I would like to hear how teacher led prayer in public schools is constitutional

[goldcatt]

Thank you GC, you are a wealth of information and I will read it all, HOWEVER the founding fathers DID NOT use the term ESTABLISHMENT in the first amendment....

(I really DO NOT want Teacher lead prayer, I am just trying to argue the argument)

And one has to also wonder why it took nearly 200 years of our existence as a country for this to be an issue...for it to be challenged.

For your last question, I'm not sure that it wasn't challenged at some level. I'm not ambitious enough to go through all of the District and Circuit Court rulings to find out for sure, sorry! But, it was not heard by SCOTUS. I would surmise cultural elements played a role, much the same way as Jim Crow was tolerated for so long in part due to cultural rather than sound legal concerns and for much the same reason. But that's only speculation.

First Amendment text:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

What exactly does "establishment" mean, and then what precisely does it mean to "respect an establishment" of religion? This is where your differing views come in, depending on your choice of secondary source.

oh crud, TFA does say establishment and not established.... I got twisted around for a minute or 2....

I guess it depends...How about this as a counter argument... by using the word AN establishment of religion means that establishment is a NOUN, a physical "church" or institution of worship or religion so to say...

and not a verb, and if it said 'establishing or establishes' then it would mean what you say, but since it clearly uses an establishMENT, it is speaking of a physical object, an institution, an establishment of religion or a church or a synagogue or a temple....etc?

I get what you're saying. But if we're going to parse the language it says "respecting an establishment of religion", you have to take the gerund phrase in its entirety.

What is meant by "respecting an establishment of religion" as used here? Does it mean simply not to establish an official State religion, as the narrow common law view would dictate? Or does it mean to stay away from the trappings of establishment altogether (coercion, support of one religion over another, etc.) even if it doesn't go so far as to establish an official State religion?

The former doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it would only restrict the form and not the substance. Congress would still be able to enact everything but the formal declaration of a State religion, how is that a protection?

 

[Care4all]

For your last question, I'm not sure that it wasn't challenged at some level. I'm not ambitious enough to go through all of the District and Circuit Court rulings to find out for sure, sorry! But, it was not heard by SCOTUS. I would surmise cultural elements played a role, much the same way as Jim Crow was tolerated for so long in part due to cultural rather than sound legal concerns and for much the same reason. But that's only speculation.

First Amendment text:



Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

What exactly does "establishment" mean, and then what precisely does it mean to "respect an establishment" of religion? This is where your differing views come in, depending on your choice of secondary source.

oh crud, TFA does say establishment and not established.... I got twisted around for a minute or 2....

I guess it depends...How about this as a counter argument... by using the word AN establishment of religion means that establishment is a NOUN, a physical "church" or institution of worship or religion so to say...

and not a verb, and if it said 'establishing or establishes' then it would mean what you say, but since it clearly uses an establishMENT, it is speaking of a physical object, an institution, an establishment of religion or a church or a synagogue or a temple....etc?

I get what you're saying. But if we're going to parse the language it says "respecting an establishment of religion", you have to take the gerund phrase in its entirety.

What is meant by "respecting an establishment of religion" as used here? Does it mean simply not to establish an official State religion, as the narrow common law view would dictate? Or does it mean to stay away from the trappings of establishment altogether (coercion, support of one religion over another, etc.) even if it doesn't go so far as to establish an official State religion?

The former doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it would only restrict the form and not the substance. Congress would still be able to enact everything but the formal declaration of a State religion, how is that a protection?

definitely fuel for thought on your last paragraph!

know that ''respecting'' in old/middle English was synonym for ''concerning'' so, i suppose this could weigh towards your argument as well....

 

[bodecea]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

The fascist left attempts to eliminate our freedoms by abusing the constitution on a regular basis.

For example, they claimed it is "unconstitutional" to protest the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

Ok...who says it's unconstitutional to protest the building of the "mosque" AT????? (you really have to stop lying about that, you know) Ground Zero?

Give us some names and/or links.

 

[maineman]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

The fascist left attempts to eliminate our freedoms by abusing the constitution on a regular basis.

For example, they claimed it is "unconstitutional" to protest the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

Who are "they"? I have never heard ANYONE claim that protest is unconstitutional. Can you give me ONE post on this site where ANYONE made that claim? Can you link to some objective news source on the web that would show that anyone made that claim... and, since you used plural pronoun, if you CAN find one, you might as well find a few more.

 

[bodecea]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

The fascist left attempts to eliminate our freedoms by abusing the constitution on a regular basis.

For example, they claimed it is "unconstitutional" to protest the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

Who are "they"? I have never heard ANYONE claim that protest is unconstitutional. Can you give me ONE post on this site where ANYONE made that claim? Can you link to some objective news source on the web that would show that anyone made that claim... and, since you used plural pronoun, if you CAN find one, you might as well find a few more.

I think we need to keep reminding Allie to provide us with the examples of THOSE who claim it's unconstitutional to protest the building of the mosque at ground zero, even tho it's NOT a mosque and it's NOT at ground zero.

 

[AllieBaba]

It is a mosque, among other things. Just because they're throwing in a swimming pool doesn't mean the mosque ceases to exist.

And those who claim it's unconstititutional. Are you shitting me? Look through the threads.

And the people who do are the ones who are essentially saying it so they can justify their stance that the people should be silenced. In other words, they falsely accuse the right of walking on the constitution, so they can justify their abuse of the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No grounds exist whatsoever to stop the mosque legally or constitutionally, period. AllieBaba, a fascist of the far right, is making a claim without any support. Let's see it, Baba Looey.

 

[AllieBaba]

There you go, Bod.

Thanks, Jake. You fringe loon.

 

[AllieBaba]

The right is voicing its opinion about the complete unsuitability of building the mosque there.

Which last I checked, is a constitutional right.

So who is proposing we deny constitutionally protected rights?

The left, of course, when they insist the people who protest have no "right" to do so.

 

[bodecea]

It is a mosque, among other things. Just because they're throwing in a swimming pool doesn't mean the mosque ceases to exist.

And those who claim it's unconstititutional. Are you shitting me? Look through the threads.

I have....I am NOT seeing anyone say it's unconstitutional to protest. You will have to provide some examples via link or tell us what thread to look in or whose posts to read.

And the people who do are the ones who are essentially saying it so they can justify their stance that the people should be silenced. In other words, they falsely accuse the right of walking on the constitution, so they can justify their abuse of the constitution.

Ah...but you have NOT shown us anyone yet, anyone at all, who says protesting the "mosque" "at" Ground Zero is unconstitutional.

Would like to see who "they" are first.

 

[bodecea]

No grounds exist whatsoever to stop the mosque legally or constitutionally, period. AllieBaba, a fascist of the far right, is making a claim without any support. Let's see it, Baba Looey.

Allie seems to think you are saying the PROTESTS are unconstitutional....how do you feel about the PROTESTS? Are they unconstitutional? Or just stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If anyone from the left says it is unconstitutional, that position is false. That one person may be AllieBaba as a plant if it exists.

Give the evidence, Baba-looey

 

[bodecea]

There you go, Bod.

Thanks, Jake. You fringe loon.

I don't think Jake has said the PROTESTS are unconstitutional....but just to help you out, I've asked him to clarify.

 

[bodecea]

If anyone from the left says it is unconstitutional, that position is false. That one person may be AllieBaba as a plant if it exists.

Give the evidence, Baba-looey

So, even tho you believe they are wrong, you believe the protestors have the constitutional right to protest the "mosque" "at" Ground Zero?

 

[maineman]

The right is voicing its opinion about the complete unsuitability of building the mosque there.

Which last I checked, is a constitutional right.

So who is proposing we deny constitutionally protected rights?

The left, of course, when they insist the people who protest have no "right" to do so.

again...shoiw me someone from the left who said that you do not have a RIGHT to PROTEST.

I'll wait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course I do. Any centrist does: the Muslims have the right to build legally but really should consider the wisdom of trying to force everyone else to accept their reasoning. That is called winning a battle and losing a war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AllieBaba is merely a poseur with no evidence.

 

[maineman]

saying that the folks against this building do not have the right to stop it is completely different from saying that they don't have the right to protest it.

allie is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, it would seem.

 

[bodecea]

So, Allie....looks like you were wrong about Jake thinking protesting the "mosque" "at" Ground Zero was unconstitutional.


Got someone else?

 

[JakeStarkey]

AllieBaba is merely a poseur, a far right wing fascist putting twigs on herself and calling herself a tree.