Re: US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiance

On May 8, 3:01=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 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. =A0Congress 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. =A0Congress, just like all
> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
> >free exercise of religion.
>
> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government. =A0
>
> Congress has no Constitutional rights. =A0It has specific constitutional
> powers enumerated in the Constitution. =A0None of those powers includes
> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.

No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.  There is no such
prohibition in the Constitution.  The First Amendment states only that
Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
religious establishment--that's it.

>
> Individual Congressmen have Constitutional rights. =A0But the action of
> Congress as a body is an action of the government, not of individuals
> exercising their rights. =A0The actions of individuals while
> participating as part of that body is still an action of the
> government.
>
> >> 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,
>
> Congress has no power to grant authorization to one religion and not
> another. =A0That would violate the no religious tests clause, as well as
> not be an enumerated power of Congress.

Congress is not required to grant authorizations to all religions at
the same time, anymore than it must allow all members and witnesses to
speak at the same time.  And there is no "religious test clause" in
the Constitution.