When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[Demonslayer]

There is nothing that stops a person for saying a silent prayer,

It's even better than that for religious people. The prayer doesn't have to be silent, students are free to gather during free periods, lunch breaks or after school to organize prayer sessions if they so desire.

All that is not allowed is requiring the prayer during school time. No one is trying to stop people from praying, the law is there to prevent....

public prayer in public institutions all too often were used as a way to jam a specific religious set of beliefs down people's throats.

....this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just the fact that atheists are so against prayer shows just how powerful prayer is!!

Kind of like genocide.

 

[Skwim]

What does the Constitution actually say?

HERE is its original form. Since it was written it's been amended quite a few times, with further interpretations. One of these interpretations has to do with the First Amendment that "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Using this as the backbone of its ruling in the 1962 Engel v. Vitale, mentioned in the article, the United States Supreme Court case ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools. Following this Engel became the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school, which brought us to the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe ruling.

Is the Supreme Court always correct?

Most people think not. I don't. But correct or not in anyone's opinion, it does become the law of the land.

Should American Christians all support abortion now because clearly they don't know their constitution, that's what the Supreme Court ruled after all? Or is it conceivable that the Supreme Court re-interpreted the Constitution in a way that many other Americans didn't agree with?

What people think and support is up to them: however, what they cannot do is break the law.

Next time the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't agree with, can I say you don't give a **** about the Constitution?

I can, but I won't because I do give a **** about the Constitution, and don't feel people should go against it. When the article said "More than three-quarters (76%) of Americans agree that public high schools should be allowed to sponsor prayer before football games." it used the word "should," implying that public schools ought to go against the law of the land. And, such an attitude is either born out of disrespect for the Constitution or ignorance of it.


.

 

[Lyndon]

Likewise your "inspired scriptures" favored males of a specific tribe, and was rife with homophobia and misogyny. Fortunately The Constitution has evolved, but has your holy writ?

I could care less about the importance of the Bible, The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

 

[Demonslayer]

Just the fact that atheists are so against prayer shows just how powerful prayer is!!

Atheists are against prayer for the same reasons any savvy religious people should be.

1) School time is valuable and our children should be spending their school time learning the important stuff, and
2) No one should be forced to say or spend time listening to a prayer that goes against their religion, be it a different religion or no religion

Imagine your child has to listed to 15 minutes of a Satanic Prayer in school. I doubt you would support that, right?

 

[Skwim]

Just the fact that atheists are so against prayer shows just how powerful prayer is!!

You really want to stick with this sucker?


.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just the fact that atheists are so against prayer shows just how powerful prayer is!!

They're not against prayer. They're against government/public school lead prayer. I bet the same folks who claim to want it would let loose with ear piercing screeches and squeals if it were Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, etc. prayer that the students were called to.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

They're not against prayer. They're against government/public school lead prayer. I bet the same folks who claim to want it would let loose with ear piercing screeches and squeals if it were Islamic, Hindu, or even Satanic prayer that the students were called to.

There's the crux of the problem. When people say they favour prayer in schools they usually mean prayers to their god and not to anyone else's. And that's exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment was designed to prevent: one religion being given privilege.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Just the fact that atheists are so against prayer shows just how powerful prayer is!!

????

 

[Quagmire]

I would guess that for most Americans this issue is like Christmas: it isn't a religious thing, it's tradition, and people are attached to their traditions.

 

[Father Heathen]

I could care less about the importance of the Bible, The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

Or perhaps it shows how flawed a society can be, but it also shows how that same society can grow.

 

[BSM1]

There is nothing that stops a person for saying a silent prayer, and the fact is that if we look at this historically, public prayer in public institutions all too often were used as a way to jam a specific religious set of beliefs down people's throats.

You'll also notice that it is Christian prayer that's at the forefront; not Muslim, or Hindu, or Shinto, or Apache, or...well, I think you get the drift.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I could care less about the importance of the Bible, The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

I hope I'm not the only one confused by the logic on display here. Considering the sheer number of translations, editions & amendments the Bible has gone through, why do you consider it more valuable than the Constitution if being open to change is a flaw?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I could care less about the importance of the Bible, The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

The various writings which constitute bible (as it is currently composed of, for now) exist in their original and unaltered form?

Interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I regularly read about someone doing a public survey about constitutional rights,
eg, the prohibition against double jeapoardy, & find that people in general don't
know or care all that much about the Constitution. So it doesn't surprise me that
Xians are just about like everyone else.

 

[Skwim]

I wouldn't say that makes these people "out-and-out" ignorant; just that they either don't know of, or disagree with, public-school-sponsored prayers being illegal.

Yeah, I could have done without the "out-and-out" hyperbole; however, the point wasn't disagreement or perhaps simple ignorance but the fact that these people felt public schools should allow it.


.

 

[metis]

You'll also notice that it is Christian prayer that's at the forefront; not Muslim, or Hindu, or Shinto, or Apache, or...well, I think you get the drift.

The SCOTUS decisions on this do not cite any particular religion or denomination.

 

[Demonslayer]

The fact that the constitution has had to be rewritten and amended so many times show just how flawed a document it really is.

Meh, not really. You think anyone could...on first draft...create a document that flawlessly governs a nation of millions, perfectly fairly, when that nation is full of thousands of different religions, philosophies, political views, races and traditions?

It's a pretty tall order...which governing document has done a better job? I'd say a few amendments are a given. In fact the Constitution was written to be a flexible document, the founding fathers recognizing the need for change over time.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

HERE is its original form. Since it was written it's been amended quite a few times, with further interpretations. One of these interpretations has to do with the First Amendment that "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Using this as the backbone of its ruling in the 1962 Engel v. Vitale, mentioned in the article, the United States Supreme Court case ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools. Following this Engel became the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school, which brought us to the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe ruling.

I don't see a prohibition against schools sponsoring prayers in the constitutional text you've written. Why can't it be up to the school?

Most people think not. I don't. But correct or not in anyone's opinion, it does become the law of the land.

So people can't disagree with it, and think it isn't what the original constitution is saying?

What people think and support is up to them: however, what they cannot do is break the law.

These people aren't suggesting they'd break the law.

I can, but I won't because I do give a **** about the Constitution, and don't feel people should go against it. When the article said "More than three-quarters (76%) of Americans agree that public high schools should be allowed to sponsor prayer before football games." it used the word "should," implying that public schools ought to go against the law of the land. And, such an attitude is either born out of disrespect for the Constitution or ignorance of it..

should be allowed
not just "should"
It's supporting the lifting of a ban, the changing of the law. Why is advocacy for such so bad? Can we not disagree with laws, or wish them to be changed? They aren't advocating breaking the law. You are misreading/reading into what these poll questions are saying.

 

[Demonslayer]

You'll also notice that it is Christian prayer that's at the forefront; not Muslim

Exactly. Change the question to ask if Muslim prayer should be sponsored in our public schools and suddenly this 76% become strict Constitutionalists lol.