CDZ Of the Church and State

[Foxfyre]

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

Yet fox didn't mention prayer in schools. Public prayer does not equal prayer in schools and is currently practiced all over the government. The SCOTUS has ruled that public prayer is protected even in governmental settings and the 10 commandments are still seen hung on courthouse walls across the nation.

 

[jillian]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

Yet fox didn't mention prayer in schools. Public prayer does not equal prayer in schools and is currently practiced all over the government. The SCOTUS has ruled that public prayer is protected even in governmental settings and the 10 commandments are still seen hung on courthouse walls across the nation.

by public prayer, what do you mean?

that isn't what she seemed to be referring to?

and if you're correct, what is her gripe other than what i said.

 

[Valerie]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

 

[FA_Q2]

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

Yet fox didn't mention prayer in schools. Public prayer does not equal prayer in schools and is currently practiced all over the government. The SCOTUS has ruled that public prayer is protected even in governmental settings and the 10 commandments are still seen hung on courthouse walls across the nation.

by public prayer, what do you mean?

that isn't what she seemed to be referring to?

and if you're correct, what is her gripe other than what i said.

Not sure what her specific gripe is but I think that she was referring to the type of mindset that demands there can be no display of religion anywhere in government. They demand that is an endorsement when it clearly, IMHO, is not. Here is an example of public prayer within government:

TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY

Such was upheld as proper. I would think that Fox was referring to the mindset of the people that filed that suit as well as the mindset of the 4 that tried to oust such a prayer. It depends on what you declare 'endorsing' to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

Yet fox didn't mention prayer in schools. Public prayer does not equal prayer in schools and is currently practiced all over the government. The SCOTUS has ruled that public prayer is protected even in governmental settings and the 10 commandments are still seen hung on courthouse walls across the nation.

Actually though I don't have a problem with student led or community led public prayer before school assemblies or in deference to some traumatic event or at high school football games. For generations after school districts formed across the land, schools had baccalaureate services usually the Sunday before graduation. The kids themselves would nominate and invite the speaker who was usually a pastor father of one of the kids or maybe the local rabbi or some such. Attendance at Baccalaureate was never required but all the seniors--Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Atheist, or whatever--went because nobody wanted to be left out. This was in no way an establishment of religion. It was students and their parents and friends exercising their constitutionally protected right to express their religious faith.

I would have a problem with the kids being required or expected to attend a religious service of any kind as a public school activity or being required to recite a prayer or being discriminated against if they declined to participate. That would cross the line. But I grew up where prayer in the school was common, where we sang traditional Christmas carols in the Christmas concert, were there was a prayer before every sporting event, and we would sometimes observe a moment of silence in respect for the passing of somebody or some other tragedy. And I never once felt like I was required to believe anybody else's faith, that anybody thought less of me because I didn't share their faith, and I couldn't tell you what religion any of my teachers were except the one who attended my church and two others who inadvertently mentioned some activity at their respective churches.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"There is not constitutional concept of "freedom from religion."

Sure there is. The establishment clause. No rights are unconditional, however. Not a free press, free speech, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. These rights are often in conflict and need to be balanced by ordinary human beings, who have their own biases. Government, whether it's courts, public schools, public libraries, can't be seen to favor one group over another.

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

 

[emilynghiem]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

Dear Foxfyre many advocates for same sex marriage also argue similarly that this does not affect other people.

In both cases people of dissenting or conflicting beliefs DO NOT CONSENT to the state ENDORSING said practice.

If people consent to letting the state be involved in a private practice, then nobody objects and it's not considered violating separation of church and state. For example, states sanctioning marriage was accepted practice, until the policies and beliefs people espoused came under fire, and then people no longer consented to have certain marriage policies under the state.

Before that was contested, it was practiced without question.
Same with references to God, prayer, crosses, Bibles, etc.

But when people don't consent, and petition the Govt to remove such references, then it tends to change policy.

The problem is this isn't enforced and changed consistently.

References to Christianity are commonly petitioned to remove from public institutions, but this policy was not applied to homosexuality and beliefs about that and same sex marriage.

The problem is people aren't treating all beliefs equally, but favoring/endorsing some while penalizing/excluding others.

Foxfyre I am thinking to call for a Constitutional conference per party and state to address this issue of political beliefs and discrimination by creed. I believe even ASKING this question will get the ball rolling in the right direction by pointing out we don't have consistent policy and it is left to chance if one side is going to win over the other by a small margin, when both sides really want their own beliefs to be protected equally.

I want to call for a review of these conflicts and address proposed solutions. Otherwise, trying to sue case by case is also left to chance, depending on whether people sympathize with the petitioner or not.
taht should not be a factor in whether you have your beliefs respected or violated by govt via political abuse to push agenda through govt that is biased by faith based beliefs. I say either treat all beliefs equally (religious or political) and either keep them all out of govt to keep govt neutral, or mediate conflicts and agree how much to keep public and how much to shift to private programs such as per state or party, and quit trying to establish a biased policy for the whole nation if people clearly have diverse beliefs. Otherwise it's a form of establishing a nationalized religion or faith to go with one belief over others. Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

Dear Elvis Obama to be absolutely consistent
what about these beliefs:
1. beliefs in capital punishment vs. beliefs in restitution and rehabilitation
2. beliefs in traditional marriage vs. same sex marriage and benefits
3. beliefs in putting the life of the child before the rights of the woman not to have free choice criminalized
4. beliefs about drugs being the choice of the individual not the govt
5. beliefs about health care being controlled through govt not individuals

If a vote is split 50/50 between half the group believing in traditional marriage only and the other half believing in same sex marriage and benefits, which do you go with?

Do you allow one group to get endorsed by govt while the other is excluded? Or do you tell both groups to keep their beliefs about marriage out of govt, and only keep govt in charge of neutral policies that both sides agree accommodate them equally without endorsing either sides' beliefs or biases.

Are you consistent with all beliefs, or just religious beliefs you oppose?

 

[emilynghiem]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Dear Valerie:

The cases I read about, the imposition happened at the onset by forcing or coercing the removal of references to crosses. Then it takes suing in court to restore the right to exercise that expression. So the offense happens by forcing someone to go to court and win to defend their rights, which isn't alienable then if conditions must be met in order to practice that right.

Examples: The Cheerleaders who had to sue to defend their right to cite Bible passages in their banners. The lawsuit to remove cross symbols from a teacher's memorial plaque because it was placed on public school property (as pushed by an unrelated organization across the country that wasn't even affected by the plaque). Instead of mediating these conflicts out of court, where the two sides are included equally in the conflict resolution and final decision; inciting lawsuits costs both sides more time and money, where both sides are affected by these added burdens. And would STILL require mutual conflict resolution in order to arrive at a decision that respects and satisfies people of either sides' beliefs, so that the govt is not mandating but endorsing what the people agree upon. So if that is the proper way to settle these conflicts, why not compel that from the start: require conflicted parties to either resolve their issues by mutual consent, or refrain from conducting any business together, and go fund separate solutions.

The worse case I read concerning Crosses was the controversy over the Mt. Soledad memorial, because the court rules in favor of removal and of FINING the city for each day the cross remained on display. The part I found most abominable was the objectors even opposed the govt SELLING the land to solve the problem over the memorial cross being on public property, arguing "it was still the govt FAVORING the religious group".

When I looked this up, the conflict was finally settled by allowing that sale to transact which the opponents had blocked through courts.

Mt. Soledad Cross Controversy Ends after 25 Years

Recently the worst cases I have read about are the courts enforcing fines or other penalties on businesses who refrain from providing services to gay couples that would require them to participate in same sex weddings they don't believe in attending or supporting in any way.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If the two parties have conflicting beliefs, they should not be punished but recommended not to do business together in order to avoid legal and personal complications.

I find these cases push too far, and overcompensate by penalizing the opposing side for their beliefs; since both beliefs are equally faith based, the govt should not be endorsing either one while faulting the other. the individuals should either be compelled to work out their differences to both their satisfaction, or be compelled to refrain from entering a business relationship if they are that incompatible as to incur lawsuits at taxpayer expense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

The courts have ruled against no such thing.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies solely to government, not to private persons or originations, both of which are at liberty to engage in religious expression in any venue so desired, public or private.

Students attending public schools, for example, are at liberty to engage in religious practice and expression while at school, provided such practice or expression comports with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

However, when student “invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events*,” such invocations cross the Constitutional line from the realm of private speech to that of government speech – and being religious in nature, violate the First Amendment (see Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe*).

 

[Foxfyre]

Freedom from religion is not a constitution concept. It was created by an activist court with Engel v. Vitals 370 U.S. 421 (1962). There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling.

To state that public schools, etc cannot favor one group over another is stating that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights and the men who ratified the Bill of Rights did not know what it meant and from the day of ratification, these men, the federal government, and the courts did not understand the Bill of Rights and violated it for 200 years until a Supreme Court in the 1960s with the super power of Devine Interpretation finally figured out this 200 year mystery hidden in the text of the First Amendment using magic decoder rings. (Meant to be humorous, not snarky)

"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."

Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.

It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK

I agree with no official religion. But what of those other things do you see as 'establishment' of religion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.

Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.

So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

The courts have ruled against no such thing.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies solely to government, not to private persons or originations, both of which are at liberty to engage in religious expression in any venue so desired, public or private.

Students attending public schools, for example, are at liberty to engage in religious practice and expression while at school, provided such practice or expression comports with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

However, when student “invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events*,” such invocations cross the Constitutional line from the realm of private speech to that of government speech – and being religious in nature, violate the First Amendment (see Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe*).

Don't cite me case law. I strongly disagree with the courts on most of their decisions in this regard. In fact most prior courts would have disagreed with modern day courts in this regard. How does a student led prayer as an invocation before a school assembly or a generic prayer before a football game, both long standing customs in a community, establish any religion? How does forbidding such a prayer not violate the free exercise of religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:

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

Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.

This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".

But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religious. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?

the court has repeatedly held against prayer in school because it creates a religious preference and marginalizes minorities.

you can practice your religion. you can't force others to practice your religion or be marginalized by proponents of your religion.

I don't see a student led or traditional generic community prayer as anything other than a constitutionally protected personal expression of religion. It requires no participation from anybody else. It requires no contribution from anybody else. It makes no requirement of anybody. The only expectation from anybody else is their non interference and perhaps some courtesy.

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

The courts have ruled against no such thing.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies solely to government, not to private persons or originations, both of which are at liberty to engage in religious expression in any venue so desired, public or private.

Students attending public schools, for example, are at liberty to engage in religious practice and expression while at school, provided such practice or expression comports with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

However, when student “invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events*,” such invocations cross the Constitutional line from the realm of private speech to that of government speech – and being religious in nature, violate the First Amendment (see Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe*).

Don't cite me case law. I strongly disagree with the courts on most of their decisions in this regard. In fact most prior courts would have disagreed with modern day courts in this regard. How does a student led prayer as an invocation before a school assembly or a generic prayer before a football game, both long standing customs in a community, establish any religion? How does forbidding such a prayer not violate the free exercise of religion?

Dear Foxfyre if this is conducted through public institutions, then it is on the taxpayer dollar. And so is denying the expression a form of govt establishing the opposite view.

thus the solution is either to
* separate the funding and let communities choose what to fund and how to set up schools to reflect what they AGREE to have going on there (and dissenters who don't want to fund that publicly can fund their own schools and policies, while these others can set up theirs otherwise)
* agree on how to handle invocations and prayers democratically, such as allowing students to rotate and present elected student reps to give invocations approved in advance for content and terminology.
Either take turns or find other solutions that everyone agrees represents their school community and members. Or separate and building private programs that allow that freedom without conflicts with others and with govt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

 

[emilynghiem]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
I will try to do some research and find out which cases have imposed on the practice of prayer being equally included as free expression.

In the meantime I did post a reference to
the case of the Mt. Soledad Cross that I cited dragged out for 25 YEARS, in part because the objectors suing to remove the cross even petitioned to BLOCK the sale of the land to settle the dispute!
This sale finally went through by private groups raising 1.4 million to transfer and save the cross.

Frankly, I am more concerned about the more recent lawsuits where businesses are FINED for avoiding conflicts with customers who would otherwise require them to get involved in same sex marriages and couples they don't believe in conducting business with.

You may frame this as one sided bigotry, but BOTH sides are faith based, NEITHER side can prove whether or not homosexuality is a behavior, a choice or inborn trait; so neither side can be forced

Same with the health care bill, and people's faith based beliefs and choices in that which are being regulated and penalized by govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

C_Clayton_Jones
and Foxfyre
Here is what I found with a quick preliminary search.
From a really quick read, it appears the courts rule against the SCHOOL and ADMINISTRATION conducting the Bible study or prayer; but leave it open to INDIVIDUALS who can choose their own expression.
NOTE: In Texas, the matter was settled by agreeing on a "moment of silence" that was implemented in schools and not counted as religious.
--------------------------------------------
1. Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases


A century ago, teachers and administrators in American classrooms used to lead students in prayer. While it was an accepted practice, it was not without controversy. Many thought offering the opportunity for children of other faiths to silently opt out of the exercise was inclusive enough, however a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools said it was unconstitutional.


Here are five other facts about historic school prayer cases.

1. The first time Bible reading was ruled unconstitutional was in 1890: A group of Roman Catholic parents decided to fight about which version of the Bible was appropriate for use in school. The Wisconsin Supreme Court said neither in the Weiss v. District Board case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up this case.

2. A prayer in New York caused the first U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on prayer in public schools: Even though it was the middle of the Cold War, a non-denominational, optional prayer known as The Regent’s Prayer got caught up in the 1962 case of Engle v. Vitale. This brought the first anti-prayer decision from the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools. The court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer violated the establishment of religion cause in the U.S. Constitution.


3. School religious activity must pass something called the lemon test: This test came out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. In the 1971 case, the court ruled that a three-pronged test has to be passed for religious involvement in public schools. Is there secular purpose for the activity? Does the activity actively promote religion or inhibit religion? Is the “entanglement” between church and state “excessive?”


4. The Supreme Court put two cases together to rule against the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible: The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett were heard in 1963. The Supreme Court ruled that teachers were not allowed to lead prayer or Bible readings even if the activity is optional.

5. Despite all the restrictions, teachers and students CAN pray in school: The prayer must be voluntary, and cannot give any impression that the school administration is organizing or directing it. While the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in schools became even wider in the 2000 case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, it also opened up room for individuals to express themselves. There are many circumstances in which students are allowed to pray at school or on school grounds. They have equal rights to religious activity in the same manner of any club. Teachers may participate in a volunteer manner as long as it is clear the participation is not part of their official capacity as a teacher.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
I will try to do some research and find out which cases have imposed on the practice of prayer being equally included as free expression.

In the meantime I did post a reference to
the case of the Mt. Soledad Cross that I cited dragged out for 25 YEARS, in part because the objectors suing to remove the cross even petitioned to BLOCK the sale of the land to settle the dispute!
This sale finally went through by private groups raising 1.4 million to transfer and save the cross.

Frankly, I am more concerned about the more recent lawsuits where businesses are FINED for avoiding conflicts with customers who would otherwise require them to get involved in same sex marriages and couples they don't believe in conducting business with.

You may frame this as one sided bigotry, but BOTH sides are faith based, NEITHER side can prove whether or not homosexuality is a behavior, a choice or inborn trait; so neither side can be forced

Same with the health care bill, and people's faith based beliefs and choices in that which are being regulated and penalized by govt.

You’re confusing two completely unrelated realms of law.

Prayer in public schools concerns Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Public accommodations laws concern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

And Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never held that being required to obey or follow a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws, ‘violates’ religious expression or liberty (see Employment Division v. Smith)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

C_Clayton_Jones
and Foxfyre
Here is what I found with a quick preliminary search.
From a really quick read, it appears the courts rule against the SCHOOL and ADMINISTRATION conducting the Bible study or prayer; but leave it open to INDIVIDUALS who can choose their own expression.
NOTE: In Texas, the matter was settled by agreeing on a "moment of silence" that was implemented in schools and not counted as religious.
--------------------------------------------
1. Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases


A century ago, teachers and administrators in American classrooms used to lead students in prayer. While it was an accepted practice, it was not without controversy. Many thought offering the opportunity for children of other faiths to silently opt out of the exercise was inclusive enough, however a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools said it was unconstitutional.


Here are five other facts about historic school prayer cases.

1. The first time Bible reading was ruled unconstitutional was in 1890: A group of Roman Catholic parents decided to fight about which version of the Bible was appropriate for use in school. The Wisconsin Supreme Court said neither in the Weiss v. District Board case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up this case.

2. A prayer in New York caused the first U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on prayer in public schools: Even though it was the middle of the Cold War, a non-denominational, optional prayer known as The Regent’s Prayer got caught up in the 1962 case of Engle v. Vitale. This brought the first anti-prayer decision from the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools. The court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer violated the establishment of religion cause in the U.S. Constitution.


3. School religious activity must pass something called the lemon test: This test came out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. In the 1971 case, the court ruled that a three-pronged test has to be passed for religious involvement in public schools. Is there secular purpose for the activity? Does the activity actively promote religion or inhibit religion? Is the “entanglement” between church and state “excessive?”


4. The Supreme Court put two cases together to rule against the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible: The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett were heard in 1963. The Supreme Court ruled that teachers were not allowed to lead prayer or Bible readings even if the activity is optional.

5. Despite all the restrictions, teachers and students CAN pray in school: The prayer must be voluntary, and cannot give any impression that the school administration is organizing or directing it. While the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in schools became even wider in the 2000 case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, it also opened up room for individuals to express themselves. There are many circumstances in which students are allowed to pray at school or on school grounds. They have equal rights to religious activity in the same manner of any club. Teachers may participate in a volunteer manner as long as it is clear the participation is not part of their official capacity as a teacher.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

You’re preaching to the choir.

That teachers and students are at liberty to pray in public schools is being denied by those hostile to this very Establishment Clause jurisprudence; that's the myth they seek to propagate: that in all situations teachers and students are prohibited from engaging in religious expression in public schools, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO every time the courts have ruled against spontaneous non-mandatory prayer or any other non-mandatory expression of religious belief or faith, the court has itself been in violation of the First Amendment.

do you have examples of those rulings?

Of course not, as no such ‘rulings’ exist.

This is a very old myth contrived and propagated by those hostile to Establishment Clause jurisprudence – that of helpless, innocent Christian public school students ‘prohibited’ from openly practicing their faith by a cruel, capricious Supreme Court hostile to religious expression.

Needless to say this notion is utter nonsense and devoid of fact or merit.

C_Clayton_Jones
and Foxfyre
Here is what I found with a quick preliminary search.
From a really quick read, it appears the courts rule against the SCHOOL and ADMINISTRATION conducting the Bible study or prayer; but leave it open to INDIVIDUALS who can choose their own expression.
NOTE: In Texas, the matter was settled by agreeing on a "moment of silence" that was implemented in schools and not counted as religious.
--------------------------------------------
1. Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases


A century ago, teachers and administrators in American classrooms used to lead students in prayer. While it was an accepted practice, it was not without controversy. Many thought offering the opportunity for children of other faiths to silently opt out of the exercise was inclusive enough, however a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools said it was unconstitutional.


Here are five other facts about historic school prayer cases.

1. The first time Bible reading was ruled unconstitutional was in 1890: A group of Roman Catholic parents decided to fight about which version of the Bible was appropriate for use in school. The Wisconsin Supreme Court said neither in the Weiss v. District Board case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up this case.

2. A prayer in New York caused the first U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on prayer in public schools: Even though it was the middle of the Cold War, a non-denominational, optional prayer known as The Regent’s Prayer got caught up in the 1962 case of Engle v. Vitale. This brought the first anti-prayer decision from the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools. The court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer violated the establishment of religion cause in the U.S. Constitution.


3. School religious activity must pass something called the lemon test: This test came out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. In the 1971 case, the court ruled that a three-pronged test has to be passed for religious involvement in public schools. Is there secular purpose for the activity? Does the activity actively promote religion or inhibit religion? Is the “entanglement” between church and state “excessive?”


4. The Supreme Court put two cases together to rule against the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible: The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett were heard in 1963. The Supreme Court ruled that teachers were not allowed to lead prayer or Bible readings even if the activity is optional.

5. Despite all the restrictions, teachers and students CAN pray in school: The prayer must be voluntary, and cannot give any impression that the school administration is organizing or directing it. While the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in schools became even wider in the 2000 case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, it also opened up room for individuals to express themselves. There are many circumstances in which students are allowed to pray at school or on school grounds. They have equal rights to religious activity in the same manner of any club. Teachers may participate in a volunteer manner as long as it is clear the participation is not part of their official capacity as a teacher.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer in Public Schools: 5 Facts About Historic Cases
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Interesting Emily, but again I do not base my opinions on these things based on what the case law has been. We have seen too many variances in the court as well as too many 5/4 splits on the Supreme Court for me to believe that all judges base their rulings on the letter and intent of the Constitution or even what the subsequent existing law is or isn't.

I have about as much contempt of any kind of activism--conservative or liberal--in the courts as I do for political correctness.