Originally Posted by Troianii

Anyways, I think that the idea of the post is that many in America have taken the laws, particularly the Constitution, and misinterpreted or twisted it. The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion, but it never guarantees Freedom from Religion. I'd say that there's little wrong with opening a football game, a baseball game, or even a school day with public prayer, but it's not like an atrocity has been committed if it hasn't.

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Where? In some backwater town in Wyoming run by a principal who forgot to take his meds?

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Besides that whole pesky separation of church and state thing they added in there. Which applies if the school is state run. Private schools can certainly have prayer if they would like. That's what the parents most likely pay for and endorse with their dollars.

And I'm sure it's totally okay to have a public prayer start a football game if another god is continually mentioned in it, right?

"We pray to you, Saraswati, and ask that you bless this game/school day and keep our students safe and help them to learn and be successful. In Saraswati name. Amen."

Originally Posted by Troianii

2. That's what the parents most likely pay for... Hmmmm... well, by that argument, if the majority of parents want kids to be able to pray in school (or for the kids to have leadership in such action) then that should be the case. You'll find that that argument really doesn't work for you.

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Also, based upon things written later by our founders, I am sure that "freedom of religion" included "freedom from religion" as well (especially since it does not specifically say otherwise which I am sure it would have it they had meant it to).



They seemed quite clear in that document (and, please keep in mind, this document WAS written by the same men who wrote the Constitution) that no one was to be forced into religion.

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Also, based upon things written later by our founders, I am sure that "freedom of religion" included "freedom from religion" as well (especially since it does not specifically say otherwise which I am sure it would have it they had meant it to).



They seemed quite clear in that document (and, please keep in mind, this document WAS written by the same men who wrote the Constitution) that no one was to be forced into religion.

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Public school is for the general public. The entirety of the general public is not Christian. If someone wants there to be prayer in school then they can send their kid to private school. Asking for more is excluding everyone else. And school is not for prayer.

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Saudi Arabia is hardly the United States, which is what we are talking about. America is not a Christian country. End of story. Making the prayer say "God" and only "God" is exclusionary and alienates every single person who does not believe in "God". That is why it does not belong in public schools.. where the general public goes. "The general public" when talking about a public school takes into account each individual person as best it can. Religion does not belong in the school anyway, but they also have to think of every student. Not just the majority religion.

Originally Posted by Troianii

OK. Not everyone beleives in a God - granted, 160+/200 do, but 1/200 beleive that there is no God, but OK. If not everyone beleives in God then we must ban prayer and the friendly use of the word... Well then, Evolution is a controversial matter, and the majority doesn't beleive in it, and the scientists are really questioning it (note that 10 years ago roughly 95% of scientists supported the theory of evolution, today roughly 50% support it). Further, there are way more Americans that are offended and feel alienated by the idea than there are Americans that are offended and feel alienated by the idea of God/Prayer, so by your standards we must also ban evolution... But of course you wouldn't say that, and neither would I. You're simply making ludicrous points as if they are rules, but only for one specific situation. As always, you're right, I'm wrong, you're smart, I'm dumb, and your opinion is fact.






If you would have a better example then take Turkey. Turkey is predominantly Muslim, but doesn't have a state religion. The point is the same.

And the word "God" is exclusionary and alienates? I recently found a study on religion that I shared with Italian Ice, roughly half a percent of the nation beleives that there is no God, more than four out of five beleives that there is. When you weigh in that the forbiding of prayer as you suggest is in the interest of Atheists and an affront to Theists, your point is entirely ludicrous. If using the word "God" is alienating, then forbiding it is also alienating, but the idea that alienating 160+/200 is better than 1/200... Is entirely your own ludicrous one.

Originally Posted by Troianii

OK. Not everyone beleives in a God - granted, 160+/200 do, but 1/200 beleive that there is no God, but OK. If not everyone beleives in God then we must ban prayer and the friendly use of the word... Well then, Evolution is a controversial matter, and the majority doesn't beleive in it, and the scientists are really questioning it (note that 10 years ago roughly 95% of scientists supported the theory of evolution, today roughly 50% support it). Further, there are way more Americans that are offended and feel alienated by the idea than there are Americans that are offended and feel alienated by the idea of God/Prayer, so by your standards we must also ban evolution... But of course you wouldn't say that, and neither would I. You're simply making ludicrous points as if they are rules, but only for one specific situation. As always, you're right, I'm wrong, you're smart, I'm dumb, and your opinion is fact.

.