Strawman and you know it. That is not the only time of the day prayer by a muslim is allowed (or specifically, 5 times). It is not the only type of prayer allowed. That would be essentially like saying the “Lords Prayer” is the only kind of prayer allowed in Christianity.
[/quote]
It’s my understanding that this is the only prayer performed by Muslims. Although on some occasions only two ‘rakahs’ are required. I’m not an expert of course and am willing to be corrected but that is my understanding.
[quote]
Just because you don’t like muslims doesn’t mean a town can’t have a civilian who is a muslim open them in prayer.[/quote]
Appearances can be deceiving. I don’t necessarily dislike Muslims. In some ways I have more in common with Muslims than I do with secular people.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important.[/quote]
The distinction being, Christians are free under the 1st to run public prayer meetings during their city counsel meeting, Muslims are not? [/quote]
Indeed.
I wonder: Are you, Sexmachine, literally saying that you think there are Constitutional grounds to ban Muslim prayer in the relevant circumstance while allowing Christian prayer in the relevant circumstance? Please do point me to the Article and Section wherein I can find the Constitutional justification for such a proposition.[/quote]
Nothing in the constitution forbids it. Are they preventing the Muslim from free exercise of his religion? Not via any rational interpretation. Are they establishing an official state religion? No.
[/quote]
If a government allows Christian prayer but not Muslim prayer, it is favoring one Christianity to the disfavor of Islam–one religion over another–and is thus patently unconstitutional.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important.[/quote]
The distinction being, Christians are free under the 1st to run public prayer meetings during their city counsel meeting, Muslims are not? [/quote]
Indeed.
I wonder: Are you, Sexmachine, literally saying that you think there are Constitutional grounds to ban Muslim prayer in the relevant circumstance while allowing Christian prayer in the relevant circumstance? Please do point me to the Article and Section wherein I can find the Constitutional justification for such a proposition.[/quote]
Nothing in the constitution forbids it. Are they preventing the Muslim from free exercise of his religion? Not via any rational interpretation. Are they establishing an official state religion? No.
[/quote]
If a government allows Christian prayer but not Muslim prayer, it is favoring one Christianity to the disfavor of Islam–one religion over another–and is thus patently unconstitutional.[/quote]
Favouring one religion over another is not equal to establishing an official state religion. I’m not arguing that it should necessarily be done BTW. I’m just pointing out a fact.
Banning prayer IS favoring atheism (or theism that doesn’t believe in prayer).[/quote]
Not if you are also prohibiting governing bodies to convene with an ex cathedra affirmation of atheism. That is simply called, “keeping the whole thing outside of public governance, where it belongs.”
And even if it does favor atheism in a highly indirect and twisted sort of way, it does not do so to an extent remotely comparable to that to which theism is favored when government bodies–whose salaries and meetings are funded, by legal imperative, at the taxpayer’s expense–recite prayer (positive affirmation rather than negative silence) during the execution of their official duties. As far as I’m concerned, anyway.[/quote]
Negative silence IS an atheist viewpoint. You saying my belief about god needs to be outside of politics[/quote]
You are either not reading carefully or intentionally misinterpreting my argument. I am not saying a thing about your belief in god, and I am not saying that it should be outside of your politics. I am not saying that I object to a representative’s use of her religion in the execution of her duties, because I do not. I am not saying that I object to anything any representative says about god, because, I do not. I am not saying that an elected official cannot take the floor and pray out loud or discourse at length on some religious item or rail against abortion as an offense to god, because of course they can.
I am saying that prayer to a deity should not be procedure–should not be built into the structure of a meeting whose existence and whose participants are paid for by me. The consciences of the individuals of whom government is comprised are theirs and theirs only–they may express them as they like, as their consciences in the same way that other representatives voice their own opinions, arguments, and beliefs. The procedure of government is not theirs–it is all of ours–and it should thus be free of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.
Favouring one religion over another is not equal to establishing an official state religion. I’m not arguing that it should necessarily be done BTW. I’m just pointing out a fact.
[/quote]
You are correct, but this is not the sine qua non of First Amendment violation. There are many, many, many things a government can do that do not constitute the establishment of a state religion and yet are violations of the First.
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government. Many of the colonies had an officially recognised religion - Delware: Christianity, Georgia: Protestantism, Maryland: Christianity, Massachusetts: monotheism(governor required to profess Christian faith), New Hampshire: Protestantism, New Jersey: Protestantism, North Carolina: Protestantism, Pennsylvania: Christianity, South Carolina: Protestantism, Tennessee: Monotheism and Vermont: Protestantism(Sabbath must be observed by all citizens).
I’m personally against the state being involved in religion but the fact remains that this was how the US was founded.
Favouring one religion over another is not equal to establishing an official state religion. I’m not arguing that it should necessarily be done BTW. I’m just pointing out a fact.
[/quote]
You are correct, but this is not the sine qua non of First Amendment violation. There are many, many, many things a government can do that do not constitute the establishment of a state religion and yet are violations of the First.[/quote]
So presumably your argument is it prevents the free exercise of religion? That argument could be made but it would be difficult to sustain.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government. Many of the colonies had an officially recognised religion - Delware: Christianity, Georgia: Protestantism, Maryland: Christianity, Massachusetts: monotheism(governor required to profess Christian faith), New Hampshire: Protestantism, New Jersey: Protestantism, North Carolina: Protestantism, Pennsylvania: Christianity, South Carolina: Protestantism, Tennessee: Monotheism and Vermont: Protestantism(Sabbath must be observed by all citizens).
I’m personally against the state being involved in religion but the fact remains that this was how the US was founded.[/quote]
That was correct when the Constitution was written, but not any longer. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was legally bound to apply to the states (and thus lower, local governments who are chartered by state governments) vis-a-vis incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause against the states, officially by the landmark Supreme Court case in Everson v. Board of Education.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]
It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.[/quote]
What are your grounds for this argument? Surely you realize the words “separation of church and state” exist nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
Indeed I am.
I am also aware that my First Amendment right is violated when I am impelled by law to pay for a government meeting wherein prayer to a deity is recited ex cathedra.[/quote]
The distinction being the meeting is not being held for the purpose of praying. No one is compelled to join in. No one is forced out for not participating either. If the elected officials choose to pray before attending to the meetings agenda, nothing they are being paid to do has changed. If a person is offended because their elected official prays, vote for someone else or simply toughen up.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government. Many of the colonies had an officially recognised religion - Delware: Christianity, Georgia: Protestantism, Maryland: Christianity, Massachusetts: monotheism(governor required to profess Christian faith), New Hampshire: Protestantism, New Jersey: Protestantism, North Carolina: Protestantism, Pennsylvania: Christianity, South Carolina: Protestantism, Tennessee: Monotheism and Vermont: Protestantism(Sabbath must be observed by all citizens).
I’m personally against the state being involved in religion but the fact remains that this was how the US was founded.[/quote]
That was correct when the Constitution was written, but not any longer. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was legally bound to apply to the states (and thus lower, local governments who are chartered by state governments) vis-a-vis incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause against the states, officially by the landmark Supreme Court case in Everson v. Board of Education.
[/quote]
I’ve already addressed Everson vs Board of Education. That was the decision by Hugo Black and others. It was based on taking a line from a private letter by Jefferson out of context. I’m not talking about case law. I’m talking about originalism and what the Constitution really means. Not what judicial activists have subsequently claimed it means.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve already addressed Everson vs Board of Education. That was the decision by Hugo Black and others. It was based on taking a line from a private letter by Jefferson out of context. I’m not talking about case law. I’m talking about originalism and what the Constitution really means. Not what judicial activists have subsequently claimed it means.
[/quote]
Yes, but that “judicial activism” is the law of the land. I agree, if flies in the face of originalism and wasn’t the full intent of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was framed, but a Supreme Court decision of that magnitude is binding. There was a Constitutional amendment, so originalism is null and void here. There is no argument left - the First Amendment, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights, is binding on the states as well as the federal government unless and until another case goes before the SCOTUS and they revoke the selective incorporation of the Establishment Clause.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government.[/quote]
I’m not interested in an argument about incorporation. It is the law of the land. You said that the First applies only to the federal government. This is demonstrably false, and it is law that the First cascades down the line to the governments below. Thus, the Christian/Muslim hypothetical would be illegal.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve already addressed Everson vs Board of Education. That was the decision by Hugo Black and others. It was based on taking a line from a private letter by Jefferson out of context. I’m not talking about case law. I’m talking about originalism and what the Constitution really means. Not what judicial activists have subsequently claimed it means.
[/quote]
Yes, but that “judicial activism” is the law of the land. I agree, if flies in the face of originalism and wasn’t the full intent of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was framed, but a Supreme Court decision of that magnitude is binding. There was a Constitutional amendment, so originalism is null and void here. There is no argument left - the First Amendment, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights, is binding on the states as well as the federal government unless and until another case goes before the SCOTUS and they revoke the selective incorporation of the Establishment Clause.
[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s also important to note that the establishment clause only applies to the establishment of an official religion by the federal government.[/quote]
I’m not interested in an argument about incorporation. It is the law of the land. You said that the First applies only to the federal government. This is demonstrably false, and it is law that the First cascades down the line to the governments below. Thus, the Christian/Muslim hypothetical would be illegal.[/quote]
I was talking original intent not what the law is now. However you are right about favouring one religion over another however one could argue it is not undue favouritism.
The distinction being the meeting is not being held for the purpose of praying.[/quote]
This is a distinction, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Religion does not belong in the procedural structure of government. See my response to DoubleDeuce.
Again, this has nothing to do with offense. There is nothing offensive to me about religion, or religion in public, or religion in the ramblings of any person, elected or not.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes I agree with you.
[/quote]
Okay, but your earlier message was phrased in the present tense, where you made the statement that the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal government in present day, thus the recent, ongoing argument here.
If that’s the case, you should have specified that was the originalist intent of the Framers to leave said matters of religion to the states to decide, but it’s no longer legally valid due to selective incorporation. Use of present tense phraseology changes the argument.
I was talking original intent not what the law is now. However you are right about favouring one religion over another however one could argue it is not undue favouritism.[/quote]
Yes, this would seem the only route. But I am sure it would not succeed.