State religion

[ngill09]

I don’t think it is constitutionally protected by my reading of the Constitution. For teachers or school administration to approve of or even provide a Christmas tree, a menorah, a Thanksgiving celebration, a manger scene, does not in my mind constitute the establishment of a particular religion. Catholicism, Methodism, an Islamic sect, etc. would be particular religions, ** Christianity is a philosophy**, a generalized set of concepts, not a religion.

That’s hilarious.

 

[ngill09]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was the litigant who appealed to the Supreme Court to declare school prayer unconstitutional. She was, of course, an atheist. I’ll ask the question I raised earlier in this thread and that no atheist has bothered to answer yet.

How is it constitutional for Congress to have a chaplain who conducts prayers in the halls of Congress, but unconstitutional to allow prayers in the classroom?

To me, the problem of school-endorsed religion is that it causes you to have your children (as a captive audience) indoctrinated by religious pronouncements of strangers. Congressmen are somewhat more mature and less impressionable than children. Plus, each house of Congress gets to choose its own officers.

However, according to James Madison
James Madison:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

** In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
**
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

~Detached Memoranda

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t think it is constitutionally protected by my reading of the Constitution.

You’ll need to both read the constitution and how it’s been applied.

For teachers or school administration to approve

See #154 keyword “authority.”

Catholicism, Methodism, an Islamic sect, etc. would be particular religions, Christianity is a philosophy, a generalized set of concepts, not a religion.

Ah, Bill O’Reilly’s argument. The Supreme Court does have a definition that it uses for religion and the history of the evolution of that definition is something that I’ve found pretty interesting. Under the current definition “Christianity” is a religion. Perhaps the claim that it’s not a religion can be revisited if the legal definition/criteria change.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was the litigant who appealed to the Supreme Court to declare school prayer unconstitutional.

School sponsored/enforced prayer had been found to be unconstitutional a year before in Engel v. Vitale (1962). As such court cases go the ruling on the case becomes law that affects future cases. This case was brought up by multiple families with religious beliefs with the support of some Jewish organizations.

**Murray v. Curlett **(1963) was consolidated with Abington School District v. Schempp(1963). What the Supreme court reviewed wasn’t just an atheist v religious issue, but also an issue among people of different religions (side note, I thought this was kind of funny, but Ellroy Schempp was sent to the principal for reading from the Qu’ran instead of the bible)

 

[JamesCaruso]

That’s hilarious.

I would think that a state established religion, as referred to in the First Amendment, means a religion that you must join. Where does one join the Christian religion? I can join the Catholic religion. I can join the Baptist religion. Where is this Christian religion located? What are its tenets? A religion has a set of tenets that must be adhered to in order to be a member. Some Christians believe Christ was divine. Some Christians believe he was only a good man. Some adhere to general principles like “Do unto others” or “Love thy neighbor” and call themselves Christians. It is not a religion. At best, it’s a philosophy that contains a whole plethora of beliefs, some of them contrary to one another. You know as well as I know that the First Amendment was to ensure that the government did not impose a particular religion as was the case in England. England did not establish Christianity, for there is no Christian religion per se, it established the Anglican religion. Funny you did not know that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

To me, the problem of school-endorsed religion is that it causes you to have your children (as a captive audience) indoctrinated by religious pronouncements of strangers. Congressmen are somewhat more mature and less impressionable than children. Plus, each house of Congress gets to choose its own officers.

School children are no more captive than congressman since they are not obliged to pray, nor are congressmen.

You quote this from Madison:

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

But look here:

chaplain.house.gov/

A Catholic clergyman’s (Jesuit’s) prayer is referenced.Scroll down and see that Jewish and Muslim religious events are also scheduled for members of Congress, answering Madison’s objection.

In fact, what you have is a distinct minority of American atheists (would Madison have objected?) telling the majority of Catholic, Muslims, Jewish, Protestant and every other religious group that their children mustn’t be allowed to pray in school because that would be establishing religion. It does no such thing. It only allows religions that have already been established the free exercise of praying in public. It does nothing to require that the State provide funds for the establishment of a State Church, such as was the practice in England and elsewhere in Europe.

And here is the website for the current chaplain … a Catholic Jesuit.

chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/chaplain_brochure.pdf

“I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing
Proofs I see of this Truth: that God governs in the Affairs of Men… I therefore beg
leave to move, that henceforth Prayers, imploring the Assistance of Heaven, and its Blessing on our Deliberations, be held in this Assembly every Morning before we
proceed to Business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to
officiate in that Service.” Benjamin Franklin
|
June 28, 1787
From a speech to the Constitutional Convention

 

[ngill09]

In fact, what you have is a distinct minority of American atheists (would Madison have objected?) telling the majority of Catholic, Muslims, Jewish, Protestant and every other religious group that their children mustn’t be allowed to pray in school because that would be establishing religion. It does no such thing. It only allows religions that have already been established the free exercise of praying in public. It does nothing to require that the State provide funds for the establishment of a State Church, such as was the practice in England and elsewhere in Europe.

Why do you insist on lying about what the issue is? Children are allowed to pray in schools.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

**Why do you insist on lying about what the issue is? Children are allowed to pray in schools. **

Cite your source.

Have you never heard of Madalyn Murray O’Hair? Have you never heard of the Supreme Court decision resulting from her lawsuit?

from Wikipedia

“After consolidation with Abington School District v. Schempp, the lawsuit reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1963. The Court voted 8–1 in Schempp’s favor, which effectively banned mandatory Bible verse recitation at public schools in the United States. Prayer in schools other than Bible-readings had already been ended in 1962 by the Court’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale.”

So precisely who is lying to whom?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I would think that a state established religion, as referred to in the First Amendment, means a religion that you must join. Where does one join the Christian religion? I can join the Catholic religion. I can join the Baptist religion. Where is this Christian religion located? What are its tenets? A religion has a set of tenets that must be adhered to in order to be a member. Some Christians believe Christ was divine. Some Christians believe he was only a good man. Some adhere to general principles like “Do unto others” or “Love thy neighbor” and call themselves Christians. It is not a religion. At best, it’s a philosophy that contains a whole plethora of beliefs, some of them contrary to one another. You know as well as I know that the First Amendment was to ensure that the government did not impose a particular religion as was the case in England. England did not establish Christianity, for there is no Christian religion per se, it established the Anglican religion. Funny you did not know that.

I have a few mega churches around me that are just “Christian”. I’m sure they’d love to have you.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

ngill

**Why do you insist on lying about what the issue is? Children are allowed to pray in schools. **

Cite your source.

Have you never heard of Madalyn Murray O’Hair? Have you never heard of the Supreme Court decision resulting from her lawsuit?

from Wikipedia

“After consolidation with Abington School District v. Schempp, the lawsuit reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1963. The Court voted 8–1 in Schempp’s favor, which effectively banned mandatory Bible verse recitation at public schools in the United States. Prayer in schools other than Bible-readings had already been ended in 1962 by the Court’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale.”

So precisely who is lying to whom?

The key word here is mandatory.

As the old saw goes, as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

**Why do you insist on lying about what the issue is? Children are allowed to pray in schools. **

Cite your source.

Have you never heard of Madalyn Murray O’Hair? Have you never heard of the Supreme Court decision resulting from her lawsuit?

from Wikipedia

“After consolidation with Abington School District v. Schempp, the lawsuit reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1963. The Court voted 8–1 in Schempp’s favor, which effectively banned mandatory Bible verse recitation at public schools in the United States. Prayer in schools other than Bible-readings had already been ended in 1962 by the Court’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale.”

So precisely who is lying to whom?

Did you even read the quote you provided?

I don’t understand how you don’t know the difference between allowing prayer and forcing people to pray. I must conclude that you are lying. You complain about children “not being allowed to pray in schools”, but they are allowed to pray in schools. What, then, is your objective? Probably to try to get federal funding for Christian Evangelism. Because you complain about the banning of “Mandatory Bible verse recitation at public schools”, I must conclude that youu want to reinstate mandatory bible verse recitation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill
**
I don’t understand how you don’t know the difference between allowing prayer and forcing people to pray. I must conclude that you are lying. **

This is the second time you have called me a liar. Normally I don’t dignify such remarks with an answer. If you call me a liar once more you will be reported to the management.

I have documented the first two accusations of being a liar. Please grow up real fast.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay “On Atheism”).

 

[ngill09]

ngill
**
I don’t understand how you don’t know the difference between allowing prayer and forcing people to pray. I must conclude that you are lying. **

This is the second time you have called me a liar. Normally I don’t dignify such remarks with an answer. If you call me a liar once more you will be reported to the management.

I have documented the first two accusations of being a liar. Please grow up real fast.

If you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t lie. It’s as simple as that. It’s astounding to me that you think it’s appropriate to lie to people and then act offended when someone calls you out on it.

Do you acknowledge the profound difference between not forcing everyone to pray and allowing someone to pray?

 

[antunesaa]

Where I live if you said “Let us pray to God” you might get the response “Which one?” (Hindu’s and Neo Pagans)

People should not be obsessed into fulfilling every expectation of every people that ever attended a public meeting. And if you belong to the minority, you should be humble enough not to force others to act according to each and all of your wishes. There is a balance that has to be struck somewhere; otherwise the world can become submerged in a sea of political correctness unbearable to all. Say you’re in Teheran and don’t like the sounds coming from the minarets for prayer; why should the 80% or so of people who appreciate that bow to your self-centered wish to abolish that minor nuisance? Likewise, why should you accept those same minarets calling for prayer in, say, Munich, if 80% of people don’t want them? As long as you, as a minority member, can reasonably expect to be treated fairly, there’s no need to go nuts about these issues.
In Italy there was an attempt to abolish crucifixes from public schools by some secular apostles. Luckily the law was struck down at the European Union level because it was found that a crucifix does not violate the rights of atheists, especially since most of the users of the Italian public schools preferred to have the crucifix there. A sensible decision, in my opinion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

People should not be obsessed into fulfilling every expectation of every people that ever attended a public meeting. And if you belong to the minority, you should be humble enough not to force others to act according to each and all of your wishes.

I think there was a motivation for achieving that balance when pray in school was voluntary instead of compulsorily. In most (but not all) of the cases that I’ve looked at so far one of the reoccurring themes was that they were initiated after some one was being told to do something not aligned with their religion and punished or singled out for not conforming.

In Italy there was an attempt to abolish crucifixes from public schools by some secular apostles. Luckily the law was struck down at the European Union level because it was found that a crucifix does not violate the rights of atheists, especially since most of the users of the Italian public schools preferred to have the crucifix there. A sensible decision, in my opinion.

I agree with you there. In the USA the closest thing that I’ve seen to that is employers who do not want employees to were items that may have been inspired from their religion (crucifix, various head coverings, so on). In the USA religious expression in the workplace is protected by "** Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964** and it seems that attempts to restrict it are rare.

 

[antunesaa]

But all of that is quite beside my point. Parents ought to be empowered to choose whether they want to send their children to schools that are God-centered or schools that are God-less. Why should the federal government make that decision for all families?

I completely agree with you. Agnostic parents pay taxes like everyone else. Catholic parents pay taxes like everyone else. Protestant parents pay taxes like everyone else. Jewish parents pay taxes like everyone else. Why should Catholic, Protestant or Jewish parents have to disproportionately finance agnostic schools (which is what state schools are) through their taxes when they would like to have more affordable Catholic, Protestant, Jewish of even agnostic schools? A way should be found to allow more freedom in the choice of the type of education we give our children.
Anyways, I don’t think this whole issue is decisive in the education of our kids. The main driver of their education are their parents, if they have time for them.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

People should not be obsessed into fulfilling every expectation of every people that ever attended a public meeting. And if you belong to the minority, you should be humble enough not to force others to act according to each and all of your wishes. There is a balance that has to be struck somewhere; otherwise the world can become submerged in a sea of political correctness unbearable to all. Say you’re in Teheran and don’t like the sounds coming from the minarets for prayer; why should the 80% or so of people who appreciate that bow to your self-centered wish to abolish that minor nuisance? Likewise, why should you accept those same minarets calling for prayer in, say, Munich, if 80% of people don’t want them? As long as you, as a minority member, can reasonably expect to be treated fairly, there’s no need to go nuts about these issues.
In Italy there was an attempt to abolish crucifixes from public schools by some secular apostles. Luckily the law was struck down at the European Union level because it was found that a crucifix does not violate the rights of atheists, especially since most of the users of the Italian public schools preferred to have the crucifix there. A sensible decision, in my opinion.

I said it before may have slipped by but I look at it as manners. I don’t want to make other people uncomfortable or excluded. If I had invited them to my Parrish there would be the understanding that it is a religious service so I would expect them to respect it. In school a prayer to my understanding of God doesn’t have any bearing on the math they are learning. To insert it in a non parochial school seems like I am forcing the issue to include it rather than they trying to exclude it. I think it part of my charity to respect their wishes as well.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I have a few mega churches around me that are just “Christian”. I’m sure they’d love to have you.

They have no tenets? Even the Boy Scouts have tenets, for example, they do not allow atheists or agnostics. And they are not even a religion! What do you need to do to join one of your mega churches? Be a nice guy? I guess some things can go by the name of religion even if they’re not.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

They have no tenets? Even the Boy Scouts have tenets, for example, they do not allow atheists or agnostics. And they are not even a religion! What do you need to do to join one of your mega churches? Be a nice guy? I guess some things can go by the name of religion even if they’re not.

Usually something along the lines of “accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.”

Here is a statement of faith by one - covlife.org/about/beliefs

 

[ngill09]

I would think that a state established religion, as referred to in the First Amendment, means a religion that you must join. Where does one join the Christian religion? I can join the Catholic religion. I can join the Baptist religion. Where is this Christian religion located? What are its tenets? A religion has a set of tenets that must be adhered to in order to be a member. Some Christians believe Christ was divine. Some Christians believe he was only a good man. Some adhere to general principles like “Do unto others” or “Love thy neighbor” and call themselves Christians. It is not a religion. At best, it’s a philosophy that contains a whole plethora of beliefs, some of them contrary to one another. You know as well as I know that the First Amendment was to ensure that the government did not impose a particular religion as was the case in England. England did not establish Christianity, for there is no Christian religion per se, it established the Anglican religion. Funny you did not know that.

I think you’re confusing “religion” with “church”.