s****hawk <s****hawk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 8, 7:42 am, 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.
>
>Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
>PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>itself.
Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
Senate floor (or for that matter into George Bush's bedroom in the
White House) and singing hymns at any time of the day or night.
Your interpretation of the clause is thus shown to be ridiculous.
>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 ...
>
> Congressional rules are not public laws applicable to the people.
The Constitution doesn't forbid "public laws". It forbids "law".
>Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
>spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
>unconstitutional
But there are, since the pastafarian cannot go into the halls of
Congress singing hymns.
>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.
"rules of Congress" = "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.
>
>That is an issue of public order, not religion. But as long as
>Congress, as a body, grants authorization
Congress has no power to grant such 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.
>
>They are assembling as free men representing other free citizens.
They are assembling as part of the Government in accordance with the
Constitution.
>They have the right to engage in religious acts
as individuals yes. As a governmental body, no.
>as long as they abide
>by those rules of order agreed to under the governing rules of
>Congress.
Those rules cannot include any religious tests. If they allow one
religious expression, then they must allow all, without constraint.
>> >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.
But it does. I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
offer my own prayer at equal volume. The government cannot forbid me
from offering my own prayer at equal volume or it is engaging in the
regulation of free religious expression as well as applying a
religious test.
>> >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
>
>Not by any stretch of logic or common sense.
The courts disagree with you. So does history.
>> >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.
>
>On what theory? There are no laws prohibiting government officials
>from leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
There are no laws permitting it either. On the job, they are part of
the government, and their official actions are restricted to what is
formally authorized.
>> >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.
>
>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.
As long as they do so as individuals, fine. The moment that the word
"government" becomes involved, then they are not acting as private
citizens, but as the State (there are no "community" governments per
se, except as established by the states).
>> >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.
No, it is not "the members". It is "the Congress" as a body.
>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.
Of course they do. Would you deny them their free religious
expression right to outshout everyone else's free religious
expression?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
