Ist Amendment Protection of Religion

[Charlemagne_II]

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In what way does this Article of the constitution abridge the right of citizens to pray in a public forum?

 

[silicasandra]

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In what way does this Article of the constitution abridge the right of citizens to pray in a public forum?

My understanding is that “formalized” prayer in a public forum can be understood as a government endorsement of that prayer (so a violation of the establishment clause.) This is why public schools, for instance, are hesitant to formally approve of religious groups for students or faculty or both.

I have heard people say that prayer has been “banned” from schools or other places, but I have prayed in public places many times and no one has said anything to me about it. As far as I know, my right to pray in public is not forbidden (it would violate the “free exercise” clause).

 

[Myqyl]

It doesn’t…

But it does prohibit the government for promoting or presenting one religion over another. So public schools should be free to set aside “free time” for students to use as they please. Some could pray (in whatever fashion they choose), some could meditate, some could plan out their next world of warcraft character. What would be wrong is if the students were instructed to pray. Prayer is a choose made by free will. I think God would not look kindly on coerced prayer.

The same holds true for all government venues…

That said, this is why my children attend Catholic School, where they are not taught that it is unconstitutional to pray.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But the first Amendment says nothing about prayer in schools for example.

It prohibits Congress from passing laws establishing religion and that’s all it says.

How does praying in a public classroom or at a public assembly mean that Congress has made a law establishing religion?

What law has ever been made by Congress, or even by the States, establishing a religion?

 

[silicasandra]

But the first Amendment says nothing about prayer in schools for example.

It prohibits Congress from passing laws establishing religion and that’s all it says.

How does praying in a public classroom or at a public assembly mean that Congress has made a law establishing religion?

What law has ever been made by Congress, or even by the States, establishing a religion?

Public schools are government institutions.

People can pray in classrooms or at a public assembly. But an official representing the school cannot lead them in prayer as that would represent an establishment of religion. Per the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, states (who govern education laws) cannot violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Congress hasn’t legislated anything about prayer in schools.

 

[rossum]

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In what way does this Article of the constitution abridge the right of citizens to pray in a public forum?

I suggest you read: Why I’m against pre-game prayers:
Coming from a fairly traditional Southern upbringing, I was not at all initially surprised when a voice came over the PA and asked everyone to rise for the invocation. I had been through this same ritual at many other high-school events and thought nothing of it, so to our feet my wife and I stood, bowed our heads, and prepared to partake of the prayer. But to our extreme dismay, the clergyman who took the microphone and began to pray was not a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest, but a Buddhist priest who proceeded to offer up prayers and intonations to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan.

rossum

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… i’m from oz so your constitution is diff , but can i make one obsevation : man is meant to pray wihout ceasing as st paul tells us , this is done many ways but i believe this especially refers to the prayer of doing gods will , whenever anyone believer or not does gods will , and it includes all of creation living or not , they are praying , so any attempt to restrict or exclude prayer is ridiculous , as you are saying no man nor anything in creation is allowed to do gods will under so and so circumstances or situations , so it sounds to me like believers can argue that to ever exclude prayer is impossible and ridiculous , it cannot be done , it’s insanity , that’s how i see it dear friends ,

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[Charlemagne_II]

silicasandra
**
Public schools are government institutions.**

Local government, not Congressional government.

**
People can pray in classrooms or at a public assembly. But an official representing the school cannot lead them in prayer as that would represent an establishment of religion.**

Why would it represent an establishment of religion? If you read the literature of the Founders, establishment of religion simply meant establishing one state religion which people of all religions must support through their taxes. Prayer in the public schools does no such thing, since prayer can be non-denominational, and the students are not required to pay taxes.

**Per the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, states (who govern education laws) cannot violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Congress hasn’t legislated anything about prayer in schools. **

Specifically, what right guaranteed by the Constitution would be violated by non-denominational public prayer?

And why is it that Congress can start its sessions with spoken prayer, but school children cannot start their school sessions with the same right to pray? Why wouldn’t the rights of Congress be violated if the rights of school children are also claimed to be violated?

When President Lincoln instituted National Prayer Days during the Civil War, nobody objected. He was acting as President, not as Congress.

 

[silicasandra]

I’m not saying I agree with how it has been implemented. I agree, it’s inconsistent. I’m just offering the usual explanation. Schools are controlled, ultimately, by the state. The school, as an institution, cannot lead students in prayer. If a principal, while acting as principal, led students in prayer, that would be an example of “establishment of religion” - e.g. “The school says this is the appropriate way to pray.” States are bound by the 14th Amendment to not infringe on the rights guaranteed citizens in the Constitution.

(For the record, I don’t think public schools should be engaging in school-endorsed prayer anyhow. Rossum excellently illustrated why that’s the case. But there is no infringement on student’s right to private prayer - I have prayed often as a public school student, and as a public school teacher for that matter, and I am perfectly free to do that. That is part of my 1st Amendment rights, also.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

silicasandra

**If a principal, while acting as principal, led students in prayer, that would be an example of “establishment of religion” **

Does the principle seem flawed to you? If it’s “establishment of religion” for a principal to lead the students in prayer, why isn’t it “establishment of religion” for the chaplain to lead the U.S. Congress in prayer?

If it’s unconstitutional in one place, shouldn’t it be unconstitutional in the other? But it isn’t. Congress opens sessions with a Chaplain leading them in prayer. Is that unconstitutional?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

 

[silicasandra]

Please read my post again, I said I agree with you: it is inconsistent.

In my view, Congress shouldn’t be participating in prayer as Congress. If individual Congresspeople wish to pray, even wish to pray together, to do their job well…we could use a heck of a lot more of that. But it shouldn’t be part of any kind of official Congressional activity.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If it’s “establishment of religion” for a principal to lead the students in prayer, why isn’t it “establishment of religion” for the chaplain to lead the U.S. Congress in prayer?

It has been challenged before and the rulings on the matter involved more mental contortions than I am capable of following. But you are not alone in finding it inconsistent. I get the feeling that some of these rulings are going to be influenced by the reaction of the community. Most of the population does not participate in congressional or legislative sessions, but a pretty good portion of the population has children in school.

Side note, do you find the same amount of religious diversity in the representatives that you find in the general population or in school?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

silicasandra

**But it shouldn’t be part of any kind of official Congressional activity. **

I guess you haven’t read some of my posts?

Congress has had a chaplain from the first. So obviously the 1st Amendment was never meant to apply to public prayer, but rather to the established of an official state religion that would be tax supported by members of other religions, such as England had at that time.

No one has ever challenged the existence of a Congressional Chaplain.

So why is school prayer challenged? Because atheists/agnostics don’t want to pray?

Thinking:

**Side note, do you find the same amount of religious diversity in the representatives that you find in the general population or in school? **

I have no idea how many atheists/agnostics are in Congress, but you don’t hear them there bellyaching about violations of their Constitutional rights.

Why is it that schoolchildren especially are denied the right to non-denominational common public prayer in the classroom forum?

Because the Supreme Court says so? That can’t be a reason. That would be only an appeal to authority.The Supreme court has to give a reason, and the reasons they have given so far are not consistent with what the Founders intended nor with how Congress itself behaves as opposed to children in the classroom.

 

[rossum]

Why is it that schoolchildren especially are denied the right to non-denominational common public prayer in the classroom forum?

Can you please indicate a non-denominational prayer that will be acceptable to Catholics, Protetstants, Jehova’s Witnesses, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, Agnostics and Atheists as well as to any other religious group that may have their children in a public school.

Simpler just to let the children pray in their own way and in their own time.

rossum

 

[silicasandra]

Can you please indicate a non-denominational prayer that will be acceptable to Catholics, Protetstants, Jehova’s Witnesses, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, Agnostics and Atheists as well as to any other religious group that may have their children in a public school.

Simpler just to let the children pray in their own way and in their own time.

rossum

This.

I answered the question the OP wanted with the reasoning as I understood it based on constitutional law classes I took as an undergrad (the inconsistencies were mentioned then, too). I didn’t realize he wasn’t really looking for an answer to his question.

The prayers done by public schools back in the 19th century did not appeal much to Catholic immigrant children or their parents. I wouldn’t want my child forced to participate in prayer that was anti-Catholic. If my child is enrolled in a public school, I have to accept that other parents would not want their children to pray in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, either, even if I think their beliefs are wrong. Otherwise I’d be acting to try and overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments altogether, and something tells me I wouldn’t be too successful at that.

But my child could still say grace at lunch, or pray during a quiet moment in the day. If that right were infringed, I could probably take it to the Supreme Court and win (well, it probably wouldn’t get that far, because it wouldn’t need to. )

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

**Can you please indicate a non-denominational prayer that will be acceptable to Catholics, Protetstants, Jehova’s Witnesses, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, Agnostics and Atheists as well as to any other religious group that may have their children in a public school.

Simpler just to let the children pray in their own way and in their own time.**

No. Simpler to have them pray both in school and on their own time.

A prayer at the start of the day in a group setting can set a tone for the conduct of the students in the classroom. One of the reasons there is so much chaos in the classroom today is the lack of reverence for anything.

But the atheists have had their way, and thanks to them the moral tone for youngsters today outside that of their own family setting is practically nil.

There not only is no respect for God, but not even respect for those who respect God.

By the way, if the Congressional Chaplain can come up with non-denominational prayers that are not likely to offend atheists, why can’t school principals?

And for the record, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you mustn’t offend others by praying in public. People say things all the time that offend other people without defying the Constitution.It’s called free speech.

Atheists exercise free speech by paying for insulting ads against religion to be posted on public transportation. Nobody calls that unconstitutional. It’s only unconstitutional if you are showing respect for God, as opposed to insulting God?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

silicasandra

The prayers done by public schools back in the 19th century did not appeal much to Catholic immigrant children or their parents. I wouldn’t want my child forced to participate in prayer that was anti-Catholic. If my child is enrolled in a public school, I have to accept that other parents would not want their children to pray in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, either, even if I think their beliefs are wrong. Otherwise I’d be acting to try and overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments altogether, and something tells me I wouldn’t be too successful at that.

I wish you would explain why the Congressional Chaplain is allowed to say a non-denominational prayer without offending Catholics, whereas a school principal could not possibly do so.

Even if your argument had been relevant 100 years ago, it would have no relevance today when Catholics and Protestants generally have more good will toward each other than they had 100 years ago.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No. Simpler to have them pray both in school and on their own time.

Students are allowed to pray in school. It’s not compulsory though. When I was in elementary school the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was compulsory. I had a peer who had refused to recite it and the school mistook his refusal for belligerence. His parents had to come to the school to explain that his refusal to recite it was in accordance with their religion. While I was in middle school or high school it was no longer something we had to do because mandating that students say it was also found to be a violation of constitutional rights. There was a moment in the morning in which a student could choose to recite it and there was a moment in the day in which a student could choose to silently pray. There were also groups that would meet to pray together and this was completely student led.

There not only is no respect for God, but not even respect for those who respect God.

Not every one worships the same god (or god concept, or what ever you want to call it), thus those that have a respect for a their god may not have any respect for some one else’s god. The school might not be the best place to let that play out either.

By the way, if the Congressional Chaplain can come up with non-denominational prayers that are not likely to offend atheists, why can’t school principals?

Be proactive, be part of the change you want to see in the world. Come up with such a prayer yourself and engage your local school board and ACLU to see if you can make any progress on this.

And for the record, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you mustn’t offend others by praying in public.

Correct, and people can and do pray in public.

People say things all the time that offend other people without defying the Constitution.It’s called free speech.

Indeed.

Atheists exercise free speech by paying for insulting ads against religion to be posted on public transportation. Nobody calls that unconstitutional.

Possibly because it’s not considered unconstitutional. Prohibiting some one from being able to produce such an ad might reach into unconstitutional territory though.

It’s only unconstitutional if you are showing respect for God, as opposed to insulting God?

That’s not true. You can go to your local public location of choice and engage in something that shows your respect for your god and provided that you are not engaging in violating some other law you are acting within your rights. Now if you force some one else to participate in your activity then you may be crossing a constitutional lines.

I wish you would explain why the Congressional Chaplain is allowed to say a non-denominational prayer without offending Catholics, whereas a school principal could not possibly do so.
Even if your argument had been relevant 100 years ago, it would have no relevance today when Catholics and Protestants generally have more good will toward each other than they had 100 years ago.

If the group is all Catholics and Protestants than I could see how some level of agreement is more achievable. Throw in some more Hindus, Buddhist, and people of other religions and finding a prayer that doesn’t give preference to some groups over the others becomes a challenge.

Right now it seems that most in this thread see this as an inconsistency. My hypothesis is that there is not are much religions diversity in these meetings as there is in school and there there are not as many people in congress that would complain about it as people in or associated with schools, so they can “get away with it.” At least that is my thinking. I would need to collect data to support that or discard it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**You can go to your local **public location **of choice and engage in something that shows your respect for your god and provided that you are not engaging in violating some other law you are acting within your rights. **

A school classroom is not a** public location**?

Be proactive, be part of the change you want to see in the world. Come up with such a prayer yourself and engage your local school board and ACLU to see if you can make any progress on this.

Since the ACLU is mostly atheistic and doesn’t represent even most of the lawyers in this country, I don’t know why their opinion would matter. They have no veto power or legal power of approval either.

The courts have reversed themselves before … usually in a liberal direction. They could just as easily reverse themselves in a conservative direction if the Courts ever again obtain a conservative dominance … which is not at all impossible if American society ever comes back to its senses.

The local school boards most often do nothing without first seeking the blessing of the ACLU. It is a legal and logical mess all the way through.

As to being pro-active and composing a prayer, what is the point if prayer is outlawed before you even start writing the prayer?

I am not the one who has to change the system. The change must be made in a Constitutional way, and that way can only be accomplished by going through the courts and reversing bad decisions made 60-70 years ago.

 

[silicasandra]

silicasandra

The prayers done by public schools back in the 19th century did not appeal much to Catholic immigrant children or their parents. I wouldn’t want my child forced to participate in prayer that was anti-Catholic. If my child is enrolled in a public school, I have to accept that other parents would not want their children to pray in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, either, even if I think their beliefs are wrong. Otherwise I’d be acting to try and overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments altogether, and something tells me I wouldn’t be too successful at that.

I wish you would explain why the Congressional Chaplain is allowed to say a non-denominational prayer without offending Catholics, whereas a school principal could not possibly do so.

Even if your argument had been relevant 100 years ago, it would have no relevance today when Catholics and Protestants generally have more good will toward each other than they had 100 years ago.

:banghead: I said it was inconsistent. I guess no one has thought to sue over it (remarkable in our litigation-happy society, but there you go.) Also, a Congressperson who openly objected to the practice would probably not get far in his or her career.