Is Freedom Of Religion Making Sense Fundamentally?

Well then why not ask beforehand if anyone objects? And if someone does, they can do the personal 1-2 minutes or whatever that I suggested. Seriously, if you can't sit there for 1-2 minutes patiently while nothing is happening, you probably won't last through a whole meeting of government bullcrap anyway.

It's not nothing, though.

Are you imagining that this is silent prayer? I'm fine with saying, "Let's all have a minute of silence to calm our minds." Religious people who opt to pray in their daily lives will assuredly use that interval to do so.

But insisting that people stand up and single themselves out by saying, "Y'know, I'm not Christian and I don't need to hear about your god," is both demeaning and ridiculous.

Or Eastern Europe where politicians routinely get a fat lip. Yes, yes stereotype I know.

Like I said. I really don't feel it has a place or is needed, but that's how I feel about religion in general. But if it somehow puts them in a better mindset to actually do something (that isn't somehow shoving that religion into actual policy!), whatever.

Sadly, it rarely works out that cleanly.

Not to mention it tends to get you singled out as a dissenter and people stop taking everything else you say seriously because you dare to not buy into their particular brand of dogma.

Is listening to a prayer at work everyday, despite your participation, considered a subtle indoctrination?

If this was about prayer and not projecting power then any adherent would simply find a place to pray. You know, anywhere from in the car before you enter the building to silently before proceedings begin.

The public spectacle is designed to send a message.

Doesn't matter, place has to be laic and that is all.

What do you get when you cross gospel with Jeuno? This gold.



I too was lost... until I saw the light.

Edit: Post 5000!

I don't know if it's always "designed" to send a message, but I agree with everything else. True believers shouldn't need the public spectacle. I still don't think it's unconstitutional to do it, though.

The problem is that "freedom of religion" implies -- but does not state outright -- that we have the right to be "free from religion". And -- much like with those idiots who interpret the bible literally -- we've got to have countless debates about it.

And yes, the public spectable is designed to send a message. Hence why the "under God" nonsense is on our money and the pledge and whatnot (though I hate opening up THAT can of worms again) not from the time of the country's founding, but from the 20th century and the American fear of Communism.

That 'of' to 'from' is important phrasing the religious tend to cling on.

Painfully aware of that. That's sort of what I mean. Not all of them, of course. But some of them take things very literal.

Forget chicken soup. Concrete thinking is good for the soul, apparently.

Problem with that is the phrase "freedom of religion" appears nowhere within the U.S. Constitution.

Nothing about that really implies freedom from anything other than the government endorsement of a particular faith, and I don't believe any interpretation of the clause has ever led to your conclusion either.

"freedom of/from religion" doesn't appear in the constitution. it's a common misconception, the wording is very specific and cannot be mis-interpreted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... when questioned later about its meaning, Jefferson said that religion should be a private practice between a man and his god, and never should they have to justify or promote it to anyone.

the whole freedom of religion was a rhetorical retort by religious fanatics after the ruling about a wall of separation between church and state. not only could there be no national religion, there could be no religion in the government.

Damn you TJ, why couldn't he make it clearer.

Wouldn't saying a Christian prayer at a government meeting directly violate this then?

I actually don't think the implementation of ceremonial prayer was done to send a message in this case (well, at least not the message I assume everyone else is thinking). It seems like they had just the plain intention of mimicking the traditional practices in certain legislators, but I have to agree with the dissenting opinion that they did a piss *** poor job of implementing it. Apparently anyone, including atheists, are welcome to perform the ceremony; however, this was never made clear to the public nor did the committee make an effort to reach out to any faiths (or non-faiths) prior to the lawsuit.

Fact is they did change to be more inclusive, which they didn't have to do if their intention was to pump all attendees with their particular brand of God lovin' (Christianity). I feel, though, that this distinction will get lost in many implementations and we'll just end up with even more Establishment Clause-related lawsuits and "persecuted" idiots like this guy:
Also, with regard to the OP, the act of praying itself wasn't the main focus of this case because it was already extensively addressed in Marsh v. Chambers, which was an integral part of both the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion.

According to the Supreme Court, no. And pointless, heretical, hypocritical prayers have been said at the opening of Congress and various swearing-in ceremonies for years.

I read a statistic a few weeks ago. The city I live in allegedly only has about 33% of the population professing to be religious, with the majority of those being Christian (though we do have reasonable populations of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists). My local Methodist congregation realized that it had an underserved and highly exploitable population in the form of an entire neighborhood full of gay people (contrary to what the right-wing news media might suggest, gay Christians are common as muck, possibly more common than straight Christians, proportionately speaking).

If a major city with a very cosmopolitan population can only claim 1 in 3 as genuinely religious in 20XX (I didn't check when the data was collected, but assume within the past 5 years or so, probably the last census), in spite of a resurgence in overt Christianity as well as an increase in the visibility of "minority" faiths, I can only imagine that the fight to shove Christian noise into the collective signal is out of a feeling of genuine threat.

But most people I've met who claim to be religious and Christian seem to be in it more for the social cachet than because they actually believe. I grew up neck-deep in both the Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian faiths and I know real believers. I don't run across many in day-to-day interaction (as in, they don't proclaim it), but the hypocrites are many.

I like me some TJ.

Swearing in on a bible would definitely violate the first amendment as well.

Which is why no one does that.

Have you ever been to a county court? It's a must.

I live in a metropolitan county. I will grant that shitholes in Mississippi may still hold up the Bible and do a raindance and sacrifice negro virgins while swearing in witnesses. Or whatever the hell Jesus allegedly insisted on for the US legal system.

They still do it up here too. Not municipal court, but anything higher where you have to give a statement in front of a judge, yeah it's still done.

Doesn't congress pray?

VA too, hell some states made it illegal for "atheists" to hold public office...

Probably why politicians are always bragging about how dedicated they are to their religion.

Possibly.