Establishment Clause, Lee v. Weisman

[Blue Rectangle]

I reluctantly disagree with Scalia.  The tradition argument cannot excuse a clear case of the state using public resources to push a particular religious view on a group that cannot reasonably refuse to participate.

[Blue Rectangle]

I reluctantly disagree with Scalia.  The tradition argument cannot excuse a clear case of the state using public resources to push a particular religious view on a group that cannot reasonably refuse to participate.

Push a viewpoint? What an extraordinary accusation. Who pushes a theistic viewpoint on someone by making them stand for a minute of prayer that in no way makes the viewpoint look more favorable?

Obviously, saying a prayer implies that one believes in a god.  This is a religious viewpoint and the state is promoting that viewpoint when it sponsors the prayer.

As for its effect, a state-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional whether or not it persuades someone to believe in God.

[Blue Rectangle]

Prayers do not "promote" viewpoints, as I just explained, and as you seem to admit to admit in your second paragraph.

The state does not require anyone to say the prayer. They do not even need to stand, for crying out loud.

I can promote a viewpoint without being successful.  Just because I fail to convince you does not mean I have not tried.  It is wrong for the government to try to convince people to accept a particular religious belief.  The effectiveness of the attempt is irrelevant.