Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Psychic Missile]

Are you really this dense? The primary purpose of the free speech clause is to -- wait for it -- protect all free speech. Those who espouse a minority opinion do not have a greater claim to legal protection than those who espouse a majority opinion.

Under what situation is majority opinion threatened?

[Roy]

You probably did not notice that I specifically mentioned England as an example of a State Christian church.

I definitely did notice it, as demonstrated by my referencing of contemporary English laws in my response. You just don't like the answer.

A state church does not stop other religions from worshiping, an oppressive government such as Saudi Arabia does.

An oppressive government without a state church obviously would not necessarily stop other religions from worshipping.

There is no need for a minority church to be eliminated when you have a state religion.

There is definitely no need when there isn't a state religion.

State churches often stop other religions or religious minorities from worshiping as they see fit, usually by getting the monarch/government to pass laws that outlaw other religious services. That you wish to deny this makes no difference.

[Roy]

It is impossible to have am honest discussion with someone who simply makes snide dishonest remarks, like you, JimL and Tass.

Certainly not by you.

I will refrain from attempting to have any honest discussion with you since based on the above it is obviously impossible.

[Mountain Man]

Under what situation is majority opinion threatened?

When those in power seek to suppress it.

[Sparko]

No Tassman, we can SEE what the founding fathers meant by actually looking at 200 years of history where they did NOT ban prayer from schools, or religion from politics. If they wanted to keep religion out of politics, then why didn't they? If that is what they meant by the first amendment then why didn't they DO IT? Because it is obvious that what todays SCOTUS claims they meant is NOT what they meant. We can see that by their actions.

[Sparko]

What I admitted to you idiot was that I first considered myself an agnostic because I couldn't say that I know with certainty one way or the other, but that, after discussing it here on tweb with the likes of you and your's, you changed my mind to a more atheistic perspective. Did you notice the part where I said there is little difference between the two terms?



Doubt it.

So basically CP is right then. You are lying on your postbit where you say you are an "agnostic" when you have admitted you are an atheist.

[Sparko]

No. Their statements and language are clear. Their intent was that the government not favour any one religion (or none) over another (or over none), which would include not permitting laws that force people (including schoolchildren) to attend particular church or religious services.

There will always be prayers in school as long as there are religious students who say grace and take exams. There will always be religion in school as long as there are religious views in society that students need to be taught about.* But neither of these require authority favouring a specific religion or group of religions.

I don't think this is in any way difficult to understand, or controversial, - except when those wishing to foist their own religious views on others deliberately misrepresent it.

*NB: taught about, not taught.

as I said to Tassman above, if they meant to keep prayer and religion out of Government then why didn't they? Strange how it took 200 years for us to figure out what they really meant and change everything we have been doing for the last 200 years.

[Roy]

That would be "yours", Jimmy - there's no such word as your's. Yours should never have an apostrophe.

You and your is listed in Dunkling's as an expression that takes a nominal group, for example you and your temper, or you and your ferrets. The phrase was common in the mid-twentieth century, having been used by authors such as Alan Sillitoe and Lillian Beckwith, but you and your's popularity has declined in recent years.

[Mountain Man]

No Tassman, we can SEE what the founding fathers meant by actually looking at 200 years of history where they did NOT ban prayer from schools, or religion from politics. If they wanted to keep religion out of politics, then why didn't they? If that is what they meant by the first amendment then why didn't they DO IT? Because it is obvious that what todays SCOTUS claims they meant is NOT what they meant. We can see that by their actions.

It's a fact that our Founding Fathers even used government resources to explicitly promote Christianity. In George Washington's speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs who had approached him with a request that their children be educated in an American school, he said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

https://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

[Sparko]

It's a fact that our Founding Fathers even used government resources to explicitly promote Christianity. In George Washington's speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs who had approached him with a request that their children be educated in an American school, he said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

https://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

It's just as bad as the modern liberal Christians trying to tell us what the bible really says about homosexuality and stuff like that despite 2000 years of the church interpreting it differently. As if the people who wrote and lived it had no idea what they really meant until these geniuses came along and told us the "Truth"

[Roy]

If students had to attend and listen then it was compulsory.

Nope, if you didn't have to join in it was not compulsory.

So attending school prayer was compulsory. Students were compelled to sit through religious services of a religion that did not necessarily belong to.

Jehovah Witnesses will not say the pledge, is it compulsory just because they hear it - silly.

It's compulsory if they are not allowed to excuse themselves from the ceremony.

You bet wrong, I was there.

Of course you were. Attendance was compulsory. You weren't permitted not to be there.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about a school initiating a morning prayer, or having the Ten Commandments on site - not a congress making a law mandating these things.

I'm talking about congresses passing laws that allow or compel schools to initiate morning prayers. I'm talking about state-sanctioned or mandatory prayer by students in public schools. In short, I'm talking about 'school prayer'.

[Sparko]

So attending school prayer was compulsory. Students were compelled to sit through religious services of a religion that did not necessarily belong to. It's compulsory if they are not allowed to excuse themselves from the ceremony. Of course you were. Attendance was compulsory. You weren't permitted not to be there. I'm talking about congresses passing laws that allow or compel schools to initiate morning prayers. I'm talking about state-sanctioned or mandatory prayer by students in public schools. In short, I'm talking about 'school prayer'.

When I was growing up, they basically started the day with class saying the Pledge of Allegiance and a simple prayer. We also said a simple prayer before lunch "God is great and God is good, And we thank you for our food, amen." - anyone who did not want to participate just didn't say the prayer. Nobody even noticed.

It was never anything specifically Christian or Theological in nature. This was back in the 60's and 70's before the whole controversy.

[Roy]

No Tassman, we can SEE what the founding fathers meant by actually looking at 200 years of history where they did NOT ban prayer from schools, or religion from politics.

No, we can't - because the first amendment didn't apply to state laws governing schools until long after the founding fathers were dead.

[Roy]

It's a fact that our Founding Fathers even used government resources to explicitly promote Christianity. In George Washington's speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs who had approached him with a request that their children be educated in an American school, he said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

MM knows what the 1st amendment meant because no politician would ever be dishonest, untruthful or inconsistent

[Sparko]

No, we can't - because the first amendment didn't apply to state laws governing schools until long after the founding fathers were dead.

They didn't stop it in Washington DC.

We can see how congress had chaplains and had prayer right in the capitol -- and STILL DOES. Why is it OK for Congress to have chaplains and prayers but not schools? Why didn't they keep religion out of the capitol if they wanted to separate church and state? Why didn't they admonish the schools that they need to keep prayer out because they need to keep religion out of government? Why did they put the 10 commandments IN THE SUPREME Court where it still is today? Everything they did shows that they had no problem with religion in government. There was no separation of church and state. The only thing they were worried about is an official state church and congress interfering with someone practicing their religion. Which is exactly what they are doing today. Interfering.