[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]blake2616 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
As you can see, Monsieur Gloves, there is no “principle of separation of church and state” in those words that the “conventional thinking” says is there.
One thing is for sure, if a Texas high school wants to begin a football game with a prayer there is NOTHING in the words of the First Amendment to keep it from doing so. In fact, for the federal government to forbid it from doing so is a gross violation of the free exercise clause.
Cuz…see…when/if a Texas high school student, faculty member, mascot, football player or whoever prays at the beginning of a football game or for that matter over the intercom at the beginning of the school day…they are not doing so based on a congressionally legislated law.
[/quote]
I think the interpretation of the first amendment here is that the public schools act as an extension of the government. Therefore if the school endorses something religious like prayer or at least something that isn’t tied to a holiday(christmas), its endorsement can be seen as imposing on the students’ first amendment rights, arguably. And, if I remember right about the coach who got into trouble for praying with his team, it was still okay for the players to pray together as long as the coach didn’t lead the prayer. So, I think it has to do more with the faculty endorsing something that is for the students that is a part of regular school(sports, drama, class, etc.) and not optional(prayer groups, meet at the pole days, etc). I guess it is because if the school promotes something like that where students basically have to be there if they want to go to school or play ball, it is seen as mandatory to some extent. I can see how you wouldn’t want kids to have a particular religion pushed on them by an authority figure, but most of the times the first amendment is brought up like this it is used for stupid stuff.[/quote]
I understand all that. But read the Amendment. It wasn’t written for, nor intended to be decipherable only by attorneys and judges. It is plain and simple, easily understood language. There is no reason for a myriad of extrapolations.
We don’t need to “progress” beyond original intent. It is dangerous to progress beyond original intent. Why? Because if we can “progress” with the First we can “progress” with any of 'em.
Why is the first clause of the Amendment open to “progress” and the second one is basically hidden the attic under the asbestos?[/quote]
I don’t think it was expanded in any way. There are just different circumstances. Now, we have thousands of teachers employed by the govt that function as an extension of the govt. Also, I think the original intent of “no govt encroachment on religion” is still intact with this application. I, personally, think sometimes it is taken to far in today’s society. However, I would rather the govt or any extension of it be kept away from religion. But I do agree that the second amendment gets covered up by the reasoning that it’s “not applicable anymore.” I wonder when protection from property seizures will no longer be applicable…