DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Atheist Group Tries to Stop Prayers at High School Football Games That Include ‘Jesus

**QXCharles** · 10-27-2011, 07:42 PM

I didn't mean to imply that I disagree with you that the First Amendment binds only the government. I am with you 100%. My point is that it is unconstitutional for a state actor (in the OP, that would be the administrators of the public school district) to require the citizenry to listed to prayers as a pre-condition to taking part in or observing a public event. THAT is the definition of unconstitutional. In fact, the plaintiff might have a good case for a civil rights action against the school district since the unconstitutionality of forced prayer is a well-settled point of law.

It's a tricky subject because as Candycane conveniently quoted for us the specific wording states "Congress shall pass no law". It's important where the Constitution is concerned to interpret it to mean almost precisely that under most circumstances. While it is certainly in bad taste for an official entity to promote a specific religion in a public forum there is nothing preventing from holding generic "religious practices" in a public setting (you cannot specifically attribute "prayer" to only one individual religion). The actions themselves are very specific in whether they are unconstitutional or the reverse.

10-27-2011, 07:42 PM	#15
QXCharles Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	I didn't mean to imply that I disagree with you that the First Amendment binds only the government. I am with you 100%. My point is that it is unconstitutional for a state actor (in the OP, that would be the administrators of the public school district) to require the citizenry to listed to prayers as a pre-condition to taking part in or observing a public event. THAT is the definition of unconstitutional. In fact, the plaintiff might have a good case for a civil rights action against the school district since the unconstitutionality of forced prayer is a well-settled point of law. It's a tricky subject because as Candycane conveniently quoted for us the specific wording states "Congress shall pass no law". It's important where the Constitution is concerned to interpret it to mean almost precisely that under most circumstances. While it is certainly in bad taste for an official entity to promote a specific religion in a public forum there is nothing preventing from holding generic "religious practices" in a public setting (you cannot specifically attribute "prayer" to only one individual religion). The actions themselves are very specific in whether they are unconstitutional or the reverse.
	Quote