On May 8, 11:03=A0am, jl <jls1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 8, 12:41=A0pm,s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > The Constitution clearly states that all powers not granted in the
> > Constitution to the federal government are specifically reserved to
> > the states or to the people. =A0The Constitution not only does not
grant=
> > any powers to the central government to regulate religion, it also
> > expressly denies any such power. =A0Any action by the federal
> > authorities, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, to interfere
> > with the free exercise of religion at any level is unconstitutional.
> > That's what the First Amendment says.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are contriving to give primary im****tance to the Free Exercise
> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
free exercise of religion.
>
> I don't know why Americans have put up with this bull****e for so
> long, because official public prayers in Congress are clearly
> unconstitutional.
>
> I am a pastafarian. =A0If Priests can waddle into Congress and pray,
> then so can my pastafarian ministers.
If Congress, as a body, grants authorization, your pastafarian
minister can sing a psalm to Congress. If not, then your pastafarian
minister can lead his congregation in prayer anywhere he likes as long
as he does not trespass or disturb the public order. That's his
constitutional right.
|
