 

It is interesting how activist Atheists seem to overlook the part in the Establishment Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If We The People want to erect a Nativity scene on public property that is our right. Neither the government or anyone else has the right to tear it down.

 

You didn't read my post. The First Amendment bars both establishing religions and making laws that concern an establishment of religion - in this case, a church. Endorsing Christianity concerns Christian churches. Saying "under God" concerns the Christian religious establishments. Nativity scenes, when publicly funded or supported, concern establishments of religion.

 

I agree. As long as it is land dedicated to the public use, and those of other religions are not barred from using it for their holiday celebrations, I can't see a problem with putting religious displays there. People use public parks to prostelytize all the time, and nativity scenes, as long as they are not publicly funded, shouldn't really be objected to.

 

Any act of government authorized by a law is a law as per legal reasoning regarding the First.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

 

Deleted by RPA1

 

Excellent response. Glad to see there are some on this forum who recognize and know how to interpret law.

 

It's not a Governor's job to lead her state in prayer or encourage the residents to pray, she should leave such things to the states head religious figures.

I don't think it's acceptable for a political leader to take on a role of spiritual or religious leadership, however broad. There should always be a clear separation between the state and religion/faith.

I think a politicians faith, or lack of, should remain a private matter while they hold office. They should all be neutral when it comes to anything that hints of religion and should certainly not use their office to either encourage religious practice or spread their religious views. They should concern themselves with politics and governing not with prayer and faith.

This isn't just an acknowledgement of religion, it is a proclamation to encourage a religious action. If that's not unconstitutional I think it is at least inappropriate.

There is already a National Day of Prayer right? So why do you need a state day of prayer too?

 

Who might that be? What you are suggesting is that the state is potentially working in violation of the Constitution. It is not possible for the State to employ the needed personnel to have a representative for each and every religion.

In one sense of the word there is a separation. The 'State' is a 'person' by legal definition, and the individual public servant is also a 'person' by that same definition, but is distinct from that of the 'State'. Therefore, the individual 'person' making a statement is not the same as the 'State' making a statement. Therefore, the reason that the "State" cannot make a law respecting 'religion'. .... pass a 'law which mandates the participation in that religion or religious activity'. The Governor does wear many hats in that office, so one has to consider which hat is being worn when the Governor takes or makes an action.

Those religious convictions or lack of religious convictions, for all intents and purposes can be said are being maintained as 'private': however, those same convictions or lack of convictions does not preclude those convictions from influencing the decisions made by such a person.

In this public forum, do you know of anyone that is outspoken that is "neutral"?

Yes it is a proclamation. So WHAT? Is there a clause in the proclamation which makes it mandatory for anyone to participate?

It is an exercise of that same Constitutional amendment... Free speech... The Governor does also retain that freedom, even though s/he is Governor.

If you say so... I am not really sure about that one.

Because that Governor wanted one.

 

What kind of nonsense is this? First you propose to define what is and isn't the role of the governor in respect to prayer even though historically many office holders, including presidents such as Lincoln, have led prayers. Then you talk about a "states head religious figure" which is redolant of a state church, the very thing that atheists posit to oppose. A state doesn't have "head religious figures" nor any religious organization stemming from government. That's the point!

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's found nowhere in any founding document and certainly not in the Constitution.

So the free exercise clause doesn't apply to office holders? If you can shut them up, wait until the day somebody shuts YOU up!

Because you say so? People can't separate themselves from their religion; it's who they are. It's why JFK got the Catholic vote and Jimmy Carter got the evangelical vote. Politicians are expected to govern under the sway of the religious convictions that got them elected. Don't think that's fair? Too bad.

Politics and religion both deal with right and wrong. No wonder people get them mixed up!

Then don't vote for the person.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. If the federal government can enact a day of prayer, then such a power certainly cannot be withheld from the states. You said it best.