Replies

“If what you are saying is correct, then why did the very same Congress that debated and passed the First Amendment, proscribed for opening each session of Congress with prayer? Why was it not an issue with them?”

Your timing is off and you’re confusing the 1787 Constitutional Congress with the first Congress. The Bill of Rights weren’t enacted until AFTER the Constitution was ratified. That’s why it was acceptable for the framers to pray during the creation of the Constitution. This caused quite a stink during the formation. After that, many members of Congress and the states themselves were concerned about religion and the infiltration of it into the government. Ultimately they ratified Amendment I in 1791 to prevent it from happening, as it already was immediately after the Constitution was enacted.

Either way, let’s put what you say to the test anyway.

Allah Ahkbar is elected to Congress and becomes majority leader. He wants to start praying to Allah. The rest of the representatives accept the prayer to Allah along with prayer to Jesus. Why not? It’s freedom of religion, right? Now it’s acceptable. After a while, it’s AOK, and other members endorse it because they are too afraid to lose Muslim support, or like the fact of “equality”.

Ultimately it becomes de facto law, i.e. Shariah Law, and America ultimately starts bowing to the East. No shots are fired, and no law has been written. Is this what the framers intended? I would beg to differ. That’s why they added this distinct separation to Amendment I.

You can’t have it both ways. Don’t leave the front door shut while leaving the back door open for yourself. Otherwise enemies will worm their way into the back door like they’re doing now. You can thank the dingaling Christians in this nation who want religion in the government just like the “framers wanted it to be” (wrong), just not ones which are on the “preferred prayer” list.

First, the same Congress that created the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) also used US Treasury funds to buy 20,000 Bibles, I believe importing them from Europe.

Second, no you can’t have it both ways. Obviously the same rules apply to all religions.

However, Shariah law is not a religion. Islam is a broad-based POLITICAL and governmental system, which includes a religion in it. Therefore, allowing free exercise of religion is not the same as adopting the political and legal system known as Shariah law.

Third, if political correctness causes politicians to accept Islam and Shariah law, then the First Amendment will not make any difference. Already, there is a double standard. Islam is openly taught in our public schools, while people scream about any mention of Christianity.

Fourth, properly understood Shariah Law is itself unconstitutional as a legal or governmental system because it discriminates against women and for other reasons like that.

re: “Your timing is off and you’re confusing the 1787 Constitutional Congress with the first Congress. The Bill of Rights weren’t enacted until AFTER the Constitution was ratified.”

Ok, now you’ve confused me. Are you saying that Congress has not opened sessions with prayer or had chaplains since 1791?

Please go to the following U.S. Senate website:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm

I think you’ll find that the Senate has opened each session with prayer and utilitzed Chaplains since 1789.

I orginially responded to your thesis that seemed to say that Congress had intended the First Amendment to prohibit the very thing they’ve been doing since 1789 (opening each session with prayer and appointing chaplains).

My contention with you is that, if the Framers interpreted the “establishment” clause as you suggest - then why did they ever begin the practice of having prayer and chaplains, and then, continue the practice after 1791 if it was considered an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the federal government?