I haven't kept up with this particular case. Was a prayer opportunity presented for those of other faiths?

 

Yes.

I haven't kept up with this particular case. Was a prayer opportunity presented for those of other faiths?

 

The suit was filed by an agnostic family.

So, if a Muslim student were Valedictorian of his/her class and prepared their speech with a prayer to Allah for their future, you'd have no problem with that Valedictorian delivering that speech, even if the rest of the student body, or even most, were Christian?

 

I would not care, but Allah is the same God as the Christian God.

I call for a BGP time-out! Can we all just hold hands and sing "kum-by-ya"? (Spelling is certainly botched---but I am pretty sure I know who will be the first to correct it!)

I would not care, but Allah is the same God as the Christian God.

 

Absolutely not the same God at all.

Congress begins each session with prayer. The Presidential inauguration has a prayer. Our money has "In God We Trust." The Supreme Court building is littered with a plethora of images from the Old Testament. Over the dome of the Capitol Building is this inscription, which is a reference to the Second Coming of Jesus: "One God, one law, one element and one far off divine event toward which the whole creation moves."

 

The notion of separation of church & state, which is not Constitutional, was implemented in whatever fashion to protect the church from the state. As it is today, we've reversed that initial idea & imagined that it was given to protect the state from the church.

 

Actually I'd loe to see the source on the quote you reference in the Capitol Building inscription. I can't track that one down though I've seen it used, I can't find a source proving/disproving it. I just never saw it when I've been in the building.

 

I couldn't find it on this page: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cc_quotations.cfm

 

As to "In God We Trust," that was added to the money past the founding of the country. It first appeared during the Civil War.

 

The Supreme Court building is also "littered" with images of people such as: Hammurabi, Lycurgus, King John, Confuscious, Solon and Octavian.

 

I think the notion was more a protection of both entities. Remember how much "influence" the church had on the European governments and the corruption that "Marriage" caused of both the church and the state? That was one of the very things many of the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.

Who was it?? Wasn't there a congressman sworn in on a Koran? And wasn't there a huge uproar about that? I've gotta do some digging.

 

Keith Ellison of Minnesota in 2007, Congressman.

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/117182/first_muslim_congressman_to_swear_oath.html

Just another angle. Is this a federal case or state case? Do the schools fall under state jurisdiction or federal?

Actually I'd loe to see the source on the quote you reference in the Capitol Building inscription. I can't track that one down though I've seen it used, I can't find a source proving/disproving it. I just never saw it when I've been in the building.

 

I couldn't find it on this page: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cc_quotations.cfm

 

As to "In God We Trust," that was added to the money past the founding of the country. It first appeared during the Civil War.

 

The Supreme Court building is also "littered" with images of people such as: Hammurabi, Lycurgus, King John, Confuscious, Solon and Octavian.

 

I think the notion was more a protection of both entities. Remember how much "influence" the church had on the European governments and the corruption that "Marriage" caused of both the church and the state? That was one of the very things many of the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.

 

My mistake on where the "One God, one law" quote is found. It's the Library of Congress & not the Capitol Building. It can be found on the Library of Congress website.

Just another angle. Is this a federal case or state case? Do the schools fall under state jurisdiction or federal?

 

It's a federal case, but not because of the school; it's the fact that the plaintiff is alleging a violation of the First Amdendment to the Constitution. Under U.S. law, the federal district courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

I heard someone call in on the radio saying, there is a school in Mass (implication was it had a diverse population) that allows the Validictorian and Salutatorian to choose to pray or not pray in the religion of their choice, as part of the prestigious honor of winning that title. I've tried to find something on the internet but haven't been able to. I like this concept.

 

At my sons' high school graduation this year, the invocation was a prayer and the benediction was not. I don't know if anyone knew this would be the case, but no one that I know of was upset that the young man in the beginning said a prayer and the young man at the end didn't say a prayer.

Edited June 7, 201115 yr by coldweatherfan

It's a federal case, but not because of the school; it's the fact that the plaintiff is alleging a violation of the First Amdendment to the Constitution. Under U.S. law, the federal district courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Was it a first amendment case from the get go, or did become a first amendment case when the first judge acted (IMO) outside of the constitution and violated the right of the person by prohibiting the free exercise of religion? At that point it was definitely a first amendment issue, which was rectified at the higher court.

 

Should the first judge have thrown it back to the state court?

Was it a first amendment case from the get go, or did become a first amendment case when the first judge acted (IMO) outside of the constitution and violated the right of the person by prohibiting the free exercise of religion? At that point it was definitely a first amendment issue, which was rectified at the higher court.

 

Should the first judge have thrown it back to the state court?

 

It was a First Amendment case from the outset. The two parents alleged that a prayer during graduation amounts to the school district, a governmental entity, endorsing a particular religion, or religion in general. They sued to enjoin the school district from having the prayer. It was therefore up to the judge to determine whether or not the prayer constituted what's been called "excessive entanglement" between government and religion.

 

There is also no reason for the judge to have dismissed this from federal court. Once it's been established that there is a federal question, a U.S. District Court has all it needs to get jurisdiction in a case.

Absolutely not the same God at all.

 

Muslims pray to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, same as we do. They just call it a different name, no different than Jews calling Him Yahweh.

Absolutely not the same God at all.

 

 

It is called Semitic Religion. All 3 faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam all derive from the same person. Abraham.