Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled

[Mick Jagger]

Lawsuit Over Prayer At Graduation Ceremonies In Texas Is Settled, Says Americans United
​

Friday, March 7, 2008

Agreement Ensures Prayer At School Graduation Ceremonies Won't Be Up To 'Majority Rules' Elections, Says AU's Lynn

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a Texas public school district have settled a lawsuit involving a policy that allowed students to vote on prayer at graduation ceremonies.

The settlement follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks that found the Constitution prohibits public schools from holding student votes on whether to have prayers during commencement.

Judge Sparks approved today a settlement between Americans United and the Round Rock Independent School District that provides, in part, that the school district may not hold or conduct any student elections on including prayer or other religious communications at graduation ceremonies.

Read rest of story at http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9709

 

[04SCTLS]

Chock up one for seperation of church and state.
Let's hope religious influence and interference in public schools and events will recede and go away.
Students who want prayers at graduations should go to catholic or other private religious schools.

 

[shagdrum]

Chock up one for seperation of church and state.

You mean, "chock one up for constitutional distortion, obfuscation and bastardization"?

Let's hope religious influence and interference in public schools and events will recede and go away.

Interference? How? religion has had an influence in the schools of this nation for most of it's history.

Students who want prayers at graduations should go to catholic or other private religious schools.

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

 

[04SCTLS]

I went to Catholic school in Canada and the day always started with a prayer.
When I went to a public high school religion was never brought up or mentioned nor were there any icons or crusifixes in the building.
Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a well received concept in law especially when it comes to something as nebulous as religion.
Islam is intolerant and we hardly want to emulate them(or do we-you?)
If muslims were the majority they would want to pray 5 times a day and coerse everybody to go along under threat of violence.

 

[04SCTLS]

Now it's starting to make more sense to me:
Maybe this should be added to the religious curiculum along with the peyote tribes and the Rastafarians.

Moses was 'on acid'
A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.
The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".
Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

 

[pepperman]

Now it's starting to make more sense to me:
Maybe this should be added to the religious curiculum along with the peyote tribes and the Rastafarians.

Moses was 'on acid'
A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.
The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".
Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

That is PURE :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:

 

[ground_zero298]

Actually I watched a 2 hour program on discovery channel that said moses could have been tripping when he saw the burning bush. They said that plant has that kind of effect on people. I'm not here to start any religious battles, had enough of those in the military. We spent many hours in the tank discusing points in the bible and history timelines. But we all laughed at the mormons who say jesus rode a horse and talked to indians.

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes it could be just provocative speculation but naturally occuring pcychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs have a long history of being used as religious sacraments in many cultures throughout history.
Even in the American experience people have spoken of being one with nature and understanding God while under the influence of powerful mind expanding substances.
There is also some evidence that the salem witch trials were caused by people injesting moldy rye bread and suffering convulsions and hallucinations.
Rye mold is the natural base for producing LSD.

 

[hrmwrm]

religious controversy again. alright. let's try this link.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
goes a little beyond just religious. but raises some interesting things. this is the newer version. the old one is still on google.

 

[04SCTLS]

An anecdotal example of religious stupidity in the face of science and common sense:

Female Muslim medical students at several hospitals in Britain are objecting to a campaign that demands more rigorous hand-washing (to stop the spread of dangerous bacteria), complaining that being forced to bare their forearms above the wrist is immodesty prohibited by their religion. Doctors cited in a February Daily Telegraph story said washing up to the elbow is crucial for safety. Some women at Birmingham University said they would change careers rather than comply. [Daily Telegraph (London), 2-4-08]

It is important to keep religion in it's proper place and not let it into public institutions where it can be a threat to public safety, common sense and the advance of knowledge.
To the women above spreading disease is much less important than following a stupid custom based on a religious belief.

 

[Mick Jagger]

You mean, "chock one up for constitutional distortion, obfuscation and bastardization"?

The Constitution strips the civil authorities of any sort of authority over religion.

Interference? How? religion has had an influence in the schools of this nation for most of it's history.

The Constitution wasn't adopted with the understanding it would be interpreted according to history, dude.

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

If you say so.

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

I think Shagdrum is being sarcastic and frustrated here because of the success the intellectuals have had in thwarting and rolling back the conservative social agenda; Bush and Co being president notwithstanding.

 

[shagdrum]

I think Shagdrum is being sarcastic and frustrated here because of the success the intellectuals have had in thwarting and rolling back the conservative social agenda; Bush and Co being president notwithstanding.

No, I am frustrated because of the success that certian "intellectuals" have had in distorting the constitution and changing it to mean something it never did.

 

[shagdrum]

The Constitution wasn't adopted with the understanding it would be interpreted according to history, dude.

So..the constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean? What is has ment since it was written is irrelevant?

 

[shagdrum]

Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a well received concept in law especially when it comes to something as nebulous as religion.

"having to tolerate" doesn't equal "tyranny". That is a huge stretch, and you know it. You can't tell me that this ruling is at all consistant with the 1st amendment. How is this not a restriction of free exercise of religion?

Islam is intolerant and we hardly want to emulate them(or do we-you?)...If muslims were the majority they would want to pray 5 times a day and coerse everybody to go along under threat of violence.

Muslims aren't the majority, and no one is being forced to do anything here. You are not required to pray in this case, simply be tolerant and respectful while others join in a pray. Don't try to exagurate and obfuscate the issue here to be something it isn't.

If we were gonna run with the muslim analogy, the more accurate example is that a school of mostly muslims agree to pray at a graduation (not forcing anyone to pray who doesn't want to) and the state coming in and saying no.

We aren't a muslim country and we couldn't be a muslim country because this country was founded by Christians for a religious people with certian Christian principles underlying the foundation of this country. Christianity is part of our national tradition.

I really am not interested in debating the pro's and cons of religion in general, or Christianity specifically (as those type of discussions always turn into an illogical bashing of Christianity). I am only interested in the constitutional distortion going on here.

 

[shagdrum]

The Constitution strips the civil authorities of any sort of authority over religion.

Not so much. Religion is given a privilaged place in the Constitution, but it is hardly immune from the law.

Again, read the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

 

[Mick Jagger]

No, I am frustrated because of the success that certian "intellectuals" have had in distorting the constitution and changing it to mean something it never did.

It's no distortion to say the Constitution totally excludes religion from the cognizance, jurisdiction and authority of the government.

 

[Mick Jagger]

So..the constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean?

Not if you follow the common law rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

What is has ment since it was written is irrelevant?

The rules of construction should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

 

[04SCTLS]

The prohibition of drug use for religious or recreational purposes was something that was added to the laws after the constitution was written so by shagdrum's view these laws could be construed as unconstitutional in the strict sense he wants things to be interpreted as.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Not so much. Religion is given a privilaged place in the Constitution, but it is hardly immune from the law.

Religion, the duty we owe our Creator, was exempted, by the Original Constitution, from federal authority.

Again, read the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Did the Court use the common law rules of construction to ascertain the original intent of the lawmakers?

 

[shagdrum]

Not if you follow the common law rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

Those were used as a background, they don't override the Constitution, or add laws to it. They were used as a for a procedural framework; taking a lot of theories and concepts as well as procedure from them to form a new legal system in the US. Common law from Britan doesn't establish or create law in this country.

The rules of construction should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

Only in issues of procedure or in clarifying a definition of a term used by the framers. the Framers own writing and the writings of the time are the primary sources for interpreting the constitution. the common law stuff is only for procedure, or clarification of what a certian term or phrase was ment to be. It doesn't establish laws.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of document by the framers and people of the time debating, breaking down and otherwise clarifying the understanding of the constituiton by the Framers and the general population at that time. From another message board I post on:

The terms used in the constitution were deliberated on at great length and are not ambiguous and undefined, the Framers knew what words they were using and why; they knew the definitons of the terms and language used, and had agreed on the final draft of the constitution with full knowledge of what it ment.

The states had to ratify the constitution and public support was needed, which was the mission of the Federalist papers. The Federal Farmers pamphlets were the opposite of the Federalist papers; a series of writings ment to stop the ratification of the constitution. The constitution was also examined and debated at great length in the public at large. What the constitution meant to the framers and the general population at that time is very easy to clarify, when the actual wording on the constitution isn't specific enough. There are literally hundereds if not thousands of document from this time debating the the constitution. These documents don't really debate the meaning of the constitution, but convied what the Framers ment in the constitution and it's provisions and then break down certian concepts and show the justification for, and application of the various parts of the constitution.

In addition to that, most of the delegates at the constitutional convention had personal diaries from the time discussing the different thoughts and debates in the process of drafting the constitution, as well as notes and written proposals from the delegates and major thinkers there. There were extensive notes of the convention as well.​

As you can see there is an extensive paper trail to figure out what the constitution means. THAT is the primary source used for constitutional interpretation. Common law is only to clarify procedure or what a certian concept referred to in a primary source means.

Here is an interesting quote from Blackstone that helps clarify the idea of Natural Law that the Framers referred to and based this nation on. It also shows how religion is tied into our laws...

The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures…Upon these two foundations, the law off nature and law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict these​

Again, read the opinion I cited. It was written by Scalia, who is much more of an expert in originalist and textualist constitutional interpretation then you or I could ever hope to be.

 

[shagdrum]

Religion, the duty we owe our Creator, was exempted, by the Original Constitution, from federal authority.

Where are you basing that on? I have never come across that definiton of "religion". Give me the textual basis. Also, how do the free exercise and establishment clause give religion a broad pass from the law? Where are you getting that? Are priests not subject to the law if they are molesting little kids?

Did the Court use the common law rules of construction to ascertain the original intent of the lawmakers?

Just read it. The relevant question, in regards to interpretation isn't weather they cite common law, but weather they cite the framers and other relevant writings of the time. Common law doesn't dictate what the original intent was. It logically can't. the original intent is dictate by what the Framers created, not what was established precedent in Britian. Common law was an influence (in certian ways), but the Framers are the ones who created the governing documents of this nation. What you are arguing is like saying that because a certian philosopher was influential on the Framers in drafting the constitution, whatever that philosopher said is law in America.

 

[shagdrum]

A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.

Wow...he believes. That is worthless. Does he have a basis, outside of a clever arguement? In other words, does he have some historical evidence to back that up?

The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".

So a professor distorts the bible. That doesn't constitute historical evidence.

Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

I can make up stories too. It really isn't that hard.

 

[shagdrum]

The prohibition of drug use for religious or recreational purposes was something that was added to the laws after the constitution was written so by shagdrum's view these laws could be construed as unconstitutional in the strict sense he wants things to be interpreted as.

No, you are mischaracterizing my argument (unintentionally, I am sure). Read the opinion, not just the ruling. You need to read the justification in it, not just the result of the case.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well, if the stories you make up are good and clever enough, you can be a Professor Too!

Here's more on the Moses high on hallucinogens thesis.
I don't find this unbelievable based on the influence of these substances in other religions.
On the other hand it is impossible to describe the effects these substances can have and discuss them without having tried them.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ayahuasca+and+moses&btnG=Google+Search