First Admendment

[Insurrectionist]

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.

School Officials Face Jail Time for Meal-Time Prayers

[CUDA]

the ACLU is not about Civil Liberty's

Main Entry: civil liberty
Function: noun
: freedom from arbitrary interference in one's pursuits (as in expressing thoughts, practicing a religion, or pursuing a living) by individuals or esp. by the government and esp. as constitutionally guaranteed —usually used in pl. —see also CIVIL RIGHT

[Spidey]

That is clearly a violation of a persons religious freedoms, some people believe they “must or should” thank god at a meal.

And thanking god for food, seen as “endorsing” religion…lol (assuming it was a typical mealtime prayer)

If it was a sermon, then all bets are off.

Silly people!

[Kilarin]

The problem here isn't people praying at mealtimes. It's not even people praying in a public school. The problem is school officials, on duty, acting in their capacity as government employees, offering \"official\" public prayers.

Switch the roles around. I've been told that Buddhist outnumber Christians in Hawaii now. So, if you lived in Hawaii, how comfortable would you be with a school official offering a Buddhist prayer up front? Or how about if the teacher happened to be a follower of Wicca? (Yes, they have just as much right to be teachers in public schools as Christians), and started a meal off with a Wiccan ceremony? Christians are very sensitive about Muslims right now, would you be happy if a Muslim teacher was leading the class (or even a PTA meeting) in Muslim prayers to Allah?

PRIVATE prayers in public school are perfectly within the guidelines. But teachers leading out in prayers in front of class *IS* a threat to our religious liberty.

I DO believe it's good for teachers to lead out in prayer, but that's why I send my child to private school. The public schools are paid for by tax dollars and its officials, when acting as school officials, should NOT be leading out in any kind of prayer.

[Foil]

Agreed, Kilarin. Personal prayers are one thing. School representatives leading prayers is another.

Back to the scenario in the article Insurrectionist posted... it's a pretty vague description. Is there another link to the story somewhere?

[Duper]

Separation of church and state is a lie and a misrepresentation of a letter, not legislation. Also, each state has the power to define it's own laws regarding prayer in school.

as a side note, this man is blessed.

[Foil]

We're not talking about \"separation of church and state\" (which you're right, is an oft-misused term from a Jefferson letter).

The issue is the first amendment, and whether public-school teachers and other officials are using their position to favor a given religion.

Honestly, I can't tell from the short description in the article. Were the school officials simply praying for their own meal, or asking the whole crowd to pray with them?

[Kilarin]

Honestly, I can't tell from the short description in the article. Were the school officials simply praying for their own meal, or asking the whole crowd to pray with them?

And entirely valid point. I interpreted it as up front official prayers, but it's pretty vague.

Separation of church and state is a lie and a misrepresentation of a letter, not legislation

The letter indicates the intent of those who wrote the amendment.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802.

And Thomas Jefferson was not the ONLY person involved in the creation of the constitution who believed thus:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."
-James Madison, "Detached Memoranda."

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Dr. Price.

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and... that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produced an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli, 1797, Article XI negotiated under George Washington and ratified by the Senate under John Adams:

There can not really be any doubt that the founding fathers intended the first amendment to keep the government out of religion, and religion out of the government.

each state has the power to define it's own laws regarding prayer in school.

Before the 14th amendment, yes. The 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. (James Madison tried to pass a 14th amendment much earlier that did this much more explicitly, but while congress voted for it, the senate voted against)

Now, before we get into a debate about the 14th amendment, let me ask a direct question. Do you really WANT the states to have the right to violate the 1st amendment? Would you feel it was just if Utah could vote the LDS church as a state sponsored church and use tax dollars to fund it? What if Louisiana became officially Catholic?, or Texas insisted that only Southern Baptists could be elected to the legislator?

I HOPE that you would agree that ANY of these would be VERY undesirable possibilities. So lets keep the wall between Chruch and State tall, thick, and strong. It's the ONLY way to keep BOTH religion AND government safe from corruption.

Oh, just to apply the founding fathers opinions DIRECTLY to the issue of the government and prayer, lets add another quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it."
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).

[Grendel]

Pwned

[Will Robinson]

Grand arguments aside...what law will be used to put him in jail?
All I see is

Now two school officials are facing criminal charges for offering meal-time prayers at an appreciation dinner for adults…

[Insurrectionist]

Ok I'm all fine a well with teachers not teaching my son about religion. I think the settlement reached stated

According to the settlement, all school employees are banned from engaging in prayer or religious activities before, during, or after school hours.

More of a story about it here.

No students, no problem let them pray.

edit:

It's the ONLY way to keep BOTH religion AND government safe from corruption.

Yes the can do that on their own.

[Grendel]

From the horses mouths: click 1 click 2

[Will Robinson]

I wonder if you can get a jury trial in this case because I'd love to see a lawyer stand up in front of the jury and say:

Now that you have all been sworn in before God as jurors in this case do you think you should convict a man for giving thanks to God for his lunch?!?

[Foil]

...giving thanks to God for his lunch?!?

If it was only his lunch, no problem. However, per both articles, this was a group prayer, given by school officials for everyone attending.

The question isn't whether it's okay for a school representative to pray. The crux of the matter is whether it's okay for a public school administration to publicly favor a given religion.

(Note that it wouldn't have been a problem if this was a private school, or if he had not been in a position representing a federal institution.)

----------------

Now, perhaps this isn't as bad as a public-school teacher advocating their own religion in the classroom, and I personally think jailtime is extreme... but the principle still applies.

[CUDA]

According to the settlement, all school employees are banned from engaging in prayer or religious activities before, during, or after school hours

WOW they painted that one with a roller didnt they. if that is the wording and it does not state on school property, then they have effectivly forbid those people from ever practicing any form of religion. I hope they just accidentally ommited that part of the settlement

[Kilarin]

Thanks for the links folks.

Now that you have all been sworn in before God as jurors in this case do you think you should convict a man for giving thanks to God for his lunch?!?

Absolutely correct. We are very inconsistent and hypocritical. Although, I think swearing on a Bible (or by the Bible/God) is actually optional in Jury duty.

But, we still have LOTS of areas where we allow the Government to sponsor religion in a way it should not. Consider, for example, this quote from James Madison about the establishment of Congressional Chaplains:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."
-James Madison, "Detached Memoranda."

Sorry for the edits, several posts arrived while I was writing!

I hope they just accidentally ommited that part of the settlement

Good point. One HOPES they are actually rational. But no guarantee.

The question isn't whether it's okay for a school representative to pray. The crux of the matter is whether it's okay for a public school administration to publicly favor a given religion.

Exactly. They should not promote a religion while acting in their capacity as a government employee.

[Foil]

According to the settlement, all school employees are banned from engaging in prayer or religious activities before, during, or after school hours

WOW they painted that one with a roller didnt they. if that is the wording and it does not state on school property, then they have effectivly forbid those people from ever practicing any form of religion. I hope they just accidentally ommited that part of the settlement

Yeah, I noticed that. My guess is that the agreement only applies when those employees are on school property, or when representing the school.

[CUDA]

You do realise that every session of congress is started with a prayer, along with every session of the Supreme court

[Spidey]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802.

And as long as this part is in effect…"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"…then the theoretical wall will stand up just fine. The intent of this was never to ban prayer. (leading or otherwise)

[CUDA]

people seem to forget that NO WHERE is it forbidden for the government to recognize a religion.
what it says is they are forbidden to write a Law that will establish, found, institute, or create a state religion. such as the Church of England

[Spidey]

Exactly…

And the first part of that “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” can’t even apply to a school teacher, or a school board…only the second part can…“prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

[Kilarin]

The intent of this was never to ban prayer. (leading or otherwise)

Again, look at the James Madison quote about establishing Chaplains. He, one of the authors of the 1st Amendment, considered having government sponsored prayer opening the Congress as establishment and, to quote: "The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

In what manner is Christianity harmed if the Government does not sponsor us? Do we NEED "official" prayers to be heard by God? Even within Christianity, who decides what kind of prayers are ok for a government representative to say? If they pray to Mary, the protestants will be offended. If they pray in tongues, the non-charismatic churches will be offended. If they pray in the name of the Father, the Son, And the Holy Ghost, then the Jehovah's Witnesses will be offended.

The safest route is to not have government employees offering prayers in there official functions. Let the Christians gather together and say their own blessing, and don't let them be offended if the Muslims decide to do the same. And if the Atheist decide to sacrifice a Chicken McNugget to Darwin before eating, more power to them. But NOT by a government employee when acting in the government's behalf.

[CUDA]

Kil I'm not disagreeing with you. but the \"establish no religion\" section. regularly tramples on the \"prohibiting the free excerise there of\" part

[Spidey]

Sorry Kilarin, not buying it.

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.

How does this apply to a school teacher? (I read your pastes) There are thousands of opinions regarding the constitution, but only the written words constitute law.

[Insurrectionist]

Let's take it a step futher. Andrew Johnson, John Tyler, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Regan, was burned in effigy, by white men and is regarded as free speech. What do you think would happen if a white man burned a effigy of President Obama? Should that be protected by the first admendment? Shoud it be treated as a hate crime? Do you think that white man would make it to court?

[Duper]

You guys really need to learn your history and what is modern fabrication.

THIS is a direct order by President Washington mandating that Church services be performed for the troupes on Sunday at 11:00. read that page and the next.

This is only one example that i grabbed quick. I could dig up over 20.

Personally, I will not stand before God and say \"oh sorry, no I didn't teach people or kids to pray in schools or where ever, it just wasn't socially acceptable where I lived.\"

Those of you that call yourselves Christian chew on that a while. This is indisputable.

[Spidey]

Most of this stuff is just silly, if you check into this issue, you would find out the government is chock full of religion, and the wall that separates the church and state is still standing tall.

I bet some people would have a heart attack if they knew there was a National Cathedral in D.C. (non denominational)

[woodchip]

\"According to the settlement, all school employees are banned from engaging in prayer or religious activities before, during, or after school hours. Now two school officials are facing criminal charges for offering meal-time prayers at an appreciation dinner for adults…\"

So they are saying school employee's are criminals if they go to church on Sunday? It is illegal to say a meal time prayer in their own home in front of their school age children. Who the hell do the assholes think they they are? Can a Muslim, at noon, kneel to the east?
This school district has gone way beyond the separation of church and state to the point where they are trying to control individual lifestyles even when it has nothing to do with school.
Banning the teaching of religion in school is one thing, telling people how they can act away from school is quite another.

[CUDA]

Let's take it a step futher. Andrew Johnson, John Tyler, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Regan, was burned in effigy, by white men and is regarded as free speech. What do you think would happen if a white man burned a effigy of President Obama? Should that be protected by the first admendment? Shoud it be treated as a hate crime? Do you think that white man would make it to court?

I've never "personally" considered Burning an effigy free speech.

speech (spēch)
n.

1.
1. The faculty or act of speaking.
2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
3. A talk or public address: "The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance" (Ruth Gordon).
4. A printed copy of such an address.
2. Something spoken; an utterance.
3. Vocal communication; conversation.

when they start burning effigies, it ceases to be speech and start becoming action, and yes it could be translated into a hate crime. it doesn't matter what race you are

[Will Robinson]

...giving thanks to God for his lunch?!?

If it was only his lunch, no problem. However, per both articles, this was a group prayer, given by school officials for everyone attending...

So he can give thanks for his own lunch because it doesn't offend anyone else...what if everyone in attendance also was appreciative of the prayer? I know that technically this crosses the line but in the spirit of the law, for the purpose it was created, it does not.

I think without a victim a jury would nullify the prosecution pretty damn fast. I know if I was on the jury I'd suggest to my fellow jurors that this was a case where the anti-religion people have intruded upon the right of a bunch of people to share tuna sandwiches as well as their tradition to give thanks for their daily bread.

Would those same anti-religious folks agree that we shouldn't be providing the Koran and prayer rugs for Muslims in prison because after all, it is a federal institution singling out a religion to provide the followers with religious materials....

It seems to me the ban on school officials leading prayer should be limited to the audience of students and/or faculty but if a bunch of like minded people want to give thanks in the cafeteria then a little tolerance should be allowed...even for those dastardly Christians.

[woodchip]

Since when is school policy considered law?

[snoopy]

Since when is school policy considered law?

I'd say that it's gotta be a two way street, either way. If they're going to say that teachers can't pray publicly at school because it would be an act of governmental recognition/etc, likewise any attempts by the school board to ban teachers from religious acts outside of school (or even private ones in school) should be recognized as governmental establishment.

[woodchip]

Good point snoopy

[Kilarin]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
How does this apply to a school teacher? (I read your pastes) There are thousands of opinions regarding the constitution, but only the written words constitute law.

So if you do NOT interpret this amendment as applying to any governmental entity outside of Congress, may I assume that you believe it should not apply to city/state governments either?

Personally, I will not stand before God and say "oh sorry, no I didn't teach people or kids to pray in schools or where ever, it just wasn't socially acceptable where I lived."

Those of you that call yourselves Christian chew on that a while. This is indisputable.

I seem to be miscommunicating. I absolutely believe in teaching people to pray, even in public school. The only thing I'm objecting too is having government officials, when acting in their role as a government official, leading out in "official" prayers.

If I were a teacher, I would CERTAINLY be asking my own blessings. If a group of students asked me to pray with them I would step DOWN from the desk, meet with them in a private group, and pray. What I would NOT do is stand up front and lead an "Official" prayer in my role as a government employee.

Again, this is a simple matter of the Golden Rule. It is, of COURSE, legal for a Muslim to be a public school teacher in the USA (I DO hope we can all agree on that!). I imagine most Christians would be quite offended to discover that their kids public school teacher was leading the class in Muslim prayers. NOT that they were praying themselves (that is not offensive), NOT that they were praying with a group of Muslim students who requested it (that is not offensive), but that there was an OFFICIAL prayer being led up front. That IS offensive, and just plain WRONG.

If I went to a school football game and before the game began the principle asked everyone to get out their prayer rugs while he performed a Muslim chant, I would feel put upon. Such an "Official" prayer has no place at a public school football game. I am NOT offended by Muslim prayers, if I were visiting a game at a private Islamic school, I would EXPECT official Muslim prayers, but then attendence is my choice. In the context of a public school, it's innapropriate.

I know if I was on the jury I'd suggest to my fellow jurors that this was a case where the anti-religion people have intruded upon the right of a bunch of people to share tuna sandwiches as well as their tradition to give thanks for their daily bread.

How? The only restriction being placed is that there should be no official government prayers at a government controlled meeting. And again, back to the golden rule question. Would you feel it was appropriate if they had offered a voodoo prayer at a school meeting, even if a majority of the attendants were followers of voodoo?

Would those same anti-religious folks

While obviously many of the people at the ACLU are anti-religious, I don't think Foil or I count as anti-religious, and both of us have stated here that we disapprove of offical government sponsored prayer.

...agree that we shouldn't be providing the Koran and prayer rugs for Muslims in prison because after all, it is a federal institution singling out a religion to provide the followers with religious materials

NOT the same issue. A parallel issue would be if the prison had Muslim prayers going out over the announcment system, or if the warden opened an offical prison meeting with a Muslim prayer.

Allowing access to your religious needs is NOT in any way officially sponsoring or establishing that religion. I participate in a Christian prison ministry. The prison allows us to use a room within the prison. An announcment goes out to the prisoners that the Seventh Day Adventists meeting is about to start and those who are allowed AND WISH may attend. The Catholics, Baptists, AND Muslims, are allowed to have meetings as well, under the same terms. This isn't about the establishment clause, but about the "prohibiting the free excerise there of" clause.

if you check into this issue, you would find out the government is chock full of religion, and the wall that separates the church and state is still standing tall.

No its not. It's ALWAYS been thin and wobbly, and it's getting more so every day. It is constantly attacked from both sides. Conservatives want more religion in government, and liberals want more government in religion. It's only through constant vigilance that the wall still exists at all, and I'll be suprised if it survives much longer as anything more than a token.

So they are saying school employee's are criminals if they go to church on Sunday?

I was ASSUMING the ruling applied ONLY when those employees are acting in their official capacity AS government employees. But people are insane, so no guarantee on that.

but if a bunch of like minded people want to give thanks in the cafeteria then a little tolerance should be allowed...even for those dastardly Christians.

They certainly should be allowed. Let them put their tables together and have a prayer. I don't even care if its led by the principle. As long as he walks down from the podium and over to those peoples tables and its clear that he is no longer functioning as principle and that this is a private prayer open to any and all who wish to participate, but forced upon none who would rather avoid it.

I'd say that it's gotta be a two way street, either way. If they're going to say that teachers can't pray publicly at school because it would be an act of governmental recognition/etc, likewise any attempts by the school board to ban teachers from religious acts outside of school (or even private ones in school) should be recognized as governmental establishment.

Agreed!

[Duper]

I seem to be miscommunicating.

This was to everyone here, not just you.

Again, this is a simple matter of the Golden Rule. It is, of COURSE, legal for a Muslim to be a public school teacher in the USA (I DO hope we can all agree on that!). I imagine most Christians would be quite offended to discover that their kids public school teacher was leading the class in Muslim prayers. NOT that they were praying themselves (that is not offensive), NOT that they were praying with a group of Muslim students who requested it (that is not offensive), but that there was an OFFICIAL prayer being led up front. That IS offensive, and just plain WRONG.

If I went to a school football game and before the game began the principle asked everyone to get out their prayer rugs while he performed a Muslim chant, I would feel put upon. Such an "Official" prayer has no place at a public school football game. I am NOT offended by Muslim prayers, if I were visiting a game at a private Islamic school, I would EXPECT official Muslim prayers, but then attendance is my choice. In the context of a public school, it's inappropriate.

On the whole, I don't buy it. It's based in fear for your children and what they would be learning when in fact the garbage being feed to our kids by special interest groups via the public school system is far more dangerous. Not to mention the social gauntlet they have to run for at least 6 years. the possibility of islam or buddism in the schools doesn't scare me. Teaching your kids how to have a "golden shower" correctly and not to listen to your parents because they don't know what's going on in your head DOES. (both things were going on here while my daughter was in school)
We are a free republic. .. or used to be. Change the laws.

Ps. an extra thought on why other religions don't bother me so much if they are being taught. Heck learned about Buddism and existentialism in high school in humanities and it was allowed. Those are obvious. The special interest groups are more subversive and sublime. They're tactics go largely unnoticed or even unidentifiable by the masses even when it's outlined in red marker and painted yellow.

[CUDA]

...agree that we shouldn't be providing the Koran and prayer rugs for Muslims in prison because after all, it is a federal institution singling out a religion to provide the followers with religious materials

NOT the same issue.

no its actually worse. instead of just talking about it to people. your actually allowing the Government to purchase the religious materials to be distibuted by government employee's

[Kilarin]

It's based in fear for your children and what they would be learning

Actually no. I'm more than happy for my son to learn about other religions. I'm not scared of what my kid will learn, I'm scared of the government and the church combined in an unholy union. History tells us that the results are very bad.

when in fact the garbage being feed to our kids by special interest groups via the public school system is far more dangerous.

I agree. I just don't think that I should excuse one wrong because they are doing other things that are also wrong. And, like I said, I make the choice to make the sacrifices necessary to send my kid to church school.

I'm not defending the Public School system. I'm just trying to defend the poor people who are in it. Religious education is NOT helped by government sponsorship. Quite the contrary.

instead of just talking about it to people. your actually allowing the Government to purchase the religious materials to be distributed by government employee's

Hmmm. Point. It does seem like the materials should be purchased by the inmates, or provided by charitable sources.

[Spidey]

No Kilarin, I don’t believe it applies to state & local governments. If they wanted it to, they would have said so.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and it seems to me that the school district was probably within their rights in this case…but, the entire thing is problematic.

1. The board is making policy based on a part of the constitution that does not apply to them.
2. Even if the constitutional amendment did apply here, they are still basing their policy on something that is not required.
3. The total disregard for “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

If you believe the amendment applies, you can’t pick and choose which parts apply and which parts do not.

The founding fathers were pretty smart cookies, and they knew better then to have one part on an amendment conflict with another part…especially within the same amendment. Therefore you can’t have the free exercise and the banning of prayer. They are mutually exclusive.

I’m having a really hard time reconciling “banning” & “free exercise”. And being on the “safe side” is not doing it for me.

[Insurrectionist]

Here in Missouri we have a bill of rights that states

Article I BILL OF RIGHTS Religious freedom--liberty of conscience and belief--limitations.
Section 5. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

So now what does this tell you?

[Duper]

wow, interesting.

1). That you have the right to worship God (not necessarily \"any god\" as it uses \"Almighty\")

2). You are not to be discriminated against on account to your reglious belief. (any religion)

3). that you are not to twist the edicts outlined so to be disorderly, stainful, immoral (licentiousness)or stomp on others.

4). That they are bound to up hold a \"conscience clause\" for Doctors in that state. (federal does not over ride state law)

You will find such articles in most states' Constitutions. Many even more specific.