And I happen to believe that there really isn't much of a story to get out. I think it's a lot of misunderstandings and people jumping to conclusions. Federal funds does not mean that people can't pray individually. A group of seniors can even pray together. The prayer just can't be led by someone working or volunteering on behalf of the agency providing the meals. Just read up on prayer in schools at the ACLU website. The same rules would apply.

So...it's a big nothing, imho. No story here.

They are serving some nasty, rotten baloney.



Marsh v. Chambers:

Prayer to open legislative session, even when led by a chaplain paid from a government fund, does not violate the Establishment Clause.





Board of Ed. of Westside Comm. School v. Mergens - SCOTUS recognized:



So private citizens may engage in prayer in public without fear of violating the Establishment Clause


burp.

In one thread, you argue "intent of the Founders," in another you argue Supreme Court rulings.

I'd like to engage in some sort of debate with you, Iky, but it's hard when you don't have any actual core principles to debate on.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.

The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.

Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

--James Madison, author of the First Amendment.

Steny Hoyer: "If we are a nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is."

And so...people will agree and people will disagree with SCOTUS rulings. Big shrug.

James Madison? The guy who wrote the First Amendment? This doesn't ring any little teabagger alarms in your tiny little brain?

Of course not. Because you, like the other members of the Teabagger Nation, have no principles whatsoever, other than "anyone who disagrees with me is not a real American."

Whine to the SCOTUS, Beaver.
Whine to the SCOTUS.

"Oh, Ward! Aren't you being a little rough on the Beaver?"

...do the same about Roe v. Wade.

Scoff. I don't whine about SCOTUS rulings.
My own conscience is clear.
Here's a newsflash: humans and institutions will fail and disappoint. Deal with it.

Y'know, you're right. The Christian church, for example, turning out legions of humorless, self-righteous ignoramuses whose sole joy in life is airily proclaiming their superiority over lesser mortals.

And none of them can cook a dead baby worth a damn, either. You've got to get them fresh, spit them while they're still warm, and baste with garlic butter.