|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2006 : 13:57:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by InsultMohammed
How has this resolution made it as far as it has? I'm dumbfounded. I've got no words for this, really.
How about "violates the 14th Amendment on it's face" and "evidentially they do not understand the importance of Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961)"?
Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488
This nice piece of legislation soundly smacks down state establishments of religion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
InsultMohammed
New Member
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 14:20:30 [Permalink]
|
| That's what has me dumbfounded. It's in your face wrong and they still think they'll get somewhere. What's the definition for insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:05:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Why is this not OK with you? There is no endorsment of religion here. Politicians have every right to pray to whatever God they want to whenever they want to. If people don't like them doing it they can vote them out of office. Just because you work for the government does not mean you cannot talk about your religion in public. Politicians can even run for office on a platform that they will install Christian, Islamic, etc. values in government. You do not have to vote for them.
quote:
through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Sounds like an endorsement to me, don't you think?
No, he is acknowledging a God that he believes in. He is not making law here. He is endorsing the Christian religion not the government. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:06:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by InsultMohammed
That's what has me dumbfounded. It's in your face wrong and they still think they'll get somewhere. What's the definition for insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
No, thats called practice. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:11:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by InsultMohammed
How has this resolution made it as far as it has? I'm dumbfounded. I've got no words for this, really.
How about "violates the 14th Amendment on it's face" and "evidentially they do not understand the importance of Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961)"?
Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488
This nice piece of legislation soundly smacks down state establishments of religion.
Reading it, it seems to me it says that no government can require a beleif in God for a governmental job. Not that a government employee can't speak of God or even pray to any God they choose. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Why is this not OK with you? There is no endorsment of religion here. Politicians have every right to pray to whatever God they want to whenever they want to. If people don't like them doing it they can vote them out of office. Just because you work for the government does not mean you cannot talk about your religion in public. Politicians can even run for office on a platform that they will install Christian, Islamic, etc. values in government. You do not have to vote for them.
quote:
through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Sounds like an endorsement to me, don't you think?
No, he is acknowledging a God that he believes in. He is not making law here. He is endorsing the Christian religion not the government.
quote:
Speaker Pro Tem Abel in the Chair.
Prayer by Ralph Robinette, Sergeant at Arms.
Stir up Your power, O Lord, and come among us with great might; and because we are sorely hindered by our sins, let Your bountiful grace and mercy speedily help and deliver us; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
emphasis mine
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was recited.
So, the assembly has been called to order and the Seargent At Arms, who is paid for by the people with public tax money, has been instructed by who? to say this prayer for all attending government officials, after which they recite the Pledge of Allegiance (I'm sure the "under God" version).
The emphasis I make is that he is refering not only to himself, but to all members of the government that are there.
Sounds like an endorsement to me, don't you think?
edited for spelling |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 03/06/2006 16:55:15 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 16:20:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
While searching for the exact text of the bill, I came across this page which just happens to be the journal of the Missouri General Assembly for 2/12/01. The first thing they did was have a prayer:
quote:
Stir up Your power, O Lord, and come among us with great might; and because we are sorely hindered by our sins, let Your bountiful grace and mercy speedily help and deliver us; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Why the fuck is any governmental body anywhere in this country allowed to include this kind of stuff in its official business? The arrogance is astounding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this not OK with you? There is no endorsment of religion here. Politicians have every right to pray to whatever God they want to whenever they want to. If people don't like them doing it they can vote them out of office. Just because you work for the government does not mean you cannot talk about your religion in public. Politicians can even run for office on a platform that they will install Christian, Islamic, etc. values in government. You do not have to vote for them.
No endorsement of religion? Are you serious? What exactly is "through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever" if not an endorsement of the christian religion?
Politicians have the right to pray to whatever god, demon, or pokemon they want, but not anytime they want. They can pray at home, on the bus, in the bathroom, in their office, bit not in chambers as part of the business of government. The business of government in this country is secular. There is no place for anyone's religion in the official proceedings of a governmental body.
Politicians can certainly talk about their religion in public. That is different than praying as part of a legislative session. If, however, they want to install their religion as part of the government, they will first have to change the Constitution.
Saying a prayer calling upon any particular diety is clearly an unconstitutional mixing of religion with the government. It is also highly exclusionary, as it sends the message that only believers in that particular religion are entitled to participate. That is clearly wrong, and the practice is indefensible.
In Indiana, a judge ruled that prayers promoting a particular religion in the state house are not allowed:
quote:
A federal court judge Wednesday barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any religion at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives.
Judge David Hamilton found that the House practice breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government establishment of religion. While not banning prayers in the House, Hamilton ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in a bid to convert listeners.
Hamilton, who based his decision on a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision setting boundaries on legislative prayer, said all are free to pray as they wish in their places of worship.
"The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium . . . to express their own religious faiths,'' Hamilton said.
quote:
EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE'S RULING
Highlights of federal Judge David Hamilton's ruling regarding prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives:
• "When the founders of this nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . The founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths."
• While the boundary between permissible and impermissible legislative prayer may not be a precisely drawn one, the current legislative prayer practices of the Indiana House "are well outside the boundaries" established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 and subsequently upheld by lower courts.
• "The court recognizes that the relief granted in this case might make it difficult or even impossible for some clergy or believers to offer official (House) prayers." But the alternative to banning sectarian prayers "would be a complete prohibition on legislative prayer."
Personally, I don't think this ruling goes quite far enough, but it is a step in the right direction. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
geo berri
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 17:20:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
If, however, they want to install their religion as part of the government, they will first have to change the Constitution.
Please, Don't give them any ideas! |
Throw open the windows of your life and let the winds of knowledge blow through your mind, geo |
| Edited by - geo berri on 03/06/2006 17:24:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 18:39:06 [Permalink]
|
geo berri wrote: quote:
Please, Don't give them any ideas!
LOL! I'm sure they would have tried that if they hadn't put all their efforts into interpreting the Constitution without separation of church and state. Then again, they've changed tactics in the past, so there's no reason for them to eventually switch on this issue too. Eesh! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 05:37:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
So, the assembly has been called to order and the Seargent At Arms, who is paid for by the people with public tax money, has been instructed by who? to say this prayer for all attending government officials, after which they recite the Pledge of Allegiance (I'm sure the "under God" version).
The emphasis I make is that he is refering not only to himself, but to all members of the government that are there.
Sounds like an endorsement to me, don't you think?
edited for spelling
In the Supreme Court Case of Marsh vs Chambers (1983)this was found to be acceptable.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html
quote:
The question presented is whether the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
and the ruling:
quote:
In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:04:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the Supreme Court Case of Marsh vs Chambers (1983)this was found to be acceptable.
Yippee for the Supreme Court. As you probably agree with me, the SCOTUS is not made up of gods, and they make incorrect decisions sometimes. In this case, they were dead wrong. Slavery was around for 400 years and was a fabric of society, but that doesn't make it right.
Perhaps this will get back to SCOTUS again and be overturned, perhaps not.
But thanks for digging up that trial reference. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:53:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by InsultMohammed
How has this resolution made it as far as it has? I'm dumbfounded. I've got no words for this, really.
How about "violates the 14th Amendment on it's face" and "evidentially they do not understand the importance of Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961)"?
Torcaso v. Watkins(SCOTUS, 1961) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488
This nice piece of legislation soundly smacks down state establishments of religion.
Reading it, it seems to me it says that no government can require a beleif in God for a governmental job. Not that a government employee can't speak of God or even pray to any God they choose.
And that has truely not been suppressed. Government employees may speak of God and pray to God on their own time. They may express their belief as part of ceremonial diesm as protected by the Marsh ruling. The legislation clearly supports the establishment of a state religion and urges the use of governmental forums as a pulpit for that religion.
Torasco states that the prohibition against establishing religion is translated down to the states by the 14th amendment. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:57:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Robb:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
While searching for the exact text of the bill, I came across this page which just happens to be the journal of the Missouri General Assembly for 2/12/01. The first thing they did was have a prayer:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stir up Your power, O Lord, and come among us with great might; and because we are sorely hindered by our sins, let Your bountiful grace and mercy speedily help and deliver us; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Why the fuck is any governmental body anywhere in this country allowed to include this kind of stuff in its official business? The arrogance is astounding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this not OK with you? There is no endorsment of religion here. Politicians have every right to pray to whatever God they want to whenever they want to. If people don't like them doing it they can vote them out of office. Just because you work for the government does not mean you cannot talk about your religion in public. Politicians can even run for office on a platform that they will install Christian, Islamic, etc. values in government. You do not have to vote for them.[/quote]
No endorsement of religion? Are you serious? What exactly is "through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever" if not an endorsement of the christian religion?
Politicians have the right to pray to whatever god, demon, or pokemon they want, but not anytime they want. They can pray at home, on the bus, in the bathroom, in their office, bit not in chambers as part of the business of government. The business of government in this country is secular. There is no place for anyone's religion in the official proceedings of a governmental body.
Politicians can certainly talk about their religion in public. That is different than praying as part of a legislative session. If, however, they want to install their religion as part of the government, they will first have to change the Constitution.
Saying a prayer calling upon any particular diety is clearly an unconstitutional mixing of religion with the government. It is also highly exclusionary, as it sends the message that only believers in that particular religion are entitled to participate. That is clearly wrong, and the practice is indefensible.
In Indiana, a judge ruled that prayers promoting a particular religion in the state house are not allowed:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A federal court judge Wednesday barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any religion at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives.
Judge David Hamilton found that the House practice breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government establishment of religion. While not banning prayers in the House, Hamilton ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in a bid to convert listeners.
Hamilton, who based his decision on a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision setting boundaries on legislative prayer, said all are free to pray as they wish in their places of worship.
"The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium . . . to express their own religious faiths,'' Hamilton said.
[/quote]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE'S RULING
Highlights of federal Judge David Hamilton's ruling regarding prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives:
• "When the founders of this nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . The founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths."
• While the boundary between permissible and impermissible legislative prayer may not be a precisely drawn one, the current legislative prayer practices of the Indiana House "are well outside the boundaries" established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 and subsequently upheld by lower courts.
• "The court recognizes that the relief granted in this case might make it difficult or even impossible for some clergy or believers to offer official (House) prayers." But the alternative to banning sectarian prayers "would be a complete prohibition on legislative prayer."
[/quote]
Personally, I don't think this ruling goes quite far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
[/quote]
And that is destined to fail on appeal. The Marsh ruling puts no limits on what kinds of prayers may be allowed before the session. That the prayer is part of ceremonial deism. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 08:28:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
In the Supreme Court Case of Marsh vs Chambers (1983)this was found to be acceptable.
Yippee for the Supreme Court. As you probably agree with me, the SCOTUS is not made up of gods, and they make incorrect decisions sometimes.
I do agree they can make mistakes, just look at Roe v Wade.
I am not totally disagreeing with you. There is a case that can be made against these type of prayers in congressional assemblies. I do not want a religion established by our government as well, but I would like for people to be able to choose to excercise their faiths in all aspects of their lives. Most religions do not teach that your faith life and your secular life are seperate, but they are intertwined. Many people, however, live this way. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 09:57:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I do agree they can make mistakes, just look at Roe v Wade.
I am not totally disagreeing with you. There is a case that can be made against these type of prayers in congressional assemblies. I do not want a religion established by our government as well, but I would like for people to be able to choose to excercise their faiths in all aspects of their lives. Most religions do not teach that your faith life and your secular life are seperate, but they are intertwined. Many people, however, live this way.
Yeah, I figured you would site that case! 
Basically, the perception in these cases is that of a christian theocratic government. The US government was designed to be and should be religion-neutral and for ALL the people, not just the theists (or the christian theists in this case). This is despite what George Bush the First stated about atheists.
Beyond this, people can do whatever they want. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 03/07/2006 09:59:40 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
