On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:38:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnWpkw4CecBXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
It is on hold because the court is saying that the plaintiff is nearly
certain to win the case. That is why he gave the injunction.
I'm please you agree your statement that the law was "thrown out" was an
exaggeration, yet you're still engaging in hyperbole. The judge did not
say the plaintiff was "nearly certain" or anything like it. He used the
phase "established a likelihood." Hardly the same.
"[T]here is a strong likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits".
That reason given, a particular application of the vagueness doctrine,
on first read appears to be laughably absurd. The original law on the
books from the 60's appears to be no more precise, yet was not found to
be invalid.
It wasn't just the vagueness doctrine. He also discussed how it violates
the establishment and free exercise clauses.
The supposed establishment/free exercise violations (dubious in their
own right) stem from the judge's problems with the lack of specificity
in the law. From that section: "The vagueness of the the Silent
Reflection and Student Prayer Act creates yet another possible
constitutional problem–potential violations of the Establishment Clause
of the Constitution."
It's a crappy law designed to pander to religious zealots.
Aside from that, do you find the original law unconstitutional? i.e.
that a teacher "may observe" a brief moment of silence? From the
militant-atheist's point of view, is there really a difference between
the teacher imposing a moment of silence on his/her classroom vs. the
school system doing the very same thing?
The constitution is not designed to support any particular point of view
about gods or religion. It requires that the government do its best to
balance between free exercise and the prohibition on establishment.
And how is a law that calls for silence **or** prayer unbalanced?
(Answer: it unbalances an zealous atheist).
Have fun.
.
