Comments on: Bachmann on school prayer: ACLU trying to ‘purge’ religious expression from ‘marketplace of ideas’

By: Dr Jack Ryan

Dr Jack Ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:00:39 +0000

How nice for stormer to censor out the other part of the clause “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

By: Dr Jack Ryan

Dr Jack Ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:59:38 +0000

No, MNBlue. You have to go.

By: stormer

stormer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:01:19 +0000

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,….” Using the Government-supported, non-private, Public Schools to indoctrinate the pupils in ANY religion is in direct contravention of this basic precept. Any other response is unacceptable.

By: MNBlue

MNBlue — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:28:42 +0000

Michele Bachmann has got to go! Dr. Maureen Reed is running against her and she is the ticket to beating Bachmann. You can learn more about Maureen, and donate, at:
http://maureenreedforcongress.com/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Reed

By: David

David — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:25:23 +0000

I must have missed Bachmann’s defense of TIZA on the House floor.

And, surely, Katherine Kersten will suppoertively mention the ACLU’s work in this case the next time she writes a screed about TIZA.

By: Mill

Mill — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:31 +0000

If the supervisor is leading employees in prayer in the work place, that is problematic for religious freedom, unless they’re all employees of a religious organization.

The supervisor has a position of power. If a teacher excused himself from the prayer, went outside for fresh air, would s/he be free to do so? If the teacher offered to perform a religious rite consistent with his or her religious traditions at the luncheon, but one not of Christian content, would all of the Christians at the table sat and accepted that practice?