First Admendment

[Duper]

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.

Not to be splitting hairs, but for my own clarity. What do you mean by sponsorship? on what level?
Thanks.

[flip]

The way I read the amendment is simply that the government cannot \"sponsor or promote\" any religion and cannot interfere with anybody's exercise of the religion of their choice. So charges against someone who personally and publicly promotes their beliefs is unconstitutional. I'm thinking their main reason for this amendment was because they had just recently fled from an government that would burn or ostracize people who didn't conform to the government sponsored religion. Teachers are individuals. My wife is a teacher. She does her job but she doesn't represent the whole school. It's a job for god's sake not her whole life. Why should she give up her constitutional rights to FREELY exercise her beliefs just because she works for the government. I see the whole amendment to squarely be wrote for people just like her. That she as a person can pray publicly and talk freely about her religion, without the government telling her which religion she has to choose. She or the other teachers are not the government. It's a job. They are individuals protected under the same constitution as the rest of us. We all know the story of Daniel and the lions den. His only crime was publicly praying.

[Duper]

The Federal constitution?

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.

No, not sponsor or promote. It doesn't SAY that. it Says \"make no law respecting an establishment of religion,\"

Make No Law It does not say advocate. The founding fathers didn't want the Federal government to have the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion or any other aspect. It is not the Federal governement's place. They did not want a repeat of the Church of England with a centrally controlled religion.

It does not say that you have to strip any vestage of God out of anything labeled \"government\". Article that people have been allowed to place either individuals or a group as they are of the people not the government. Religion is protected from government interference.

Now as I understand it, states ARE allowed the power to establish thier own central religion if they want to. Of course it would have to retified into their constitutions and that process alone would stop such an action in todays world. And that's the check and balance.

Remember, that Federal law (originally) only was affecive where something effected the Federation on the whole. We are a collective of soveriegn Separate states; each with its own government. I would like to see that restored.

[flip]

Me and you both Duper. It was another ingenious way our fore fathers intended to keep the federal government from becoming to strong. As we can see now, even with all the safeguards it's still inevitable. Only took 200 years this time around . The union is no longer made up of sovereign states. We like to pretend it still is but in reality it's not. As soon as each state became dependent on the money the federal government dishes out each, they effectively abolished state sovereignty.

I also agree the the amendment does not verbatim say sponsor or promote, but I do read it as effectively saying just that. In fact I think it's simply saying that the government can not even make a judgment about religion one way or the other(NO LAW). That is a right solely held by individuals without any government interference at all.

[Insurrectionist]

they effectively abolished state sovereignty.

Well we have already seen what happens when States try to secede the union and declare their sovereignty a hundred and fifty years ago. So I would state sovereignty went out the window then. Many state have made a non-binding resolution reaffirming the The Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Map of the resolutions http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/200 ... solutions/

But we are talking about the 1st Amendment.

[Spidey]

This is a nation of independent “states” not a nation of independent countries. The colonies were formed into states, and then into a nation.

One Nation Indivisible.

What the south did was illegal.

But don’t misread me…I believe in states rights.

[Duper]

This is a nation of independent “states” not a nation of independent countries. The colonies were formed into states, and then into a nation.

One Nation Indivisible.

What the south did was illegal.

But don’t misread me…I believe in states rights.

Spidey and Insurrection. We aren't meaning succession.
Each State is soveriegn. It is in effect a mini country free to conduct business and right laws as its people sees fit. We are a collective and share a common federal law. We are infact a Republic not a democracy. We exercise democracy within the confines of our union but not soley so.

We are individual states. Free and separate from the others and not subject to another's laws or edicts. We are not ruled by Federal law. Federal law is put in place to help goven matters where co-state matters exists and common interesta and to limit powers provided given there of.

The Constitution has become a power wish list.

The States are Separate and united. To use an illustration, each state is a singular grape in a "bunch" (technical term there) of a vine. We are the United States of America, not the United Counties of the Bill of rights.

Each state technically has the right to succeed, providing the people approve. But in practical sense, it won't happen, just like technically, you don't have to pay income tax.

[snoopy]

I'll say that I think Kilarin and I see this about the same way. Teachers shouldn't be leading class prayers... if I want my kids to be taught a certain religion in school, I'll send them to a private school of that type.

I also think that jail time is a bit extreme. We're in a country where the prevailing religion is athiesm (yes, I'm kinda mis-naming it, but we also refuse to use the more appropriate term, worldview) and it's taught in public schools all the time. We don't see it, because it's the way a lot of people think... but one of these days we'll be thinking we need to come down just as hard on people who are saying that we should have no religious displays. I'd give the teacher a written warning that next time this happens the state teaching license will be revoked.

Now, to address the greater question of \"how do you implement this into policy,\" I want to pose a few questions:

1. Where does the line between \"individual who works for the government\" and \"representative of the government & it's policies\" fall? I'd say that's the difference... I'm okay with the former doing religious acts, but not really the latter. I think it varies by position & role, too. The majority of president Obama's actions are interpreted as the latter, while the majority of my senator's aide's secretary's actions are interpreted as the former.

2. That leads into the next question: how much weight does the witnesses interpretation get, as compared to the government employees intentions? Hand in hand with this is the question; Where is the line between the witness choosing to be offended and the actor trying to be offensive?

3. What about ongoing displays? For example: A Muslim woman covering herself, or A Hindu woman with the mark on her forehead?

Here's my sketchy take on it: Personal displays and actions, even in public, even in front of the classroom are okay, as long as the teacher isn't saying \"you should do this, too.\" I think leading a public prayer qualifies as saying \"you should do this, too.\" Any policy that says you can't have public religious displays is okay for private entities, but violates the first amendment coming from a state government. I think the school board's reaction is way overboard and is blatantly violating the first amendment, even if it is supposed to only apply on school property. The school board (read: government) can tell the teachers that they can't teach religion, but they can't tell teachers that they can't practice it... at all.

Now, if you're going to say that the school board's actions aren't government policy, then the whole premise of the lawsuit has to be dropped... and the school board can do whatever they want as a private entity, but it can't carry the weight of the law behind it. I.E. they can fire her, but the state can't get itself involved.

[flip]

I'll say that I think Kilarin and I see this about the same way. Teachers shouldn't be leading class prayers... if I want my kids to be taught a certain religion in school, I'll send them to a private school of that type.

Personal displays and actions, even in public, even in front of the classroom are okay, as long as the teacher isn't saying \"you should do this, too.

The school board (read: government) can tell the teachers that they can't teach religion, but they can't tell teachers that they can't practice it... at all.

My thoughts exactly.

[Spidey]

The states only have limited sovereignty. IE: the state of Florida cannot declare war against Iraq.

And the states “are” governed by federal law.

You did get one thing right tho…the states do have the right to succeed, and they also have the right to secede, as long as it’s done legally.

Also the Republic part, and not being subject to other states laws.

Back to school for you.

……………………………..

If you think the Federal Government has usurped states rights…well that I would have to agree with.

[Duper]

\"If you think the Federal Government has usurped states rights…well that I would have to agree with.\"

Whether I \"think\" it's true or not is irrelevant. It is fact.

Sates should only be governed by Federal law where truely Federal matters are concerned. Health care does not fall under that catagory. Setting international tariffs does. (as examples)

save the sarcasm

Now, to bring this full circle. Teh first amendments are limitation leveled at the Federal government and not the states. States are allowed to create their own laws and limitations as they see fit, or rather the people of each state does. Remember the government does not run the people, the people run the government. ... as is being reaffirmed at the recent townhall meetings.

[Spidey]

You say “should” that makes it your opinion., not fact.

OK….

If the states are not subject to Federal law…ok let me pull an example out of my ass…mmmmuuummm..ok.

How were the National Parks created?

Obama just now declared some hole in the ground in CO a wildlife reserve.



I’ll save the sarcasm, when you stop the veiled insults…Mr. Thinking Man.

[Insurrectionist]

How were the National Parks created?

In 1872, Yellowstone National Park was established as arguably the world's first truly national park. When news of the natural wonders of the Yellowstone were first promulgated, the land was part of a federally governed territory. Unlike Yosemite, there was no state government that could assume stewardship of the land, so the federal government took on direct responsibility for the park, a process formally completed in October 1, 1890—the official first National park of the United States. It took the combined effort and interest of conservationists, politicians and especially businesses—namely, the Northern Pacific Railroad, whose route through Montana would greatly benefit by the creation of this new tourist attraction—to ensure the passage of that landmark enabling legislation by the United States Congress to create Yellowstone National Park. Theodore Roosevelt, already an active campaigner and so influential as good stump speakers were highly necessary in the pre-telecommunications era, was highly influential in convincing fellow Republicans and big business to back the bill.

[Spidey]

Nice paste, why didn’t you just use a link?

Wow, there is a lot more federal land than I ever imagined.

I will concede that most of the Federal Law that supersedes State law seems to be a usurpation of the original powers granted by the constitution.

That doesn’t make it right, I’ll grant you that.

[flip]

Federal mandates is how the Federal government usurps it's powers. To expand on my earlier comment concerning this:

As soon as each state became dependent on the money the federal government dishes out each, they effectively abolished state sovereignty.

A Federal mandate is a requirement set by the Federal government. It usually is in the form of a new Federal Law.

In some cases the Federal government doesn't have the authority to do something, so they will find a way to change something else. Drinking age is defined by the states, but the Federal Government passed a law that they wouldn't provide highway funds to any state that didn't raise their drinking age to 21.

[CUDA]

any way you cut it. if they convict these 2 men and try to send them to Prison it is a PURE violation of the first amendment.

[Zantor]

any way you cut it. if they convict these 2 men and try to send them to Prison it is a PURE violation of the first amendment.

I agree. An appeal and some good lawyers should get the case thrown out and the charges exonerated.

[Kilarin]

Therefore you can't have the free exercise and the banning of prayer. They are mutually exclusive.

To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the sun.

I work for a bank right now, and they've got a very interesting policy. I'm welcome to talk in public about any issue unrelated to the banking industry, BUT, if I speak (or post) in public, IN MY ROLE AS A BANK EMPLOYEE, about financial matters, without first obtaining permission from the bank, it could be grounds for dismissal.

At first I was offended, but just a few seconds thought, and a deeper reading of the policy, showed the wisdom of the move. I'm welcome to have whatever opinion I wish, and to express it, as long as I am not directly representing the Bank when I do so. When I speak for the Bank, I have to restrict my comments to things the Bank approves of.

That's all we are talking about here. There is no banning of prayer, just the clarification that public prayers should NOT come from someone acting in their role as a government employee. Again, it would be PERFECTLY fine for the teacher to step down from the podium and have an out-loud public prayer with fellow Christians, acting as a private citizen. But when they speak from the podium (or over the loudspeaker) they are speaking in their role as a government employee, and should act appropriately.

What do you mean by sponsorship? on what level?

Tax dollars should not go directly to support religious education. Public Schools should not be attempting to teach religion. Government institutions should not be having official prayers, of any kind.

I support religious education, I support prayer, I just don't want my government mucking it up.

charges against someone who personally and publicly promotes their beliefs is unconstitutional.

Absolutely. The issue here should NOT be an attempt to make teachers hide their religion. Only NOT to have them promote it with the voice of the government. A principle who runs Bible Study classes is perfectly within their rights, they are acting as a private citizen. A principle who says Christian prayers over the loudspeaker before public school games is using the voice of the government to promote their religion. That is WRONG.

Now as I understand it, states ARE allowed the power to establish their own central religion if they want to.

The 14th amendment extended the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Do you REALLY want individual states to have the power to bring back slavery, or deny the freedom of the press, etc? I know there is some controversy over how to interpret/apply the 14th amendment. But lets set that aside for a moment, do you not think it would be a GOOD IDEA for the bill of rights to apply to the states as a minimum? (They are, of course, welcome to ADD rights, but not to remove federally guaranteed rights)

Teachers shouldn't be leading class prayers... if I want my kids to be taught a certain religion in school, I'll send them to a private school of that type

Huzzah!

Where is the line between the witness choosing to be offended and the actor trying to be offensive?

VERY good point.

Personal displays and actions, even in public, even in front of the classroom are okay, as long as the teacher isn't saying "you should do this, too." I think leading a public prayer qualifies as saying "you should do this, too."

yes, that makes VERY good sense. An excellent post, you stated this much better than I have been doing. thanks!

[Spidey]

Turn, Turn, Turn…yea nice song.

“You have the right to free
Speech as long as you’re not
Dumb enough to actually try it.”

[Duper]

Now as I understand it, states ARE allowed the power to establish their own central religion if they want to.

The 14th amendment extended the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Do you REALLY want individual states to have the power to bring back slavery, or deny the freedom of the press, etc? I know there is some controversy over how to interpret/apply the 14th amendment. But lets set that aside for a moment, do you not think it would be a GOOD IDEA for the bill of rights to apply to the states as a minimum? (They are, of course, welcome to ADD rights, but not to remove federally guaranteed rights)

Do I? It is up to the public of each state to make that decision. The question is, are people willing to fight to keep what they value in the law.
As it is, most state constitutions are modelled after the federal constitution.

The whole Statesmenship argument has been around from the word go. There have always been those that wanted a great deal of control over states. Concider also that at the time the Constitution was drafted a Federally regualted school system didn't exist.

[Stroodles]

I don't have a problem with them praying anywhere, as long as they aren't forcing it onto others. Don't put it on the intercom, and don't make the kids do it-but beyond that, if your religon dictates the need, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Kilarin]

The whole Statesmenship argument has been around from the word go. There have always been those that wanted a great deal of control over states.

I believe in states rights, I just also believe that our basic "bill of rights" should be guaranteed to all citizens of ANY state as a minimum. They are rights that should be protected for all people everywhere, certainly for every citizen of this country.

Concider also that at the time the Constitution was drafted a Federally regualted school system didn't exist.

Yes, and I often wonder if we wouldn't be much better off without it.

I don't have a problem with them praying anywhere, as long as they aren't forcing it onto others. Don't put it on the intercom, and don't make the kids do it-but beyond that, if your religon dictates the need, I see nothing wrong with it.

Agreed!

[Insurrectionist]

Here you go another violation of the first amendment. Not to mention a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://www.lakecityreporter.com/article ... 137968.prt

I'm sure there are others that are not of the religious nature.

Dated a while back but was on Fox news this morning. I had to check to make sure it happened and find another source so some will not take offence that it was from fox news

[Kilarin]

Christina Saunders, then a regional manager for Hallmark, asked Sharon Dixon if the words on the art were from scripture. Dixon confirmed this. Saunders told her to remove the artwork, according to the suit.

This makes sense. The owning company certainly has a right to regulate artwork hung in public view in the offices of property that they own. If the regional manager had said, \"No punk rock posters in public view in company offices!\" surely no one would consider it a violation of free speech.

Saunders reportedly consulted with her supervisor Norine Lewis, and then removed the artwork and put it in the Dixons’ apartment.
...
The couple was told the art was “too religious,” Staver said, and they were fired and told to vacate the apartment within 72 hours.

But this makes no sense. If they complied with the order, why were they fired? Something fishy going on here.

[Lothar]

Saunders reportedly consulted with her supervisor Norine Lewis, and then removed the artwork and put it in the Dixons’ apartment.
...
The couple was told the art was “too religious,” Staver said, and they were fired and told to vacate the apartment within 72 hours.

But this makes no sense. If they complied with the order, why were they fired?

The Dixons didn't comply with the order. Saunders is the regional who gave the order, and when the Dixons didn't comply, Saunders moved the artwork herself (after consulting with a higher-up) and fired the couple.

Being fired means they lose all of the benefits of the job, including the free apartment.

[Kilarin]

The Dixons didn't comply with the order. Saunders is the regional who gave the order, and when the Dixons didn't comply, Saunders moved the artwork herself (after consulting with a higher-up) and fired the couple.

Ah! yes, that clears it up, I mixed up who was doing what. That's what I get for trying to rush through something over lunch hour.

thanks!