The Debate Of Amendments: First Amendment
Agree
Side Score: 14
|
Disagree
Side Score: 22
|
|
|
|
A community prayer is not against the first amendment. If a community chooses a prayer and decides to pray together, they aren't doing anything wrong. But, a community prayer is not guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution does not discuss community rights. It is only individual rights that are protected. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
Isn't a community still a form of government? The first amendment says that the government should not participate in any religion. In doing so it would be against the first amendment. Also, what's wrong with going to the flag pole and praying individually or with those in your religion? Side: Agree
Isn't a community still a form of government? No. I am just referring to a group of people who live near each other. The first amendment says that the government should not participate in any religion. I am talking about the community coming together on their own without any government involvement. In doing so it would be against the first amendment. It only goes against the constitution if the community didn't voluntarily show up somewhere. Also, what's wrong with going to the flag pole and praying individually or with those in your religion? I haven't figured that one out. I have asked this as well, but all I ever hear is that I am afraid of religious expression. My question to you is, do you think a group of people voluntarily coming together to pray together outside of church is a bad thing? Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
Also, if you are not going to participate legitimately than I will ban you. Furthermore, learn proper grammar so that I can read your posts without problem. Correcting Outlaw60's (a.k.a FromWithin's) grammar: I will agree to the fact that you indeed have no ability as how to spell the word amendments! Do learn to use spell checker and you may be better off. Side: Disagree
|
The Supreme Court has made numerous rulings on application of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, including Engel v. Vitale, Abington Township v. Schempp, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Wallace v. Jaffree, and Lee v. Weisman. These rulings established the the following three tests for determining whether a government action is in violation of the establishment clause: (1) secular purpose; (2) primary effect; and (3) excessive entanglement. Subsequent rulings by multiple Supreme Court bodies have categorically found that school prayer clearly violates these tests. It has a clearly religious purpose, a clearly religious primary effect, and entangles the government in religion through public financing of religion. We must prefer a contemporary, literal interpretation of the establishment clause for the simple reason that the counter-proposal of "original intent" quite simply does not exist. It is erroneous to refer to the singular original intent of the founding fathers because they were not of singular intent at all on most anything. Opinions at the time were at least as divergent as they are today. While there were founding fathers who would support school prayer, it can be equally said that there were ardent advocates for a strong separation of church and state very much in line with contemporary judicial interpretations of the establishment clause. Nor is original intent inherently valuable. If it were we would never have added any new amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. We would still have slavery, indentured servitude, disenfranchisement for women, and numerous other policies which we not only altered legally but which are commonly viewed as unconstitutional today by most people (even though they would have been popular at the founding). The Constitution was designed to evolve and change with the people of the nation. This is why it includes a process for amending it. The Constitution is a living document, intended to realize the philosophical principles of democracy, liberty, and inequality. Opposing school prayer is entirely in line with these ends because it ensures no faith is given any preference over another by the government, either symbolically or financially. This better enables each individual to live their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs (a practice which, notably, does not require public observance or the compelling of others to observe ones beliefs with them). Side: Disagree
1
point
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. Basically meaning the government (Of The United States Of America) cannot have any favoritism of any religion whatsoever. Also this means that we have the freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble into small crowds for things we want changed. I don't get why we have to have a community vote when the religious can just gather around a flag pole and pray. I participated when I was a Christian. Side: Disagree
The only people who ever want school prayer are people who belong to the religious majority. They have conflated their personal religious freedom with the privilege of being the religious majority, and see it as their right to be able to divert public resources to their personal religious practices. It is entirely unnecessary to personal practice and belief, as you yourself point out. Side: Disagree
|