|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 29, 2005 5:06:15 GMT -5
I think politicians need all the help they can get. Opening sessions with a short prayer is AMERICAN.....Judge Hamilton needs to GO!
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 29, 2005 8:35:55 GMT -5
NO
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Dec 29, 2005 11:14:40 GMT -5
NO!!!!!!!!!! Another case of "MINORITY RLUES". The QUAKERS & the ACLU can kiss my butt on their way out of the session so that they are not "OFFENDED" by the words JESUS, GOD, CHRIST, etc...
How do these scumbag judges sleep @ night?
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Dec 29, 2005 23:21:59 GMT -5
Speaker Bosma has already said that they will ignore the ruling and still pray..... Horray for them if they do! Can't be arrested during session anyway, so who's gonna "police" them?
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Dec 30, 2005 6:20:12 GMT -5
Why don't they just pray privately , then there would be no issues ? Prayer is for church , not on the job . Once they make it "official" they leave themselves open to attacks like that .
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Dec 30, 2005 15:19:08 GMT -5
Because this country was founded on Biblical principals.... Why don't we just call Dec. 25th "Presents Day" instead of Christmas?
In just the past 10 years a VERY small minority of people have began the chissel away at the foundation of our country that has stood for over 200 years. It's ridiculous!
Nobody is forcing someone to pray, but when any large group assembles and a moment is taken, and the crowd is asked to bow their head, or take a moment of silence, 99.9% do so......not because they are being forced, but because they want to. Why should those .1% get their way?
If they don't like it......MOVE TO FRANCE!
Oh, and by the way Kevin.....Prayer is for EVERYWHERE, not just Church. Very sad that you feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 30, 2005 16:23:32 GMT -5
Prayer is for EVERYWHERE, not just Church. Very sad that you feel that way. Especially in schools. As long as there are tests in schools there will be prayer in schools.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Dec 30, 2005 17:32:21 GMT -5
I'm in the boat with Kevin on this one...
The historical reality was that many of the original 13 colonies and resulting states were founded on specific religous frameworks, e.g. quakers in PA and so forth. When it came time to form a federal government, there was no agreement between the colonial reps as to which religion it would be based upon, and so after much infighting between those who wanted a state/church situation (as had been the case with the Church of England), and those led by Madison and Jefferson who felt it should be left up to the states (colonies) to decide, the constitutional draft called for a federal separation of church and state.
The constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and to worship a religion as the individual, not the state, sees fit. It also guarantees freedom of speech, however, that guarantee comes with limits, e.g. one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Once a government entity, in this case the Indiana House of Representatives, begins promoting a religion, any religion, as part of it's official actions, it is in violation of the separation of church and state as set forth in the constitution. The ban on prayer (as it has been performed so far) in the Indiana House is not a violation of free speech, because there was never and will never be a guarantee that religious speech in a government environment is allowed, and in fact, it is specifically prohibited.
So, let's look at what the two founding fathers who wrote the Constitution have to say:
James Madison
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Thomas Jefferson
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." (letter to Robert Rush, 1813).
"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).
Specifically, Brian Bosma got himself and the House in hot water after the April 2005 appearance of the black baptist minister who basically held a revival session (clapping, singing and foot stomping, etc.) which went on for several minutes. This incident went way beyond some simple non-denominational prayer. There were several members who were so upset, they walked out of that session, so this is not a case of one person asking the ACLU/ICLU to take on this issue. I'm a christian, I've seen the video, and I thought it went way overboard.
IMHO, the Indiana legislature's function is to represent it's citizens in the debate of issues and enactment of legislation. It is not, to paraphrase Jefferson, to "direct the religious exercises of its constituents".
Brian Bosma is free to attend church twice on weekdays and three times on Sunday, if that is his wish, because the constitution guarantees him and all of us that right. But when he steps to the podium as an elected official and Speaker of the House, his right to express promotion of his, or any other religion, ends.
Those who would seek to insert more religious ceremonies into government functions should take time and consider the ultimate extension of such logic in examples like Iran or Taliban Afghanistan (in which the Church IS the state), or the former USSR or Nazi Germany (in which the state attempted to exterminate religion) to understand the wisdom of Madison and Jefferson.
A strict separation of religion and government does not diminish our country. It is the bedrock upon which our country is based. It is somewhat ironic to see that when someone disagrees with the religious viewpoint of another and suggests that person move to another country. I wonder what the Pilgrims of 1620 would say about that...?
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Dec 31, 2005 5:54:47 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers stressed the need for religion as the basis of morality. The first amendment is not about repressing religion. The first amendment is a footnote about what the federal government cannot do respecting religion, and insisting that the biggest thing government and society cannot due is inhibit the free practice of religion.
Let's not forget that the Constitution was not one man's words...James Madison argued that Congress should not establish a NATIONAL religion... however it was changed. Likewise Thomas Jefferson in establishing the University of Virginia, not only encouraged the teaching of religion, but set aside a place inside the Rotunda for Chapel services and prayers...in a State University.
No one is wanting to force hoosiers to attend the First Church of Bosma... It's about allowing a tradition of reverence that has been around since the country was founded. Don't even start the argument that religion isn't a part of our framework as a nation. The seperation of Church and State has been taken way beyond the context of it's intent, and this ban on prayer is just another example.
When trying to argue that there should be no prayer before a government body, remember that the very first "Act" of the First Continental Congress on Sept. 6, 1774 was a call to Prayer at 9am. Again, prayer was given on July 4, 1776 - - - "Lord God Almighty, in whose Name the founders of this country won liberty for themselves and for us, and lit the torch of freedom for nations then unborn; Grant, we beseech Thee, that we and all the peoples of this land may have grace to maintain these liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen"
You wonder what the Pilgrims of 1620 would say? I'm certain that they would hold a meeting, that would begin with a prayer........
|
|
|
Post by joen on Dec 31, 2005 9:59:46 GMT -5
Whats next prayer at sporting events? If you dont want to pray dont pray,stand there in silence and let the others pray. Who is actualy harmed by prayer. This country is basically christan so Jesus is the son of God often refferd to in prayer. If I lived in China I sure as heck would not be able to speak out about buddist monks praying in public. Prayer is a reminder of our creater lets not take that away.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Dec 31, 2005 11:21:03 GMT -5
I find it puzzling that this even an issue at all. Funny that after 9/11 that stores couldn't keep bibles on the shelf. Churches had to buy folding chairs to accommodate the masses. People were praying in the streets, schools, shopping malls..... basically everywhere. I don't see prayer as forcing anyone to believe a certain way. I'm not a Jew or a Muslim nor do worship trees! I am not offended by those that do just because I don't believe the way they do. I think this whole thing about prayer and the "TEN COMMANDMENTS" on public property is nothing more then liberal Political Correctness run amuck!......
Pray on!
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jan 3, 2006 9:37:41 GMT -5
Ditto gundude!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 3, 2006 14:02:39 GMT -5
jkd has it right! It's a pity that so many who enjoy our freedom can't seem to understand the basic principles on which it was based.
The "establishment" of a religion will not happen when the congress passes a constitutional amendment saying we are now a Southern Baptist nation and all others will have to leave. The establishment happens way before that, when your kids are led in prayer at their schools, or are required to recite prayers at the start of their schoolday in order to be "patriotic".
These things sneak up, they don't march up! Just like our right to bear arms has now deteriorated to the right to bear some approved arms in some specified locations at certain times. We've swapped much of our right to bear arms for some lame promises of increased security, and we'll trade the rest of it away for more lame promises after another Columbine or more hijacked airlines, as England has done.
The only way to prevent this country from becoming another religious theocracy like those in the Mideast is for us to understand that freedom for you to practice your Protestant religion also means freedom for the Catholic, the Jew, the Musim, the Wiccan, and the atheist. Both Madison and Jefferson knew that fact, and if you read their other writings, you'll see their statements to that effect. And yes, prayer in a public forum that expresses belief in a deity that exists for some of the citizenry and not for all, is "establishment", illegal under the 1st Amendment! So is spending your tax dollars to defend such an illegal action!
I haven't even looked to find where Bosma's district is yet (I know it's not the one I live in), but I will check it out and I will send money to the campain of any primary opponent that may challenge him. And if he runs unchallenged in the primary, I might even send something to a challenger from another party. Some things are more repulsive to me than even the weirdo's the Democrats come up with, and the Ayatollah Bosma is one of them! I don't know the man to know whether he's really a true believer who simply doesn't understand the constitution, or whether he's a chralatan who will say whatever it takes to get the pulpit politicians behind him in the next election, but either way, I'd like to see him gone.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jan 3, 2006 14:29:46 GMT -5
Amendment 1
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.
The first step to perverting the Constitution is to confuse the simple words with a lot of bs, spin, and half truths. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is the sentence that is always quoted but the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is just as important but often forgotten by those that wish to read their own intents and wishes into the Constitution.
Prohibiting prayer is prohibiting the free exercise thereoff.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jan 3, 2006 14:50:49 GMT -5
Welcome Russ Koon, glad to have you.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 3, 2006 17:29:34 GMT -5
Thanks, Deertracks. I see your address is also listed as Martinsville. Reckon we must be neighbors! I'm out at Lake Edgewood, these past 28 years or so. Give me a shout sometime if you want to get together to go to a shoot or something.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 3, 2006 18:19:30 GMT -5
Mbogo, I would also fight for the right of any person to believe whatever they want and to practice their religion freely, within the limits set by law. We do ban such things as human sacrifice, regardless of the religious beliefs of those who would prefer to practice that rite. We also limit animal sacrifice, ban multiple spouses, won't allow the chewing of peyote, etc.
So we currently practice freedom of religion within legal bounds.
Those legal bounds also set the limits to which government can go in establishing a religion. I don't care a bit if Mr. Bosma and his like-minded associates all want to pray outside the statehouse or in their own offices, on their own time. However, when they convene the legislature they're acting as OUR government, and the rules for their conduct change at that point. By the same token, I'm completely in favor of the right of anyone who wants to do so to be able to put up their creches or menorahs or commandments or whatever on their own or anyone else's private property where they can obtain permission, but not on PUBLIC property, as THAT is also the government establishment of religion.
I just have a real hard time believing that the difference between public and private actions and property is that hard to understand. You folks in favor of this being a public free-for-all, with religious symbolism and practices on public property being regulated only by the popularity of the religion involved, do realize, don't you, that THAT'S the thing the religious pilgrims were fleeing when they came here for their freedom? And that it's the Constitution's First Amendment that has enabled most of you to continue to practice your own religion of choice, rather than having to join the one approved by the majority long ago. And that it's our freedom to practice our own religious beliefs protected by that amnedment, that has kept us from degenerating into the same sort of society we see in the mideast, where the Sunni Muslims blow up the Shiite Muslims. Read some history if you don't believe that. We've had our own religious wars here, but it was our protected ability to be diverse in our beliefs that kept us from simply shooting it out until the most popular religion of the day was the only one left standing.
Why would any responsible legislator choose to throw away such a great system? Could it be because there are votes to be gained by a public display of hiking his leg and peeing on the minorities who don't worship the same deities as the majority of the voters in his district? Those votes have always been there to be gained. Mob rule IS popular. It's FREEDOM FROM mob rule that needs our constant protection and the nobler political figures throughout our history have risen to that challenge, not sold out to the majority in their attempts to buy popularity at the expense of our freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jan 4, 2006 6:43:03 GMT -5
Russ please explain how exactly a "LAW respecting an establishment of religion" was made by having a VOLUNTARY prayer before the beginning of a session in the state house.
Instead of upholding the 1st amendment the federal judge in this case is in effect creating a law "prohibiting the free practice" of religion and thereby violating the 1st amendment. This is yet another example of a judge applying his own interpretation to the law instead of applying the law as it is written.
There is a very good reason our Constitution specifically prohibits the Judicial branch from creating laws, they are not elected and as such are not accountable to the people. The executive and legislative branches are accountable so that the people can vote them out of office if they disapprove of prayer just as the Constitution intended.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 4, 2006 13:39:03 GMT -5
Mbogo, I agree that the voluntary prayer stops just short of actually being a "LAW respecting the establishment...". However, as a practice that's conducted officially by the legislature, the effect is that of official endorsement of the religions that are comfortable with the wording contained in that prayer. Calling it voluntary is sort of dishonest, since it was being held after the convening of the legislature, at a time when the attendance of the members was fully expected as part of doing their jobs. True, they are often absent, and sometimes with pretty lame excuses, but that's another subject...they're SUPPOSED to be there and on official business of the state government.
If the leader was truly interested in a VOLUNTARY prayer session, he could have easily convened one to take as long as needed so long as it ENDED in time for the legislative session to begin. That was obviously not the intent of these sessions. The intent is to step on the toes of those members who don't share his faith, smiling all the while, of course. He wants to be seen as the champion of that faction of people who take delight in forcing their ideas of right and wrong on the rest of us, and freedom be damned! It's probably just a political stance he's taking to appeal to those he hears from in his district. Mob rule ain't real pretty, but it's popular.
That's the other side of the coin in the judicial vs. legislative branch debate....the fact that the judiciary is NOT elected gives them a degree of immunity from the mob mentality that would toss our constitutional rights in favor of the tyranny of the majority. We still have the power to recall the local judges who go too far, and the power to pressure our legislators to pass additional laws reinstituting any measures the judges strike down.
The idea of the judges striking down the laws that trash our constitutional rights has worked pretty well for most of our history. It's the reason we can still bear arms (OK, at least some arms, part of the time, in certain places). It protects us every day from legislation that would be introduced and passed except for the legislators knowing full well that it wouldn't escape the test of its constitutionality (I know, that one is a difficult point to sell judicial review on....that it works as well as that rhinocerus repellant you saw at the hardware store...but in this case it's the truth).
The judge in the matter didn't tell Mr. Bosma that he couldn't organize or attend the religious services of his choice. He merely said that it was unconstitutional for him to organize such services to be held in a place where the public's business was supposed to be being conducted. Rather like the limitations we place on others, when we tell our children they can't break out their hymnals and join in singing praises to their maker during the algebra test. Such behavior might well win them a pat on the head at home or in their next meeting at their church, but it doesn't belong in a forum where the public, including those who don't share that child's particular faith, is trying to achieve a public goal at public expense. Mr. Bosma seems to be trying for that pat on the head, rather than looking for the one he could expect for respecting the rights of ALL while doing the job he was elected to do.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Jan 4, 2006 19:19:30 GMT -5
Very sad to see that Speaker Bosma caved today and had a prayer in the back of the Chamber instead of on the floor....... He said, "We are a nation of laws, even laws that we disagree with." -- To that I say that some laws are foolish, and worth risking a punishment for those with the courage to break them........
This country will have a new political party within the next few years......ACLU.
|
|