Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

While I disagree with the use of religious language in their speeches, which I've stated numerous times, I agree in the ban on prayer. I have no problem with that. Jesus doesn't either. He said so.

Aaron wrote:When it's listed in the program, that's not choosing to pray. What about that do you not understand?

Your desire to trample free speech to appease your hatred of christainity!!!!!

You have to help me, here, Aaron, ......

How will this help you any?

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:When it's listed in the program, that's not choosing to pray. What about that do you not understand?

Your desire to trample free speech to appease your hatred of christainity!!!!!

You made two statements and neither could be more wrong. Please explain how I want to trample free speech and how I hate Christianity.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:When it's listed in the program, that's not choosing to pray. What about that do you not understand?

Your desire to trample free speech to appease your hatred of christainity!!!!!

You made two statements and neither could be more wrong. Please explain how I want to trample free speech and how I hate Christianity.

Because you support the use of the force of law to stiffle a person's speech. Your support of the courts rulings over the establishment clause, which directly violates free speech, underlines hatred of free speech. The US Supreme Court is wrong in their present interrupretation and application of the 1st amendment. Anyone that supports the US Supreme Court's rulings or any court's rulings lacks an understand of both liberty and the founder's intent. That's my opinion and I'll stand by it.

Your selective use of the scriptures to bolster your views is dishonest. The only reason I can think of for such dishonesty is a hatred of the scriptures and of what they teach. As I have said before you can't take a couple of scriptures and make doctrine out of it. Yo have done just that in this thread.

So you're saying Jesus wrong?

Damn, I'd hate to be you on Judgement day.

Aaron wrote:So you're saying Jesus wrong?

Damn, I'd hate to be you on Judgement day.

You know full well what I'm saying. You can't take a scripture or two or take scripture out of context and make doctrine out of it. You have done just that. Thankfully I am here to enlighten you.

The verses you quoted out of the Sermon on the Mount are are party of Jesus' discussion to do things for the right reason and to be honest about what you do. Don't pretend to be religious in public and not in private. He is saying what you do in private is the real you and is telling of what you really believe. What you so convienently forget is Jesus knows the hearts of people. You nor I have the ability to search a person's heart.

Now you can use the verses you quoted to justfiy your stance on the 1st amendment's Establishment Clause, but to do so is a dishonest use of the scritpure. Jesus also said if you deny me before men, I will deny you before God. In the book of Acts we read of John and Peter being threatened by the sanhedrin not to speak anymore about Jesus. Their answer to the Sanhedrin was they would obey God rather than man.

You can believe what you desire regarding the 1st amendment and you can run around and misuse the scriptures to justify your view, but that doesn't make you right. Just remember there are many like me who will not be silenced by you or your beloved Supreme Court or the thought police.

I'm not taking anything out of context. We are discussing public prayers and Jesus clearly states in Matthew 6:6 to go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. If anything, it is one of the few instances in life where the situation is SPECIFICALLY addressed by Jesus himself in scripture that is crystal clear. There's nothing dishonest about it. You don't like it because it contradicts what you CHOOSE to believe and then you tell me I hate Christianity because I disagree with you.

I stand by my last statement but I will say a prayer for you.

Regarding the 1st Amendment, what church do you attend. I would like to come by, visit and exercise your version of my rights.

Aaron wrote:I'm not taking anything out of context. We are discussing public prayers and Jesus clearly states in Matthew 6:6 to go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. If anything, it is one of the few instances in life where the situation is SPECIFICALLY addressed by Jesus himself in scripture that is crystal clear. There's nothing dishonest about it. You don't like it because it contradicts what you CHOOSE to believe and then you tell me I hate Christianity because I disagree with you.

You are more than welcome to think that if you want, but it doesn't make it right.

Aaron wrote:I stand by my last statement but I will say a prayer for you.

Thanks

Aaron wrote:Regarding the 1st Amendment, what church do you attend. I would like to come by, visit and exercise your version of my rights.

Nah that's OK. You're alot like a bully. You are more about embarrassing me than seeking truth.

It's not about what I think, it's about what Jesus said. I'm pretty sure I've ask you this before, is he wrong or is it your stance that Jesus wants his followers praying to God the father loudly and in public?

And I'm not suprised you declined. It's quintessentailly who you are.

Aaron wrote: It's not about what I think, it's about what Jesus said. I'm pretty sure I've ask you this before, is he wrong or is it your stance that Jesus wants his followers praying to God the father loudly and in public?

First of all Jesus isn't wrong, you are! The really sad part of that is, you insist on misquoting a section of scripture as proof text. Dishonest! Dishonest! Dishonest! As I pointed out Jesus also said if you deny me before men I will deny you before my father. Jesus further spoke and prayed in public. Additionally, in the Book of Acts we have the example of Peter and John who were threatened with speaking publicly about Jesus and yet they continued. Further, we have the example of Paul on Mars Hill and many other places who spoke publicly and many times with even invite.

Aaron wrote:And I'm not suprised you declined. It's quintessentailly who you are.

I didn't figure you would be surprised, which really makes little difference to me.

I got to thinking and thus one other point I'd like to make. Like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, I'm an originalist in Constitutional Interpretation. What it meant when ratified is what it means today, unless changed by amendment.

I fail to understand why the issue of the establishment clause was not an issue until a corrupted Supreme Court changed the the meaning by ruling during the 60s or 70s. If the founders had intended to take God out of the equation they would have did so when they wrote the US Constitution. However , they didn't and for 160 years or so, God being mentioned and prayer being held at public events wasn't an issue.

3 questions Cato.

1) How is praying in private as instructed by Jesus denying him?

2) When did the federal government gain control of the school system?

3) How did Vitale change the constitution?

Perhaps it will help you answer the last two if you actually understand the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era. It possibly could have been thought up of as a consensus to the diversity of religions in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution's creation.

source

Roll that over in your brain and then answer my questions. And finally, when looking back over some of your rants, I noticed a statement that I must have overlooked. You said "Just remember there are many like me who will not be silenced by you or your beloved Supreme Court or the thought police." While there is little doubt in my mind that you understand it, my beloved Supreme Court along with our Constitutional Republic was put in place by our founding fathers because of people just like you.

Aaron wrote:

1) How is praying in private as instructed by Jesus denying him?

It isn't. However, when one chooses to offer a prayer publically and the state or individuals say he can't then one has to choose who they will follow, Jesus or the world

Aaron wrote:
2) When did the federal government gain control of the school system?

When the Federal Government began placing mandates on state school systems. I don't when exactly, neither do I understand what your question has to do witht he discussion.

Aaron wrote:
3) How did Vitale change the constitution?

In my opinion, Engle v Vitale misapplied the following part of the 1st Amendment, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW". The Prayer involved was voluntary. No LAW existed. One did not have to participate or recite the prayer. Most importantly, CONGRESS HAD MADE NO LAW. There was no law that stated one had to pray this prayer.

Words have meanings. The court has chose to ignore that principle. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" doesn't begin to mean that government and religion were to be seperate as defined by today's courts. It meant that the Federal Government could tax for a state sponsered religion. If the founders had intended otherwise, they would have said so in the Amendment. They didn't. They only stated that CONGRESS could never make LAW respecting the establishment of a religion.

You do understand that several of the states had official religions for a number of years after this amendment was written and ratified. It wasn't until many years later the practice was ended.

There is nothing in the constitution that remotely can be defined as seperating, as the Supreme Court has Ruled, church and state.





Perhaps it will help you answer the last two if you actually understand the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era. It possibly could have been thought up of as a consensus to the diversity of religions in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution's creation.

source

Roll that over in your brain and then answer my questions. And finally, when looking back over some of your rants, I noticed a statement that I must have overlooked. You said "Just remember there are many like me who will not be silenced by you or your beloved Supreme Court or the thought police." While there is little doubt in my mind that you understand it, my beloved Supreme Court along with our Constitutional Republic was put in place by our founding fathers because of people just like you. [/quote]

Jesus teaches us that there are differences in Godly obedience and worldly obedience and that there are times we will have to "render unto Caesar", a lesson Paul reiterates in Romans when he states that “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

And Congress made a law. It’s called compulsory attendance laws. Children are required by law to attend school based on where they live. While there may be some alternatives, the bottom line is that children who attend public schools are forced to listen to the prayers, hence establishment of religion. It's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Sorry, none of your arguments hold water.

Aaron wrote:Jesus teaches us that there are differences in Godly obedience and worldly obedience and that there are times we will have to "render unto Caesar", a lesson Paul reiterates in Romans when he states that “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Again you misquote scripture to justify whatever point you are trying to make. Jesus was asked by the Pharisee if it was lawful to pay tribute to Ceasar. Jesus answered by saying you give to Ceasar what is his and to God what is God's. It is true Paul said one had to submit to authorities, which is the duty of a Christain. However, as is shown in the book of Acts, John and Peter were threatened by the authorities and told not to speak the name of Jesus. Peter said that they would obey God and not man. He is saying that man makes some laws a Christain can't obey. At that point they have to obey God.

Aaron wrote:And Congress made a law. It’s called compulsory attendance laws. Children are required by law to attend school based on where they live. While there may be some alternatives, the bottom line is that children who attend public schools are forced to listen to the prayers, hence establishment of religion. It's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Sorry, none of your arguments hold water.

They were not required to pray. There was no law made by anyone that required their participation in the prayer.

I'm not misquoting anything, you're just wrong Cato. But then that's often the case with you. Your problem is you know the answer before the question is ask thus you make the evidence point to your answer and you're not even willing to consider other viewpoints or the fact that you could be wrong.

You've yet to put forth any reasonable argument regarding why school sanctioned prayer is constitutional or how it is biblically supported. At this point, I'm wondering if you have anything new or if you will get any any wiser on either subject and offer anything new to the subject so I'm wondering if I"m not better off excusing myself from this conversation.

Aaron wrote:And Congress made a law. It’s called compulsory attendance laws. Children are required by law to attend school based on where they live.

And just when did Congress pass those compulsory school attendance laws?

First off, if Sam is coming out against me, that tells me I'm right.

As for Sam, Im' curuious, do you understand that in 1868 the 1st Amendment became Congress AND/OR the States shall make no law, don't you Sam?

Aaron, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment to apply the 1st amendment to the states (Gitlow vs New York). As for Congress, does No Child Left Behind include minimum attendance standards?

Actually incorporation began in the 1890's and was gradual on specific Amendments. What's interesting is that not all the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to all the states.

Various sections of the 1st Amendment have been incorporated to the states with the Establishment Clause being incorporated in 1947 in Emerson v. Board of Education.

West Virginia has had compulsory attendance laws since 1931. I'm not sure if NCLB has compulsory attendance laws or not but graduation rates are part of the criteria but that's neither here nor there as every state has compulsory attendance laws, hence Cato's "Congress shall make no law" argument is moot.

Aaron wrote:I'm not misquoting anything, you're just wrong Cato. But then that's often the case with you. Your problem is you know the answer before the question is ask thus you make the evidence point to your answer and you're not even willing to consider other viewpoints or the fact that you could be wrong.

Actually Aaron, I've found that anyone that doesn't agree with you is WRONG. At least in your eyes. And, You are right I'm not willing to consider other veiw points, especially view points that are willfully wrong.

Aaron wrote:You've yet to put forth any reasonable argument regarding why school sanctioned prayer is constitutional or how it is biblically supported. At this point, I'm wondering if you have anything new or if you will get any any wiser on either subject and offer anything new to the subject so I'm wondering if I"m not better off excusing myself from this conversation.

I've put forth everything that is necessary to put forth. You've chose to deny it and beleive what you want. That's fine by me. It makes little difference what is settled here on this board between you and I. What is important is that I vote for those who see the present stance on the first amendment as wrong and who are seeking to put those on the court that will reverse this grevious error.

Aaron wrote:West Virginia has had compulsory attendance laws since 1931. I'm not sure if NCLB has compulsory attendance laws or not but graduation rates are part of the criteria but that's neither here nor there as every state has compulsory attendance laws, hence Cato's "Congress shall make no law" argument is moot.

Compulsory Attendance is a feeble attempt at saying has made a law "respecting the Establishment of Religion". Participation is voluntary and until a law is made by Congress that requires one to participate the only point that is moot is yours.

Aaron wrote:Actually incorporation began in the 1890's and was gradual on specific Amendments. What's interesting is that not all the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to all the states.

Various sections of the 1st Amendment have been incorporated to the states with the Establishment Clause being incorporated in 1947 in Emerson v. Board of Education.

West Virginia has had compulsory attendance laws since 1931. I'm not sure if NCLB has compulsory attendance laws or not but graduation rates are part of the criteria but that's neither here nor there as every state has compulsory attendance laws, hence Cato's "Congress shall make no law" argument is moot.

See Dye, Sparrow, Cummings, and about a hundred other political scientists (nevermind the Sheik) that will tell you it was 1925 and the case was Gitlow v New York.

Perhaps Wikipedia has the date in the 1890s, and that is why you do not always trust Wikipedia. Perhaps you were considering a court decision regarding Utah becoming a state?