Ist Amendment Protection of Religion

[ThinkingSapien]

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

It is, and there are times set aside in which you can silently pray to your god of choice. But no one will force you do do so if you to pray should you choose to do so.

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 was actually wondering the same thing when you asked why a principal could not compose such a prayer, but decided to overlook it.

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.

If that is to happen some one will have to demonstrate that it was a bad decision. I don’t see it as being a bad decision. The nation has a bad history of being unkind to people that are not members of the in-group so I’m not opposed to changes that reduce the imposing of cultural and religious customs of the majority on the minorities. From what I can tell the nation is presently more diverse both religiously and culturally than it was 60-70 years ago. But that’s another topic. but don’t want to derail the conversation by further elaborating on that.

I don’t know how things have been for you in Texas, but during the course of my lifetime I’ve seen the local government progressively avoid the favouring of a religious disposition and the use of religious icons. For example, during the December/January time frame my city stopped using religious icons as decoration and started using non-religious decorations such as snow flakes. “Merry Christmas” was changed to “Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah” to plain “Happy Holidays.” In October the use of Halloween decorations were ceased and instead other season. A wider spread change that has occurred over time is the removal of the ten commandments displays from government properties. School is just one of the places from which government has withdrawn from promoting a religion. This isn’t to say the use of religious icons has been completely purged; I think many court houses use a bible to swear some one in unless they choose to be sworn under a secular oath.

If the area in which you live is fairly homogenous (not very culturally and religiously diverse) then changes like the above that are made may seem like an infringement on things being done the “right” way or the traditional way. A better understanding of the other factors involved might be achieved if you can interact with people that are not of similar cultural and religious backgrounds.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**If that is to happen some one will have to demonstrate that it was a bad decision. I don’t see it as being a bad decision. The nation has a bad history of being unkind to people that are not members of the in-group so I’m not opposed to changes that reduce the imposing of cultural and religious customs of the majority on the minorities. From what I can tell the nation is presently more diverse both religiously and culturally than it was 60-70 years ago. But that’s another topic. but don’t want to derail the conversation by further elaborating on that. **

I wonder why it is that its so very anti-American for the majority to impose their customs on the minority, but so very very Constitutional for the minority to impose their censure of those same customs on the majority.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wonder why it is that its so very anti-American for the majority to impose their customs on the minority, but so very very Constitutional for the minority to impose their censure of those same customs on the majority.

I’ve not taken notice to any assertions that a set of actions is American or Anti-American. So for now I’ll just accept that as commentary.

 

[exnihilo]

This amendment like the whole constitution means whatever the government decides it means at the time. Modern interpretations are completely inconsistent with historical facts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This meant that the federal government could not have a state church. This clause makes sense because many, maybe most, of the states had state religions at the time the constitution was signed. So under the current US federal government there were state churches. These were as far as I know all Episcopal. When people say the founders did not want a state religion they are not being accurate. The states did have state religions, religious tests and more. When the US is understood as a confederacy the lack of a national church makes sense.

The notion that this meant the state could not ‘promote’ a religion is modern. The idea is pretty silly. It leads to crazy things like prohibiting what the government determines are religious symbols. Of course the symbols in question are always only the cross and things related to Christianity. All sorts of things are religious symbols. The US government has lots of pagan imagery and this is apparently no problem. The Statue of Liberty is a pagan goddess but they seem unconcerned about that. Images of the goddess of justice abound. The Washington monument is an Egyptian pagan symbol. In fact Washington DC’s government architecture is overwhelmingly pagan. They’ll take down crosses but not these pagan symbols.

Probably the worst and most bizarre pagan religious symbol is the US Capital building’s pagan painting of the apotheosis of George Washington. He is shown being deified and surrounded by pagan gods.




Full size

… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is where the modern made up understanding of the amendment gets into real problems. Courts have ruled that a private citizen speaking before a government meeting can not offer a prayer mentioning Jesus Christ. The courts said you could pray and pray to a god but you cant use that particular phrase. That is obviously quite clearly the government telling you how you can pray. This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. That people, including many Christians, so willingly accept the idea that the government can tell you how to pray indicates how terribly illogical Americans are or how much they hate Christianity.

 

[rossum]

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

SCENE: Lunch Time in the dining hall at Smalltown High School. Johnny Everyman, Quarterback of the school Football team rises to pray before the meal:

JOHNNY EVERYMAN: (prays loudly)
Mighty Thor! God of Thunder! Smiter of enemies!
We thank you, Mighty Thor, and we thank the kitchen staff,
for this food that is set before us.
We will eat this food so we may become strong
and mighty, like you Mighty Thor.
So we will be better able to smite our enemies,
Just like you Mighty Thor.
We thank you for this meal before us,
Mighty Thor! God of Thunder! Smiter of enemies!

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.

Indeed. A lack of reverence for L. Ron Hubbard is crippling education in America.

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

Quite right. Everyone laughs at Jehova’s Witnesses and Mormons going from door to door. And as for those Moslems, everyone disrespects both them and their God. Time everyone got down to their local Synagogue every Saturday.

rossum

 

[exnihilo]

Students are allowed to pray in school. It’s not compulsory though.

Schools are compulsory in their very nature. I’ve never understood why the government can force you to listen to their nonsense only if it is not religious in nature. If forcing belief upon children is bad then it is bad in all subject matters. Of course the government schools by their very nature were always about destroying society and reshaping it with government as the all knowing, good, sustaining god. So prayer was not going to last long in their schools. It would not have been possible to eliminate it at the very beginning as the people would have resisted.

The government has said that compulsory belief is now just listening to a prayer. If we apply that to there sex ed classes we’d have to conclude the government is forcing children to believe whatever they are teaching. Thanks to a century of government school the American people are too dimwitted to connect the dots.

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.

It is sad that Christian parents get upset when their kids cant pledge their allegiance to the government. Do they not know that same government they are so eager to pledge allegiance to has thrown Christ out of the school?

Notice that with the pledge you can still have public recitations of it and it can even be led by school officials. When it comes to prayer not having to participate is not enough. You cant even subject students to hearing a prayer. But you can always subject them to the words of allegiance to the state.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is sad that Christian parents get upset when their kids cant pledge their allegiance to the government. Do they not know that same government they are so eager to pledge allegiance to has thrown Christ out of the school?

The person to which I was referring was actually of a Christian denomination. It was one of the denominations that sees the government “of this world” as being corrupt and thus avoids participating in it. In staying true to his religion he also doens’t celebrate Christmas because of the mixture of pagan icons and customs. I think he does celebrate the resurrection of Christ, but does not call it “Easter” since that is also a reference to another deity.

 

[followingtheway]

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?

It doesn’t. That’s the point. That’s what all those Anti-Theists/Anti-Religious people fail to realize.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

**JOHNNY EVERYMAN: (prays loudly)

Mighty Thor! God of Thunder! Smiter of enemies!
We thank you, Mighty Thor, and we thank the kitchen staff,
for this food that is set before us.
We will eat this food so we may become strong
and mighty, like you Mighty Thor.
So we will be better able to smite our enemies,
Just like you Mighty Thor.
We thank you for this meal before us,
Mighty Thor! God of Thunder! Smiter of enemies!**

Since when has Johnny become every man?

My guess is Johnny is all by his lonesome.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

SCENE: Lunch Time in the dining hall at Smalltown High School. Johnny Everyman, Quarterback of the school Football team rises to pray before the meal:

JOHNNY EVERYMAN: (prays loudly)
Mighty Thor! God of Thunder! Smiter of enemies!..

Ha! As I read this I imagine a variant of it that could be acted out by a flash mob!

On a serious note, I tracked down the associate of mine that I had mentioned in a previous message that had refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and asked him of the idea of praying aloud in the classroom with people of other faiths. He told me that his denomination would be against reciting a prayer because for the people of his faith prayer must come from the heart and isn’t something that is recited. He also told me that a group pray with those of other faiths isn’t acceptable unless they are all praying to the same god (Yahweh). I’m curious as to what one of my Hindu or Muslim associates would say on this. I might ask them the next time religion comes up in conversation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**He also told me that a group pray with those of other faiths isn’t acceptable unless they are all praying to the same god (Yahweh). **

Very tolerant of him, no?

I wonder why atheists and Jews in the Senate and the House do not raise the same objection when the Chaplain leads them in prayer…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Very tolerant of him, no?

For him it seems to be a scenario similar to what rossum pointed out with the football game that was opened with a prayer to several other gods or a Christian refusing to enter and follow the customs at a Hindu temple (thinking about an experience a previous Hindu roommate of mine had). Though his denomination/religion isn’t the only one I’ve encountered that has any restrictions on who they play with.

I wonder why atheists and Jews in the Senate and the House do not raise the same objection when the Chaplain leads them in prayer…

I suppose a surface level explanation is that neither of those two live by an interpretation of a doctrine that prohibits them from doing so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**I suppose a surface level explanation is that neither of those two live by an interpretation of a doctrine that prohibits them from doing so. **

Not sure what that means.

I’m inclined to think they are just respectful of the need of others to invoke God’s blessing on the government of the land.

 

[Wardog]

You should read up on Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island. He was a very devout Christian minister, so devout that he actually took the Bible seriously and tried to get the Massachusetts colonists to treat the Indians as the Christian religion demanded. He got booted out of Salem, along with my ancestor, and went to Rhode Island. His general theme was, no government has the right to tell me how to worship. And if he was in charge, then he had no right to tell anyone else how to worship. This was one of the drivers behind the first amendment.
Be careful of what you ask for, because you may get it. And may be subject to prayers that offend you for various reasons. Prayer never left the schools. I am sure that before every test there was at least one student praying to God to get a good grade. What I would not want is a teacher leading my children in a prayer contrary to my beliefs.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He was a very devout Christian minister, so devout that he actually took the Bible seriously and tried to get the Massachusetts colonists to treat the Indians as the Christian religion demanded…His general theme was, no government has the right to tell me how to worship. And if he was in charge, then he had no right to tell anyone else how to worship. This was one of the drivers behind the first amendment.

From this description I have to say he sounds like a person that I think would have been able to create more peaceful, healthy, and balanced relationships with the natives. I’ve been going through some documentaries of colonial America and the early USA and have to say that the “convert or we will kill you” methods that some used for of the conversions to be atrocious. I find it difficult to view religious ideas inherited from parents that adopted them under such circumstances as being dubious.

I’ll have to read up on Mr. Williams.