Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[alzan]

Unfortunately the court majority also said that government can pick its favorite brand of religious expression and run with it to the exclusion of all others. It is an all-around horrible decision.

1) Get elected to city council.
2) Invoke prayers to the FSM before o during council meetings.
3) ?
4) Profit $$$!

LOL -- I've been reading for years how the US will become a Christian State soon after "God" was put on our money and Pledge of Allegiance.

It's been about 60 years, that fear hasn't come to pass.

Something that hasn't happened yet is not evidence that it won't ever happen.

Some posters on this forum already believe that the US is a Christian country (or support those who operate towards that end). Extrapolate those numbers out to the general population and you have a fairly significant % who work towards that end, whether through direct action or support.

 

[Retro Rob]

Something that hasn't happened yet is not evidence that it won't ever happen.

I was speaking to the frequent atheistic fear mongering that you if you allow X, it will open the door for Y" fallacy, as if America somehow advocates absolute freedom and accommodation -- we do not and cannot.

Just because I allow Christians to do X, that doesn't mean I automatically have to allow religion Y to do X. This is why I personally believe certain beliefs have to be examined on their own merits.

 

[realibrad]

Disagree. The clergy are not paid, and the building costs exactly the same to operate regardless of whether that time is spent praying or for another purpose. The only way you can justify your point is by defining ANY prayer on public property as establishing a state religion, for that is what the Constitution specifically prohibits. That is the essence of freedom FROM religion, something for which you claim to not be advocating.

The clergy is most certainly paid, just not in dollars. Giving a room, food, transportation ect is a form of payment. Why you brought that up though is confusing but I did want to respond.

The difference between "public land" and governmental building are the costs. The land has a cost very close to zero vs buildings and government time. The issue I have is that the prayer not only uses taxpayers time and thus money, but also the fact it becomes the official start of the meeting. The fact that religion is being used as the trigger is a big issue, because the government should be secular for the reasons I have already posted on.

If you are saying that not wanting religion in government is freedom FROM religion, then yes, I would want that. I assume you feel much the same way about other religions. You would not want your tax dollars going to the religions you do not believe becoming the official starting point of government activity. This little verse should explain why if you are not, you should be.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

 

[Thebobo]

I am now a registered minister http://www.themonastery.org/

I will see if I can get to speak at a city council meeting. If I don't chicken out..

In the meantime I do weddings.

 

[MrPickins]

Why is it necessary that a government meeting open with a prayer?

This is the real question here. :hmm:

 

[thraashman]

I was speaking to the frequent atheistic fear mongering that you if you allow X, it will open the door for Y" fallacy, as if America somehow advocates absolute freedom and accommodation -- we do not and cannot.

Just because I allow Christians to do X, that doesn't mean I automatically have to allow religion Y to do X. This is why I personally believe certain beliefs have to be examined on their own merits.

Well legally if you accommodate Christianity you have to also accommodate any other religion to the same degree. As far as fear mongering though the main fear mongering I see in regards to religion is Christians claiming we'll get sharia in the US if we allow Muslims to do anything related to their religion anywhere.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL -- I've been reading for years how the US will become a Christian State soon after "God" was put on our money and Pledge of Allegiance.

It's been about 60 years, that fear hasn't come to pass.

not a fear of mine and not what I was getting at, but I agree with you.

 

[zinfamous]

I was speaking to the frequent atheistic fear mongering that you if you allow X, it will open the door for Y" fallacy, as if America somehow advocates absolute freedom and accommodation -- we do not and cannot.

Just because I allow Christians to do X, that doesn't mean I automatically have to allow religion Y to do X. This is why I personally believe certain beliefs have to be examined on their own merits.

so....does slippery slope, then, apply to legalization of gay marriage, or not? Or do you fear that fathers will be allowed to marry daughters, brothers their sisters, humans and pets, men and toasters?

Not accusing, and I don't really know your stance on that--just curious. Because those that are against gay marriage (pretty much 100% because of religion), tend to go up and down that slippery slope with their support/rejection of these issues, depending on how it suits them.

You know:
--No! just because we allow X for Christians, it doesn't mean we would, and should allow it for other religions! (b/c...tradition!)
--Once we allow gay marriage we will clearly be forced to allow incestuous marriage and human-appliance marriage! waaaaaah!

pretty much how things run in P&N. See: Texashiker.

 

[Orignal Earl]

As far as fear mongering though the main fear mongering I see in regards to religion is Christians claiming we'll get sharia in the US if we allow Muslims to do anything related to their religion anywhere.

Sharia law always has been in the US
Because of fear mongering some states are getting rid of it

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html

 

[werepossum]

Sharia law always has been in the US
Because of fear mongering some states are getting rid of it

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html

lol Let us all remember that this HuffPo Sharia puff piece does not in any way represent the left supporting Islam and that Earl presents it only in the name of religious freedom.

 

[Orignal Earl]

lol Let us all remember that this HuffPo Sharia puff piece does not in any way represent the left supporting Islam and that Earl presents it only in the name of religious freedom.

http://aclj.org/sharia-law/fox-news-judge-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law

Is your argument that Sharia law isn't used in America already?
Based on your other comments, I'm going to have to guess once again you want to believe that Sharia law must be framed only in the way you want
Like the way they do it in SA or Iran for instance
Is there something that is not true in the article?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Earl presents it only in the name of religious freedom.

Have you convinced yourself I'm some sort of Jhiadist now?
Incor does that too

 

[shira]

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. I think the Gov should deem certain prayers invalid if they contain illegal material, or "anti-American" rhetoric.

There is a radical segment of Islam that is under the opinion that Western Society should be done away with using the sword of Islam.

I'm guessing you'd be OK with a prayer from a person who deeply hold these views for the sake of fairness. After all, I am fairly confident that we have some of those idiots in this country.

How am I contradicting myself? When I wrote "inherently illegal" I meant precisely that. As in a prayer that revealed classified information or constituted assault or incited to riot or murder, etc. Anti-American rhetoric is NOT inherently illegal, and any prayer containing anti-American rhetoric (and which is not otherwise illegal) would be a "valid" prayer.

A Islamist prayer asking Allah to cause the "American infidels" to suffer the wrath of the almighty would not be illegal under the law. An Islamist prayer advocating all members of the faith to join together and violently overthrow the American government WOULD be illegal. Thus, the former should be allowed during a designated "prayer period" prior to a government meeting and the latter should not be allowed.

You seem to think that if most people don't like the content of a prayer, the prayer is "invalid". You're wrong. Try reading the First Amendment to the Constitution sometime.

 

[werepossum]

http://aclj.org/sharia-law/fox-news-judge-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law

Is your argument that Sharia law isn't used in America already?
Based on your other comments, I'm going to have to guess once again you want to believe that Sharia law must be framed only in the way you want
Like the way they do it in SA or Iran for instance
Is there something that is not true in the article?

In much the same way that people bite dogs, Sharia law is used in America. Thus the plethora of new laws preventing its use, to prevent an epidemic of people biting dogs.

Sharia law is what it is. There is no honest way to "frame" a law system which mandates that adulterers be stoned to death and homosexuals be burned alive that does not make it barbaric and utterly foreign to Western and especially American values.

Have you convinced yourself I'm some sort of Jhiadist now?
Incor does that too

Not a Jihadist, merely an apologist.

 

[Orignal Earl]

In much the same way that people bite dogs, Sharia law is used in America. Thus the plethora of new laws preventing its use, to prevent an epidemic of people biting dogs.

There always was laws to prevent a religion from getting out of hand

Sharia law is what it is. There is no honest way to "frame" a law system which mandates that adulterers be stoned to death and homosexuals be burned alive that does not make it barbaric and utterly foreign to Western and especially American values.

A moral code and religious law covering all aspects of life, as far as I can understand
I can't find where it's followed the way you present as the only way but this is how it really is handled by different countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Not a Jihadist, merely an apologist.

Ah ok, I can understand that, I was wondering how far you were going to go down the rabbit hole to protect your beliefs
Making me one of the worlds first Leftist Jihadists would of been quite the sight
Labeling me as a leftist apologist, makes it easy to dismiss me and that's what works for you

edit- I know I'm using the term Jihadist wrong too, I'm going with the American media version here

In NATO countries, especially the United States, the term "jihadist" has been used in Western media as a synonym for mujahid, and frequently used to describe militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Islamic terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

 

[Retro Rob]

so....does slippery slope, then, apply to legalization of gay marriage, or not? Or do you fear that fathers will be allowed to marry daughters, brothers their sisters, humans and pets, men and toasters?

No, not necessarily. I think if you were to argue that gays should be married because straights are (second-class citizen argument), then I don't see a slippery slope.

But I think if you were to use the argument that one was born gay, then the slippery slope could apply (i.e., I was always sexually attracted to my sister or dog -- I didn't choose that attraction no more than you chose to be gay).

I think we have enough sicko's out here who would be more than welcome to make that argument, and find some science behind it.