(10-09-2011, 10:31 PM)kandrathe Wrote: The point of disagreement is whether government employees, and people in positions of authority have the right to express their religiousness. It is a conflict between an alleged infringement of establishment, with every persons (including the President) first amendment rights to have free exercise of religion. I agree though, that the NDP Act establishing a fixed day by Congress is unconstitutional.
Government employees are entirely free to express whatever religious beliefs or perform whatever rituals, when they are *not* acting as agents of the state. When they put on the "government" hat, they are bound by the constitution not to endorse religion.
The president can stand up and say whatever he likes, in his role as a private citizen, or expressing his personal opinions. But as soon as he is wearing the mantle of the presidency, he is acting as the state, and must refrain from religious endorsement.
Quote:If we had an Islamic president who wanted to declare August a voluntary month of fasting. I wouldn't have an issue with it. Would you?
Of course I would. That is *endorsement of religion*, which is exactly what government is prohibited from doing, both by constitutional law and by principle. Adding voluntarism into the mix is simply a red herring - "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." The appearance of endorsement matters.
It fails the Lemon test. It aids religion. It has no secular purpose at all, let alone having a primarily secular purpose.
-Jester