s****hawk <s****hawk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of
Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
>> [excerpt]
>>
>> Thursday, May 01 2008 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
04:39 PM EDT
>> Edited by: Michael Hess
>>
>> The American Way
>>
>> BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing
it
>> again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put
to
>> rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
>> Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
>> Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>>
>
>No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
>Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
>Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
>law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
>no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
>in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself.
Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
itself. If the opening of Congress in such a way were spontaneous,
your point might be valid. But Congress operates by rules and its
rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
>Free men are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
But the Congressmen aren't praying. Someone else leads the prayer.
And they would not be allowed to do so without Congressional
authorization.
>The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
>of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
>congressmen too. If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray at
>their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them. They
>have the constitutional right.
If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. But in
the halls of Congress, they are assembling as part of the government.
>Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
>people to pray.
Very few people give a damn whether someone else prays, as long as
they don't have to listen.
>Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same God that
Congressmen are praying to.
What God are Congressmen praying to?
>They are the people who twist the language of the First
>Amendment prohibiting Congress from interfering with religion into a
>prohibition against religion.
No. But officially practicing religion is interfering with religion
>Some sitting Judges are good at this;
>they hold that while Congress cannot prohibit prayer, the courts
>certainly can--and, ironically, they cite the First Amendment.
The courts cannot and do not prohibit prayer. They generally prohibit
the government (and those acting with the authority of government are
"the government") leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
>The result: one insignificant troublemaker can ask any U.S. court to
>stop entire communities from exercising their Constitutional right to
>practice their religion
Communities have no religion. Individuals do.
>in their tax-paid public places like schools and meeting halls.
Actually not.
>And we have meddlesome people like the author
>Naman Crowe objecting to members of the Congress of the United States
>taking a few minutes to recite a short prayer
The members aren't doing so.
>We should set aside a day of prayer
No "we" shouldn't. YOU and I can do whatever we want. But the moment
you make it "we" then the government authority may not be part of the
"we".
>for those
>confused people who can't understand the plain language of the First
>Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Like you.
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
