our job is to spread the word.

not make to you believe only you can do that.

the bible is full of riddles you will never understand

untill you are a believer.

everytimre i go into a store or wath tv or pick up a product

there is pagan/satanic crap everywhere.

so whos pushing religion here?

the separation between church and state was so that

religious leaders couldnt tell the state what to do.

but thats exactly whats happening now and its not the christians.

again, you're confused by the precise wording in the first amendment as i said in my last post. where prayer mandated by the government, that would be in violation of the first amendment as you see it wrongly by saying using the words 'congess shall make no law ESTABLISHING A RELIGION." obviously such a mandate cannot happen in ameririca. but the first amendment goes even beyond any mandate of prayer or religion. when a public school teacher holds a prayer service in class, THAT IS 'RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION' by government which is prohibited by the first amendment. the courts have been quite clear on this which derived the term, 'separation of church and state' as a well known and accepted precident. the state must remain completely and utterly separated from church which the courts have ruled time and again means no prayer in publicaly funded establishments such as schools, no ten commandments in court houses, etc., etc.

dead wrong. separation of church and state prohibits government of any type from even 'respecting an establishment of religion" it's a prohibition of congress and by precident all state and local lawmakers and prohibits religious leaders absolutely nothing whatsoever. a religious leader has every right to tell the state what to do. againg the fist amendment right to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. obviously the state does not have to listen to such a religious leader but he/she has every right to tell them what to do.

I dont recall mentioning anythng about public officials on the clock,,,,Im speaking individuals as private citizens,,obviously on a job(particularly civil in nature) there is a different matter

a teacher has a position of authority over children, they are expected to go by curriculum and school standards, which dont include leading a school prayer(unless it is possibly related to a STUDY of religious history)...

no you didn't say anything about public officials on the clock. what you said was, 'unless prayer is mandated, i don't see why it should be stopped.' i pointed out that prayer need not be mandated to be stopped and it applies to workers, civil or otherwise, and private citizens if it's done openly on goverment time or government property paid for by taxes. that is the entire point of the separation clause. the authority of a teacher has nothing to do with it anymore than the authority of a federal judge has anything to do with the ten commandments in his courthouse lobby. religious practice must not happen openly in class or at a hs football game or in a courthouse. to allow so would entail the government 'respecting an establishment of religion' which is expressly forbidden by the first amendment. if a private citizen wishes to pray silently in class or read the bible in court he/she is free to do so all day long.

please explain why it is illegal to disallow someone to wear their religious attire on a job? isnt that government passing a law that respects the establishment of religion? or is it just not prohibiting free exercise ?



isnt ANY government intervention(law) either respecting or prohibiting exercise of religion?

or does this law, in effect, keep employers (even federal) from having the authority to mandate or prohibit said exercise?

,,,this is how broadly that term is applied,,,,,an employer CANNOT prohibit someone from exercising their religioun with their attire(That is the law),, why would it be different for a government employee? or in the case of prayer?(so long as it is not done in a way that disrupts their JOB)

saying a prayer oneself, is different than mandating (either by law or implied authority) others to participate in a prayer,,,

IF I am handed a microphone, either at a government event or public event, with the express invitation to express my personal opinions or give a personal speech, I would have every right to express myself through prayer without being discriminated against(if done so as a personal expression and not as a request to 'lead' others)

it is NOT illegal for an employer to disallow someone to wear their religious attire on the job. home depot, for instance legally disallows the wearing of a cross around the neck of an employee if it can be seen. you really are misreading the first amendment, mh. look at these very importand first words, 'CONGRESS shall make no law.' emphasis on the word CONGRESS and goes on to say, 'respecting and establishment of religion........' this is what we call the 'separation clause' which keeps government separate from religion. it mentions nothing whatsoever about employers, individual citizens, groups or any other entity other than congress and by inference and court precident, government in general.





yes. ANY government intervention [law or anything else such as allowing the use of government property whether written law or not] or restricting the free excercise of religion are both prohibited by the first amendment.



no law can be written to keep employers, federal or otherwise, from mandating that religion not be practiced by employees while they are on the clock.



no it is not the law. the only law that an employer must obey as regards religion is to not discriminate in hiring, pay and promotion because of religious practices just as they may not discriminate because of sex, race, national origin, etc.



it is no different for a government employee. and absolutely, prayer may not be restricted so long as it is not done in a way that disrupts their job. just as silent prayer in a classroom or a hs football game may not be restricted.



no qutestion about it. you may legally say a prayer to yourself anywhere in the country at anytime.



nope. you're simply dead wrong, mh. if your daughter is valadictorian of her public high school class and is handed a microphone she may not include in her address an expression of herself through religious prayer. there are a number of court decisions in that regard both in public school settings and other government sponsored gatherings.

BROAD interpretation of the constitutional phrasing is interpreted by the courts,, thats the simple truth

'no law can be written to keep employers, federal or otherwise, from mandating that religion not be practiced by employees while they are on the clock. '

try this one

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]).



ONE legal interpretation :

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

so, the employer cant LEGALLY keep someone from practicing their 'sincere' customs of religion UNLESS they can prove it causes undue hardship to the employer

do you know when we have a one world religion.you will be forced to go to church on sun day and worship anti x.

Having worked as a government employee, respect happens better when religion is kept off the job. If you have to pray and do it in your car on your lunch break, your business. No one can stop that but we were not allowed to show any religious items to clients. If we brought clients back to our desk we were not suppose to have religious stuff out. At Christmas time we were allowed to put up a tree because Christmas trees are a tradition that precedes Christians hijacking of the winter solstice celebrations.

It works well and it is very respectful to all. No religion felt favored or neglected.

No showing of religion is a more effective way of respecting all religions on the job then trying to accommodate all of them.

Wait a minute here, a "Christmas" tree is considered "no religion" by you because why?


Sounds a bit hypocritical to me...



have fun!

lets pray not, but you never know,,,people are kind of being indoctrinated everyday into believing in the 'me' universe,,

its only respectful to those who dont choose any religion

to those who have personally chosen them, its as big an infringement as picking out certain people in an office who cant display personal items while others can,,,

and I have been to plenty of government offices with 'religious' verses on items on their desk, so I dont know if this is true or enforced (regarding display of personal religious items)

it may be your simple truth but it's not mine. interpretation of the constition is done on a case by case basis and each ruling or interpretation is specifically defined in the findings or majority opinion in that particular ruling. there is nothing 'BROAD' about it. if you're talking about the broad interpretatio we have to put up with politicians and government officials and everyday citizens other than a federal court jurist well then when you listen to such broad interpretations that's your problem not mine. i simply pay no attention because article three gave power to interpret the constitution solely to the federal judiciary.



okay i took you up on it and tried this one and i'm now convinced that you simply want to argue for arguments sake, mh. the code that you posted says nothing about what we were discussing. making 'reasonable accomodation' for employees to practice their religion by flexible scheduling, job swaps, transfers, etc., is hardly a requirement that employers must allow open prayer or practice while on the clock or the wearing of religeous symbols such as a crusifix around the neck. that was the topic we were discussing was it not? i've said all along that neither schools or employers can restrict such things as silent prayer or practice but that is not what your copy/past is refering too. if you were to read further in the code you'd find that employers must also make 'reasonable accomodation' for males and females to have separate restrooms and must make 'reasonable accomodations' for the disabled. nobody's picking on christians here.

good.

Food for thought -- how many religious organizations have been 'respected' by Federal and State laws as non-profit agencies?

Why did the Amish win their law suit against the Federal government which allowed them to pull thier children out of school at a younger age than all other students?

Where do the religious organizations who lobby Congress, stand in monetary ranking with all other major lobbiests?

Why can a Jehovah Witness refuse a lifesaving blood transfusion for a loved one, but the court will not allow another religious family to withhold some other lifesaving treatment, like insulin, from a family member?

The governments (Fed & State) of this country respect religious orgs all the time, and not just Christians.

Obviously, the Abramic religions dominated, in the past, and just as obviously, children learn thier religious views through parents & other family.

Naturally those will the religions that dominate the U.S. landscape, but by no means, does the U.S. cater only to its dominant religions.

Thus, the question becomes, have we showen respect for ONE dominant religion for so long, that we suddenly cannot prohibit similiar respects of other religions?

Shouldn't we then begin to comply with the the original intent of the Constitution and STOP RESPECTING ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHEMENT with Federal or State favors?

Just asking?

I believe that these things , when addressed in courts, are done so on a case by case and not some solid one size fits all criteria that falls automatically in place if religion is a factor...

there are many reasons people may 'withhold' treatment and its not usually(as far as I know) a requirement that anyone agree to treatment, even when its life saving

I believe the first consideration is the patients wishes, whatever their foundation may be

don't have the answers and could not agree more. i'm just arguing what the constitution says. i think more challenges are on the way.

not so at all, mh. roe v wade was a single case and it's decision had wide spread application.

what did roe v wade have to do with respecting religion?