Read this. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/criminal-prayer-case-stirs-protests/?feat=home_headlines&)
It's just...this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. And I've heard my fair share of ridiculous things.
As long as there is a law in this country saying that you have the freedom to choose your religion, then technically, it was illegal.
Though, in that sense, so is the Pledge of Allegiance.
It was illegal. There's no heads or tails about it, it was illegal.
Also the fact that one part says that it was after school, while another person says that it was during school and students were present is proof enough that it was a CYA kind of thing.
Quote from: Whocares on August 17, 2009, 03:23:18 PM
Though, in that sense, so is the Pledge of Allegiance.
Which is, truthfully, a reason why I want to huff when I'm requested to say it. They way they put it across, it makes me feel like I'm "praying" to the government, which is...questionable, to say the least.
This is just a massive wall-banger. >_<
Oh my word. What if there was an atheist (which there most likely was) who attended that school? Imagine the stress he probably had to got through, even if he was probably forced!
I may be in the christian religion myself, at least on the boarder of Christianity, but I am very often offended when people deliberately ignore and/or misunderstand the practice of "freedom of religion".
And then there is the pledge of allegiance...yes, I agree with you, Mags. They really need to reword the whole thing so that it doesn't sound like a prayer at a church for the literal interpretation-bible-being-word-for-word thingamajig. They need it to make it so that it sounds like you're joining side-by-side, or allying-par say-with the other civilians of this country, and it needs to be approached willingly.
"What are you in jail for?"
"Praying, you?"
"MANSLAUGHTER! I SLAUGHTERED A MAN!"
But anyways, I saw this report on Fox News a couple days ago.
And JQ, are you serious about it being illegal?
It's in the first amendment.
I didn't bother to read the whole thing, but the phrase "their offer" makes it sound as if they were giving the students a choice, so it doesn't seem like the atheists were forced to pray.
Quite frankly, both sides of the debate are being stupid and forgetting their history. One of the major reasons for the founding of America was to escape religious persecuation in Europe, and the First Amendment was written to guarantee freedom of religion. While laws shouldn't be created for religious reasons, especially in such a diverse country, there really is no harm in having prayers in government institutions so long as it's made clear participating in the prayer is optional, and all parties agree to respect each other's beliefs.
Why do they even need to have a prayer in the first place? Someone's spirituality and/or religious preferences is a private matter, and having a school-sanctioned prayer excludes those who would choose not to participate. It is deliberately promoting one kind of religious activity not practiced by everyone.
Pretty open and shut case, in my opinion.
Haha this all sounds a bit odd to me, my school isn't a specifically Christian school, yet in Assembly we still have Bible readings and prayers, and we walk to Church on Religious festivals. I think you can choose not to participate but you need written consent of some sort which is utterly stupid, and it might have to be because you have another religion, I don't know if being an atheist counts, but I could be wrong.
Anyway I'm not religious at all (even though I went to a C of E Primary School where we prayed every single day) and it really doesn't bother me. Maybe it's just because it has been drilled into me as the norm. Thinking about it, it is kind of weird that I do all this stuff but don't believe any of it, but at least it's made me very tolerant I guess.
Although I do love a bit of God Save The Queen and Rule Britannia, and I think that's the reason why I put up with all the Church stuff, I see it more as History than religion, and I do love a bit of History.
But this is all personal to me and my upbringing, I guess it's totally different in America because your history is completely different, also I think it is disgusting if you are forced to do this sort of stuff, I don't like the thought of imposing your beliefs on someone. It's not as bad as it could be if they only "offered" but still if it's illegal it's illegal and they shouldn't do it.
The First Amendment also gives one the right to practice his/her respective religion without fear of persecution.
This man is facing jail time for saying a prayer to Jesus. Are you telling me this is a just means of cutting this off?
The Judge made an order, the man willingly refused that order. Thus, jail time.
The judge made the order despite the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and makes such an order illegal. Whenever there's a conflicting law, the Constitution overrules the conflict, regardless of whether it's a state law or organizational ordinance. Thus, the persecution is an injustice and, needless to say, calls for one of the greatest facepalms in existence. I think this qualifies:
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/MagmarFire/fzero-falconfacepalm.jpg)
There are differing interpretations to the constitution, and especially to the first amendment. That the judge was upholding the first amendment, whereby no public institution shall allow religious ordinances, is proof enough that he was in fact, upholding the constitution.
So...wait, what? Something doesn't click. Are you saying the judge is in favor of having the ordinance removed? Because that sounds nothing like your previous post.
No, I said that he had every right to put that man in jail because he willingly broke the Justice's ordinance. The judge was supporting the first amendment by ordaining that no public instution can allow religious things like this.
...But that doesn't follow the First Amendment.
QuoteAmendment 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.
The ordinance and all support for it (a.k.a. the court order) is clearly in violation of the bold text, especially since it seems like the prayer was merely a request upon the community anyway, not a requirement. This is what we would call "free exercise thereof."
That text also includes 'publicly funded institutions'.
An 'establishment of religion' would be in this case, the applicable sortie.
Funny how you criticize a judge for going after these fools when he has decades of experience, while the lot of you have probably just that little civics class you had in high school.
I'm willing to challenge that, because it doesn't say that anywhere.
Source, please?
EDIT: Plus, even if it was in a public institution, it's not the only problem. I think I heard that part of that ordinance forbids the school staff from praying after school hours and off-campus--in other words, if that's true, they're forbidden from praying at home. Another violation of the First Amendment.
*points out all the first amendment vs. public school cases over the decades*
It's not that hard to look it up, this is not the first time this issue has been addressed, and it most certainly won't be the last.
Well, that's not in the Constitution, is it? Even if precedence is applied, that doesn't justify any wrongdoing through violation of personal freedom.
But yeah, you're right; there are bound to be more...
*Hint* See also: Common law *Hint*
Quote from: Whocares on August 18, 2009, 09:54:36 AM
*Hint* See also: Common law *Hint*
Directed at me? :-\
If so, Constitution > common law. There's a reason it's called "the
supreme law of the land," not "the supreme
guidelines of the land."
Well, it's basically a common law in the US right now the public institutions/foundations/whatever are better left off not getting involved in religion. In privacy/religious foundations, religion is okay.
Yes, indeed, but lines are crossed when people are being prosecuted for saying a mere
prayer--a prayer that was only
encouraged to begin with, not a requirement.
Besides, don't you guys think it's ridiculous that someone's facing jail time for something as harmless as this? There are much worse things out there. For more info, look at Gamefreak's first post in this topic.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 18, 2009, 09:33:41 AM
Funny how you criticize a judge for going after these fools when he has decades of experience, while the lot of you have probably just that little civics class you had in high school.
Have you much more experience than we?
Well, perhaps the judge should retake a high school civics class to see how ridiculous it is to prosecute someone on, again, a prayer.
No, not really. Religion isn't important to me, anyway.
Methinks asking a judge to retake a simple civics class would be a waste of his time. I mean, he already went through years of college and law school, then onto a legal clerk/lawyer, and eventually a judgeship.
Also, I must point out in the article that it says he attempted to convert or have people be converted to chrstianity on school property. That's a big no-no.
So he'd still be put in jail anyway.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 18, 2009, 10:13:00 AM
Methinks asking a judge to retake a simple civics class would be a waste of his time. I mean, he already went through years of college and law school, then onto a legal clerk/lawyer, and eventually a judgeship.
Methinks he doesn't grasp the concept of the Bill of Rights... Two bucks says he failed the test.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 18, 2009, 10:13:00 AM
Also, I must point out in the article that it says he attempted to convert or have people be converted to chrstianity on school property. That's a big no-no.
In the article I posted? The only thing it did say regarding converting was part of the ordinance agreements that no faculty member try to convert students and the events leading
up to them.
Nowhere did it say he actually tried to convert others in this case.
My main issues with this are threefold.
1. You mean to throw these two men into an overcrowded, over budget jail system that is experiencing issues already with actual criminals.
2. Putting these men in jail over this means putting them in the same building as rapists, murderers, and thieves, over praying.
3. I have seen child molesters face less jail time here in Ohio. If you're honestly telling me that 6 months in jail is an appropriate punishment, then something's wrong.
Hey, they put marijuana users in prison too, even the sick ones who actually need the medical marijuana.
And that tells you our judicial system is out of whack, doesn't it? ;)
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 19, 2009, 06:14:56 AM
Hey, they put marijuana users in prison too, even the sick ones who actually need the medical marijuana.
I believe there's a difference between marijuana and saying a prayer.
Not so much, some people use marijuana as religious sancrement (Rastafarians)