I was watching the graduation ceremony at my public high school and there was a point when they said a prayer. Everyone bowed there heads and pu there hands together while I just looked around in confusion. I live in Indiana here in the united states and I was wondering if this was a violation of separation of church & state laws.
Question about church and state laws
- Thread starter AtomBomb
- Start date
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
the truth?
there is no federal law that enforces separation of church and state.
what it is, is an ideal that was made into a de-facto law by the US Supreme Court based on writings by Jefferson who helped write the first amendment and what they intended by the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
so no, no laws were violated. what they could have done is interfered with your first amendment rights.
there is no federal law that enforces separation of church and state.
what it is, is an ideal that was made into a de-facto law by the US Supreme Court based on writings by Jefferson who helped write the first amendment and what they intended by the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
so no, no laws were violated. what they could have done is interfered with your first amendment rights.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
"Separation of Church and State" has 2 primary popular misconceptions, not QUITE what TheWesDude illustrated, but he wasn't necessarily wrong. Firstly, that particular phrase was just made up. It's just something that comes to people's minds, which there really was no law that ever said anything of the kind. Secondly, the so-called "Separation of Church and State" ONLY goes one-way. STATE cannot influence the practices of Church, but Church can influence the practices of State at its leisure. That's how it works.
People who fly into a frenzy every time religion seems to impact governing processes are simply utterly ignorant of how this works as intended. Not that it's ideal, but that's how it was meant to work. The founders of the US were cast-offs from a country that mandated a particular religion and persecuted practitioners of different religions, and it was the prevention of THAT which was intended. Nothing more, nothing less. The government cannot force you to be a certain faith, nor do anything about your choice of faith. However your faith can do whatever it damn well pleases to the government.
People who fly into a frenzy every time religion seems to impact governing processes are simply utterly ignorant of how this works as intended. Not that it's ideal, but that's how it was meant to work. The founders of the US were cast-offs from a country that mandated a particular religion and persecuted practitioners of different religions, and it was the prevention of THAT which was intended. Nothing more, nothing less. The government cannot force you to be a certain faith, nor do anything about your choice of faith. However your faith can do whatever it damn well pleases to the government.
That is one interpretation, but there is no singular determination of what "separation of church and state" means other than a certain distance between the two. Generally speaking the actor is seen to be the government, because that is usually in a greater position of power. After all, you can't forbid religions from <s>lobbying</s> expressing opinions.SnapSlav said:
In the United States it's codified in the constitution as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof."
Generally speaking this is interpreted to mean that the government shall not give any religion preferential treatment above others, nor that it shall prohibit any religion. But this is not a non-controversial, clear-cut issue and the Supreme Court has used it in a variety of ways throughout its history. There are still discussions on what the Founding Fathers meant, what the practical implications are and what the doctrine should really be.
As for the original question, the Freedom from Religion Foundation explicitly cites multiple rulings that deal with exactly this issue. Yes, this was a violation. The FFRF suggests that you http://ffrf.org/legal/report contact them if you want to file a complaint with the school district.
I'd imagine people who report that sort of thing only find that it temporarily fills a small part of the void known as their hollow existence.
Have you ever cared to read what is said on your dollar?
Or listen to the speech of politicians?
They are using god so many times as euphemism, as justification and a lot of the state is build on belief.
religion and politics separated. My ass.
Not saying this is somthing particular for the united state. Europe is not really different here.
I mean think about that. If religion would really not mean jack, then guess what happens if a muslim, I mean a muslim that really follows his relgion like a christian politican would want to become a President. Heh. I guess they would rather vote for a gay president or female, as long its a white caucasian born by christian parents.
Or listen to the speech of politicians?
They are using god so many times as euphemism, as justification and a lot of the state is build on belief.
religion and politics separated. My ass.
Not saying this is somthing particular for the united state. Europe is not really different here.
I mean think about that. If religion would really not mean jack, then guess what happens if a muslim, I mean a muslim that really follows his relgion like a christian politican would want to become a President. Heh. I guess they would rather vote for a gay president or female, as long its a white caucasian born by christian parents.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Crni Vuk said:
Oh now it is "MY" dollar
Well if you listened to Conservative talk radio(making you 1 of 3 people to do so) you would know that we already have a Muslim president, who happens to be black of all things, and uses his weather machine to make tornadoes.
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Tsk tsk The GM, he's actually a Muslim Atheist Commie who uses his weather machine to let the UN land troops when no one is looking. Alex Jones told me so... right before he started dribbling and attacking the furniture.
The creeping religiosity of the American state is pretty interesting, it was fairly laid back till the 50's and the Cold War.
The creeping religiosity of the American state is pretty interesting, it was fairly laid back till the 50's and the Cold War.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Bet you guys wouldn't be talking so much shit about B-dawg if your IRS tax return checks hadn't already cleared.
This church and state shit, much like NASCAR, creationism, and marrying your cousin is a Red State thing anyway.
This church and state shit, much like NASCAR, creationism, and marrying your cousin is a Red State thing anyway.
Maybe confusing, but I used the "your" more in general to like "the american dollar", since I am european, and as far as I know the Euro has no "In god we trust".TheGM said:Crni Vuk said:
Oh now it is "MY" dollar
As said. Those who really believe that state and religion are seperated, are a bit disillusioned.
I mean it does sound nice in theory and all with thoes fancy laws that make it an intellectual thing, kinda. But the reality is a lot different. When ever needed, god was used as excuse or for what ever reason. In god we trust, may god help us all, hell presidents used "god" phrases all the time to make their points stronger, its every american citzen "god given right" to bla bla bla their homeland and bla bla freedom and all that other stuff they throw around when they want to not tell the truth like companies or politics beeing involved. Sure. We have to mess around with Africa or South america. Easier to sell that to the people when you say "we have to defend our self from communism". Some migh thave even really believed that. But when Pepis talked with Kissinger about their issues in Argenitna, I am not sure if that had something to do with Communism or God. More the almighty dollar.
Thing is though, this is nothing special. Neither Britain, Germany, France or any other nation with some power is different here. Its always about power and how to preserve it, and making a fortune while doing so. We are rich, becaues others are poor. Thats the reality. All that talking by politicans about freedom, democracy, religion and how its seperated sounds nice and fany. But if you study history, then yo urealize that when you think REALISTIC about the situation, only very little of it is really left at the end of the day. But thats how the world works.
TheGM said:
Obama is as white as it can be. Or he would not be a "president". He is representing the future of Uncle Tom - maybe thats a bit drastic but I hope you get the sarcasm I am only half serious here anyway
The US is still not getting over their Apartheid. Obama has to follow the same principles like any other President before him, and also to answer the same people behind the curtain. Those that spend the money. Corporations, lobbys, etc. Is Obama some evil person? Sure not. He is just a usual person. But just like most other politicans in his position he is dancing to the flute. If he would be really following his "ideals" he would go in, and simply close guantanamo and do some serious investigation in any similar instalation/situation. But he cant. Because that is not in his power. The restiance is very high, be it from the military or those people that think its still needed. And that is just one example.
What I see today, is very often politicans that actually are in power because of corruption (Berlusconi) or they have grown up in rather rich families, studing politics, economics and other such nonsene, starting their political carrer in their early 20s. I miss the times when politicans actually came eventually from the working class, really understandthing the needs and issues of their population. Education IS important, no doubt. People should be inteligent. But I have the feeling that many of those "professional" politicans up there, dont have any conection with the population. And this leads to situations where they decide something no one really understands like the reforms to our health care system in Germany ...
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Come to the Netherlands. Religion don't mean jack shit here. We have a ChristenUnie (Christian Union), and we totally ignore 'em! Freedom.
DarthBartus
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe you're right. Maybe you aren't. The thing is, I feel, that there is quite a bit of difference between invoking one's particular variant of god, because it sounds nice in a speech, and actively working to establish a theocracy, to the detriment of anyone not kneeling, which seems to be a wet dream to polish retarded right wing.
Akratus said:
I might just consider that.
Yeah... But there are dutch people there. I live right next to the Netherlands. Thus I have to endure your shitty drivers a whole lot. I could not stand a whole country full of 'em.Akratus said:
DarthBartus said:
Dude, the US is mostly a nation with christian background. Its not a fundamental state ruled by religion. Thats not what I am saying. But there is no way to seperate religion and politics. Its simply to important as topic for a large part of the citizen, regardles if they are mormones or rather liberal christians.
Do you believe Americans would vote for an atheist? Even if he is completely unbiased regarding religious topics. hell people would probably even here not vote for such a person.
DarthBartus
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Crni Vuk said:
And so is the UK, and Sweden, and Denmark, and Norway, and...
And neither am I. I was primarily talking about Poland, but situation in the US is similar, where religion is more important than in ought to be, and where there are people, who act, as if they wanted a theocracy.Crni Vuk said:
No, I don't. Because, as I've said before, religion there seems far more important, than it ought to be, to the point, where a candidate for a public office is judged by the public first by his religion, and then by his merits, rather than the other way around.Crni Vuk said:
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
No, unless they forced you to pray along with them.AtomBomb said:
TheGM
The voice of reason
Crni Vuk said:
Being sarcastic, guy.
Seriously.....weather machine. As in "That Damn Obama, from the Muslim Brotherhood, activated his weather machine to make tornadoes rip up Oklahoma, so people would stop hearing about Benghazi, and how the IRS investigated various PACs based on political affiliation effecting their tax exempt status and not refusing to any conservative one, but the fact they did it is a outrage"
Alphadrop said:
Should have used Socialist since Socialism = Communism
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
That's all bullshit just like the Gun Control debate is bullshit. There was never EVER a legal precedent which established what the popular masses presume was established, and they just go around assuming their "interpretations" are open to possibilities. It's true that constitutional law is quite an open-ended book, but that's a practice, not the intention of the document which the practice revolves around. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are incredibly specifically written, and yet "scholars" insist that they're open to interpretation. We can debate certain things all we want, like whether the intentions of the constitutional laws APPLY to modern circumstances, but there's very little room with respect to how much they can be "interpreted". Most of them are quite definitive, and leave no room for such interpretation. The restrictions regarding religion are among such definitive writings. There can be no laws which are designed to directly affect religions and religious practices, but the reverse is not true. And, once more, "separation of church and state" is a popular myth. There is no legal precedent which states this. It's just a poorly-worded summary of the actual words used.Sander said:
We can complain that religious groups push their weight around, but that's something intended by design. They have the right to do so, just like anyone else has the right to object, as long as they do so not by legal enforcement. To go back to the original story, what WOULD be breaking a civil liberty would be if all of the spectators were FORCED to bow their heads in prayer, not merely asked to join in. In High School, I vehemently objected to certain "foreign policy" courses that were being taken by the United States, so whenever it came time to rise and say the pledge of allegiance, I remained seated and didn't do a damn thing, and I had the constitutionally-provided liberty to do so. It caused lots of students who were brainwashed and couldn't comprehend the statement I was making to think I was "un-American", but that was their error.
The moral of the story: It's popular practice to do certain customs, but you're not legally OBLIGATED to participate, in the United States. So don't assume that your liberties are being infringed just because the vast majority cows to a certain custom without thinking why they do it. You're free to ignore it, if you choose.
Sorry, SnapSlav, but you're wrong on multiple counts. There's a reason why there's so much debate over what was really meant specifically in the constitution and the Bill of Rights, because things are simply not that clear. You may think that your interpretation is incredibly clear, but given the existence of scholarly debate and that fact that on many occasions the Supreme Court has reversed course in interpretations, there are clearly a lot of cases where the interpretations are not singular and obvious.SnapSlav said:
Your denying that there should be a debate does not make it disappear or illegitimate.
There is indeed legal precedent that agrees with what you call the interpretation of the popular masses, on many different occasions but specifically for high school graduations. The FFRF cites a number of court cases here. I have no idea why you think they don't exist.
The idea that if it is voluntary it is okay is actually nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It also largely misses the point. When you take a prayer (Christian or otherwise) and make it a part of a graduation ceremony, even if it is voluntary to join in, you are still endorsing a specific religious practice. This becomes very problematic when other religious practices are not a part of that ceremony, or when atheists are entirely denied a similar ceremony. "You can always ignore it" doesn't really work when your entire school is gathered for a ceremony that celebrates your graduation.
In addition, when 70% of your school is Christian and joining in, then any voluntary prayer quickly becomes a mandatory prayer, lest those not participating become excluded.