Jun 5, 2011 -- 6:36PM, amcolph wrote:

Jun 4, 2011 -- 11:38PM, Vistronic wrote:

"The First Amendment prohibits governments from interfering with Americans' rights to freely express their religious beliefs, and accordingly the U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that Congress may convene every day with a prayer," Perry said in a statement.

 

So congress can but school can not....?

Congress can do many things that school cannot.  All Congressmen are are adults who are vountarily present.

But let me ask you this:

Would a Moslem valedictorian be allowed to introduce an Islamic prayer into his or her remarks at that school?

Would that right be extended to a Mormon?  A Catholic?  A Jew?

Knowing what I do about that part of Texas, I seriously doubt it.

What do you think? 

Speculation. I do not think Islam would be tolerated, because some use it as excuse to commit terror.. at least that is how it is viewed by many... 15 years ago not as big a problem but now? Look they have equal rights but who wants someone killing them? I see the others allowed except maybe wicca. It gets a bad rap.

We all know Christianity is what we are talking about the defacto state religion.

evidently, since they only seem to sue when people pray "in Jesus' name" -there may be a generic State religion

Dallas City Council had had sessions opened in prayer by both muslims and wiccans

I am unclear how this case was distinguished from the previous Texas case which banned student lead invocations at football games

and I would argue that whatever forces that want to allow religious expression in Public forums but keep it inoffensive create a defacto civil religion

Jun 7, 2011 -- 12:10PM, davelaw40 wrote:

and I would argue that whatever forces that want to allow religious expression in Public forums but keep it inoffensive create a defacto civil religion

Either that, or we can view it as allowing personal religious expression in public forums.

That may be the difference between the two cases that we are discussing.

Jun 7, 2011 -- 11:33AM, amcolph wrote:

As I remember, the key elements in the football game case were that the student prayer leader (and thus, the religious content of the prayer) was selected in a student body election sponsered by the school, and that the prayer was delivered over a PA system owned by the school.

The problem is that Fundamentalists see themselves as sole legitimate heirs of whatever civil religion there may have been or they imagine there was.  Consequently, those who resist Fundamentalist prayer are not only not 'real' Christians, they're not even real Americans.

If BOTH teams pray for victory, does the losing team ipso facto worship a false god?