JWise vs DonkeyDude
Teachers, students, etc. should be allowed and encouraged to pray or hold religious meetings in schools, government buildings, and the like.
JWise said 04/22, 01:43 PM
considering the demographic in this forum this one might be interesting. i'm going to use my "Face Off Statement" as my first argument.
DonkeyDude said 04/22, 07:49 PM
Your vague normative statement is hard to respond to without more.
The Establishment Clause essentially stands for separation of church and state. This means that the gov. cannot demonstrate a preference either for or against religion or favor one particular religion over another. The idea is that all viewpoints must be respected - even that of atheists - because religion has no role in our government. The basic legal guideline is that the gov. may not do anything that appears to "endorse" a religion (or religion in general).
That said, teachers and students are, in fact, allowed to pray in schools. Schools may not, however, set aside time specifically for prayer. A teacher may not lead a class in prayer, precisely because it sends the message that the government endorses that particular religious viewpoint.
People may also hold religious meetings on government premises, including schools, as long as the premises are also potentially available to other groups (religious or not).
Your religious beliefs blind you in this discussion. Consider the viewpoint of a religious minority. The Est. Clause exists to protect him/her from the majority's imposition of its religious viewpoint.
JWise said 04/22, 08:42 PM
the first ammendment does not restrict religious activity from schools or government buildings. it simply says that the government cannot impose a religion onto the general populace. the term "Seperation of Church and State" is nowhere in the Constitution. the term was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote. and as i said "...to pray or hold religious meetings..." therefore all religions are encompassed in "...religious meetings...". plus, chew on this...if the goverment can't endorse any specific religion or religion itself why does the Secret Service provide protection for the pope? i suppose an underlying aspect of my argument is, as long as all religions are given a fair shake, then what is against the law. people's main fear is that they'll offend someone by recognizing one religion over another, but if Christians, Catholics, Baptists, Wicans, Jedi, etc are given equal opportunity then the government isn't perceived as favoring one over the other and no laws are broken.
DonkeyDude said 04/22, 09:08 PM
The whole Establishment Clause is half a sentence. I understand that it does not include the words "separation of church and state" (and I know that you pulled that off the internet, but kudos for your research). It also does not mention "endorsement." But the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence - the long line of cases interpreting the Clause and applying it to myriad situations - agrees with my paraphrasing.
The guidelines I described come directly from the Supreme Court, and they alone have the authority to interpret the constitutionality of government actions.
Please respond to the content of my first argument.
The Secret Service should not provide protection for the Pope, unless it also offers protection to other, non-religious, high-priority assassination targets - which I believe it does. Whether the SS' actions are constitutional or not is not at issue here. Many things currently violate the Est Clause.
Re: your final sentence. 1) People's concern for offending each other is irrelevant here. 2) The government cannot endorse multiple religions anymore than it can endorse Christianity; keep in mind another minority religious viewpoint: atheism/agnosticism.
JWise said 04/23, 10:12 AM
what exactly is the establishment cause protecting the atheists from, conversion? a teacher allowing a few minutes at the start of their class for prayer or silent inner reflection no more endorses a religion than does saying "God Bless You" when someone sneezes (even though that custom was established by the catholic denomination). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."(ref Cornell Univ. Law School). if a teacher is of a certain faith, he has the constitutional right to lead students of said faith in a prayer, and allow others to do the same("...the free exercise thereof..."). the problem most people seem to have though is, "Well, I'm not of that faith so I'm being discriminated against!" if people feel that way and they are strong enough in their convictions then they can organize and pray in their religion's manner.
as for atheists, the civil thing would be to have enough respect for others beliefs that they remain silent while others are praying in what ever form they prefer.
DonkeyDude said 04/23, 02:18 PM
The Clause does two things really. It ensures that the state does not tend to adopt a majority religious perspective (which it would, if not for the Clause - I'm sure you'd want the 10 Commandments on the walls of our court houses). This ensures the continued viability of minority religious perspectives. Imagine how different, say, Iran would be if it had this in its constitution.
The second thing it does is just what you are talking about - except you've got it backwards. It PROTECTS the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. As applied, it happens to do so for everybody but Christians (majority in the US), which is why essentially only Christians complain about it.
As for a teacher allowing time for "silent inner reflection," that is in fact permissible. But not "prayer." If you want, look up "coercion test" and "Lee" online. If Muslims were the majority, and they led class every day with Muslim prayer, wouldn't you feel ostracized? Like you were an "outsider, not a full member of the political community?" (US Supreme Court's phrasing)
So you're wrong - teachers do not have "the constitutional right" to do that. Your arguments betray a sense of religious entitlement.
Comments
Add Your Comment
JWise, you're a bit vague on the face-off statement. Depending on what you're implying by ''encouraged'' even the law may agree with you here. I generally think most people would agree with you, unless by ''encouraged'' you mean by the actual public/government institutions/forums themselves. If you're essentially saying public and government institutions should promote, and not merely allow for the exercise of, free speech and reasonable exercise of religious practices---then you'll have a tougher argument. It will be interesting how DD approaches this one.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow.. The first guy punts, the opponent hasn't responded yet, and the vote is 3-0 for the aff? Doesn't seem right...
Donkey Dude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I guess "the demographic in this forum" is making this uninteresting.
Donkey Dude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
JWise, now you should take the angle of ''More people should exercise their right to assemble for reasonable and inclusive exercise of prayer in public and government institutions.'' Otherwise, you're not gonna have much of a chance.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Pit Bull, I don't really think that's at issue here. They can do that all they want now. There's a fine line between what is and isn't allowed, and JWise's opening statement crosses it. I could go on and on about other examples of impermissible government actions: 10 Commandments in US courthouses; large crosses on public land (not in the context of inclusive religious education/celebration); prayer at high school graduations.. The Supreme Court has agreed with me on all these issues, regardless of what JWise happens to believe. I'll go farther and say "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on our money. Libertarians and liberals have to agree with me here.
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I was saying that if JWise wants to take back control of the debate, (s)he almost needs to argue that it's a moral imperative that more people exercise their current freedom/right to practice religion reasonably and inclusively in public. I'm not saying businesses need to promote it or make it more available, nor am I saying JWise should argue such.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
And for readers who are thinking "But what about the students' free speech or religious exercise rights?" .. Free speech - including religious speech - is protected fully. Students are fully allowed to wear cross pins, pray, form religious clubs, etc. This speech just can't be favored, and the school cannot appear to endorse it. The larger goal here is ensuring religious diversity and not creating even the appearance of a state religion. Pit Bull, I'd think any educated patriot would see my (and the Supreme Court's) reasoning. Penny for your thoughts as a respected E-D vet..
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I guess I'm trying to convey that I'm not challenging the facts you pointed out. In fact, I pretty much said the same things you ended up saying in your argument earlier, in my first comment here. I'm saying that, for JWise to have any hope for keeping this a debate, he almost has to pretend (at least, I'm presuming it'd be pretense) that the intent of his face-off statement was not to say public/govt forums/institutions should allow more speech; rather, that individuals, including students, need to collectively find it a more passionate issue to convene peacefully, reasonably, and inclusively, in public/govt places, as a call for attention to the importance of morality and religion (or something). I'm not actually debating here.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
P.S., thanks for the penny. Back at you. And congrats on being the new wins leader.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks. I doubt it'll last long. There should be some kind of indexed score to take into account how many wins someone has, too. And maybe even the quality. haha.. I admit a couple of my wins were total gimme's (no offense to anyone).
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hey, no need to feel sorry for winning the ones you should win. You took care of business. But I caution against debating P&L anymore because (s)he cheats. :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
How? I've debated P&L, and she doesn't seem to cheat. In fact, I kinda wish she would. Copy and paste from Wikipedia or something, geez. You're up there on the leaderboard too I see. Congrats back atcha.
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
it already is allowed but it cant be encouraged because then you have to encourage every religion. that doesnt just mean judaism, christianity, islam, hindu and buddhism, that means every ridiculous cult and every sect of everything. you cant encourage that. all you can do is let anyone practice whatever they want as long as its not interfering with what you're there to do
philpee2 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
You're mostly right, philpee2. But the gov't also cannot endorse religion as a whole. So technically, no, the gov't can't just provide funding for or otherwise endorse numerous religions, because they also have to respect the rights of non-believers. The goal is to respect everyone's beliefs and allow them to practice their religion (within reason), but not send the message to anyone that their religious viewpoints make them outsiders.
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I had a 10-1 lead over P&L for about 5 days. The issue was about changing one's votes. I checked in this morning, and it was still 10-1. I checked back after work and I had lost 12-10 (and feel free to read the arguments to see who ''won'' on the merits). While I'm not one for sour grapes, I clearly want people to be aware of this potentially recurring farce. (And suddenly, P&L is winning most of her debates after struggling to gain any votes the past two weeks.) And in comments, P&L basically sounded like she admitted it. It would be a shame to soil what seemed, in spirit, to be a fun, intelligent forum for the rational communication of ideas.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ouch. Sorry to hear that, Pit Bull. I don't get it.. it's not like they're giving out prizes or anything. Guys, let's keep this forum about the promotion and exchange of ideas. I've already learned a great deal from people on this site (all across the political spectrum), and I'd hate to see people driven away over childish gamesmanship.
DonkeyDude | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for your support. Yes, it'd be nice to somehow preserve the integrity of the forum/web site. It's a shame when the honor system isn't good enough. I echo DD's sentiment.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/22/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Jwise, you make it sound like you think the Establishment Clause of the First Amendmend should be obliterated "just because" it sounds good to you. Since you have so little space in these debates to make your "arguments," just writing one sentence with no reasons to back it up seems like a dumb idea. I guess you were hoping an idiot would take the debate. Unfortunately for you, Donkeydude took it and he will, without a doubt, debate you out of the water. I think it is definitely an interesting topic for debate (so good job on posting the idea) so long as it doesn't turn into "because the bible says so." I look forward to reading your reasons behind this opinion.
sallyjames | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment