Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Politicians use their websites to make personal rather than policy statements all the time. So he posted a press release on his website. Is that really worth picketing over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman
Even if the "Prayer and Fasting Event" were inclusive of other religions, it would still violate separation of church and state.
Politicians use their websites to make personal rather than policy statements all the time. So he posted a press release on his website. Is that really worth picketing over?
No it doesn't.
Here's a clue -- the Bill of Rights doesn't have a blanket prohibition on "personal rather than policy statements". But it does have a specific prohibition on that which respects the establishment of religion. Which Perry's insipid event certainly does.
Here's another clue -- just because something is done "all the time" hardly means that it isn't running afoul of this or that law. All sorts of unlawful actions happen "all the time" by elected officials here and there around this vast country. Your pathetic logic means we shouldn't care about such things.
And, yeah, Constitutional violations are worth picketing. Well, not to you, obviously... but to some people who actually care about Constitutional principles.
Here's a clue -- the Bill of Rights doesn't have a blanket prohibition on "personal rather than policy statements". But it does have a specific prohibition on that which respects the establishment of religion. Which Perry's insipid event certainly does.
Here's another clue -- just because something is done "all the time" hardly means that it isn't running afoul of this or that law. All sorts of unlawful actions happen "all the time" by elected officials here and there around this vast country. Your pathetic logic means we shouldn't care about such things.
And, yeah, Constitutional violations are worth picketing. Well, not to you, obviously... but to some people who actually care about Constitutional principles.
Here's the problem: there is no constitutional violation here.
The Governor, who represents the gov't of the state, is not supposed to take sides. He most certainly is doing so. It is a Consitutional violation, although the Gov doesn't care at all about the federal gov't unless he wants money from it. It is astounding that you don't see it.
The Governor, who represents the gov't of the state, is not supposed to take sides. He most certainly is doing so. It is a Consitutional violation, although the Gov doesn't care at all about the federal gov't unless he wants money from it. It is astounding that you don't see it.
The governor can take whatever side he wants as long as he doesn't commit government resources to the function or activity or whatever. And he can even do that if it serves a secular purpose.
If you think it's such an obvious violation of separation of church and state, show the supporting case law; I'd love to see it. Better yet, file a lawsuit. I promise it will get laughed out of court.
A governor is not "the state." The state is not involved because, well, the state is not involved. There are no state resources involved in this event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
The governor can take whatever side he wants as long as he doesn't commit government resources to the function or activity or whatever. And he can even do that if it serves a secular purpose.
I imagine your tune would change if he was promoting a Muslim prayer event. All the Christians in the state (edit: make that: country) certainly would be up in arms.
The governor can take whatever side he wants as long as he doesn't commit government resources to the function or activity or whatever. And he can even do that if it serves a secular purpose.
If you think it's such an obvious violation of separation of church and state, show the supporting case law; I'd love to see it. Better yet, file a lawsuit. I promise it will get laughed out of court.
The Lemon test is paint-by-numbers, and Perry is running afoul:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
There is no secular purpose to this. It's having a prayer day for the sake of having a prayer day.
2nd, if, using govt. resources, encouraging an entire state to pray to a Christian God does't "advance" religion, nothing does.
And 3rd, the governor putting aside actual productive duties to conceive, promote, and attend this event is excessive entanglement by any rational SCOTUS standard.
I imagine your tune would change if he was promoting a Muslim prayer event.
Of course you imagine so, because it's easier to make the case against phantom arguments than the facts on the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit
All the Christians in the state (edit: make that: country) certainly would be up in arms.
Your intellectual laziness was already on display with the first sentence; no need to compound it with the second sentence. Indeed it must be easier to imagine Christians all behave the same way, have the same reaction to statements/actions/events, etc., than to acknowledge they possess a wide range of beliefs and values.
The Lemon test is paint-by-numbers, and Perry is running afoul:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
There is no secular purpose to this. It's having a prayer day for the sake of having a prayer day.
It doesn't need a secular purpose because the state is not involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownster
2nd, if, using govt. resources, encouraging an entire state to pray to a Christian God does't "advance" religion, nothing does.
The governor can encourage an entire state to do anything he wishes to encourage them to. Encouragement requires nothing of you or of the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownster
And 3rd, the governor putting aside actual productive duties to conceive, promote, and attend this event is excessive entanglement by any rational SCOTUS standard.
This argument is so laughable it's barely worth a response. What the governor does on his own time is his own business. There is no test that requires a governor to dedicate X amount of his resources to anything.
Those of you who believe any involvement by a politician in a religious event or activity is a violation of the separation clause really need to review church/state jurisprudence.
Gov. Perry said Americans must call on Jesus to guide them through the “unprecedented struggles” the nation is facing.
How can a governor be a governor to all the citizens and tell them they must call on Jesus. Many citizens of Texas are NOT Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
