The CONSTITUTION and SCHOOL PRAYER.

More food for thought.

The US consitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The Australian Constitution says:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Can someone explain to me, how

a state school could not have a VOTE about whether to include prayer in there daily routine, which, if democraticlly carried and providing that those who did not wish to participate would not be forced to...

would.. in point of law, constitute the Commonwealth MAKING A LAW' to establish a religion?

I rather think that such a challenge would be on very flimsy or non existent.consititutional grounds.

The constitution DOES SAY however

"or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion".

This does NOT say 'within or only outside of State premises'....

When a group of people at a School decide themselves to pray for guidance, this has nothing to do with establishing a law.
The DENIAL however.. is in fact "making a law" prohibiting the free expression of a religion.

You're scrabbling around Boaz, it is not a good look.

>>Can someone explain to me, how a state school could not have a VOTE about whether to include prayer in there daily routine, which, if democraticlly carried and providing that those who did not wish to participate would not be forced to... would.. in point of law, constitute the Commonwealth MAKING A LAW' to establish a religion?<<

This does not make a great deal of sense.

Which I suspect is why you posted it, of course. We can now dive down this little backwater, chasing the red herring, as a distraction from the complete nonsense that this thread has turned into.

The point you tried to make did not survive, Boaz, as I am sure you now realize. The examples you gave were fallacious. Even had they not been, the conclusions you drew were tenuous in the extreme.

So, where are you now taking us?

I've had to weed out a few distracting negative questions, but I think this is the gist:

You postulate that a school votes to include prayer in its daily routine. The prayer is not compulsory.

You then ask whether this is equivalent to the Commonwealth passing a law that establishes a religion.

Bit of a stretch, isn't it? A state public school does not have the power to pass laws.

Even if it did, I wouldn't call saying prayers "establishing a religion".

Sounds all very trivial to me.

So we don't have to follow that particular bouncing ball, and can get back to the original issue - "Canada 1984 the new Gulag of inHuman Rights"

Where were we - ah yes.

An example that wasn't an example of a human rights issue that turned out not to be one.

Sounds par for the Boaz course.

Pericles: << We can now dive down this little backwater, chasing the red herring, as a distraction from the complete nonsense that this thread has turned into. >>

Don't be so churlish. It's Boazy's thread and he can change the subject if he wants to, particularly since he's made such a fool of himself in it.

It is, after all, merely another manifestation of "the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic".

David “"As for the Bible, well it is a book the text of which has been massaged and manipulated to suit the politics of medieval Europe,"

Can you flesh that out a bit with some examples and sources please?”

Simple, http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

List some of the English “versions”

With every translation the implied value / definition of each word can alter.

That is with the best intended literal translations.

Add to that the overwhelming opportunity for textual manipulation and we have a massaged result which suits the designs of a political theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_omitted_Bible_verses

doubtless pre-James and the James version were similarly “reconstructed”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_archaeologists

lots of updated and changing opinions here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_History

alludes to even less consensus between the ‘experts”

Anyone with an interest in law will understand the need for precision. The wrong punctuation and you change the meaning. Here we have the “Word of God” where the words have changed to suit the vernacular, let alone invent punctuation across translations.

As for our gay friends, agree, they are hardly likely to out populate the hetrosexuals any time soon.

As for “Galatians 1:8”

unless you are going to do foreign language night school in Aramaic or whatever, expected to get “accursed”.

Re “It's only a small jump from banning speech which is 'offensive' to any group, to banning the SOURCE and basis for that speech, which in the case of Christians is the Bible.”

I look upon it in the same way many consider a guilty verdict in a trial.

Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted…..

Similarly

Better ten lies are expressed than one mans truth be censored.

Like I have said previously, I would support David Irvines right to spout his delusions from the steps of parliament house and challenge them, rather than see him (as he presently is) banned from entry to Australia.

Sorry guys...it's all the same subject, but Canada was the initial focus.

Pericles.. after decipering the babble..I think you agree with me that a State school can have prayer if it wants to, even in main assembly as long as those present are informed that it is not compulsory for them to personally engage in that prayer while it occurs.

Good..

Now.. while the Canadian situation remains and can be explored further, I'd value your opinion (and everyones) on this:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31867

The intriguing bit to me was that those opposing it were Jewish, and that they would have accepted the prayer if the word "Messiah" was used instead of "Jesus". i.e. "Jewish prayer is ok..Christian is not"
but they were just 2 out of 47 members.

Surely the issue of 'tradition and culture' must be considered or we could have a 1000 members of parliament who are all religion xyz, but ONE member who is not, and for the sake of the ONE.. all must forego the expression of national culture on the issue of prayer?

It seems that even if ONE person didn't like the prayer it could be stopped simply because it offended someone. If a backslidden Christian didn't like the prayer because he as spending every 2nd night in bed with his neighbours wife, HE would also be offended by it.....

This is the very same thing which Canada seems so out front on.
Sikhs can carry Kirpans on planes, in courts etc...Magazines cannot offend Muslims, Pastors cannot offend homosexuals....

All in the name of.. TOLERANCE which simply shows how INtolerant Canadian society is.

Boazy: "All in the name of.. TOLERANCE which simply shows how INtolerant Canadian society is."

Please reword that. I am a Canadian and I do not appreciate your ill-informed generalized sweeping statement. My intolerance for the crap you spew forth is rapidly increasing.