1st Ammendment

[Confused]

The contradictory "Free Exercise Clause" guarantees religious freedom while the "Establishment Clause" prohibits the American Government from endorsing religion. Meanwhile:
Many politicians make public statements that obviously endorse religion.

Bush quoted Psalms 23 in his nationally televised address on Sept 11, 2001 and one year later is quoted as saying (John 1:5) +The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it" (Statement by the President in his Address to the Nation: Sept 11, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 11-16.html )

Bush also referred to the "War on Terrorism" as a crusade.

Then Senator Hillary Clinton's characterization of restrictive immigration legislation as contrary to the spirit of the "Good Samaritan".

In the inaugurations, Bush to flak for allowing one prayer by the Rev Franklin Graham: In the name of the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and another by the Minister Kirbyjon Caldwell "in the name that's above all other names, Jesus, the Christ".

In the Clinton inauguration, in 1997, is fete included a trinitarian prayer by Billy Graham, a benediction by a black Baptist preacher, and songs by no fewer than three gospel groups (one called the Resurrection Choir). ("Religious Illiteracy" by Stephen Prothero).

Thousands of other religious contextual language used by politicians can be found in a quick search of the "Congressional Record" (The official source for Senate and House debates) such as usage of "The Golden Rule", "The Good Samaritan", and the list goes on.

How can these not be in violation of the Establishment Clause? If spoken by an agent of the Government in addressing affairs of the Nation or Government, how do these not make a mockery of the first amendment?

[micatala]

The contradictory "Free Exercise Clause" guarantees religious freedom while the "Establishment Clause" prohibits the American Government from endorsing religion. Meanwhile:
Many politicians make public statements that obviously endorse religion.

Bush quoted Psalms 23 in his nationally televised address on Sept 11, 2001 and one year later is quoted as saying (John 1:5) +The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it" (Statement by the President in his Address to the Nation: Sept 11, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 11-16.html )

Bush also referred to the "War on Terrorism" as a crusade.

Then Senator Hillary Clinton's characterization of restrictive immigration legislation as contrary to the spirit of the "Good Samaritan".

In the inaugurations, Bush to flak for allowing one prayer by the Rev Franklin Graham: In the name of the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and another by the Minister Kirbyjon Caldwell "in the name that's above all other names, Jesus, the Christ".

In the Clinton inauguration, in 1997, is fete included a trinitarian prayer by Billy Graham, a benediction by a black Baptist preacher, and songs by no fewer than three gospel groups (one called the Resurrection Choir). ("Religious Illiteracy" by Stephen Prothero).

Thousands of other religious contextual language used by politicians can be found in a quick search of the "Congressional Record" (The official source for Senate and House debates) such as usage of "The Golden Rule", "The Good Samaritan", and the list goes on.

How can these not be in violation of the Establishment Clause? If spoken by an agent of the Government in addressing affairs of the Nation or Government, how do these not make a mockery of the first amendment?

I understand others will have a very different interpretation of the Establishment Clause, but I do not see religious statements by politicians, even within official government events, as necessarily unconstitutional.

Firstly, these statements do not require anyone hearing them to participate or believe in a religion they do not wish to. I do not see that the Establishment Clause guarantees a person the right to never be exposed in any way to religious actions or beliefs.

Secondly, while I can see that some might object to such statements as an implied endorsement of a religious view, I do not see that they "establish" in any way any sort of "state religion" or even "official state religious view." They are expressions by a particular person who has a role as a government official, but they have no legal standing. To me, nothing is being "established."

[cnorman18]

It would be very strange is a person lost his or her right of free speech upon being elected to public office. I don't see that a statement of private religious conviction is in any way unconstitutional, even if that conviction is offered in support of a change in public policy. If policy is changed (or continued) on a religious basis alone, then we have a problem.

[JoeyKnothead]

This atheist is concerned by such religious statements because they are offered by a "leader", or otherwise "official representative".

I agree we should measure the context of these statements, and consider whether a rational person could see they are offered in the 'spirit' of a personal duty to acknowledge one's own God. That I have little issue with.

When such statements are made in a 'spirit' of religious 'imposition', then my milk goes to clabbering. Here I think of the Judge Moore case, where he clearly sought to impose his particular religion onto others.

[micatala]

This atheist is concerned by such religious statements because they are offered by a "leader", or otherwise "official representative".

But if we limit what kinds of statements a leader can make, how do we decide what the limits will be? If a leader makes a statement indicating they did not believe God existed, would that be OK or out of bounds? Can they prefer the Red Sox over the Yankees?

I agree we should measure the context of these statements, and consider whether a rational person could see they are offered in the 'spirit' of a personal duty to acknowledge one's own God. That I have little issue with.

When such statements are made in a 'spirit' of religious 'imposition', then my milk goes to clabbering. Here I think of the Judge Moore case, where he clearly sought to impose his particular religion onto others.

I would agree that being concerned when a government official makes statements that advocate for imposition of a religious view on citizens is understandable and a valid reaction. My yardstick would be to consider the particular action or law being promoted. If a Muslim, for example, was promoting voluntary charitable giving and quoted the Koran as part of his or her promotion, I don't see that as a problem. Even if they were supporting government programs for the poor using Koranic rationale, I would not have a problem with the use of religious language, as long as they were able to make the case that this was an appropriate government program for secular reasons and that the program had a secular purpose.

Now, you alluded to Judge Moore and all I can recall is that he was pushing a display of the 10 commandments. It seems to me that this action has no reasonable secular purpose, but rather, its sole intent and effect is to promote a religious viewpoint. On the other hand, while I personally would not be in favor of such a display, I don't see that, in and of itself, it really causes any egregious harm either. It does not deprive anyone of their first amendment rights, nor does it force anyone to participate in particular religious activities.

The one issue it might raise is possibly one of a sort of "intimidation." If either the intent or the effect of the display was to send the message to citizens and, more importantly, judicial or police officials that discriminating against those who did not agree with the message of the display is OK, then we have problems.

For example, the defense attorneys in the Scopes trial quickly discerned that public opinion in Dayton Tennessee, as well as the judge's religious viewpoints, were against them. They objected to daily prayers in court which were basically polemics against evolution. The judge eventually allowed liberal and conservative ministers to alternate giving the daily prayer.

Of course, none of this had much effect on the overwhelmingly conservative and Bible-believing jurors.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble now so I'll quit before I get further behind.

[kayky]

This posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and other government buildings has been a big issue here in my home state of Kentucky. The real problem with doing this is that it has the appearance of a state preference for the Judeo-Christian tradition. The only purpose it seems to serve is to remind those of minority religions or of no religion that they are not "mainstream" Americans. I can think of no positive reason for such displays.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 5:

This atheist is concerned by such religious statements because they are offered by a "leader", or otherwise "official representative".

But if we limit what kinds of statements a leader can make, how do we decide what the limits will be? If a leader makes a statement indicating they did not believe God existed, would that be OK or out of bounds? Can they prefer the Red Sox over the Yankees?

As in the following part of that post, I think we should consider such based on context. Where a leader clearly states they speak "personally" rather than the implied "officially" I don't take much issue.

I would agree that being concerned when a government official makes statements that advocate for imposition of a religious view on citizens is understandable and a valid reaction. My yardstick would be to consider the particular action or law being promoted. If a Muslim, for example, was promoting voluntary charitable giving and quoted the Koran as part of his or her promotion, I don't see that as a problem. Even if they were supporting government programs for the poor using Koranic rationale, I would not have a problem with the use of religious language, as long as they were able to make the case that this was an appropriate government program for secular reasons and that the program had a secular purpose.

I agree. To me, "God says so" is insufficient, but when phrased such as, "God says so and here's why" then I think we can appreciate the argument, and make our considerations accordingly.

Now, you alluded to Judge Moore and all I can recall is that he was pushing a display of the 10 commandments. It seems to me that this action has no reasonable secular purpose, but rather, its sole intent and effect is to promote a religious viewpoint. On the other hand, while I personally would not be in favor of such a display, I don't see that, in and of itself, it really causes any egregious harm either. It does not deprive anyone of their first amendment rights, nor does it force anyone to participate in particular religious activities.

Some atheists are insulted merely by the display of religious icons, given the real or perceived oppressions of the past.

I fall within this camp, and am further offended because these can't be shown to be "god-given" but merely the product of human thought.

The one issue it might raise is possibly one of a sort of "intimidation." If either the intent or the effect of the display was to send the message to citizens and, more importantly, judicial or police officials that discriminating against those who did not agree with the message of the display is OK, then we have problems.

Agreed.

For example, the defense attorneys in the Scopes trial quickly discerned that public opinion in Dayton Tennessee, as well as the judge's religious viewpoints, were against them. They objected to daily prayers in court which were basically polemics against evolution. The judge eventually allowed liberal and conservative ministers to alternate giving the daily prayer.

I kinda move into the hypothetical here, so consider this as when I feel I have a legitimate gripe. As part of my ongoing rehabilitation I no longer go where such may be likely to occur...

I disagree with any prayer, conservative, liberal or other, when it is imposing religion on an otherwise captive audience.

It is my personal opinion (and sometimes action) that I would "act up" or otherwise cause disruption during any prayer offered in a government (and sometimes public) environment.

I see no reason to hold superstitious, nonprovable beliefs safe from ridicule, especially when I am otherwise being ridiculed through forced prayer.

[Easyrider]

I disagree with any prayer, conservative, liberal or other, when it is imposing religion on an otherwise captive audience.

It is my personal opinion (and sometimes action) that I would "act up" or otherwise cause disruption during any prayer offered in a government (and sometimes public) environment.

Really? Then why weren't you there at Obama's Inauguration disrupting things when the public prayer was offered up? You had to know years in advance that was coming.

But in a similar vein, I would oppose any god-haters, atheists, agnostics, or Christ-bashers who would try to overthrow or legislate away the great traditions of this country, which include days of Thanksgiving to God, public prayers, etc., etc.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 8

Really? Then why weren't you there at Obama's Inauguration disrupting things when the public prayer was offered up? You had to know years in advance that was coming.

"It's people".

First one to get the reference I'll donate 1000 personal tokens.

But in a similar vein, I would oppose any god-haters, atheists, agnostics, or Christ-bashers who would try to overthrow or legislate away the great traditions of this country, which include days of Thanksgiving to God, public prayers, etc., etc.

Personally I play Alice's Restaurant when the groceries hit the plates. Turkey's only good the next day on sandwiches, then its great, but I try to eat a token amount.

"How yall do yalls is on yall"

Happy Thanksgiving!

[micatala]

From Page 1 Post 5:

This atheist is concerned by such religious statements because they are offered by a "leader", or otherwise "official representative".

But if we limit what kinds of statements a leader can make, how do we decide what the limits will be? If a leader makes a statement indicating they did not believe God existed, would that be OK or out of bounds? Can they prefer the Red Sox over the Yankees?

As in the following part of that post, I think we should consider such based on context. Where a leader clearly states they speak "personally" rather than the implied "officially" I don't take much issue.

We're largely in agreement here, and below.

I would agree that being concerned when a government official makes statements that advocate for imposition of a religious view on citizens is understandable and a valid reaction. My yardstick would be to consider the particular action or law being promoted. If a Muslim, for example, was promoting voluntary charitable giving and quoted the Koran as part of his or her promotion, I don't see that as a problem. Even if they were supporting government programs for the poor using Koranic rationale, I would not have a problem with the use of religious language, as long as they were able to make the case that this was an appropriate government program for secular reasons and that the program had a secular purpose.

I agree. To me, "God says so" is insufficient, but when phrased such as, "God says so and here's why" then I think we can appreciate the argument, and make our considerations accordingly.

Now, you alluded to Judge Moore and all I can recall is that he was pushing a display of the 10 commandments. It seems to me that this action has no reasonable secular purpose, but rather, its sole intent and effect is to promote a religious viewpoint. On the other hand, while I personally would not be in favor of such a display, I don't see that, in and of itself, it really causes any egregious harm either. It does not deprive anyone of their first amendment rights, nor does it force anyone to participate in particular religious activities.

Some atheists are insulted merely by the display of religious icons, given the real or perceived oppressions of the past.

I fall within this camp, and am further offended because these can't be shown to be "god-given" but merely the product of human thought.

I disagree with any prayer, conservative, liberal or other, when it is imposing religion on an otherwise captive audience.

It is my personal opinion (and sometimes action) that I would "act up" or otherwise cause disruption during any prayer offered in a government (and sometimes public) environment.

Really? Then why weren't you there at Obama's Inauguration disrupting things when the public prayer was offered up? You had to know years in advance that was coming.

But in a similar vein, I would oppose any god-haters, atheists, agnostics, or Christ-bashers who would try to overthrow or legislate away the great traditions of this country, which include days of Thanksgiving to God, public prayers, etc., etc.

And here is where I think we have problems. Both joeyknuccione and Easyrider, although he does not use the word "offended", are unhappy or offended by certain expressions. In fact, to be fair, Easyrider does not say he is opposed to simple speech, but rather to attempts to "overthrow or legislate away" certain actions, holidays, etc. I would agree, banning public prayer would be unconstitutional, and I would oppose that. However, expressing displeasure about public prayer should be allowed and those that are offended by such expressions need to get over it.



If the only harm is that you get offended, then I say "tough" to both of you.





If the only harm is "feeling offended" then that is a harm I think we need to ask people to live with. Free speech does not come with a right not to be offended by someone else's speech.

Now, I would also say that in most circumstances, it should be allowed for people to "act up" if they wish, if that does not include violence but only the expressing of an opinion. The negative consequences of acting up could include a loss of credibility. If people are thinking you are out of line, they'll simply stop listening to you.

For example, the defense attorneys in the Scopes trial quickly discerned that public opinion in Dayton Tennessee, as well as the judge's religious viewpoints, were against them. They objected to daily prayers in court which were basically polemics against evolution. The judge eventually allowed liberal and conservative ministers to alternate giving the daily prayer.

I kinda move into the hypothetical here, so consider this as when I feel I have a legitimate gripe. As part of my ongoing rehabilitation I no longer go where such may be likely to occur...

I disagree with any prayer, conservative, liberal or other, when it is imposing religion on an otherwise captive audience.

It is my personal opinion (and sometimes action) that I would "act up" or otherwise cause disruption during any prayer offered in a government (and sometimes public) environment.

I see no reason to hold superstitious, nonprovable beliefs safe from ridicule, especially when I am otherwise being ridiculed through forced prayer.[/quote]

Again, act up if you wish. But I still fail to see any imposition happening. Other people expressing an opinion are engaging in speech you find offensive is not, in my view, an imposition in and of itself.



Consider the reaction Miss California got for expressing her views, and consider some of the reaction she got. Do either her speech or the sometimes virulent responses she got qualify as "impositions"?


You bring up the phrase "captive audience." What counts as a captive audience? Certainly President Bush or Obama making a public comment for the media does not make the entire country into a captive audience does it?