Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Sparko]

You're telling me that they were compelled, but you will stretch the point to ridiculous extremes in order to avoid stating that outright, such as pretending that school prayer wasn't compulsory because homeschooling was an option. Furthermore, checking the background to some of the relevant court decisions shows that regardless of your own personal experience, many students definitely were compelled. Laws that compel students, like the previously cited statute from Alabama.

The ones picking nits here are the ones trying to claim that school prayer wasn't compulsory because the students didn't have to recite the prayer along with the teacher.

And as someone who went to 12 different schools in 4 states and 2 countries I am telling you my experience was not atypical. There was no compulsion. And as I said I was not a Christian during my time in school. I didn't become a Christian until I was near 40. I never felt compelled or forced in any way to participate in any religious ceremonies or prayers.

[seer]

Laws that compel students, like the previously cited statute from Alabama.

Except no one here agrees with a law compelling students to pray.

The ones picking nits here are the ones trying to claim that school prayer wasn't compulsory because the students didn't have to recite the prayer along with the teacher.

Except those of us who actually lived through it KNOW that no one was compelled to actually pray.

[rogue06]

Since when was having a monument of the 10 commandments necessary for Xtian worship? It is in no way a facility for religious observance. They don't even have them in churches.

You know this.

Are you agreeing then that there is no grounds for removing them?

[rogue06]

I'm fairly certain that if it were Allah being prayed to in school rooms, or if it were muslim religious monuments being placed in public buildings, you'd all be changing your tune. Wouldn't you?

There is a double standard currently at play. The trend lately has been to set aside rooms specifically to allow Muslims to use for prayer^[1] while forbidding Christians to pray in groups even outside if it is on school property.





1. Specifically the Dhuhr (noon prayer) which is part of the Salat (mandatory ritual prayers of Islam)

[Roy]

Since when was having a monument of the 10 commandments necessary for Xtian worship? It is in no way a facility for religious observance. They don't even have them in churches.

Are you agreeing then that there is no grounds for removing them?

I've reread my post three times now, and I still can't work out how you could draw that inference.

[One Bad Pig]

I've reread my post three times now, and I still can't work out how you could draw that inference.

If a monument of the 10 commandments is "in no way a facility for religious observance", then how can displaying it possibly be a violation of the separation of church and state?

[Jedidiah]

As long as the government wasn't making laws establishing Islam as a state religion or otherwise suppressing religious expression (for instance, by forbidding Christian monuments) then, no, I wouldn't change my tune.

However today it occasionally happens that muslim prayers are done in classrooms. Never Christian prayers.

[Jedidiah]

But you want them to be indoctrinated seer, you want them to be taught to be christian, or at least to be religious.

I can't speak for seer, but most of the pro Christian indoctrination I have heard about really sort of an inoculation against real Christianity. You can not force kids to trust Christ, you can only make them seem to be obedient to supposedly Christian behavior patterns. Works is never a source of true Christianity. Maybe you have heard that before and just forgot, eh?

[Jedidiah]

No, you're misunderstanding it.

A monument of the ten commandments is not a facility required for religious observance, so is not needed to satisfy the freedom of religion clause in the constitution.

A monument of the ten commandments outside a courthouse links the law of one particular religion to the laws of the US, which is one step closer to establishing that particular religion - so any statute proposing such a monument contravenes the establishment clause.

How does having a monument to the ten commandments constitute congress making a law?

[Jedidiah]

Yes, and that was written by Thomas Jefferson who at that time owned some 200 slaves. Our creator is not necessarily our god and many of the founders didn't approve of the language used at the time. But what they did agree on was that Government and religion were to be separate.

Not an accurate statement. They agreed that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not at all the same.

[Tassman]

What it comes down to is that regardless of what the original intent of the founders,

and regardless of how clear it is written, the activist courts have managed to make the violation of the Constitution legal in this declining age.

[Tassman]

How does having a monument to the ten commandments constitute congress making a law?

Allowing such symbols assumes that Christianity is the de facto established religion of the USA. Would you accept monuments depicting the key rules of Sharia Law outside US courthouses, why not?

[JimL]

Allowing such symbols assumes that Christianity is the de facto established religion of the USA. Would you accept monuments depicting the key rules of Sharia Law outside US courthouses, why not?

Oh, be careful Tass, you're going to make Jeds head explode trying to find an answer to that one in a way that he doesn't contradict himself.

[JimL]

Not an accurate statement. They agreed that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not at all the same.

What do you think the bolded above means Jed?

[Roy]

If a monument of the 10 commandments is "in no way a facility for religious observance", then how can displaying it possibly be a violation of the separation of church and state?

Because there are lots of ways to violate the separation of church and state that don't involve providing such facilities,* and erecting a government monument that validates a specific religion is one of them.

*and lots of ways of providing such facilities that don't violate the separation of church and state.