Wisconsin is just full of FAIL these days...

[Avi]

Wisconsin Federal Judge Declares the National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

In my understanding of the Constitution, saying that a day is set aside for prayer of all kinds is not a violation of the First Amendment...

[Trieste]

I think the point is that banning a national day of prayer is unconstitutional, but endorsing one by law is also unconstitutional.

Which is true.

[Avi]

Well, by declaring the Day of Prayer unconstitutional, the judge is in fact saying it should be banned, which is in turn unconstitutional.  It's a circular ruling, unless I'm missing something.  You seem to be more well-versed in legal bits than I am.

[Trieste]

No, they are declaring the law endorsing it unconstitutional. My personal interpretation would be that it should be organized by churches and Christians, not by laws and government.

[DarklingAlice]

Well, by declaring the Day of Prayer unconstitutional, the judge is in fact saying it should be banned, which is in turn unconstitutional.  It's a circular ruling, unless I'm missing something.  You seem to be more well-versed in legal bits than I am.

No, it is just what is said in the article:

"The government may not endorse a religious message'“A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant, or undeserving of dissemination,” she said. “Rather it is part of the effort to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.”

No ban, but no endorsement either.

[Silk]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and from a nation that seperates church from state they should not be any collaboration between the two, something to protect/endorse somebodys religion is the same as something that protects/endorses somebodys choice of political party or prefrence in cola brands and should not be held above such, religion is a choice and should not be held to the same account as others that do not have a choice, such as sexuality and nationality.

Thats my two british pence on it from a outside point of veiw anyway.

[Avi]

I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way that it seems like any expression of religion that's even remotely encouraged by the government is met with cries of unconstitutionality.  Setting aside a day for people of all faiths to spend time in prayer is not a bad thing, allowing a child to pray openly in a public school is not a bad thing, a teacher wearing a symbol of their faith is not a bad thing.  If officials keep stamping out expressions of faith, people eventually become scared to express it and it becomes a stigma upon them.

People need to lighten up about religion in government, seriously.  Extremism is a bad thing, yes, but saying a prayer before a meeting of the Senate or before an inauguration is not going to make the country into a theocracy (not that any of you are saying that it would).

[Jude]

Some people will say this doesn't violate the rules because it doesn't favor a specific god, but that's such a monotheistic-centered point of view.  Not all religions have one god, many have multiple, others have none.

I don't mind if it's celebrated off the record, but it should not be official.

[OldSchoolGamer]

No, they are declaring the law endorsing it unconstitutional. My personal interpretation would be that it should be organized by churches and Christians, not by laws and government.

Precisely.  All sorts of nasty historical reasons why we do not want the government involved in religion.  Or visa-versa.

[DarklingAlice]

I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way that it seems like any expression of religion that's even remotely encouraged by the government is met with cries of unconstitutionality.  Setting aside a day for people of all faiths to spend time in prayer is not a bad thing, allowing a child to pray openly in a public school is not a bad thing, a teacher wearing a symbol of their faith is not a bad thing.  If officials keep stamping out expressions of faith, people eventually become scared to express it and it becomes a stigma upon them.

People need to lighten up about religion in government, seriously.  Extremism is a bad thing, yes, but saying a prayer before a meeting of the Senate or before an inauguration is not going to make the country into a theocracy (not that any of you are saying that it would).

The thing is, no one is stamping out an expression of faith. It is just like what Trieste said above. If religions want to set aside a day they are more than welcome to. What the judge ruled against is allowing a government endorsement. Saying that the government can't support something is a far cry from stamping it out.

[Trieste]

That, and the law does not dictate culture. Speeding is illegal, but few people care if you speed. Smoking cigarettes is not illegal, but it carries a stigma. Cultural tolerance is something completely different. What about a teacher who brings the Satanist's main book into school for pleasure reading, and wears a pentacle? Kids are going to ask about it and bring it home and tell their parents about it, and then what are parents going to do? Even though Satanists claim that their chief sin is stupidity and they couldn't care less about Christ, you will still have upset parents.

[Noelle]

People need to lighten up about religion in government, seriously.  Extremism is a bad thing, yes, but saying a prayer before a meeting of the Senate or before an inauguration is not going to make the country into a theocracy (not that any of you are saying that it would).

Um, no? I don't really feel like anyone has to lighten up about it at all -- if anything, it's been really lax for a very, very long time, especially compared to how the rest of the world runs their own governments. If senators want to get together off the books and have a prayer before they go to work, that's great for them, by all means do so. However, religion is a personal choice and as such, should stay personal. It has no place being on currency or in the pledge or anywhere near the government. You know, that whole "separation of church/state" business.

The point isn't oppression (not that Christianity is in any danger of being oppressed :T), it's to help cultivate a fair and unbiased decision-making process that neither condones nor condemns any particular denomination. It's not telling anybody they can't practice their faith on their own time.

[MasterMischief]

Agreed.  Would people need to 'lighten up' if the teacher wanted to read from the Koran each morning or wear and inverted crucifix?

[Oniya]

Or teach the kids how to dance the May Pole?  O:)

[DarklingAlice]

Sarah Palin Chimes in

[Trieste]

Why would you perpetuate that woman's reputation? She needs to fade into obscurity already.

Ahm.

I'm shocked, shocked, that Palin would weigh in on a religious issue.

[Prefect Mos]

My school didn't have Prayer in school per se, but during lunch did allow students to meet for religious meetings and prayer, on school grounds and in class rooms. By Sophomore year I was one of the rabble rouses , but there were others. A controversy in another state lead to the school deciding that they did not want to risk lawsuit , and put an end to the meetings, or at least tried to. I stood up and said that the school was clearly not endorsing any religion , as there were meetings of a variety of faiths about , and as long as the school treated the Wiccians, Lutherns, Mormons, Catholics, Atheists , all of witch had there own meeting at lunch, than there would be no problem. This solution worked great until the local (wont say witch but it was one of the christian ones) found out about the others.. and started bitching and moaning about the others being allowed to meet on campus, especially the non christian ones.

He found out more about how the school was planning on canceling all of them until I went on a crusade to save the religious freedom of every group I knew about (apparently there were some Buddhists and a couple other christian groups that were very low key) and came to try and enlist me, to help save religion in the schools again. He was horrified to find out that I was an Atheist, and that I merely believed that everyone should get to make up there own minds , he treated me to a rant about how we were a christian nation, siting things like the senate prayer, and thats when it hit me.. any state endorsement of religion will simply lead to more , do I think that MOST goverment employees have a right to there religion, yes... the only exception here is Judges.. who must leave EVERYTHING other than there expertise of the law at the door. OUr legal system is NOT based in any way.. shape .. or form on the Bible. Bibical law comes in the form of story and allegoric, Hammurabi's code is codified, simple cold hard law... Witch do we use?