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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 10:

First I'm glad to see we agree to so much, so I won't comment on those parts...

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.

Honesty compels me to say "offended", of course I don't go all hairy ape when it occurs.

I would agree, banning public prayer would be unconstitutional, and I would oppose that.

I'm for a ban, on the grounds of past abuses, and divisive nature.

However, expressing displeasure about public prayer should be allowed and those that are offended by such expressions need to get over it.

I tend to walk or move about silently.

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

That's legit. I debate here moreso than seek to overturn the status quo. I'm not going to war over some folks saying a prayer.

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.

Even when it is government speech that offends?

I'll not sit by while my government talks down to me.

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.

That's why I mentioned context is important to the given prayer. If a person was otherwise "humble" while praying, that's one thing; when the praying is partisan, warlike, or meant to intimidate all bets are off.

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.

Of course. As before, I debate it as an "imposition", and realize the damage is slight for me personally. This doesn't address those that may be impressionable, or gullible who may be affected in less quantitative ways.

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"?

She was not acting as a goverment agent, so I'll leave her be as off topic.

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?

Meetings, or any otherwise professional environment where government is involved, especially when participation is mandatory.