{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Entraps:
1/24/2014 8:09:20 PM
32
The prayer should be allowed, end of story. The Secular Humanists of this organization need to get a bloody life, all they do is try and stomp out religion wherever they think they can succeed based on some kind of unfounded hatred and love of making others unhappy.
The first amendment is there to prevent the government from suppressing religion, not to facilitate said suppression.
English
-
The 1st Amendment is there to prevent governmental endorsement of any religion. This was a public school sanctioned event and public schools are governmental institutions. Allowing this prayer to happen was an endorsement of a religion. If you want to be able to lead prayers in a school go to a religious school, not a public school where there is more than one religion.
-
And by the way, the 1st Amendment is there to prevent the government from suppressing religion. It is not there to facilitate it. Under the correct interpretation, banning religion from public schools would be unconstitutional.
-
The first amendment is there to prevent the endorsement of religion by government. You're the one twisting it in your favor.
-
"The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" Doesn't say anything about endorsement, it only says the government can't make laws about religion, ergo, the government can't regulate or suppress it. Doesn't say anything about funding or endorsing religion.
-
Edited by dr0cx: 1/27/2014 4:50:05 PMMax, brush up on some Supreme Court cases. Your position is on the wrong side of constitutional law. [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1947/1947_90]McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)[/url] [quote]Supreme Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.[/quote] [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468]Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)[/url] [quote]Supreme Court finds any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.[/quote] [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142]Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)[/url] [quote]Supreme Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.[/quote] [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_321]Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)[/url] [quote]Supreme Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.[/quote] [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1014]Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)[/url] [quote]Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.[/quote]
-
Fine, then change the bigoted constitution.
-
You keep using that word... How exactly is it bigoted?
-
That law also entails not endorsing or funding religion. Jesus -blam!-ing Christ there was a supreme court ruling banning prayer at public school sanctioned events.
-
So what? The Supreme Court is not some infallible council of ancient wizards, I don't care what they say, they are fully capable of being wrong, and to me, it seems like you worship their rulings and regard the constitution and the supreme court as perfect and infallible.
-
The Supreme Court is in fact the final word on Constitutional Law, so your unfounded and biased opinion is completely invalid.
-
You know what? I'm -blam!-ing done with you. If you can't accept that prayer at governmental institutional events is unconstitutional. Then you need to -blam!-ing stop. The Supreme Court isn't infallible but they made the right call. Yes. Continue to endorse rewriting the constitution to fit your needs.
-
Sure, as long as I don't have to pay thousands of dollars to go to that school, ergo, grant government funding to religious schools.
-
Yeah there shouldn't be government grants for religious institutions such as private religious schools also. Like or not, this prayer session at a PUBLIC school sanctioned event is unconstitutional.
-
I don't believe it is. I believe the 1st Amendment is misinterpreted and twisted, and it was never meant to do what it is being used for today.
-
[quote]The prayer should be allowed, end of story.[/quote] That'd probably require another amendment. While the government is not supposed to suppress religion, it also is not supposed to support any of them over another. If the students decided to hold some form of multi-cultural/religious moment, I'm sure this would be allowed. Also, [quote]all they do is try and stomp out religion wherever they think they can succeed based on some kind of unfounded hatred and love of making others unhappy.[/quote] I believe it is more so they do it because it is religion, not that it makes others unhappy. If you ever met someone that did this purely for the enjoyment of seeing others be unhappy, they'd be sadistic. This isn't something to just label an entire group with. They simply oppose religion, and therefore just want it out of wherever they can push it out. Super simple stuff.
-
[quote][quote]The prayer should be allowed, end of story.[/quote] That'd probably require another amendment. While the government is not supposed to suppress religion, it also is not supposed to support any of them over another. If the students decided to hold some form of multi-cultural/religious moment, I'm sure this would be allowed. [/quote] That still wouldn't fly, governmental institutions are not allowed to support any religion even if it entails endorsing multiple religions. Government cannot suppress nor endorse any religion(s) at all, end of story. [quote]They simply oppose religion, and therefore just want it out of wherever they can push it out. Super simple stuff.[/quote] This isn't simply pushing religion out of something, this is protesting a constitutional amendment being violatedd by a governmental institution.
-
Why do you worship the constitution? It's a 250 year old piece of paper, and large parts of it are outdated.
-
The system allows for things to changed when needed. While there are things that still need to be caught up with the times, I can't really say that this is one of them. Having a public school not back any religious tendency seems, to me, entirely reasonable. The government is supposed to represent a large mesh of people, who obviously do not all hold the same view. The best way to go about representing and maintaining power would be to hold a neutral stance when possible, unless it is necessary to do otherwise. This situation does not fall under the circumstances in which they'd have to take a non-neutral stance, so it's probably best that they adjust to be neutral. I have to say though.... [quote]Why do you worship the constitution? It's a 250 year old piece of paper, and large parts of it are outdated. [/quote] This is pretty funny, when looking at both sides and not thinking much about it. Funny on the religious side because they made the remark which makes it ironic. Funny on the constitutional side because they're arguing for a lack of something that includes worshiping paper, yet they strive to hold true to their own set.
-
I would be fine with public schools banning religious material in the US, IF the government were allowed to fund separate religious schools, like in Canada. But as it stands, there is no alternative other then paying thousands of dollars in the US.
-
[quote]I would be fine with public schools banning religious material in the US, IF the government were allowed to fund separate religious schools, like in Canada. But as it stands, there is no alternative other then paying thousands of dollars in the US.[/quote] I'm not exactly sure if that would fly. It seems like it would fly in the face of the already cemented neutral position., unless of course it funded every single religious school in the nation Plus religious schools should already have enough ease with donations, and other fundraiser-y type things, right? It seems to me (as a non religious person, so sorry if I'm not getting something here due to lack of experience,) that a person could have a well enough upbringing with a public school and catholic church.
-
It flies where I live just fine.
-
Because the contexts are not the same.
-
How is the context in Canada any different then in the US?
-
The governments are different, the cultures are different, the diversity is different, the politics are different, ect. ect. They are countries that can be compared in some aspects for sure, but this is not a ruling that would be eagerly accepted, and I'd venture to say would have quite a bit of backlash as a result actually. Not just on a level with conflicting religious views, but a political one as well, this isn't something I can see people across both aisles in D.C. shaking hands on. I haven't heard of anyone bringing this to the floor before, however if they have I'd be interested in seeing the results and reasoning since it apparently failed to progress to the finish line if it was ever attempted.
-
That just doesn't make sense to me, the US is far, far more religious then Canada is. I think it would be accepted even more in the US then it is in Canada.
