tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post2965038226528004767..comments2024-03-28T00:46:19.476-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Religious Coercion as Unconstitutional EstablishmentBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-3906479500703209632016-02-09T23:28:57.251-05:002016-02-09T23:28:57.251-05:00In this case I would have to agree that the fact t...In this case I would have to agree that the fact that the state officials running the meeting are the ones leading the prayer is extremely important. Even though those who object have the option of leaving the room or not participating, state officials are essentially choosing a religion and sanctioning its practice by opening each meeting with a prayer, even if that practice is not inherently coercive. In my view, this is a pretty simple violation of the establishment clause, which clearly favors those who ascribe to the majority religion of the town. <br />Maddie Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10725558259827306947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-8052390006066508392016-02-09T15:50:19.294-05:002016-02-09T15:50:19.294-05:00This practice is solely a tradition, not an act or...This practice is solely a tradition, not an act or coercion or an establishment of religion. They were not forcing anyone to participate in the prayers and people could show up after the prayers were completed without any penalties. There are some religious foundations that our government was built on, and it has been this way for many years, becoming a tradition. Should we then take off "In God We Trust" on our currency, take down the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court, stop saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? These are no different, and is just the way things have been. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162152839272037606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-56941981974796182462016-02-09T12:27:37.219-05:002016-02-09T12:27:37.219-05:00I have to disagree with you. I think that allowing...I have to disagree with you. I think that allowing a public official to deliver a prayer is an act that establishes religion. The public official, while on the job, is a representative of the government, therefore what they say represents the government as well. This includes their religiously oriented language. Having religious testaments professed as part of a government meeting is absolutely an establishment of religion. I think it also makes no difference whether people have to take part or not. Public officials delivering a non-mandatory prayer at a meeting is no different than having a state religion but not requiring people to attend church. Neither are coercive since participation isn't mandatory, yet we can all agree that the later is unconstitutional, so why isn't the former? You make the point that this public prayer isn't much different from the ten commandments in the supreme court, "In God We Trust" on money, and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I do agree here, it isn't different at all. What I disagree with is your argument for why these things should be legal. You say that because they aren't coercive they should be allowed. I disagree, you do have to use money, and if you are ordered to appear at the supreme court you do have to go. This forces you to recognize the messages. I also believe that these things are unconstitutional because they are an establishment of religion. The government issued money and the supreme court building should have no religious messages, as government-supported things are supposed to be religiously neutral. They are also coercive in that when seeing these messages on government-supported things, it can make people of other faiths feel separated from the majority, unrecognized, or cast aside by the government who seems to clearly favor one religion over the rest. This could make these people of religious minorities feel pointed out or at a disadvantage, especially in schools where children who do not agree with the phrase "under god" are forced to stand out be staying silent in order to maintain their own religious integrity and the supreme court example where people may feel pressured to hide their beliefs to avoid any negative outcomes that could occur by not following the religious messages carved in stone above them. Sara G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061951171721833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-13488815206429548272016-02-08T23:39:27.561-05:002016-02-08T23:39:27.561-05:00I agree that the traditions the Rowan County Commi...I agree that the traditions the Rowan County Commission performs are constitutional and should not disallowed by the court. The key points are that the Commission is in no way forcing members to follow religious practices or even be present as they occur, since there is no punishment for choosing not to participate or attend. A counterargument that can be raised is that there isn't a religious clergyman performing the religious tradition, which was the key difference for the Town Board in Greece, New York, but the fact that a clergyman or a non-clergyman performing the tradition does not change that the tradition is religious so it should not be a deciding factor.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09208490299649696575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-50663715418059921292016-02-08T20:58:05.906-05:002016-02-08T20:58:05.906-05:00I agree with you that this practice is not an esta...I agree with you that this practice is not an establishment of religion and should not be viewed as unconstitutional. The public officials who are reciting the religiously affiliated phrases are in no way forcing the other members in the meetings to believe them. They even give no penalty to members if they come to the meeting after the opening phrases are recited. This shows that the officials are viewing these statements as a mere tradition of their meetings and respect the religious beliefs of the other members so much so that they are encouraged to leave the room or not participate if they feel uncomfortable. Although this could be seen as somewhat of a "slippery slope", this particular situation shows no evidence of an establishment of religion. There are many long held traditions in this country that are rooted in secular beliefs. The interpretation of these traditions is what has shifted over the years. It is important to acknowledge the views that many different religious groups have on the phrases being recited at the commissioners' meetings, but they are in no way obligated to listen or take part in the recitation of these phrases. They are a tradition of the meetings and viewed as so. This should not be seen as an unconstitutional act. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12250575197713864884noreply@blogger.com