Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[JimL]

The fact that you came to that conclusion from what I've said shows how far you are from any form of higher intelligence. So, no worries, Jimmy - nobody thinks you're a god.

I see, don't get sarcasm eh?

So, you're finally admitting that you've been deceptive about your claim to be an "Agnostic"? You're coming out of the closet, Jimmy?

Admitted that long ago CP, but there is little difference between the two. If you have no opinion either way, then you don't believe!

[Cow Poke]

Admitted that long ago CP, but there is little difference between the two. If you have no opinion either way, then you don't believe!

I apologize. The fact that you're too ignorant to understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic really should have been no surprise to me at all.

[Roy]

You are completely daft, school prayer does not violate the Constitution - A school having prayer is NOT CONGRESS making a LAW. No matter how leftist courts bastardized the Amendment, the Amendment only prevents congress from establishing a religion by LAW.

You are completely dishonest, since you've ignored the 14th amendment, and ignored that fact that various state governments have in fact made LAWS requiring or recommending school prayer, and that Wallace v Jaffree was about overturning such a LAW made by the Alabama state government.

[seer]

You are completely dishonest, since you've ignored the 14th amendment, and ignored that fact that various state governments have in fact made LAWS requiring or recommending school prayer, and that Wallace v Jaffree was about overturning such a LAW made by the Alabama state government.

Nonsense Roy, I made it clear that I was speaking of a school or school district having prayer, that does not violate the Constitution. If Alabama's congress was compelling prayer, by law, than that would be unconstitutional.

[JimL]

Nonsense Roy, I made it clear that I was speaking of a school or school district having prayer, that does not violate the Constitution. If Alabama's congress was compelling prayer, by law, than that would be unconstitutional.

The State compelling children to pray would be unconstitutional seer.

[seer]

The State compelling children to pray would be unconstitutional seer.

That is what I said Jim: If Alabama's congress was compelling prayer, by law, then that would be unconstitutional.

[JimL]

That is what I said Jim: If Alabama's congress was compelling prayer, by law, then that would be unconstitutional.

It doesn't have to be by law seer. Its already against the law, its unconstitutional.

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't have to be by law seer. Its already against the law, its unconstitutional.

Can you please site that law, Jimmy?

[seer]

It doesn't have to be by law seer. Its already against the law, its unconstitutional.

Well no Jim, the Constitution is perfectly clear - Congress shall make no law. The little red school house having a morning prayer is not congress making a law, and therefore is not unconstitutional.

[Roy]

Nonsense Roy, I made it clear that I was speaking of a school or school district having prayer, that does not violate the Constitution.

Really? Let's see. Searching thread:
...that Amendment was never meant to prevent such things as school prayer or religious displays on public property
...school prayer does not violate the Constitution
...the Constitution does not prevent religious expression on public lands, nor does it forbid school prayer
...but not allowing a cross on public property, or the Ten Commandments in school, or even school prayer
...things like church taxes lasted into the 1830s, school prayer was wide spread until the 1960s

Nothing there about a school or school district having prayer, only mentions of "school prayer" without further definition.

You did not make it clear that you were speaking of "a school or school district having prayer".

If Alabama's congress was compelling prayer, by law, than that would be unconstitutional.

That's what Tassman said - and you called him "completely daft". You owe him a retraction and apology.

[JimL]

Can you please site that law, Jimmy?

Do you not understand the Constitution CP. A law can't be enacted that violates the Constitution, and compelling children to pray is a violation of the Constitution.

[Roy]

Can you please site that law, Jimmy?

I can: 1981 Alabama Statute ( 16-1-20.1) authorized state schools to institute a one-minute silence for meditation or prayer.

Though I think you misconstrued Jim's statement.

[seer]

Really? Let's see. Searching thread:
...that Amendment was never meant to prevent such things as school prayer or religious displays on public property
...school prayer does not violate the Constitution
...the Constitution does not prevent religious expression on public lands, nor does it forbid school prayer
...but not allowing a cross on public property, or the Ten Commandments in school, or even school prayer
...things like church taxes lasted into the 1830s, school prayer was wide spread until the 1960s

Nothing there about a school or school district having prayer, only mentions of "school prayer" without further definition.

Well yeah bonehead, I was speaking of school prayer. I was not speaking of a congress (state or federal) compelling prayer.

That's what Tassman said - and you called him "completely daft". You owe him a retraction and apology.

But I was speaking of school prayer, not forced prayer compelled by the state. I never even suggested such a thing! And I have made it clear "A school having prayer is NOT CONGRESS making a LAW" that I was not speaking of any congress making a law.

[Zymologist]

Can you please cite that law, Jimmy?

fify; couldn't resist

[Roy]

Well no Jim, the Constitution is perfectly clear - Congress shall make no law. The little red school house having a morning prayer is not congress making a law, and therefore is not unconstitutional.

Using that approach, state police seizing all firearms in the state is not unconstitutional because it's not congress making a law.

Seer is hair-splitting between a government-sanctioned action and the law that permits that action, and claiming that the former cannot be unconstitutional even though the latter is.