Lawsuit Challenging Day of Prayer in Arizona Tossed Out of Court

Didn't take a lot of target practice.

 

I think you should go back and actually read the Establishment Clause.

Congress being a key word you are missing.

That fact that a Christian govenor holds a prayer session with Christians AND OTHERS is not a piece of legislation that wil be enacted over anything. Nor is there any influence from such a session where people pray for wisdom for ALL elected leaders and help in resolving the Nations problems.

I am glad that you think any assembly where such actuvities take place are an unlawful assembly or are somehow dangerous, but that is utterly silly.

There are cases where religion in government can be dangerous, they happen when government favors one religion over another. It when we allow all equal access that things are good.

What atheists are doing is attempting to block that balance, and like any religious group who has attempted to usurp power unjustly - the action will only breed a backlash.

Keep your atheist out of prayer sessions and we will keep out prayer out of ... what do you guys do? Have National curmudgeon meetings?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause#Incorporation

Read that section, then get back to me.

Besides, this isn't about a Christian governor holding a prayer session, it's about him declaring an official day of prayer. The official part is what I have an objection to, not the prayer part. He can and should be able to pray to his heart's content outside of his official role as Governor - just don't make a proclamation out of it.

 

Who cares? The NFL has OFFICIAL licensed merchandise. There are OFFICIAL titles on many things.

And what makes it OFFICIAL is not the prescence of just the govenor, it is the OFFICAL participation of NUMEROUS denominations who coordinate their events on a large scale - meaning the OFFICIAL title allows people to know that they are going to add their efforts to a larger whole.

You do understand that the relevant court case is the one in the OP that just solidly disagreed with your assesment?
Once again, an atheists will stretch to the point of incredulity just to block someone else's view.

The ONLY thing you actually have a problem with is people praying. The rest, from creeping theocracy to the protection of first amendment, etc., is just excuses.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with prayer, and I would like you to quit lying by stating that I do. Hell, I occasionally go to my wife's church, and I don't burst into flames or go into apopleptics when they say their prayers.

I also don't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about what the NFL does or what churches do officially. Official actions of a government institution fall under the Establishment Clause. Period.

Court of Appeals decisions have been overturned all the time, and frequently on issues where precedent is not set by the SCOTUS, different court of appeals disagree with each other wildly. That's why the SCOTUS has nine justices. We will see what happens when and if the SCOTUS actually hears the ruling, otherwise precedent isn't set and your superior attitude can bite my shiny red ass.

 

Agh, now you are being misquoted? Would you care to back that up with something that looks like evidence?

That fact that you sometimes go to church with your wife has absolutely no bearing on the obvious desire to block prayer.

This is not an official government action, it is a bunch on people assembling for a prayer in which politicians, who want to (not all are doing so), are going to get together and pray. This is not like the DMV. A government official is allowed to take part in any event they wish to.

Now would you care to show me exactly which denomination is being unduly boosted and supported by this event? None.

Agh, but if we stretch the definition of official, we can ignore the earlier arguementation about officials being allowed to partake in their religion while holding office ... even as we seek to block it becasue its suddenly 'official' ... well, apparently us Christians are just too dumb to see that?

And apparently, as you do you hunt and peck search for court cases, you continue to only focus on the ones that atheists have won, and then ignore those that they have lost - which includes the debacle of faith based initiatives in which atheists just like yourself attempted to say that groups, based solely on their faith, were ineligable to compete for federal funds based on MERIT - that their faith disqualified them. I suppose the use of federal funds their made religion 'official' as well? See the stretch?

SCOTUS disagreed.

You might have some case if the Supreme Court indicated that it was going to hear this case, but that hasn't happened. And the court record is anything but uniformly in favor of your assesment.

So, glad that you sometimes go to church with your wife and think she wastes her time in such endeavors, but people are still going to pray and so are elected officials.

Keep your atheism out of our prayer and we won't show up at your serial curmudgeon festivals.

 

There is a disturbing trend developing in First Amendment jurisprudence; especially in the area of church and state separation. Notwithstanding the fact that many state sponsored or endorsed religious actions appear to clearly violate the well established parameters of the First Amendment, courts are now routinely dismissing lawsuits for lack of standing. To be clear, these dismissals do not involve a rejection of the constitutional challenge on the merits of the claim. To the contrary, they are simply evasions of the issue altogether. They are technical dismissals resulting in the untenable position that these First Amendment violations are simply unchallengeable by any person. Rather than hear these challenges on the merits and reach the inescapable conclusion that such actions are indeed unconstitutional, many courts have agreed to side step the issue by construing the doctrine of standing so such unconstitutional acts remain safe from constitutional challenge. Courts should be bold enough to hear and decide these challenges on constitutional grounds. Constitutional protections are meaningless if courts construe the law such that no person can invoke those protections.

In an effort to attempt to have these matters heard on the merits and to validate the notion that constitutional violations can be challenged, our clients have decided to appeal the district court’s dismissal of the Day of Prayer lawsuit. We expect to file an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal very soon. Additionally, another lawsuit will be filed in the state court alleging violations of the state constitution.

This lawsuit is about the role of government. Our clients remain committed to the notion that prayer is either a private matter or one that can be openly and loudly promoted by any private individual or private company on any private property for any length of time. Any effort by government to inhibit any private person’s right to pray on any non-governmental property would be opposed by all plaintiffs to this lawsuit. However, our clients, those religious and non-religious, remain equally committed to the well established notion that government should neither promote, inhibit nor endorse any religious view. Simply put, government should stay out of religious matters altogether; our constitution forbids it and it is both consistent and indispensible to notions of a free and open society.