[isogeople]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26...-that-include/

An Alabama school district has been accused of allowing prayers that invoke the name of Jesus during high school football games, according to a complaint filed by a national atheist organization.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation said the Lauderdale County school district has violated the First Amendment by allowing the prayers at Brooks High School.

School superintendent Bill Valentine confirmed to Fox News that he had received the complaint.

“We’ve referred that complaint to our attorney and we are in the process of reviewing it,” he said.

The complaint was lodged by a single resident who objected to the student-led prayer before high school football games played on school property.

One resident? So because one person is offended the football team has to change what they do? Did the person just move there? By no means am I a fan of religion but one person should not have so much pull. I don't see how it's a violation of the First Amendment either. I'm so sick of the "separation of church and state" bullshit. No one can show me where that is in the Constitution - oh because it's not. The Founding Fathers did not want to erase religion - they did not want to have a national or state religion and force people to believe one way. What does it hurt to say a prayer before a football game?

Shit we do it all the time at Army ceremonies - do I raise a big stink about it? No - I just stand there and take a moment of silence. I don't bow my head or anything. Saying a prayer won't hurt anyone. If that person doesn't like it, then just take a moment of silence or don't go to the games. I suppose they'll probably do like the other school and change it to a moment of silence.

[appletango]

That's what having rights means: One person can stop everyone else from doing something that infringes on the rights of that one person.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution? Tell the Supreme Court that. That congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means nothing if one is unable to stop the government from subjecting you to a religious exercise.

So the Army forces you to listen to prayers. You have every right to raise the issue with your chain of command, though I understand there are practical concerns that strongly dissuade soldiers from doing so (especially if you're in the USAF). A responsible, conscientious senior NCO or officer should take immediate corrective action to make sure your rights are respected.

[isopsmypovA]

That's what having rights means: One person can stop everyone else from doing something that infringes on the rights of that one person.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution? Tell the Supreme Court that. That congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means nothing if one is unable to stop the government from subjecting you to a religious exercise.

So the Army forces you to listen to prayers. You have every right to raise the issue with your chain of command, though I understand there are practical concerns that strongly dissuade soldiers from doing so (especially if you're in the USAF). A responsible, conscientious senior NCO or officer should take immediate corrective action to make sure your rights are respected.

I'm not going to infringe on the rights of everyone else in that group because I don't care for religion. It does not hurt me to stand there and listen to a prayer. That gives me a few minutes to space off and think about something else or in my old unit I had the job of taking pictures. But does it hurt me to hear a prayer? In any religion? No it doesn't. I am actually interested in reading about the different religions throughout time -I just don't agree with them. But I'm not going to take away prayer from people if that helps them. It doesn't kill me to listen and in my opinion - it is not violating my rights because no one is forcing me to pray. It's this little thing called respect that some people have forgotten.

Technically there is nothing called separation of church and state in the Constitution. That comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. I think some people use that and it's gotten so misconstrued they don't want to back off it. But no one on the Supreme Court is perfect. They are human beings as well and have made mistakes...

[newpiknicker]

Technically there is nothing called separation of church and state in the Constitution. That comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. I think some people use that and it's gotten so misconstrued they don't want to back off it. But no one on the Supreme Court is perfect. They are human beings as well and have made mistakes...

By "technically" you mean those exact words are not in it. The concept is clearly established in the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson noted.

Just for fun...here are some other little things that are NOT in the Constitution...does this also mean they do not exist in the the US?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to Remain Silent
The Right to have Legal Counsel appointed if you can not afford one
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
The Right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education.


Wow...this is awesome...if we look only for specific words in the Constitution, and dismiss the entire history of Supreme Court decisions as "meh, people make mistakes" we can throw away almost ALL our rights.

BTW, no one who wrote the Constitution, no who passed it, and now one who has ever read it is perfect either.

[RastusuadegeFrimoum]

By "technically" you mean those exact words are not in it. The concept is clearly established in the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson noted.

Just for fun...here are some other little things that are NOT in the Constitution...does this also mean they do not exist in the the US?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to Remain Silent
The Right to have Legal Counsel appointed if you can not afford one
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
The Right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education.


Wow...this is awesome...if we look only for specific words in the Constitution, we can throw almost ALL our rights.

Yes, the list of enumerated "rights" is very short indeed. It certainly would cause an individual to take a very close look at what our government is currently held to be responsible to do.

[Zarekylin75]

Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.)

As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion.

[Gymnfacymoota]

By "technically" you mean those exact words are not in it. The concept is clearly established in the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson noted.

Just for fun...here are some other little things that are NOT in the Constitution...does this also mean they do not exist in the the US?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to Remain Silent
The Right to have Legal Counsel appointed if you can not afford one
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
The Right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education.


Wow...this is awesome...if we look only for specific words in the Constitution, and dismiss the entire history of Supreme Court decisions as "meh, people make mistakes" we can throw almost ALL our rights.

Well these are all the things not in the Constitution:

•The Air Force
•Congressional Districts
•The Electoral College
•Executive Order
•Executive Privilege
•Freedom of Expression
•(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
•"From each according to his ability..."
•God
•Immigration
•Impeachment means removal from office
•Innocent until proven guilty
•It's a free country
•Judicial Review
•Jury of Peers
•"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
•Marriage
•Martial Law
•No taxation without representation
•Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
•"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
•Paper Money
•Political Parties
•Primary Elections
•Qualifications for Judges
•The right to privacy
•The right to travel
•The right to vote
•The separation of church and state
•The Separation of Powers Clause
•Slavery
•"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
•Other topics

From this link: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Some of those things are addressed in the Constitution but not word for word. Right to vote is addressed but it's up to the states - as long as it doesn't go against the Constitution. So someone can't be denied the ability to vote due to their race but states deny felons or those mentally incompetent - because that's not in the Constitution.

Just because people have misinterpreted the Constitution doesn't mean it's a right. Technically we don't have a right to privacy or marriage or any of the things listed. The only way the Air Force is Constitutional is because it started out as part of the Army and obviously due to the fact that airplanes weren't around when the Constitution was framed. That's why the Constitution was crafted the way it is as well - in order to add amendments because the FF knew that technology and times would change.

But separation of church and state - I guarantee you that if the FF showed up today (after overcoming the shock of seeing America still in existence and the technologies) they would smack our politicians in the face and tell people to stop being so damn literal. They never intended for religion to be wiped out of existence in America or they would've put it in the Constitution. People forget one reason a lot of people came here was to escape religious persecution.

I don't understand what the big deal is if religion isn't being forced on you. Listening to a prayer will not harm you in any way. No one tells you to participate in it, no one tells you that you'll be punished if you don't bow your head. If they do, then that's when you complain. But if I hear the name "Jesus" or "god" I don't go into an epileptic fit or something. They're just names. If you don't believe in them, great. But that doesn't mean you can deny other people from believing in a higher power. That is what irritates me. Atheists or non-believers want the ability to not believe and get mad if someone allegedly infringes on their rights but yet they turn around and do the same thing to people who do believe in a religion. It's not a one way street. Again respect is a two way street.

[nermise]

Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.)

As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion.

The Constitution gives you two independent rights in a single amendment where religion is concerned. You have the right to free practice as an individual, and the government can do nothing to impose on you when engaging in that right. Second, the establishment clause, where people derive the "separation of church and state", frequently all too loosely. This means government cannot force any established religion or religious practices on individual private citizens. It cannot, likewise by the first part, stop other individuals from practicing theirs in your presence simply because you might be offended. The key is the constitution binds government, not individuals. To bind individuals in any way, shape, or form, including the free practice of their individual religious beliefs is the DEFINITION of being unconstitutional.

[bashansasasasa]

The Constitution gives you two independent rights in a single amendment where religion is concerned. You have the right to free practice as an individual, and the government can do nothing to impose on you when engaging in that right. Second, the establishment clause, where people derive the "separation of church and state", frequently all too loosely. This means government cannot force any established religion or religious practices on individual private citizens. It cannot, likewise by the first part, stop other individuals from practicing theirs in your presence simply because you might be offended. The key is the constitution binds government, not individuals. To bind individuals in any way, shape, or form, including the free practice of their individual religious beliefs is the DEFINITION of being unconstitutional.

Correct. And if I'm at a military function...or a high school football game...and the person next to me bows his head and starts praying to whoever he wants to...there is no issue.

When the OFFICIAL agenda...includes a prayer in the name of Jesus...it's a violation of the Constitution.

[goatteatromiag]

Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.)

As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion.

Yeah it is a two way street which is what I said as soon as my other post - posts. I don't believe in any religion but I don't treat those who DO believe like crap. When they start trying to force me to believe, then I take offense. But if I'm at a military ceremony and the chaplain says a generic prayer - so what? It's not trampling on my rights because I'm not FORCED to LISTEN. It's not that difficult to space off and at ceremonies, I either would think about something else or I was busy taking pictures I didn't even know what the chaplain was saying.

It is spelled out in black and white about a state-sanctioned religion: 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 isn't that prohibiting the free exercise of religion when atheists try to stop a prayer before a football game? It's not the school mandating it - it's always just the players wanting to do so. I never heard our school say "you have to pray before a game." The only place that might happen is a religious school - like a Catholic school. Who said anything about an enforced state religion? I never did. That's ridiculous.

[Azzi_Kahlila]

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.

[jimbomaxf]

Correct. And if I'm at a military function...or a high school football game...and the person next to me bows his head and starts praying to whoever he wants to...there is no issue.

When the OFFICIAL agenda...includes a prayer in the name of Jesus...it's a violation of the Constitution.

I didn't see anywhere that the article stated it was an "official" agenda of the school or the football team. As I said when I was in high school I don't remember prayers being said but possibly the team did. If they had announced it over the loudspeaker, I wouldn't have cared.

So if you're at a military function and they have the chaplain come up to the podium to say a prayer - even a generic prayer - what do you do? The entire formation is asked to bow their heads (not so much anymore) but that doesn't mean you have to. I don't. I stand there, silent and respectful of those around me who choose to do so. But no one has ever "forced" me to say or partake in a prayer.

I'm just missing where in this case it was an "official" agenda.

[LarryG1978]

"Now isn't that prohibiting the free exercise of religion when atheists try to stop a prayer before a football game? "

As the saying goes, "Your right to wildly flail your arms ends where my nose begins."

The atheist is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The atheist is not the state. The state is the one who is infringing on the atheist's right to NOT have a state actor (or someone acting under color of state authority) tell him to "bow your head and prayer for Jesus' blessing."

[Yswxomvy]

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.

But no one forced them to listen to it. No one said "if you don't listen to this, you aren't allowed to any more games." That person could have gotten up and left until the prayer part was over or not listened to it. It's not that difficult. What it seems like some atheists are trying to do is completely eradicate religion and that is not what this country was founded on and that is not the oath I took. Freedom of religion is in the Constitution - whether I agree with it or not.

But when someone does force a prayer or religion than fine. That's unconstitutional. Until that forcing of religion or non-religion is made, it's not.

[QXCharles]

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.

[alecoplesosse]

"Now isn't that prohibiting the free exercise of religion when atheists try to stop a prayer before a football game? "

As the saying goes, "Your right to wildly flail your arms ends where my nose begins."

The atheist is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The atheist is not the state. The state is the one who is infringing on the atheist's right to NOT have a state actor (or someone acting under color of state authority) tell him to "bow your head and prayer for Jesus' blessing."

Except nowhere in the article does it say that the school was forcing people to partake in the prayer. It almost sounds like this person may have just moved to the town which the article says is extremely religious. Just because someone says "bow your head in prayer" over the loudspeaker at a football game doesn't mean you have to do it.

I said this somewhere but at military ceremonies sometimes they say "bow your head" - well I don't. No one punishes me or gives me a counseling. So I don't see where this person at the game was "forced" to participate.

[addyta.org]

I didn't see anywhere that the article stated it was an "official" agenda of the school or the football team. As I said when I was in high school I don't remember prayers being said but possibly the team did. If they had announced it over the loudspeaker, I wouldn't have cared.

sounds like this one was done as part of the pre-game, kind of like the national anthem...praying for the coaches, players, refs and fans..."

So if you're at a military function and they have the chaplain come up to the podium to say a prayer - even a generic prayer - what do you do? The entire formation is asked to bow their heads (not so much anymore) but that doesn't mean you have to. I don't. I stand there, silent and respectful of those around me who choose to do so. But no one has ever "forced" me to say or partake in a prayer. I did the same as you...but, I didn't like it.

I would be willing to bet...that MOST the people who want this prayer (i.e. the Chrisitians)...and say "it's no big deal for you to just stand there"...would NOT do so if the prayer would to anything else...i.e. Wiccan prayer or something like that. In fact, I could bet, and I know several folks, who would leave at any such suggestion.

I'm just missing where in this case it was an "official" agenda. Read the program next time you go to a military function...it's usually in there. As far as this article, it's a little difficult to say, but it sounds to me that it is a prayer said by a student, to the entire crowd.

Note, I do not have a problem with the prayer that is said before every NASCAR race because it is NOT a government entity.

[feedcomnet]

sounds like this one was done as part of the pre-game, kind of like the national anthem...praying for the coaches, players, refs and fans..."



I did the same as you...but, I didn't like it.

I would be willing to bet...that MOST the people who want this prayer (i.e. the Chrisitians)...and say "it's no big deal for you to just stand there"...would NOT do so if the prayer would to anything else...i.e. Wiccan prayer or something like that. In fact, I could bet, and I know several folks, who would leave at any such suggestion.



Read the program next time you go to a military function...it's usually in there. As far as this article, it's a little difficult to say, but it sounds to me that it is a prayer said by a student, to the entire crowd.

Note, I do not have a problem with the prayer that is said before every NASCAR race because it is NOT a government entity.

Honestly when they say "bow your heads" I space out. If anyone had said anything to me, I would've laughed at them.

So yes - it sounds like a majority Christian town and I'm sure they would complain about another religion saying a prayer - and that would be wrong of them to do so. That's why probably they should just say a generic prayer or they'll probably go to a moment of silence like the other Alabama school did.

I know that military functions are official - so do you ever go and complain to your command about prayers being said that they offend you? I was referrign to the article as the football game was not an official function. Technically if I wanted to be a dick I probably could file a complaint about prayers at military functions but why? It won't make me feel better, it will take away from the right of others to say that prayer and the prayer doesn't hurt me so I don't care.

[PZXjoe]

Why should a non-believer have to be put in that position in the first place -- whether it be to leave the stadium, not bow, or whathaveyou?

You want to pray? Fine. Go to church or do so in the privacy of your home. Or shout your faith from the street corner for all I care. Just don't do it at a public event hosted by a government entity. We should be free to attend civic events and not have some minister talk to us about gods.

[loolitoertego]

Why should a non-believer have to be put in that position in the first place -- whether it be to leave the stadium, not bow, or whathaveyou?

You want to pray? Fine. Go to church or do so in the privacy of your home. Or shout your faith from the street corner for all I care. Just don't do it at a public event hosted by a government entity. We should be free to attend civic events and not have some minister talk to us about gods.

This is the problem with our society anymore. It's all "me, me, me" and "Well that makes ME feel bad." For goodness sake, it wasn't mandated by the school, it was probably student led and no one was forced to participate. I'm a "non-believer" and I just ignore it. Oh look I'm still here and my emotional state and physical state are just fine.

So what do you do if your kid is on a sports team at a public school and that team plays an away game at a religious school where they will most likely say a prayer. Do you sue them for "emotional distress" or violating your rights then? Probably not I assume. I know it's different for private schools but both teams aren't a private school or religious - and I would assume you would get equally offended regardless of the school right?