Merlyn_LeRoy

But I'm not on the supreme court, and the BSA won, so you'll notice I call the BSA a private organization, even though I think that was a bad decision. In your little world we should apparently just stop holding elections and let the SCOTUS make all the decisions. Of course not; about all the SC does is tell the government "no, you can't do X". The SC does not pass laws, it does not appoint government officials or ambassadors, it does not make policy, it does not declare war (well, nobody does nowadays), it mostly just reviews laws and settles legal disputes. But for some reason, you think state governments should have unlimited powers unfettered by anything, and having the SC say "states can't do X" is something you don't like. Oh well. Since it is the ultimate arbiter of anything anyway under your perverted theories. It's the ultimate arbiter of what a law means, but they don't write the laws. A lot of laws have been written or rewritten after SC decisions.

Ed writes: Allowing prayer in public schools doesn't establish a religion. Correct Ed, but I haven't seen anyone state that kids can't pray in school, so is this just another random comment on your part? TheScout writes: No clause in the constitution itself? There's article III: "...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Those are all more questionable decisions made by the SCOTUS. Yeah. So? The SC makes decisions I disagree with too, but since I like dealing with reality, I take it from there. For a scout-related example, I thought the SC was wrong in saying the BSA was a private organization; I would have ruled that, by chartering thousands of units to public schools for decades and having public schools as their largest chartering partner, and knowing that public schools are restricted by state law (including New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, which is what the Dale case was based on), that the BSA knowingly and willingly agreed that all public school chartered units would have to admit atheists, and gays in states where schools were prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that partly through the large number of public school charters and other government agencies like police departments, the BSA has been acting as if it was a public accommodation for decades, so it would be far too late to claim to be a private organization. (continued)

where does it come from? Marbury v. Madison. I do not understand your interpretation of the 10th Amendment. It appears to give the states great powers, but you wish to curtail them. Which powers would that be, exactly? It doesn't list any. You seem to be against the supreme court having unlisted powers, but eager for states to have unlisted powers. Why are you in favor of one but not the other? The 1st Amendment is very vague. It's way clearer than the 10th, at least in terms of what it's actually talking about. What exactly is the "establishment of religion?" That's why the constitution needs to be interpreted. The 10th is not. All powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. Wrong. It does NOT say that, it says "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Why are you ignoring "the people"? Why not just defer to the states on school prayer. Because the 10th says that states do NOT have powers that the US constitution prohibits to them, and the 14th amendment prohibits states from infringing on 1st amendment rights of the people. This comes down to you holding the 1st Amendment above every other clause of the Constitution. No, this comes from the 14th amendment applying the 1st amendment to the states. Before that, states could have official state religions.

Merlyn, please supply the clause which gives the SCOTUS the exclusive right to interpret the federal constitution. There isn't one, because the constitution doesn't contain the word "interpret." Using your logic then, NOBODY has the power (not the right, the power) to interpret the constitution. Was he [Jefferson] wrong? His opinion didn't prevail; I normally wouldn't describe that as "wrong" but more as "his side lost." Also, I did not understand your opinion on the 10th Amendment? Does it exist? Of course. Is official school prayer unconstitutional today? What does it mean in your opinion? Pretty much what it says; powers that are not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are either held by the states (unless the constitution also prohibits states from the power under consideration) or the people.

TheScout, you're the one living in a fantasy world. In the real world, the supreme court really has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional, and official school prayers really have been unconstitutional for decades. And mere legislation can't remove or infringe on citizens' rights. But we've been through this before. So Merlyn, in your world what does the 10th Amendment mean? If anything? LOL Cause I know you hate it. LOL 1 d0n7, d00d!!1!!1!one!! Bu7 17 122en7 @ b1@nk ch3ck 4 s7@73 p0wr, e17h3r.

It's religious proselytizing Ed.

OGE, I said "They'll even make sure they can have a room just like the muslim kids." If students can use rooms for praying, that applies to all students equally. It would likely be the same room, or just whatever room(s) are unused at the time.

Ed, your cries of first amendment are misapplied. A teacher can ask a student some things about religion, but not because of the teacher's first amendment rights; if that were so, the teacher could ALSO ask the student "are you saved or are you going to hell," because the first amendment allows that question too. But a teacher CAN'T ask a student "are you saved or are you going to hell" because they are acting as a state employee. And if a teacher has been overtly trying to e.g. convert students, the school administrators COULD order the teacher to not ask about religion at all, including merely asking a student what his denomination is. A teacher has no "right" to ask such a question, because they can be prohibited from doing so by their employers.

Ed, STUDENTS can ask teachers anything they want; what teachers say in return, or what questions the teachers ask, are from their position as a public school employee, not as a private citizen. A schoolteacher can't ask a student "Are you saved or are you going to hell?"

By the way, TheScout, since you posted a reference from www.christianparty.net, do you also participate in their forum? Lots of, uh, "interesting" topics. (removed direct link to their forum because the URL gets mangled; just click the front page link)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Gold Winger, have any of your children been prevented from praying by school officials?

Gold Winger, by not filing a lawsuit yourself, or having the ACLU (or even a christians-rights-only group like the ACLJ) file a lawsuit on your children's behalf, you are allowing the rights of your children and any other christian students at your kids' school to be unlawfully infringed by that school. In short, you are permitting the government to violate your children's rights by doing nothing (assuming you aren't now pursuing legal remedies in some way). If you WANT to surrender your own children's rights so easily, you can, but it's hardly a good example, and can likely lead to further infringements. Have any of your children been prevented from praying by school officials?

What school does that, Gold Winger? I'll inform the state ACLU so they can defend the rights of christian students to pray. They'll even make sure they can have a room just like the muslim kids.

I don't forget that Ed; public officials acting in their official capacity are not exercising their rights as individuals. Schoolteachers have the right to tell everyone around them that they have to convert to their favorite religion or burn in hell -- if they're e.g. doing it on a public sidewalk as a private citizen. Schoolteachers do NOT have this right while teaching classes, because they are acting as agents of the state. And if you want to read up on court cases involved in school prayer, go ahead; I won't tutor you on them, however.

TheScout writes: Prayer in schools isn't government imposed religion. You can say that as much as you want, its just not true. The courts seem to agree with me, not you, so you can say it isn't as much as you like, but that doesn't change reality. You have a my way or the highway mentality because you won't tolerate different opinions. Official school prayers aren't opinions. It's true I won't tolerate violations of religious rights, official school prayer being one violation. As scoutingagain pointed out, praying in school is perfectly legal. Your argument is facetious again about the Muslims. Not at all; you're the one who laughs at unfamiliar religions like summum. I recognize that a moment of silence at the start of the school day does not address all religions. You won't let them pray at all. Now you're just lying. I have never stated that, and, in fact, I have stated the exact opposite in this forum before. So stop lying about my actual position, OK? Argue your own positions, and refer to mine accurately. Again what if a local school board had a referendum and a HUGE majority of the local citizens vote for prayer in schools. What say you then? The same as if they voted to keep black students out; public schools do not have the power to infringe on students' civil rights by doing that, even if a majority wants to do that.

TheScout, I object to government-imposed religion; odd you would call religious freedom "my way or the highway." The fact that courts have ruled or not on a subject has no effect on the constitutionality of a measure. I think even you should be able to see that. I do. You don't. You claim that prayer in school was actually constitutional before the SC ruled on it. Plus, we seem to be going off into where you think governments have "rights" again. They don't. They have powers, individuals have rights. That's one reason why public schools can't impose religion - they lack the power to do so, and students have rights that the government may not infringe. Rooster7 (back?) writes: However, what's wrong with reserving time for silent mediation and/or prayer (if that's how a student wishes to use the time)? To continue with OGE's example, what if a public school has moments of silence that just happen to coincide with the times muslims are supposed to pray? Conversely, what if they have one in the morning, but reject suggestions to add more for muslims? And it seeks to satisfy the rights of everyone. I don't think one moment of silence in the morning does that for muslims, you'd need at least 3 or 4. That is, if you really mean "everyone."

The first amendment does far more than prohibit a state religion; it prohibits an establishment of religion. Official public school prayers violate that. Besides being unconstitutional, it's a boneheaded and disasterous practice in any case.

TheScout writes: Clearly they did not have a problem with the prayers. They included prayer in their schools. Clearly this is some novel use of the word "clearly." Sorry, no, I don't accept your illogic. Catholics who are happy to have their own prayers in their own schools do not necessarily approve of government prayers in public schools. Given that catholics were discriminated against for decades in public schools with official prayers, I'd say catholics would be more likely to be against them than most people. That school prayer is unconstitutional is not so clear cut. Only in your world. In the real world, school prayer is unconstitutional. It was constitutional until 1962. The supreme court didn't rule on it until 1962; its constitutionality before 1962 is presumably the same. Or do you think Adams' Sedition Act is constitutional? The court never ruled on that one. Anyway Congress could always strip the courts of its jurisdiction to here such cases, putting such matters back to local schools where they belong. I don't think public schools have the power to instruct students in religion. The biggest problem with you is that you don't share the dream of America That "dream" being government-imposed religion? I really don't care if a school decides to have a prayer or not. I do. I think religious freedom is very important. You, apparently, think local, unelected bureaucrats should have the power to instruct other people's children in religion. I think that they should, but it is not up for me to decide, or you, or the SCOTUS. For some reason, you think unelected bureaucrats ought to have that decision. I think religion is up to the individual families.

TheScout writes: Catholics didn't have a problem with prayer in schools Ridiculous. There are catholics NOW who have a problem with prayers in public schools. It doesn't matter anyway. Public schools can't conduct prayers. That isn't their purpose, and in doing so they infringe on the religious rights of the students and their parents.

TheScout writes: So the problem wasn't the prayers, it was the Protestant nature of it. No, not at all. But there were enough catholics in some areas to start their own private schools, and that's one reason why catholics did so. Hence the need for a non-denominational Christian prayer like the one used in New York. No, hence the need to eliminate official school prayers. Why do you think only catholics objected? Why do you think only the rights of other christians are covered?

Yes; by the way, why do you claim it was a majority? A lot of catholics started their own schools to get away from the protestant prayers in public schools.

Gold Winger, courts have ruled that having school officials tell grade school students to pray is coercion. Yes TheScout, before 1962, public schools in many areas were violating the religious rights of students. Makes the 1st amendment pretty meaningless until that was stopped. School prayer has never been "important" - what's important about violating the religious rights of grade school kids? Hunt, I think we disagree on what constitutes a good case; I also think it's important to fight all infringements, as failing to fight them can also lead to the loss of rights, so waiting for a better case might be worse than going forward with a less-than-ideal case.

TheScout writes: Funny you despise decison making by unelected bureaucrats, but are so willing to give it to unelected judges. Funny, neither one has the power to order children to pray, nor should they. Also funny that you think judges' decisions should be about as authoritative as a movie review. It's quite a jump to say prayer it schools "guts" the 1st Amendment. I don't think it's a jump. Does this mean it was gutted for our whole history before Engel v. Vitale in 1962? Yes, it was being ignored. The bible riots weren't a high point in US religious freedom either. I don't see who a simple non-denominational prayer with no compulsion to participate is an "establishment of religion." I don't see how it could be anything else (and I don't consider any prayer to be "non-denominational"). And grade school kids being told by their school officials to pray IS compulsion. It also doesn't seem to interfere with anyones "free exercise of" it. Coerced prayers are the antithesis of free exercise. The prayer struck down was very modest: The specific prayer is almost irrelevant, since it could be changed by the school board to be anything at their whim. If they have the authority to have official "modest" school prayers, they have the authority for Allah Ackbar et alia. (fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Well, "prayer in schools" amounted to unelected school bureaucrats writing prayers that other people's children were required to recite, so bringing that back would entail gutting the first amendment and ignoring the rights of parents to determine what kind of religious instruction their own children receive. Hunt, I still say waiting for "a good time" is not a reasonable standard. Certainly Loving v. Virginia wasn't a good time. It's also possible the current supreme court will rule against the Summum and make things much worse. I'll bet Scalia will rule against them at the very least.

Sure; I write off ALL religions as cults.