Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
last time i checked, a "law" means that something will be enforced by the legal authorities of the land; that if disobeyed, there are real consequences, i.e. a fine or imprisonment (or in some lands, severe corporal punishment).
"exacting an unconstitutional toll on the consciences of religious objectors" doesn't sound like any of the above. afterall, what is conscience? and is it the same for all? is it tangible? if not, are we moving towards new laws addressing the metaphysical?
there are no reports of VMI (Founded in 1839) punishing any cadets for staying silent though prayer. fact: it is voluntary. without evidence of enforcement (or any consequences) administered by the college, i don't see how there's a real case to be made.
freedom of speech means hearing things that you may not agree with. (we've seen this in action recently, with protesters taking to the streets) in America, we all have the "right" to our opinions. and others have the right to dislike us for them. but nowhere is prayer compelled by Congressional law. following a tradition is not legal compliance. it's choice. and isn't that what the 1st Amendment clearly stipulates?
i pray the ACLU and their liberal sympathizers their souls to keep....
Since when did Congress start establishing rules at VMI? At the time the Constitution was ratified, several state legislatures had established religions. Seems to me if anything the court is interfering with the Constitution by "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion at VMI.
So sad.
MM
At the risk of being accused of praying in public, I would like to say a big, hearty Amen to your comment.
This business of silencing people because someone else may be offended is just plain wrong; it is against the spirit of the constitution and of liberty.