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.
In fact, because they receive Federal funds, they must follow federal law, aka, the Constitution. Are you suggesting that our schools are above the law?
OF course not, but you knew that. They just have nothing to do with the governance ofour society. They do not make laws so they cannot violate the establishment clause.
OF course not, but you knew that. They just have nothing to do with the governance ofour society. They do not make laws so they cannot violate the establishment clause.
Your understanding of the Constitution and American law is dismal. By your reasoning, I don't make the law so I can ignore the Constitution.
In fact, because they receive Federal funds, they must follow federal law, aka, the Constitution. Are you suggesting that our schools are above the law?
That and the fact that even if they rejected federal funds they're still overseen by state and local governments. That fact also means that they need to follow the constitution, or at least the parts which have been incorporated under the 14th amendment.
The establishment clause has nothing to do with respecting religion . . . just making no laws respecting (i.e., regarding) religion and selecting one as the State religion.
As I mentioned much earlier, if this were the case then why did they base their defense on the claim that it wasn't a prayer at all? If the "public endorsement" of the prayer was constitutional in the first place, why didn't they just stick with that as a defense?
Why did the TN courthouse case try to make the claim that the Ten Commandments were there for historical reasons rather than religious ones when that clearly wasn't the case?
Quote:
Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion and what this girl feels or doesn't feel is irrelevant.
Of course, I suppose one could always take the approach you're correct and pretend Ms. Alquist's non-belief WAS a belief, thus the Christian students have no freedom from HER beliefs, so they're equally irrelevant.
Either way the ruling stands unless you simply want it to be a one way street with only the majority deciding who's right, but I think the founders were pretty clear about their views on majority tyranny.
The establishment clause has nothing to do with respecting religion . . . just making no laws respecting (i.e., regarding) religion and selecting one as the State religion.Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion and what this girl feels or doesn't feel is irrelevant.
The esablishment clause has EVERYTHING to do with respecting religion, see my other post which explains exactly what respecting and establishing means.
From Lemon v Kurtamzn
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
It clearly indicates "government action" not just legislation, but action of any kind.
That is not to say a more comtemporary ruling won't come about, hopefully one will as we are hopeful that logic and common sense will prevail on the Supremem Court bench.
This just shows what christian love really means. You can even see it on this thread. Irregardless of whether or not the prayer was constitutional, the girl had to have a police escort to get her to school. This doesn't even matter to the christians on this thread. Instead, their focus is on how this girl must be 'disturbed' or has problems. This is the true portrait of christianity-love those who accept their point of view, everyone else doesn't matter. Look at how many christians reacted when the atheist placard was put up in Olympia. They had a nervous breakdown and someone even stole it. Believers have no reason to get upset over this. If the sign in the school were to say 'There is no god, no heaven above and no hell below,' you would get a reaction nationwide. You would even hear it on the news. I only feel disdain for the believers who have even the slightest bit of anger or take offense at it.
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.
