“A wall of separation must exist between church and state…” — Thomas Jefferson.

Sorry, kids, but the Frist Amendment says that the state cannot promote particular religions. (The courts have ruled on this many, many times – “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s).

It’s a biot of a strecth to say that holding a mass is just free speech – it’s a religious service. If you’ll forgive me going down “the slippery slope,” what’s next? Having bishop Sheehan give the commencement address and serve communion?

No, you may not shove your religion down the throats of other students at a state-funded school. Last time I checked, there were plenty of Catholic churches in this town – heck, you have the Newman center! Why can’t you just hold the mass there?

The fact that there is such a drive to hold your mass on campus proves that the real goal is proselytizing.

Here is what the First Amendment actually says,
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

So, unless Congress is passing a law to make you attend mass, there is no issue here. In fact, the Catholics have the right to ‘freedom of speech’, the right to ‘peaceably assemble’, and the state can make no law restricting the ‘free exercise of their religion.’

So you really don’t have a point.

‘The Establishment Clause issues are quite different where a school district wishes to make its facilities available for use by student or community groups during non-school hours. In such cases, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit opening the school’s facilities to religious groups — provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present.’

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/establishment-clause-and-schools-legal-bulletin

Obviously, you subscribe to the fallacious philosophy of the “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution, espoused by some pseudolibertarians, tea-partiers and various self-educated pseudoscholars.

Here’s a news flash for you all: the year is 2011, not 1791. The laws of our nation our more than what is spelled out in a document. There are two types of law: statutory law and case law. The former is written down in regulations, statutes, ordinances, the U.S. Code and the U.S. Const. The latter consists of interpretation of the laws; rulings by the courts – set into place by the former.

I’ll assume you have never taken a law class, because otherwise you would know this.

>> unless Congress is passing a law to make you attend mass, there is no issue here.

Students, this is what is known in logic & rhetoric as a “non sequitur.” I’ll let notjohnadams try to explain his non-syllogism.

This issue, of course, is whether allowing a denominational religious service on state-sponsored property, a school open to all regardless of creed, might be considered state sponsorship of religion. It is a reasonable question and Mr. Lundman has a legitimate complaint.

As anyone who pays attention to current events knows, the courts have ruled many times on state sponsorship of religion.

I will conclude by noting that you did not address my argument that the real motive of the Newman Center is to proselytize on campus. They have a building on Las Lomas – just hold the mass there. Or at one of the other dozens of Catholic churches in this town.

You seem to have missed the point of johnadamsxii response. He pointed to a specific piece of legislation demonstrating quite clearly that gatherings of a religious nature on campuses are not considered unconstitutional. Your point about the difference between statutory law and case law hardly seems relevant here. But let’s ignore that for the moment and address your assertion that the real goal of such a service would be proselytizing.

I have a simple question when it comes to this claim: how many people are on campus on a Sunday when this Mass was held? In case you’ve never been to Campus on a Sunday I’ll let you know that there aren’t any people there, and most of them are walking their dogs. If the church were interested in pushing their religion on everyone else, wouldn’t it be better if they tried it while students were actually on campus? What actual proselytizing can they possibly do when no one is near them?

So no, this event was not state sponsored, and in no way was it proselytizing. So stop screaming about how it was unconstitutional or how they were shoving their religion down your throat, because they were doing neither. And I challenge you to solidly refute the points I’ve made.

The University is a place for people and students to explore their horizons. There are religious and secular clubs on campus, as well as events and lectures on the same. There are both Republican and Democratic clubs on campus- just because they exist doesn’t mean they are supported by UNM.

Johnadamsxii has made several valid points to this end, and I would recommend going over what he has posted in detail.

To James, SavedByGrace, SDR, and others who have voiced themselves similarly- this event is not just a service held out in a public space, but also an attempt to spur interest in the masses passing by. This event has advertising and everything, and indeed, one of the attractions is pulling the rite out of the muggy cathedrals and into the daylight to air out. Churches can be intimidating, and a “Oh, just this once” can easily become “Well, I met some nice people, and I might go again.” I am not trying to remove the spiritual aspect from your service, but merely make sure you are aware that this is an event to pull people over and rejuvenate the “flock.” Know what’s happening and stand by it.

To Lawrence, and I suppose Peter Lundman, you two are going about this the wrong way.
Lawrence, you make some solid points. The problem with your debate is the fact that you are constantly attacking the debaters PERSONALLY, which is childish and debases your own arguments.
To clarify, I am an atheist, and I do not hold with the Catholic Church or any other religious institution.
Peter Lundman, you rabble-rouser. I don’t know if you were actually trying to get the Mass Grass event canceled, or merely trying to bring to light some of the… oddities of organized religion. However, without you, we would not have had this delightful forum discussion. The problem in your argument is this- if you and I are in agreement with religion, then we can both say that the ritual consumption of an imaginary god through such food as bread and wine is neither horrible nor offending. It may come off as a little silly, but let’s be frank- I’ve more viciously sliced and diced the fermented nutrient-sweat of bovines and spread the resulting mess onto crackers for a snack. What we should be focusing on are the groups that display pictures of miscarried fetuses and portrays them as aborted (which is both misleading and visually gross), and being a positive influence on the community. I don’t know if there’s an Atheist and Agnostic club here on campus, but if there isn’t one, start one. Tell people about the Church of Beethoven, which is a music and poetry series that happens on Sunday mornings. Invite people to think outside the box, and to consider taking responsibility for their own actions and more sets of ethics. This is a random universe, and it is beautiful! That is where you should be going with this.

Ahem.

This isn’t exactly timely, I know, but I hope it inspires new and more creative thought processes.

Carry on.

1. Non-traditional and open location. By making it an event, it hopefully renews interest in some people who have in the past gone to church on a regular basis, but have since declined. It also is a good place to urge non-religious or non-Catholic friends to visit, if interested. Its appeal is that it is in a familiar, open, beautiful and central location. People may not know where the Catholic building on campus is, but every freshman to philosopher knows where the largest body of water is to the university.

2. Rhyming name, how it is publicized, their (assumed) target audience. If I ran a book club with 20 people, and wanted to have a summer reading in the shade of those wonderful pines by the pond, how I told people about it would be determined by who I wanted to come. If it were just my group, I would send out a mass email. Requires less effort, the medium is readily available, and chances are I have a listserve that sends to everyone in the club. If I wanted to use it to attract new members, I would be more vocal. I might put it in the classifieds of the DL, or put up chalkings and posters around UNM (if I was feeling really adventurous, I would spread that to around Albuquerque in general). If I wanted to attract more people, I wouldn’t simply rely on passers-by becoming interested and join- reading circles look closed and everyone generally has their own material. The Mass on the Grass more resembles the latter, in that there is a fair amount of advertising about the event outside of the church itself. I’m sure they send out a listserve, and if they hand out pamphlets (not the right word, but the little booklets they hand out for the service that is basically the syllabus for that mass) I’m sure it’s included in the back with messages akin to “bring your friends and family!” In this day and age, by surprised if there wasn’t a facebook event for it.

This is not a bad thing- this is simply getting the word out, which most organizations do. I wouldn’t press the point so hard if I didn’t think it was important- again, this is a campaign to recruit newcomers or renew wandering faiths, and to not recognize it as such is unfair in any sort of discussion.