• 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

Whether or not he told them to pray or suggested that they pray is irrelevant when it comes to determining if this is a constitutional violation. "The establishment clause DOES NOT depend upon direct governmental compulsion".

I've already pointed out that we do that everyday in Congress. The article above shows where the idea of a leader simply promoting prayer is not Unconstitutional.

The government has to have a secular purpose for asking people, urging people, or telling people to pray. If it doesn't have a secular purpose, it fails the Lemon Test and is unconstitutional.

Asking for people to pray is unconstitutional for the same reasons asking people to blaspheme is unconstitutional.

Tell you what....you go with lemons and I'll go with the Constitution.
 
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

"The establishment clause...does not depend upon a showing of direct governmental compulsion..."

You can have violations of the establishment clause without establishing a state/government religion.

Government shall make no law RESPECTING and establishment of religion.

No, you can violate the establishment clause without having direct government compulsion. Your case says nothing as to the need to establish a state religion. IE, the establishment clause doesn't see much difference between saying "We urge you to go to your local Catholic Dioceses and pray for the well being of our troops" or "We emplore you all, go to your local synagogue and pray that YHWH give us guidance in these trying economic times" and passing a law saying people must attend Catholic Church or practice Judaism.

However, that's entirely different than simply asking people to pray in a general sense, specifically not referencing any specific religion or form of spiriturality.

Suggesting people perform a religious or spiritual activity is not establishing a state religion, either by direct or indirect compulsion.
 
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

"The establishment clause...does not depend upon a showing of direct governmental compulsion..."

You can have violations of the establishment clause without establishing a state/government religion.

Government shall make no law RESPECTING and establishment of religion.

You do realize that this ruling dealt with forcing kids to say a prayer, right? I'm not going to defend doing that either but it's not relevant to this.
 
Last edited:
That's probably because your politics tells you there's crap in science. Im not saying there isnt. I dont know, im not a scientist and i try not to listen to "opinions" based on science. if anything, i'll look at scientific journals that have peer reviews.
I am a scientist. One of the first things you learn in your first year of graduate school is that there's a lot of crappy science. And by that, I mean there's a lot of crappy peer-reviewed science. One of my professors who was one of the most inluential and certainly the most prolific researcher in the field (I.e. wicked smart) told me that among top tier journals, he was typically only able to identify 2 or 3 papers in any given issue that were free of critical errors in methodology or interpretation.
 
Tell you what....you go with lemons and I'll go with the Constitution.

???

The lemon test is used to determine if it violates the constitution. I'm afraid I don't understand your statement.

Zyphlin said:
No, you can violate the establishment clause without having direct government compulsion. Your case says nothing as to the need to establish a state religion. IE, the establishment clause doesn't see much difference between saying "We urge you to go to your local Catholic Dioceses and pray for the well being of our troops" or "We emplore you all, go to your local synagogue and pray that YHWH give us guidance in these trying economic times" and passing a law saying people must attend Catholic Church or practice Judaism.

However, that's entirely different than simply asking people to pray in a general sense, specifically not referencing any specific religion or form of spiriturality.

Suggesting people perform a religious or spiritual activity is not establishing a state religion, either by direct or indirect compulsion.

Check the case law on it man. I'm not making this stuff up. The establishment clause doesn't ONLY prohibit the advancement of one religion over another, but of any religion over none.

Again... unless the government has a secular purpose for this, it's unconstitutional. That's not me saying it... that's case law precedence.
 
I don't understand the purpose of asking people to pray for rain in the first place.

Does god give preferential treatment to prayers that come from a lot of people instead of just one?
 
???

The lemon test is used to determine if it violates the constitution. I'm afraid I don't understand your statement.

I understand the statement. Did you see the ruling on a National Day of Prayer? Did you note that your case (Engel v. Vitale (1962)) is something entirely different than what was done here?

Again... unless the government has a secular purpose for this, it's unconstitutional. That's not me saying it... that's case law precedence.

Perhaps you need to inform Congress of this?
 
It doesn't have to be a law to be a violation of the establishment clause either. See "prayer in schools".

Like the Engel v. Vitale (1962) case, that was a case of forcing someone do something.
 
SlackMaster said:
Again... unless the government has a secular purpose for this, it's unconstitutional. That's not me saying it... that's case law precedence.
How is this case different than a politician asking people to pray for victims/families in a disaster, which happens all the time.
 
I understand the statement. Did you see the ruling on a National Day of Prayer? Did you note that your case (Engel v. Vitale (1962)) is something entirely different than what was done here?

I did see the ruling on National Day of Prayer. I have to re-read it (it's been a minute) but I believe the judge made the same fallacy by saying that there was no compulsion, that it was voluntary. Still, there's no secular reason for having the national day of prayer.

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.


Perhaps you need to inform Congress of this?

Many have and continue to. Social change doesn't happen over night.
 
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.
 
I did see the ruling on National Day of Prayer. I have to re-read it (it's been a minute) but I believe the judge made the same fallacy by saying that there was no compulsion, that it was voluntary. Still, there's no secular reason for having the national day of prayer.

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.

There have been many rulings since then that have fallen in the same direction as the National Day of Prayer did. A government employee does not lose their Constitutional rights when they become a government employee.

Many have and continue to. Social change doesn't happen over night.

So basically you just don't like it. That doesn't trump anyones rights.
 
Like the Engel v. Vitale (1962) case, that was a case of forcing someone do something.

Agreed. I was using a statement within that case's ruling to support my argument that compulsion was not needed for their to be an establishment clause violation, not the case as a whole. As you stated, the case as a whole did have government compulsion involved.

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.
 
I don't understand the purpose of asking people to pray for rain in the first place.

Does god give preferential treatment to prayers that come from a lot of people instead of just one?
And I don't understand why you care. Are you worried that prayer requests might compel you to convert? I see no connection between this issue and the concerns that led to the establishment clause. I'm willing to bet that many of the authors of the constitution engaged in similar behavior.
 
There have been many rulings since then that have fallen in the same direction as the National Day of Prayer did. A government employee does not lose their Constitutional rights when they become a government employee.

Agreed, but at the same time that government employee can't use their position to foster religion.

So basically you just don't like it. That doesn't trump anyones rights.

No, it wouldn't trump anyone's rights. I'm not trying to trump anyone's rights. I'm saying the prayer that congress holds has no secular purpose and is therefore a violation.

The fact that it hasn't been taken to court and ruled unconstitutional "yet", doesn't mean that it is constitutional.
 
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.

For the record, I think that's silly too. It's as silly to me as saying, "May the flying spaghetti monster be with our troops, let's all pray that they are touched by his noodley appendage."

I don't care if it's a democrat or a republican saying it.
 
And I don't understand why you care. Are you worried that prayer requests might compel you to convert? I see no connection between this issue and the concerns that led to the establishment clause. I'm willing to bet that many of the authors of the constitution engaged in similar behavior.

It doesn't matter if I care. Personally, the prayer doesn't bother me at all. I will not burst into flames if I hear a prayer.

That doesn't negate the fact that there's no secular purpose for it.

Until someone can provide one, I don't see how this is not a violation.
 
This is about the least important "church and state" issue I've seen.
 
For the record, I think that's silly too. It's as silly to me as saying, "May the flying spaghetti monster be with our troops, let's all pray that they are touched by his noodley appendage."

I don't care if it's a democrat or a republican saying it.

Great...then you ought to be the first to denounce that ****ing idiot in the white house that thinks it is appropriate.
 
Great...then you ought to be the first to denounce that ****ing idiot in the white house that thinks it is appropriate.

I do... as I did the last one, and the one before him, and the one before him......

Although I do like his take on religion... (At least in this speech).

Obama on religion
 
It doesn't have to be a law to be a violation of the establishment clause either. See "prayer in schools".

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.
 
God obviously likes for Oklahoma to get ice storms, wind, tornadoes, drought and heat waves. That's what he wants for that little frying pan shape of his creation because that's all he ever sends it. The real question is, why is the Governor of Oklahoma asking the citizens of the state to question the Good Lord's divine providence on this?

This is a perfect example of why I became agnostic. The whole premise in what the governor is asking his citizens to do kind of make's God out to be just a total douche. It's like God is up there in heaven: "I am sending the people of Oklahoma the torment of drought and day after day of extreme heat, but if they all beg me enough, I might send them some rain, but only if they really beg me for it."
 
Back
Top Bottom