|
 |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:16:46 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>>> What's more, I would disagree with the court that this is an
>>> unconstitutional practice. The first amendment protects against the
>>> government establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Setting aside
>>> a "national prayer day" doesn't violate that unless it also mandates
>>> that everyone, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer, and establishes
>>> penalties for those who do not.
>>
>> So as long as no specific religion is explicitly mentioned, any kind
>> of
>> religious decree is ok?
>>
>> I don't think your first amendment says nor means that.
>
> Have you read the first amendment to the US 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."
>
> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.
>
> The way I read it, it actually encourages and promotes the free exercise
> of religion, including the right of one *not* to participate.
Not only that, but the judge in the case actually ruled that her ruling
should not be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are
exhausted. So even in the event that the federal judge is correct, she
herself effectively said her ruling did not impose an injunction or
prohibition on the President from continuing to do what he has done.
So Obama has not, in fact, broken any law, as the appeals have clearly
not run out yet.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
