How is this case different than a politician asking people to pray for victims/families in a disaster, which happens all the time.Originally Posted by SlackMaster
But that's another thread...
Also, I do realize that the case had to do with forcing kids to pray, but the precedence in the ruling is the same. The case as a whole doesn't apply to this situation but the statement about it not having to be government compulsion does.
I wonder where are all the kneejerk morons are that freak out about God and prayer when a democrat president asks people to pray for...say...the country, soldiers, soldiers families, etc. That you people even bother with this stuff speaks VOLUMES. About you.
So basically you just don't like it. That doesn't trump anyones rights.Many have and continue to. Social change doesn't happen over night.
So... that case law supports two arguments.
1. Compulsion does not need to be proven in order for there to be a violation.
2. Establishing a law does not need to happen before there is a violation.
The fact that it hasn't been taken to court and ruled unconstitutional "yet", doesn't mean that it is constitutional.