On May 8, 7:42=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
> itself. =A0
Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
PROHIBIT 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. =A0But Congress operates by rules and its
> rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
Congressional rules are not public laws applicable to the people.
Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
unconstitutional. And if the majority under the rules of Congress
agree to open the session with a prayer, no United States entity has
the authority to prohibit it.
>
> >Free men are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>
> But the Congressmen aren't praying. =A0Someone else leads the prayer.
> And they would not be allowed to do so without Congressional
> authorization.
That is an issue of public order, not religion. But as long as
Congress, as a body, grants authorization for Congress, as a body. to
engage in a religious act, no one has the legal right to stop it.
>
> >The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
> >of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
> >congressmen too. =A0If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray
at
> >their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them.
=A0They
> >have the constitutional right.
>
> If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. =A0But in
> the halls of Congress, they are assembling as part of the government.
They are assembling as free men representing other free citizens.
They have the right to engage in religious acts as long as they abide
by those rules of order agreed to under the governing rules of
Congress. There can be no law which prohibits such conduct under the
plain language of the Constitution.
>
> >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.
The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
>
> >Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same God that
Congre=
ssmen 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. =A0But officially practicing religion is interfering with religion
Not by any stretch of logic or common sense.
>
> >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. =A0They generally prohibit
> the government (and those acting with the authority of government are
> "the government") leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
On what theory? There are no laws prohibiting government officials
from leading, instigating, or promoting prayer. There can't be. Such
a law would be unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.
>
> >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. =A0Individuals do. =A0
Communities are made up of individuals. And if the individuals making
up the community want to assemble to pray, and want their community
leaders to lead their children in prayer, that's their constitutional
right to the free exercise of religion.
>
> >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.
Sure they are. It's the members who invite the religious cleric to
voice the prayer. Any member who doesn't want to join in can read a
book or something. No member is required to join in; but then no
member has the right to object to the orderly actions of the
majority.
>
> >We should set aside a day of prayer
>
> No "we" shouldn't. YOU and I can do whatever we want. =A0But 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
> loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=A0 Lojban languagewww.lojban.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
