Why I Voted For Trump...

[JimL]

Read the whole sentence JimL, pay atttention to what i bolded.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

JimL, you are wrong. Allowing voluntary prayer in school(no matter who leads it,) the Public display monuments in public etc. IS NOT Establishing any religion as the state religion. However, not allowing it does infringe upon a persons free exercise of said religion.

Like I said to CP, voluntary prayer is not banned. You can pray wherever you want, but being forced to pray in class is not voluntary.

[Cow Poke]

Like I said to CP, voluntary prayer is not banned.

CP already knew that.

You can pray wherever you want, but being forced to pray in class is not voluntary.

If a student is banned from saying a prayer or referencing God during a high school commencement speech, that's a violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

[Tassman]

Tass there is no dispute - the text is PERFECTLY clear - even you can understand it - CONGRESS shall make NO LAW. And again - tell me what exactly did Jefferson mean? You seem to know.

There is obviously a “dispute”, which is why the Supreme Court has had to rule on it…many times…notably in Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory...199329175-e-29

[seer]

There is obviously a “dispute”, which is why the Supreme Court has had to rule on it…many times…notably in Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory...199329175-e-29

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another


So how is voluntary teacher led prayer a law? And you quoted Hugo Black, I asked what did Jefferson mean in the context of the letter he wrote?

But let's quote an earlier Supreme Court Justice from your link:

The most complete example of this view is found in Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s 1833 treatise on constitutional law:

The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity: but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.30

For Story and others, the government could advance Christianity generally to the exclusion of other religions. “It is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects,” Story declared.31

[seer]

That's correct, because the law is already implied in the clause. They don't have to make a law against christian led prayer in public schools when the fact that christian led prayer in public schools would be the government sponsering a religion.

No Jim, that is completely false. That idea is not in the Amendment - this is NOT Congress passing a LAW. And you can't just wish it was so.

[JimL]

CP already knew that.

Good for you. Many here don't seem to understand the difference between voluntary prayer and school sponsered and led prayer.

If a student is banned from saying a prayer or referencing God during a high school commencement speech, that's a violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

And that of course is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the students being led in school prayer, not their referencing god in a speech.

[JimL]

No Jim, that is completely false. That idea is not in the Amendment - this is NOT Congress passing a LAW. And you can't just wish it was so.

If Congress is forbid to pass a law respecting the establishment of religion, then the government, obviously, can not sponser a religion which is what it would be doing if it allowed a specific religions prayers be led in public schools, or specific religions monuments etc, being displayed in public buildings. That would be respecting the establishment of a religion. So, they don't need to pass a law, the law is implied in the clause.

[seer]

If Congress is forbid to pass a law respecting the establishment of religion, then the government, obviously, can not sponser a religion which is what it would be doing if it allowed a specific religions prayers be led in public schools, or specific religions monuments etc, being displayed in public buildings. That would be respecting the establishment of a religion. So, they don't need to pass a law, the law is implied in the clause.

No Jim, it is not obvious, nor has it ever been. The very men you are speaking of who wrote the clause specifically supported the Christian religion. Had days of national thanksgiving referencing Christ - not one of these men would have had a problem with school prayer or religions monuments. After all they knew our very rights came from one source, and one source alone - GOD...

[JimL]

No Jim, it is not obvious, nor has it ever been. The very men you are speaking of who wrote the clause specifically supported the Christian religion. Had days of national thanksgiving referencing Christ - not one of these men would have had a problem with school prayer or religions monuments. After all they knew our very rights came from one source, and one source alone - GOD...

Well, have it your way seer, but the SCOTUS does, and has always, agreed with me and disagreed with you. So, what are ya gonna do?

[Cow Poke]

And that of course is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the students being led in school prayer, not their referencing god in a speech.

But your commie colleagues have gotten their panties in a twist about that, too.

[Tassman]

No Jim, it is not obvious, nor has it ever been. The very men you are speaking of who wrote the clause specifically supported the Christian religion. Had days of national thanksgiving referencing Christ - not one of these men would have had a problem with school prayer or religions monuments. After all they knew our very rights came from one source, and one source alone - GOD...

Not so. You are referencing the pre-Constitutional Continental Congress which was much more gung-ho with religion than were the writers of the Constitution itself. Re the latter, the text of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity.

Thomas Paine had no qualms about his radical Deism; calling the bible the “pretended word of God”. John Adams wrote that “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And the views of Thomas Jefferson are well known: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva…But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…. “

And this is just for starters.

[seer]

Not so. You are referencing the pre-Constitutional Continental Congress which was much more gung-ho with religion than were the writers of the Constitution itself. Re the latter, the text of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity.

Thomas Paine had no qualms about his radical Deism; calling the bible the “pretended word of God”. John Adams wrote that “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And the views of Thomas Jefferson are well known: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva…But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…. “

And this is just for starters.

Nonsense Tass, I never said this was a Christian nation, but I can demonstrate that Christianity had a profound influence - from John Locke on. And I did not only reference Continental Congress I referenced (from your link) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s 1833 treatise on constitutional law. Who was one of the greatest scholars of constitutional law in our history. There was no hint back then or going forward that something like school prayer violated the Constitution. That was a legal fiction made up in the 1960s.

As far as Jefferson, I wonder what God he referenced here:

Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address

I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow citizens have again called me, and shall proceed in the spirit of those principles which they have approved. I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice; but the weakness of human nature, and the limits of my own understanding, will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests. I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence I have heretofore experienced -- the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau2.asp

[JimL]

But your commie colleagues have gotten their panties in a twist about that, too.

Trump/Putin supprters shouldn't be calling others commies.

[Cow Poke]

Trump/Putin supprters shouldn't be calling others commies.

Perhaps you could share that with Trump/Putin supporters, comrade.

[Terraceth]

Not so. You are referencing the pre-Constitutional Continental Congress which was much more gung-ho with religion than were the writers of the Constitution itself. Re the latter, the text of the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity.

Thomas Paine had no qualms about his radical Deism; calling the bible the “pretended word of God”.

Thomas Paine had, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution of the United States.

John Adams wrote that “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Citation needed.

And the views of Thomas Jefferson are well known: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva…But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…. “

And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, Thomas Jefferson was off in France during the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Isn't it interesting that it's the least qualified of the "Founding Fathers" to weigh in on the Constitution that you keep citing over and over in order to try to show support for your constitutional interpretation?