Originally Posted by Dilettante

I wonder, however, if "in the state-house" is the way to phrase it.

I mean, I assume that you wouldn't demand a general rule that no congressman be allowed to quietly pray while in the chamber. Yet that's obviously something religious going on in the state-house.
What if a small group of them wanted to get together in a corner and pray before the session started?
What if a congressman, granted the floor in a debate, decided that the best way to make his point about whatever was being debated was to say a prayer? That would be a prayer in the very session of Congress, but (I hope) you're not suggesting that such a congressmen be stripped of his right to say his piece or be tackled by security.

I'm all for freedom of religion (within reason) and even for freedom from religion (again, within reason). But I think we (and I include myself here) occasionally loose sight of the fact that protecting those freedoms is the reason we separate Church and State.
When religious freedom isn't an issue (as in, say, a Congressman wanting to pray quietly by himself in the chamber) the rhetoric about "separation" becomes just a pointless rule restricting what people can and cannot do for no purpose.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I wonder, however, if "in the state-house" is the way to phrase it.

I mean, I assume that you wouldn't demand a general rule that no congressman be allowed to quietly pray while in the chamber. Yet that's obviously something religious going on in the state-house.
What if a small group of them wanted to get together in a corner and pray before the session started?
What if a congressman, granted the floor in a debate, decided that the best way to make his point about whatever was being debated was to say a prayer? That would be a prayer in the very session of Congress, but (I hope) you're not suggesting that such a congressmen be stripped of his right to say his piece or be tackled by security.

I'm all for freedom of religion (within reason) and even for freedom from religion (again, within reason). But I think we (and I include myself here) occasionally loose sight of the fact that protecting those freedoms is the reason we separate Church and State.
When religious freedom isn't an issue (as in, say, a Congressman wanting to pray quietly by himself in the chamber) the rhetoric about "separation" becomes just a pointless rule restricting what people can and cannot do for no purpose.

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Hi Dil,

Once again, you prove to be the arbiter of a common-sense approach.

M. Twain

Originally Posted by goober

Congress can start every session with a prayer or prohibit prayer in congressional chambers, or do all the praying they want, because they can make their own rules which are not reviewable by any court.
What they cannot do is make a law respecting or prohibiting an establishment of religion.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I have my moments...

To make up for it, I'm planning on becoming a raging fundamentalist in Grecian Polytheism next week. I'll be the one you hear about in the chamber demanding that a brace of oxen be sacrificed over the podium in honor of Zeus and a dove in honor of Athena before for the session begins.

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

All is well in the home of free speech...

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What makes you presume they are right-wing?

Your own bigotry perhaps?

Originally Posted by Si modo

And...

CODEPINK Women for Peace: Disruption of Congress by Lori Perdue
Code Pink protestor arrested for disruption of Congress

http://gaiatreehouse.com/images/vomi...atoday0704.pdf
Protestors disrupt GOP convention

village voice > news > The Scourge of an Activist's Conviction by Kristen Lombardi
Sassower is arrested for her disruption of Congressional hearings on judicial appointees – during the Clinton administration.

Bottom line: If one is going to imply that free speech is only disapearing for those whose views agree with their own, then a balanced assertion is that free speech from a wide range of ideologies is not allowed when it disrupts the business of government. Congress doing their job on issues regarding the public is their job. Individuals do not get the right to disrupt that business since that is against the will of an overwhelming majority of the people of the US, whom they serve. It is equivalent to giving preferential consideration to minority special interersts at the expense of the will of Americans.

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

Do you believe that it was perfectly alright for those "christians" to disrupt the Hindu prayer? why?

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

Do you believe that it was perfectly alright for those "christians" to disrupt the Hindu prayer? why?

Originally Posted by wrxsti

America was made great by God's love of our nation due to our Christian based founding. If we turn our backs on God, the US will soon fall. Mr. Falwell made this very clear.