• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

Ikari said:
That was a dumbass ruling too. I think that while we should watch for violation of church and state and work to keep our government secular; things like this prayer rally or even prayer in school are fine so long as it's not forced. I sometimes think we are getting well too touchy-feely for our own good. Get some thicker skin, let people do as they like. So long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, people should be free to do as they like.
Click to expand...

I agree, people should have the right to do what they want so long as they're not infringing on the rights of other people.

I don't see any problem with the prayer rally (constitutionally), so long as he's there in a personal and not governmental status.

This has nothing to do with thick skin. I'm not "offended" that people are praying, that's a strawman. Whether or not you agree or disagree or think it is or isn't a big deal is not the issue.

From a legal standpoint, this looks like a violation of the establishment clause. Unless someone can put forth a secular purpose.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
 
SlackMaster said:
I agree, people should have the right to do what they want so long as they're not infringing on the rights of other people.

I don't see any problem with the prayer rally (constitutionally), so long as he's there in a personal and not governmental status.

This has nothing to do with thick skin. I'm not "offended" that people are praying, that's a strawman. Whether or not you agree or disagree or think it is or isn't a big deal is not the issue.

From a legal standpoint, this looks like a violation of the establishment clause. Unless someone can put forth a secular purpose.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Click to expand...

One doesn't really need to address opinion. I'm certainly willing to note that you are the expert on your opinion. (besides, I did address it)
 
Taylor said:
No such requirement exists.
Click to expand...

Check out earlier in posts. Courts use the Lemon Test to determine if things like this are constitutional. The first part of the Lemon Test requires a secular purpose.
 
SlackMaster said:
I agree, people should have the right to do what they want so long as they're not infringing on the rights of other people.

I don't see any problem with the prayer rally (constitutionally), so long as he's there in a personal and not governmental status.

This has nothing to do with thick skin. I'm not "offended" that people are praying, that's a strawman. Whether or not you agree or disagree or think it is or isn't a big deal is not the issue.

From a legal standpoint, this looks like a violation of the establishment clause. Unless someone can put forth a secular purpose.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it could be a violation of the establishment clause when they are not establishing a religion or promoting one religion over another. He merely asked for people to pray. Is it fruitful? Probably not, prayer doesn't really affect weather patterns. But whatever. It's not this big violation people think it to be. There's no law, no one is being forced, no one church is being promoted above another. I think the people crying about this are crying for crying's sake. There's no point in making this an issue, it's about as worthwhile as praying for rain.
 
SlackMaster said:
Check out earlier in posts. Courts use the Lemon Test to determine if things like this are constitutional. The first part of the Lemon Test requires a secular purpose.
Click to expand...
No they don't. Courts use the lemon test to see if things like statutes are constitutional.
 
SlackMaster said:
It'll eventually make it to the supreme court. Social change is usually incremental. You win some battles, you lose some. Look at gay marriage in CA. That's gone back and forth how many times now?
Click to expand...

I would never argue that the ban was Constitutional. It really doesn't affect me what others do.
 
Ikari said:
I don't see how it could be a violation of the establishment clause when they are not establishing a religion or promoting one religion over another.
Click to expand...

Check out post #45

Traditionally in courts they use what is called a "Lemon Test" to determine if the act is constitutional. So let's apply it here.

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
... Not seeing a "secular" purpose to asking people to pray to a deity.

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
...asking people to pray seems like advancing religion to me.

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
... We could argue til the end of days what is "excessive" but in my mind "excessive" is any entanglement.

All 3 conditions do not have to be met. Only one. Yet, I think it's clear that the action we're discussing fail this test.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
He merely asked for people to pray. Is it fruitful? Probably not, prayer doesn't really affect weather patterns. But whatever. It's not this big violation people think it to be. There's no law, no one is being forced, no one church is being promoted above another. I think the people crying about this are crying for crying's sake. There's no point in making this an issue, it's about as worthwhile as praying for rain.
Click to expand...

All your other contentions (it being required, promotion of one religion over another, etc.) are irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.
 
Taylor said:
No they don't. Courts use the lemon test to see if things like statutes are constitutional.
Click to expand...

Actually, they use the Lemon Test for any type of legislation...

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.
Click to expand...

Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it. (Another source of law is judge-made law or case law.) Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, and may be broadly referred to as "legislation" while it remains under consideration to distinguish it from other business. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.
Click to expand...

I think the governor of a state asking or urging people to pray is a form of legislation.
 
SlackMaster said:
Not at all. I'm not saying that atheists are correct either. I'm saying that religious people are the ones making the claim. The burden of proof is on them. Until they meet that burden, I'm justified in not believing their claim.

Likewise, if atheists make the claim (as some do, but not all) "God does not exist", they'd have to back that claim up.

Seeing as how god isn't even really clearly defined and not even a falsifiable proposition, I don't know how either side would go about backing up their claim.
Click to expand...
And their claim hurts you in what way?
 
SlackMaster said:
Actually, they use the Lemon Test for any type of legislation...
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing requiring any justice anywhere use these guides. They are sometimes by some, dismissed by others, and used when when convienent by others.

Just like with any ruling, the individual justice is going to disagree on what is a secular position etc.

Would a city erecting a creche not conflict with all three points?
 
SlackMaster said:
Check out post #45





All your other contentions (it being required, promotion of one religion over another, etc.) are irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.
Click to expand...

The "lemon test" came about because of actual law though. They were funding religious schools (predominately Catholic) with government money by reimbursing the schools for "secular" material. OK, there's a clear action by the State there and you can make an argument. But there is no use of government force here in what we're talking about. There's no law, there's no force, there is only a request. I think that if we are to remain true to the Republic; we can't get our underwear in a knot over something like this. It's not a violation, there's nothing the government is doing to force action. 1, 2, and 3 do not apply in this case as there is no government action.
 
They are correct.
The lemon test is applied towards laws.
That is why the presidential proclamations for national days of prayer are not censured.
 
SlackMaster said:
I think the governor of a state asking or urging people to pray is a form of legislation.
Click to expand...

I think the sky is purple, doesn't make it so. Legislation is created by the legislature. It becomes law when the legislation passes the Legislative branch and is signed into law by the Executive branch. The Executive (the governor in this case) cannot make legislation, he does not have the power to do so. A request is merely a request, nothing more. It does not call upon government force or action.
 
The Rev Kros said:
They are correct.
The lemon test is applied towards laws.
That is why the presidential proclamations for national days of prayer are not censured.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It was not a law that had prayer in schools, yet it was ruled as a violation of the establishment clause.
 
SlackMaster said:
I disagree. It was not a law that had prayer in schools, yet it was ruled as a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

Because it was a bad ruling. There was no force. Everything with the "lemon test" revolves around government action. If there is no government action, there can be no violation of the "lemon test".
 
Ikari said:
I think the sky is purple, doesn't make it so. Legislation is created by the legislature. It becomes law when the legislation passes the Legislative branch and is signed into law by the Executive branch. The Executive (the governor in this case) cannot make legislation, he does not have the power to do so. A request is merely a request, nothing more. It does not call upon government force or action.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that it's not a form of legislation, I was wrong.

However, any arm of the government has to act within the confines of the constitution. If the courts use the Lemon Test to determine if government legislation is deemed unconstitutional, then we should be able to use the same test to determine if this action is unconstitutional.

It doesn't pass that test.
 
SlackMaster said:
I'll concede that it's not a form of legislation, I was wrong.

However, any arm of the government has to act within the confines of the constitution. If the courts use the Lemon Test to determine if government legislation is deemed unconstitutional, then we should be able to use the same test to determine if this action is unconstitutional.

It doesn't pass that test.
Click to expand...

Show me the government force.
 
Ikari said:
Because it was a bad ruling. There was no force. Everything with the "lemon test" revolves around government action. If there is no government action, there can be no violation of the "lemon test".
Click to expand...

You keep stating that "this was a bad ruling" says who? You?

I'm sorry I don't accept your opinion as authority on this matter.

Prayer in public schools does mix religion and government which is why it is illegal to teach creationism in school. Both are violations of the establishment clause.
 
Ikari said:
Show me the government force.
Click to expand...

As stated before, government doesn't have to "force" religion for there to be a violation. I've cited case law to back this argument up. Because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
 
SlackMaster said:
You keep stating that "this was a bad ruling" says who? You?

I'm sorry I don't accept your opinion as authority on this matter.

Prayer in public schools does mix religion and government which is why it is illegal to teach creationism in school. Both are violations of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

Only if the public schools were actively endorsing it. Which is an action. Prayer in school when performed by the individual does NOT mix religion and government. I also think not allowing creationism to be taught in school is BS too. It doesn't belong in the science classroom because it's not a science theory. But theology has had a profound and marked affect on the course of human societal evolution and because of the impact it has had, it is a valid academic subject. It's like saying you can't take classes on Greek Mythology because it mixes church and state. Of course no rational individual would say so. So long as it is teaching and not preaching, there is no problem. But this is what I mean, the government is never going to turn down an opportunity to involve itself in a matter. It likes to expand its power. But people are getting so pissy over the mere mention of religion that we start shutting down freedom; and that's the WRONG direction to go. It's idiotic.

I'm one of the first people here to jump on the back of government and complain when they are doing things they should not be doing. But the governor of OK asking people to pray for rain just isn't the violation you perceive it to be. Unlike the TSA, here there is actually no force. If you weren't going to pray for rain, there is no mechanism to make you do so. Without government force and action, you cannot have a mixing of state and church. I'm tired of this loss of rational and logical argument in this country. We're becoming the biggest f'n babies on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom