On May 8, 3:20=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >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.
>
> Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
> Senate floor =A0(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 your interpretation is valid, then it must also apply to freedom of
speech. Certainly you don't question the right to free speech. So
you must feel that you have a constitutional right to enter George
Bush's bedroom and start speaking. Right? Whose interpretation is
ridiculous?
>
> >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.
>
> The Constitution doesn't forbid "public laws". =A0It 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.
Sure they can--if Congress authorizes it. And no one would have any
grounds to object. Others might demand similar authorization at a
different and convenient time. But no religion has a constitutional
right to authorization, just as no individual has the right to object
to Congress allowing one citizen to speak before Congress but not
another.
>
> >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" =3D "law"
>
> >> >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. =A0But 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. =A0If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or
pray =
at
> >> >their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them.
=A0Th=
ey
> >> >have the constitutional right.
>
> >> If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. =A0But
i=
n
> >> 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. =A0As 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. =A0If they allow one
> religious expression, then they must allow all, without constraint.
The constitution contains no such constraints.
>
> >> >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. =A0I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
> offer my own prayer at equal volume. =A0The 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.
Utter and complete nonsense--the standard nonsense of the anarchists,
the disrupters of society. A constitutional right does not include
the right to interfere with another's exercise of a constitutional
right. The constitutional right to freedom of speech does not grant a
right to shout down another speaker, to harass the audience of the
speaker, to block the free flow of traffic, to crowd city streets, to
violate rules of order. In the same way, no individual or religious
group has the right to block any group from exercising their religious
freedom as a body or as an individual.
|
