Freedom FROM Religion

I wouldn't be suprised if the principle were to be sued for what he did. He asked the people to pray, and by doing so entangled the state and religion. That is a no no.

I don't like it, but that would be the argument and it would have a fair chance of winning.

Isaiah: No, she didn't. She told them they were FREE to pray if they wanted. she did NOT ask anybody to pray. They did it on their own.

Any good Democrat knows that it is illegal to mention the existence of religion in public. It is an arrestable defense in 49 states. The only crime for which liberals support the death penalty. Without trial. Summary execution. Tortured to death.

Only an intolerant Republican would think the Constitution PROTECTS religion. The Constitution clearly loathes religion almost as much as Democrats loathe the military. Almost. Not quite. But almost.

We aren't going to have a prayer. You don't have to pray if you don't want to, but feel free to do so if you want to. Feel free to pray and say these particular things in your prayer that normally would have been part of the prayer. I'm not asking you to pray or telling you to pray. Wink,wink, nudge, nudge.

Sorry, it will be easy for some lawyer to argue that this is a school prayer in masquerade, and there are probably plenty of judges who would enterain the argument. The question isn't whether the principle is calling for a prayer or holding a prayer, but whether she is endorsing religion and entangling the state with religion.

I would hope that the principle would win the case, but often just the threat of a suit is enough to cow people into submission even if they are doing nothing wrong.

If this was a one time occurence, then the principle is less likely to have a problem, than if this were repeated at every game. Repeating it at every game could easily be seen as holding a prayer in fact if not in form.

PDX Dave: You're obviously putting me on. It is NOT illegal to even MENTION the existence of religion in public. any such law would be unconstitutional (if you could get it enforced). But you're right that liberals would support the death penalty for this egregious "crime. You sound like a "good liberal" in your last paragraph. But then, that's what you were trying to do, wasn't it? Very funny.

Isaiah:

You're right. there's always a stupid lawyer out there to misread the Constitution for his own purposes, as well as a stupid judge that might buy his claptrap.

I think the principal made his/her point, and would not repeat this performance at every game.

Except for an incredibly stupid judge, encouraged by an equally stupid lawyer, this principal's act is NOT a violation of ANY unconstitutional law.

Funny how liberals who twist the law to their own purposes always have money to make a "federal case" out of it. A little suspicious, isn't it?

...because what often happens is that an attorney threatens to sue, and the school, facing the significant financial burden which comes with defending itself, gives in. This often happens even when the school is fully within its rights even given the overly restritive state of the current case law.

It was a great speach by the principle. Like you said, hopefully there won't be numerous repeat performances. That sort of thing can get somebody in trouble.

Isaiah:

You're right. threats to sue are often enough to get people to agree to go against their own rights. and those who want to restrict our rights always seem to have enough money ready to fight. Very suspicious.