Posted on 10/17/2001 12:56:46 AM PDT by DCBurgess58
One quick example = Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) aka the Native American/peyote decision.
Using the same logic as the Supreme Court in this case, Catholic minors are forbidden, by law, from drinking Communion wine (although no one in their right mind would ever enforce such a thing).
The response by Congress was to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but that was later struck down by the Supreme Court for reasons unrelated to the First Amendment
Plenty of it. Read a biology textbook.
P.S. I don't really care about prayer in school, to me it's just one of many separation of church and state issues where the court's have twisted the founding fathers intent.
And yet the government has not the authority to restrict such prayer, as has been pointed out quite clearly by previous posters. The only possible solution is to dispense not with the speech, but with the schools themselves. Government schools are being used as excuses to indoctrinate our youth into _many_ beliefs that the citizenry find more objectionable than religeon. I could care less if my children hear someone pray, even if it is to Satan or Barney the Purple Dinosaur; I like to think I would teach them enough at home that they could respect others rights to believe in foolishness without feeling compelled to _accept_ those beliefs. I am far more concerned about the creeping communism and anti-theism that is so common in all our educational institutions. In addition, the schools are failing in their mission to teach the basics, such as reading and math.
FWIW, I was raised as a Jehova's Witness, though I am basically agnostic, as an adult. I went to a private school, where I was often required to listen to the prayers or other religeous observations of others who did not subscribe to my own beliefs of the time. I was unharmed. In fact, I learned to stand up for myself and my difference without shame. My peers respected my differences, though they were often curious. We all benefitted from it.
I grow so sick listening to the pathetic whimpers of the weaklings who squander the blessings of our liberties so hard won by our ancestors, those who are so quick to shut their mouths for fear of offending, or to try to squelch those with whom they disagree. People who cringe at the expression of beliefs counter to their own, who would silence all rather than allow all to speak, disgust me like no other sort of fools. Such people neither respect nor deserve the liberties given to them, and work incessantly to deprive the rest of us of ours.
I am tired of living with cattle. I am tired of seeing the strong and brave bend over backwards to appease weaklings and cowards. When will we all stand up and _demand_ the rights we all know we are due? We have _not_ the right to silence others; we have the right _not_ to be silenced! When will we stop twisting in the wind, weighing the silly proposition of who should and should not be permitted to speak, when the truth is plain: _all_ may speak.
Those who cannot tolerate the speach of others with whom they disagree, who would eschew their own right to free speech as a counter, in preference for the simpler solution of clubbing their opponants into silence with the brute force of the law, are _barbarians_! It is time we stood up and _said_ so!
Thraka
It's a bogus argument, though. As I have noted many times before, the position taken by the 'no prayer in school' crowd is not an atheist position, it is an _anti_-theist position. An atheist believes in no diety, and should not, therefore, reasonably feel anyhting but some mild amusement when dealing with theists. The anti-theist, on the other hand, has a fanatical position very much akin to rabid fundamental theists, and feels compelled to _eliminate_ expressions of other beliefs; such people are zealots who want to convert, or at least silence, others. We all know that religeous fanaticism is dangerous, and that allowing fanatics to determine religeous behavior is a recipe for disaster. It is high time we recognized anti-theism as a religeon in its own right, and restrained it as we do any other religeon.
Thraka
Perhaps _you_ should read something on science, or, preferably, logic. There is no evidence to directly dispute creationism. There is only evidence to dispute _literal_ creationism. It is neither scientific nor logical to say there is any sort of evidence the the process of evolution could not be the physical result of some divine intervention. It is not likely, but Occams Razor is not _evidence_, merely a useful expedient. It is an aid in forming a conclusion, but it not, in and of itself, _evidence_.
Thraka
Let's take this line by line shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;..." This means that our government CAN'T pass any kind of legislation that places one religion over another thereby "respecting" that specific religion.
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." This is interpreted as congress CANNOT limit or restrict PRIVATE use and displays of religious activities.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..." Meaning that governmental laws are not to be passes through legislation by the house or senate that are intended to oppress our limitless use or speech or informational sourcing within the allowance of individual unalienable rights.
"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This section simply means that our government once again cannot produce a law which prevents its people from assembling peacefully in protest or under any other doctrine in order to petition, appeal, or address, any problems or complaints that we the people hold towards anything within our nation.
Nowhere within the contextual bounds of this amendment does it say that our government cannot make legislation preventing a religion or religious group from imposing their views upon the nation. No where within this article does it say that congress shall make no law restricting religious practices from public enforced and societal uses with the intent of one-sided teachings upon our nation and more importantly our children, it's future. This is exactly what religion fused with governmental forces causes. Furthermore by implicating the use of religion in governmental and societal fields one would infringe upon the rights provided by our declaration of independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. ..."
Basically by allowing religion to penetrate into our government and be forced upon the people of our nation we are in essence infringing upon their right to the "pursuit of Happiness..." What make one happy doesn't necessarily make another happy. The reason that the puritans fled Great Britain was because they were not allowed to express their religion freely, as a matter of fact within our own documented history most of our fore-fathers were Atheists, however they did not wish to impose their views upon the masses so they allowed religious freedom. Forcing one to practice a view or doctrine that is not theirs is an evil, and CLEARLY, it has been shown that "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable..." With that in mind I turn your attention towards our forefathers and architects of our free government, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Obviously it goes without saying that all People do not think alike. If this is true today then it was surely also true when our government and nation was established. With that said religion and politics was a hot topic when writing the constitution. Some of our fore-fathers believed that the states should encourage religious worship because they thought that it would re-enforce morals and virtues, while others, such as Jefferson and Madison, stuck to their premise that religion and government should remain separated. They stated that if framings for our government and its laws were based upon religion then inevitably one religion would dominate our culture as it did in Great Britain. Jefferson and Madison never denied that religious activities played a major role in our society; as a matter of fact Jefferson once said that Jesus' "system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime that has been taught." Nevertheless, they maintained that religion would be more likely to flourish if striped from governmental view. Which has been achieved without the necessity of stating it.
In his article "Crosses to Bear", John B. Judis states, "When the two are fused, however, when organizations acting in the name of Christianity seek political power, then religion becomes subordinate to politics. It becomes infected with the darker egoism of group and nation; it no longer softens and counters our ungenerous impulses but clothes them in holy righteousness."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.