Congress shall make no law

[toledo_jesus]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [b]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b];

Has the Supreme Court violated the second part of this clause by denying students the opportunity to pray in public schools?

[popestpiusx]

Yes, but the problem is much larger than that. It results from a fundamnetal misunderstanding of what that clause actually means.

[toledo_jesus]

please, elaborate...

[duarc]

They haven't denied students the opertunity to pray in school. They've stopped school officals from doing things like praying over the intercom. Students are free to pray as they want during school hours so long as they don't pressure others into doing the same thing.

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp"]http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp[/url]


God Bless!
ironmonk

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='duarc' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:25 AM'] They haven't denied students the opertunity to pray in school. They've stopped school officals from doing things like praying over the intercom. Students are free to pray as they want during school hours so long as they don't pressure others into doing the same thing. [/quote]
Actually, students can even pressure others if they want. It's just that teachers who are, in effect, employees of the government can't state an opinion.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:49 AM'] [url="http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp"]http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp[/url]


God Bless!
ironmonk [/quote]
I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but it was Jefferson, not Franklin, who coined the phrase.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 29 2004, 01:04 PM'] I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but it was Jefferson, not Franklin, who coined the phrase. [/quote]
Ah, it was a letter to Franklin from Jefferson.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:31 AM'] Ah, it was a letter to Franklin from Jefferson.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Actually, it's my understanding that it was a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

[popestpiusx]

The first amendment apllies to the Federal Government. It forbids the federal government from tampering the state religions. An established religion, according to the understanding of that term byu the founders, was a state supported and enforced religion. It is not merely 'a religious establishment". It is realy states rights issue that would keep the Federal government from establishing a national religion, and allows explicity the established religions of the various states to exist without fear of federal reprisal. Evidence of this is that many of the original states had established religions and it was not until the mid 19th century that the last one was abolished. But it was done freely by the state, without federal intimidation. Virginia dis-established the Anglican religion as the established religion, but that was only resulting from the fact that it would have allowed the British religous authorities (including the king) to continue to exert some political control over the state. The same day that the state legislature passed the religious freedom amendment to the state constitution, they also passed a law making it a crime to skip religious services on Sundays, clearly indicating that religious freedom (with all its many faults) was not freedom from religion.

[toledo_jesus]

interesting.
So at no point was it ever the goal to have a state devoid of religion, rather it was that the religious practices of the people could not be governed by the state.

[Guest Aluigi]

originally it appears it was so that the federal government could not interfere in state religions.

the states had official religions they used to make laws.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 29 2004, 02:53 PM'] interesting.
So at no point was it ever the goal to have a state devoid of religion, rather it was that the religious practices of the people could not be governed by the state. [/quote]
No, it was that the religious practices (or establishments) of the states could not be governed by the federal government. Logically that would include the people as well, but their religious practices could be goverened by the various states.

[toledo_jesus]

ah.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 29 2004, 12:51 PM'] The first amendment apllies to the Federal Government. It forbids the federal government from tampering the state religions. An established religion, according to the understanding of that term byu the founders, was a state supported and enforced religion. It is not merely 'a religious establishment". It is realy states rights issue that would keep the Federal government from establishing a national religion, and allows explicity the established religions of the various states to exist without fear of federal reprisal. Evidence of this is that many of the original states had established religions and it was not until the mid 19th century that the last one was abolished. But it was done freely by the state, without federal intimidation. Virginia dis-established the Anglican religion as the established religion, but that was only resulting from the fact that it would have allowed the British religous authorities (including the king) to continue to exert some political control over the state. The same day that the state legislature passed the religious freedom amendment to the state constitution, they also passed a law making it a crime to skip religious services on Sundays, clearly indicating that religious freedom (with all its many faults) was not freedom from religion. [/quote]
The First Amendment was intended to allow religious freedom. The founding fathers may not have known the extremes to which it would be taken, but they did not want religion and state to mix.

Madison for example stated:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state."

Saying that a state did a thing does not mean that it was constitutional. At one point states had miscegenation laws. They were not constitutional either.