[evil nickname]

Hi Meat,

Originally Posted by cowboy

Don't believe I got my facts wrong at all, you need to understand the law a little better.

Disclaimer up front: I am neither an US citizen nor a lawyer. My understanding of the US Constitution and the separation of church and state comes from reading loads of articles about it. As I said, the subject of freedom of religion for all and not just those who have one is something I am very interested in.

Originally Posted by cowboy

Church and state came all the way from the 14th century. What it means is the state can not tell you how you can worship. The dollar still says in god we can trust.

"In God We Trust" has only been the US national motto since 1956, and it is not entirely undisputed, as many people see it as an official endorsement of religion by the government.

Originally Posted by cowboy

The 2 people that took down that prayer interfered with the civil rights of many.

The people who put up the prayer and allowed it to stay there also interfered with the civil rights of many.

Originally Posted by cowboy

The judge was wrong with his decision and the school system does have the money to fight it. Your right, the US constitution gives you the right to believe how you believe. the ruling was a violation of the US constitution . bottom line .

If that's your opinion, I don't think we're going to agree on this.

Originally Posted by cowboy

But what I was saying is that with so much wrong in the world and so many needing help I thought it was a selfish act by these 2 women. Again my facts are not wrong.

I agree that there are many things wrong in the world. And indeed, this is just a minor issue in the great scheme of things.

But you said "We got here because people stopped caring about other people and only care about their beliefs and what they want." In light of that statement, I believe that this prayer banner thing is a bad example: Jessica Ahlquist stood up for what she believed in, the constitution, and was responsible for herself and other people. The schoolboard didn't care that she and others felt "excluded, ostracized and devalued." They just wanted to keep a statement of their beliefs up there. They even went to court over it. I don't get how she's what's wrong with the world.

Also, I tried my best to keep this out of the whole thing, since it seems kind of pedantic, but well, it was a girl and her father. While, indeed, that's nitpicking, it's still wrong.

Originally Posted by cowboy

I will stand up to any judge anywhere and argue the case. The reason the pilgrims left England is they were not allowed worship the way they wanted.

Yes, and that's also why the establishment clause is there: they didn't want state-endorsed religion, and religious freedom for all.

Originally Posted by cowboy

The law is not about a prayer on a school wall , it's about everyone in that school has a right to believe how they believe, can't say Merry Christmas, can't put the 10 commandments on the outside wall of the capitol building.

As far as I can see, in the US individuals are free to worship as they please and free to say merry christmas. But indeed, the government and, by extension, public schools cannot display messages promoting religion.

Originally Posted by cowboy

all people want to do is assume and not really read ,study, and understand.

That's a bit of a generalization. If I didn't try to understand this situation, I would not be arguing over this, would I?

Originally Posted by cowboy

Why does the President attend a prayer breakfest. I see dumb people !!

I wonder about that too, Obama being the anti-christ and all. I kid, I kid.

Originally Posted by cowboy

If they put a Muslim prayer next to the prayer that was on the wall for 50 years , I would say they have the right to do so.

I would love to see that. But mostly because I would also love to see the Religious Right fuming over that.

Originally Posted by cowboy

Separation of church and state is about the freedom to worship and believe what you heart tells you. Not to take away everything that says God From the world.

Again, I don't see how anyone in this case is trying to take away anybody's freedom of religion. Putting up a prayer is as far as I know not a prerequisite for religious worship.

Originally Posted by cowboy

If this case would have gone to the Supreme Court it would have been overturned.

Somehow, I doubt it would:

Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000)

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

I cannot see how allowing a prayer up on a wall and going to court over it is anything but sponsorship of the message.

Originally Posted by cowboy

You are basing your opinion on Wikipedia . Wikipedia ??

No, I am not. As I have said in several posts in this discussion that I believe the Wikipedia article to be a accurate, succinct summary of the many articles I've read on the case. In fact, I've also replied to exactly the same criticism that everybody should feel free to peruse the cited references at their leisure. And then, I also linked directly to in the court's decision. So, please, gimme a break.

Originally Posted by cowboy

Please go take a course in Constitutional law. I did in college, I was a History major . People are destroying the US Constitution . There are prayers all over the walls of government buildings in Washington. They won't go after those. They would be overturned.

There have been various lawsuits over, for example, displays of the ten commandments in state capitols and courthouses, with mixed outcome.



On a final note: I guess this all boils down to how you look at things. As an atheist, I think that freedom of church and state is a right that's worth defending. I'm perfectly fine with anybody believing and worshipping whatever they want, as long as they respect my right not to. For me, freedom of religion should also include freedom from religion. I don't see a war on religion, I see misplaced outrage over religious privileges being challenged. I see people sending sixteen year-old girls sending death threats because she stood up for what she believed in, and it just happened to go against what they believed in.

Meat, I don't think we're going to agree on this matter, but just as you're free to assert that Jessica Ahlquist, her father and the judge got it wrong and should be doing something more constructive, so am I free to believe you're barking up the wrong tree here.

(And that's probably not going to earn me a lot of likes, but so be it.)