God

[packsaddle]

I was into a lengthy answer to Ed when the huge, engorged, bloatware running my computer decided to do what it does every day and restart. (Why haven't the conspiracy types picked on Microsoft?)

Now Rooster7 has made that reply unnecessary, thanks. Anyway, I will repeat one comment: Ed, you're killin' me, man! I can't think of anything but cinnamon you-know-whats now.

 

So off to lunch. If I'm lucky, it being Friday and all, there will be a guy in a dark suit on the sidewalk near the place where I'll get a cinnamon you-know-what. And as usual, he'll be standing on a milk crate, waving his Bible and yelling at passersby. At midday...in a dark suit...in the summer...in the South. Not very smart. A few of the passersby will yell back at him.

As long as that guy doesn't harm anyone (the stores think he's hurting business) he's free to do this, or if he choses, kneel in silent prayer (better for business, I suppose). There is nothing stopping private or public prayer.

 

Ed does understand the answer to his rhetorical question. The reason for his discomfort is that for a long time much of society DID allow government to effectively endorse whatever dominant religion that happened to occur locally. Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there.

However, government now has been forced to remain neutral by the rulings of the Supreme Court. This neutrality is fair and it simply embodies the golden rule. No one is denied the right to practice their faith. Anyone is still free to pray if they choose. Or not. BUT, to persons longing for those 'good ole days', this seems like a loss of freedom. And if they conclude this because they no longer can force their faith on others, then I suppose they are correct. They no longer have the freedom to do that. And of that I am glad.

[scoutingagain]

"So off to lunch. If I'm lucky, it being Friday and all, there will be a guy in a dark suit on the sidewalk near the place where I'll get a cinnamon you-know-what. And as usual, he'll be standing on a milk crate, waving his Bible and yelling at passersby. At midday...in a dark suit...in the summer...in the South. Not very smart. A few of the passersby will yell back at him.

As long as that guy doesn't harm anyone (the stores think he's hurting business) he's free to do this, or if he choses, kneel in silent prayer (better for business, I suppose). There is nothing stopping private or public prayer. "

 

Yes, but to follow up, FOG asks if he should be tolerant if someone yells pi equals six. Well the answer, in my opinion is yes, at least legally. If the fellow described above spent all day yelling pi equals six as a religious ritual he is free to do so, as long as he doesn't harm anyone else. Nothing says anyone must agree with him. What the fellow yelling pi equals six is not allowed to do is force everyone at the football game to stop what they are doing so they can hear him yell pi equals six, or force others to join him, or discriminate against those that don't join him in yelling pi equals six.

 

Now in scouting, he could say that Pi, (now with an uppercase) is an omnipotent diety, a power for good greater than himself, and he could even be considered as being reverent by yelling Pi equals six.

 

Pack, hope you had a nice lunch.

 

SA

 

[Fat Old Guy]

" What the fellow yelling pi equals six is not allowed to do is force everyone at the football game to stop what they are doing so they can hear him yell pi equals six, or force others to join him, or discriminate against those that don't join him in yelling pi equals six."

 

I've never been to a football game where anyone was forced to yell "pi equals six." In fact, most of the time when it is time to yell about pi, those who believe that "pi equals six" do so inside their heads. Those that believe that pi is closer to three say so inside of their heads. The only ones that complain are those who believe that pi is a government conspiracy.

 

 

[evmori]

pack,

I'm really glad you know what I am thinking. But that must be what you are thinking cause it ain't what I'm thinking.

 

If I want to pray out loud I can. And if 50 people join me they can & neither you nor Merlyn or NJ can stop us! Why you ask? Because we are exercising our 1st Amendment rights!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[packsaddle]

Ed, No problem with what you just described. You and a group of individuals may indeed gather in a public place and pray. In this region they gather, for example, at a local river that was filmed in 'Deliverance' - and such groups perform public baptisms. I have occasionally stood among them for a while. So have other persons, some of whom were carrying kayaks. The problem arises if that group gains exclusive access to public property, outside of renting a picnic shelter or something similar.

 

As for my knowledge of what you think, I apologize. Perhaps I was in error. [withdrawn for civility]

 

Edited part: Oops, sorry Scoutingagain, lunch was tasty. Missed the cinnamon you-know-whats but the pi was good. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

If I want to pray out loud I can. And if 50 people join me they can & neither you nor Merlyn or NJ can stop us! Why you ask? Because we are exercising our 1st Amendment rights!

 

Look, Ed. I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. I'm telling you what the law is. And it's not about what you are talking about. You or 50 other people can pray whenever and wherever you want to -- as long as in so doing, you are not disrupting some other activity, or blocking traffic, or whatever. (In other words, all expression may be subject to "reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner", if that is not verbatim from some Supreme Court case whose name I forget, it is very close.) The "Establishment Clause" puts no restrictions on you as an individual. It puts restrictions on the government. The government may not use tax dollars to finance religious activities. It may not display purely religious symbols on public land. And, although people refer to the following in a shorthand way as "no prayer in school," what the government actually may not do is to require a student attending a public school to choose between participating in a government-prescribed prayer that he/she does not believe in, and inviting negative consequences from other students by refraining from the prayer or leaving the room. (Or in other words, no government-organized prayer in school -- or at public school football games or graduations.)

 

This is how the "Establishment Clause" has been interpreted, whether you like it or not. I didn't do any of these things, though I support them.

 

But here's the real point: All of these "rules" are restrictions on the government, not on you. You may want the government to be able to do these things, but it can't. That's the law. And that's the way I like it. This way I can practice my religion and you can practice yours, and the government is leaving both of us alone as we do so.

[NJCubScouter]

Packsaddle says:

 

Ed does understand the answer to his rhetorical question. The reason for his discomfort is that for a long time much of society DID allow government to effectively endorse whatever dominant religion that happened to occur locally. Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there.

However, government now has been forced to remain neutral by the rulings of the Supreme Court. This neutrality is fair and it simply embodies the golden rule. No one is denied the right to practice their faith. Anyone is still free to pray if they choose. Or not. BUT, to persons longing for those 'good ole days', this seems like a loss of freedom. And if they conclude this because they no longer can force their faith on others, then I suppose they are correct. They no longer have the freedom to do that. And of that I am glad.

 

Wow. Packsaddle, although I know we are generally not doing the voting thing anymore, I gave you a thumbs-up for this. I wish you could still get stars for it. I would vote for it 2 or 3 times, but the system won't allow that, so I will save my multiple voting for November. (Public Notice: The final nine words of the preceding sentence were a joke.)

 

Your statement captures in a very conscise way, the relevant history of this subject and I exactly what I myself believe about it. Great post.

 

[NJCubScouter]

I said:

 

And, although people refer to the following in a shorthand way as "no prayer in school," what the government actually may not do is to require a student attending a public school to choose between participating in a government-prescribed prayer that he/she does not believe in, and inviting negative consequences from other students by refraining from the prayer or leaving the room. (Or in other words, no government-organized prayer in school -- or at public school football games or graduations.)

 

I just re-read this and wanted to mention, in case, there are any nitpicky First Amendment scholars out there (Merlyn?), that yes, I realize this is somewhat of an oversimplification. It captures what I believe is most important about the school prayer rulings. I know that a student also may not be compelled to say a prayer in school, but to me the really important thing is that the protection of childrens' rights in school goes even further than that. Perhaps I missed another aspect or two as well, but hey, this is not the kind of law I do every day.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Packsaddle writes:

Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there.

 

Yep; try imagining the following with half the white town council walking out on a black speaker, or half the Christian town council walking out on a Jewish speaker:

 

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/30/Hillsborough/Council_splits_on_ath.shtml

 

TAMPA - The City Council's opening invocation is usually a quiet moment of peace.

 

People from all faiths bow heads to hear pastors, rabbis and even poets offer some inspiration.

 

But Thursday, three council members walked out rather than hear an invocation from a man who doesn't believe in God.

 

Council members Kevin White, Mary Alvarez and Rose Ferlita left their seats rather than listen to Michael R. Harvey, a member of Atheists of Florida who had been invited by council member John Dingfelder to offer the invocation.

 

Even before Harvey began to speak, White was pushing to cancel the invocation. These are sacred moments that refer to a supreme being, White said, and this speaker is an atheist.

 

"We have never had people of an atheist group represent Americans," White said. "And I don't think it is appropriate in this setting."

 

White's motion to cancel the invocation failed 2-4, supported only by him and Alvarez. She called White "very brave" for making the effort.

 

"I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being," she said.

 

Ferlita voted to allow the invocation go on, but also walked out. "I think this is sending us in the wrong direction," Ferlita said.

 

Mayor Pam Iorio, who did not attend the council meeting, said later that the invocation should be reserved for speakers who invoke God. She would not say whether she would have walked out.

 

"I certainly don't agree with having an atheist come for the invocation," she said. "I think the invocation is a time for the council to start their day with an expression of faith."

...

[boleta]

Packsaddle,

Spot on!

NJCS

Spot on!

 

Much of the remainder of this post has been deleted by boleta. Thank God for the backspace button.

[Fat Old Guy]

The heretics are inside the wire! We're being overrun by homophiles and atheists! Send Puff with a full load!

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

And if my group of 50 people want to pray over a loudspeaker in a town, we can do that, too!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr]

And you should be fined for violating the noise ordinance. Just like the gangsta rapper should be who is blasting obscene lyrics into my car (and kids' ears) from the next lane at the stop light.

 

One man's "good news" is another man's obnoxious noise. Both have rights to the "quiet enjoyment" of their environment. What a great country!

[evmori]

Providing the town has a noise ordinance. Not all do, ya know. And I was planning on doing everything legal! I might even head off to Merlyn's town with my 50 people & pray the Lord's Prayer over a loudspeaker.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

And if my group of 50 people want to pray over a loudspeaker in a town, we can do that, too!

 

Well, maybe you can, maybe you can't. Is it your loudspeaker? Who owns the property where you are standing? Is there a hospital within hearing distance? A school? (Any school, not just a public school.) Or any other facility where activities might be disturbed by amplified sound? And as others have suggested, is there a noise ordinance?

 

Another question that might be asked is, while you are blaring your message (be it a prayer, or music, or a political slogan, or whatever it might be) to those who may not want to hear it, are you behaving COURTEOUSLY? Ed?