Buzsaw writes:
Again, it would take an establishment law for that to ever happen. That's why it didn't happen when exercise of religion was within government facilities. No law established anything by them doing that. Along came representatives who decided that that was not good policy and they discontinued it.
If however, the majority of the people's reps decide that we should go back to more exercise within government and the courts didn't overturn, no law of Congress can stop them from doing it as per the amendment.
I think that you're confusing two ideas here. That's understandable, since the distinction between religious activity
within a government facility and religious activity
sponsored or promoted by the government itself isn't always so clear.
Look at a range of actions to see how they differ.
Case 1: A county board of supervisors passes regulations that require every resident to attend services at a Methodist church every Sunday.
Clearly unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if 99% of the county are Methodists.
Case 2: A state prohibits anyone who doesn't believe in Almighty God from holding public office.
Clearly unconstitutional. Despite this,
seven states still do exactly this. In Arkansas being an atheist even makes you incompetent to testify in court cases. I guess that no one there thinks that you're telling the truth unless you promise that you believe that God is gonna strike you down if you don't.
Case 4: All the teachers at a public school are required to begin class in the morning with "a minute of silent prayer."
Unconstitutional. This is still the sort of school prayer that got the boot years back. It fails the test because 1) the teachers are acting in their official capacities as government employees; 2) they're specifically calling for prayer, albeit silent prayer of the students choice; and 3) they're making this activity mandatory, although I can't see how they're going to make sure that the kids are praying instead of thinking about lunch or getting a D in Chemistry. On the other hand, if by school prayer you mean students getting together at lunch to read the Bible and pray, then that just fine and has never been illegal, despite fundies trying to whip themselves up into a frenzy of indignation.
Case 5: A valedictorian asks everyone at graduation to join her in prayer.
Probably constitutional. Here's where the distinction is subtle. The valedictorian here isn't a school official, but a private individual expressing her own personal beliefs, even if at an official school event. One could make the case that this is still a case of government approval of religious activity, but you'd be on thin ground.
Case 6: A state park allows the use of public space for a church to hold sunrise services on Easter.
Conditionally constitutional. There's nothing wrong with people using public space for whatever they want, providing that they're following the general park rules, e.g. no candles for services if open flames are prohibited. However, the park
has to allow everyone equal access. They can't say yes to the Baptists and no to Hindus, Wiccans or even atheists. (The likelihood of atheists attending Easter services is doubtful, but they they could have Solstice Appreciation Day, I suppose.) If the park did discriminate on the grounds of religious belief, they'd clearly be showing government preference.
Case 7: A local pro-Palestinian group refuses a request by a pro-Israel activist to speak at their monthly meeting.
Constitutional. Case law regarding discrimination by private organizations
is often complex, but in this case we have a private group asserting its right not to sponsor messages that it doesn't approve and in fact directly contradict its own central message. A country club might be prohibited from refusing membership to Jews, but the pro-Israel activist would have a hard time finding a court that would force the pro-Palestinians to host her.
Case 8: A mosque posts a large sign on its lawn saying: "SUBMIT NOW TO ALLAH OR FACE THE FURY OF HELL."
Clearly constitutional. This is a private group expressing the beliefs of its members on private property. Even if someone might not like it, the First Amendment clearly allows this sort of religious expression.
So to get back to Buz at long last, I believe that what the above illustrates is the nature of government neutrality with regards to religion. If by "religion within government facilities" you (Buz) mean non-discriminatory use of public venues for religious purposes, I don't see a problem with that. But if you mean Congress ought to start basing more legislation on Christian beliefs, then that's not how this country is supposed to work, no matter how many of those Congress-critters or their constituents are Christian themselves.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Clarification of Case 4.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
™ Version 4.2
