I doubt this falls under the category of "fascism," but...

[darkphantomime]

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.

[MagmarFire]

...But that doesn't follow the First Amendment.

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.

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."

[darkphantomime]

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.

[MagmarFire]

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.

[darkphantomime]

*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.

[MagmarFire]

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...

[Mysterious F.]

*Hint* See also: Common law *Hint*

[MagmarFire]

*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."

[Mysterious F.]

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.

[MagmarFire]

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.

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.

[Mysterious F.]

No, not really. Religion isn't important to me, anyway.

[darkphantomime]

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.

[Mysterious F.]

So he'd still be put in jail anyway.

[MagmarFire]

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.

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.

[Gamefreak]

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.