Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[theeedude]

How long before the crew that is cheering this decision comes back to complain about Sharia because a Muslim prayer is said before a town council meeting?

 

[nehalem256]

Oh I understand it just fine. You're just a moron, as usual.

I find the people screaming about jesus on the train to be distasteful and I don't like them doing it. It's not because I'm about to be converted to their train screaming religion.

I'm not the one that doesn't understand the difference between "screaming about jesus" and an opening prayer.

 

[realibrad]

He could ask me the same question; if it weren't for the Bible, would I support gay marriage? And my goal isn't to give him a binary question, I would like to know if his objections are personal or constitutional.

I can honestly say that if the Bible supported it fully, then I would. But just like my question to him, the conversation would be completely different.

False Equivocation.

Its fine to have religion in the private sector. The reason its an issue in the government is because of how the government is sustained. If people want to believe that's fine, as long as those beliefs don't negatively impact 3rd parties that do not want to be impacted. The act of prayer is not immoral. The act of group prayer is not immoral. The act of praying in front of non believers is not immoral. Taking resources from people to use for religion is immoral.

I don't believe the government has any right to tell people who they can and cannot marry. To me, the only role the government has is the enforcer of the marriage contract, and nothing more.

 

[nehalem256]

Government Meetings means government employes as a non christian government employee I don't want to listen to it.

You don't have a right to not hear things you dislike.

 

[realibrad]

You don't have a right to not hear things you dislike.

The government does not have the right to take your money to pray with it either.

 

[Retro Rob]

False Equivocation.

Its fine to have religion in the private sector. The reason its an issue in the government is because of how the government is sustained. If people want to believe that's fine, as long as those beliefs don't negatively impact 3rd parties that do not want to be impacted. The act of prayer is not immoral. The act of group prayer is not immoral. The act of praying in front of non believers is not immoral. Taking resources from people to use for religion is immoral.

I don't believe the government has any right to tell people who they can and cannot marry. To me, the only role the government has is the enforcer of the marriage contract, and nothing more.

You guys kill me with this. Taking my money to fund war is "immoral", giving lazy people hand-outs is "immoral", paying six-figure salaries to underperforming congress-persons is "immoral".

There are things we both find abhorrent that government uses tax payer money to fund, you just pick religion as the one you want to fight against.

 

[LightPattern]

Secularism does not equal atheism. Attempts by theistic organizations to equate the two have enjoyed success in the last few decades, despite the complete and utter different definitions of the terms.

Agreed.. though from my point of view plenty of Atheists also equate the two just as they create a false dichotomy between religion and science.

They also do not wish to start or engage in a cultural traditions fiasco.

Only when our government is secular in it's philosophy and practice can all citizens enjoy true religious freedom.

I agree with the general thrust of this statement. I don't want my or anyone else's religion to be forced on others. But as with so many things, implementing the idea is much trickier than the statement may at first appear.
Can a government truly extricate itself from the culture of those who compose it? That's why common law is so important. Law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent is dependent on the culture (including the religion) of the society around it.

So attempts at secularism look different in a primarily Judeo-Christian nation, from one that is primarily Muslim or Hindu for example.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What is dumb about what I said?

You said you want people, presumably liberals, to open up a city council meeting with a prayer to the dark lord Satan. How can that be interpreted as anything other than an admission that liberals serve Satan?

Dumb as a sack of hammers.

The actual exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thraashman
or better yet, Satanists, "All hail the dark lord Satan and let his eternal torment come upon those who do not recognize his hellish glory"

nehalem: "If liberals want to come out and admit they are servants of Satan I am all for it"

 

[nehalem256]

Dumb as a sack of hammers.

The actual exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thraashman
or better yet, Satanists, "All hail the dark lord Satan and let his eternal torment come upon those who do not recognize his hellish glory"

nehalem: "If liberals want to come out and admit they are servants of Satan I am all for it"

Well as everyone knows all conservatives are Christians. So clearly a Satanist would be a liberal(Also note where I said PRESUMABLY LIBERALS). Not sure what you don't understand?

Perhaps worried your satan worship might be exposed?:sneaky:

 

[brycejones]

Dumb as a sack of hammers.

The actual exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thraashman
or better yet, Satanists, "All hail the dark lord Satan and let his eternal torment come upon those who do not recognize his hellish glory"

nehalem: "If liberals want to come out and admit they are servants of Satan I am all for it"

I wonder who between stew, TH, nehalm, and IC is on the most ignore lists.

stew at least provides entertainment by dredging up some of the kookier parts of the internet.

TH is rapidly going downhill

nehalm is really just our dumb toaster lover.

IC is well just IC, an automated troll account or an alt.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm not the one that doesn't understand the difference between "screaming about jesus" and an opening prayer.

Its distracting from the purpose of the meeting and its adding to the total time it takes to get anything done especially if there are several services. If someone wants to have a prayer group before the meeting and they are not distracting or being a pain in the ass then its fine. Personally I'd be pretty pissed if my City started doing this. I'm a guy who has recently attending church again belief is important but a town meeting is not the place for it.

 

[realibrad]

You guys kill me with this. Taking my money to fund war is "immoral", giving lazy people hand-outs is "immoral", paying six-figure salaries to underperforming congress-persons is "immoral".

There are things we both find abhorrent that government uses tax payer money to fund, you just pick religion as the one you want to fight against.

So far I have just disagreed with you, but your last statement was offensive. You do not know me, and yet you feel that you can say what I fight for or against. We have been talking about religion in the government and thus the conversation has remained in that arena.

War can be immoral, and it can be moral. Depends on why war started in the first place.

Giving money to poor lazy people can be immoral, if they are in fact too lazy to work. (I'm a libertarian at heart)

Measuring the amount someone should be paid in the public sector is very subjective, but on the whole you may be right that they are over paid.

I did not pick religion and forget about everything else, but this post is not about everything else. Its a pretty weak argument to say "why dont you talk about the other things and not just this topic we are on". I have and will again PM people on other topics when it goes outside the scope of the thread. I do not know eskimospy personally, and did not when I pm'ed him about a question that I was curious about. He had posted something and I wanted to see what his argument would be. The point is, that your argument should focus on why prayer on government grounds is the correct thing to do, and not why other things are not.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Some people certainly seem to think it is a religion.

Only the ignorant like yourself.

Why else would they suggest prayers of secularism to lead off council meetings?

Yep, dumb as a sack of hammers.

prayer: 1) a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.

2) a religious service, especially a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together.

secular: 1) denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

 

[shira]

I think the thing is that they don't HAVE to join in. It's the opportunity to do it if you are religious.

And what pre-meeting opportunity will atheists be given? Will a minute or two be set aside to allow atheists to do their thing?

 

[Zorba]

I am an Atheist, I would be just as against an Atheist getting up at the beginning of a meeting and giving a pro-atheist speech. The government is supposed to be secular, period. That doesn't mean Atheist. But starting a government meeting with a prayer serves no purpose, and clearly violates the establishment clause, IMO.

BTW: I really don't have a problem with religious speech, even on government property. As long as it is no way supported by or interfering with the official government business. For example, when I was in college we had a very fundamentalist preacher come on to campus for a week at a time a couple times a semester. I used to go listen to him all the time, because I enjoyed it. I had no issue with him standing on public land to do it, since he was no disrupting any official business and no one had to listen or stay around him. The school made him stay on the lawn in front of the library, where no on would be required to listen to him. If a professor had brought him into class to pray before lecture, I would've been pretty annoyed by that.

I also have no problem if a group of government employees wants to get together to pray/bible study during their breaks. Or if schools offer optional religious classes. But as soon as it is brought into an official meeting/event it is unconstitutional, as far as I am considered.

I do think it is funny a lot of the people that are good with ruling are the same people that were completely against the Muslim community center 2 blocks from the WTC. What will you all think when you go to a government meeting and it opens with a Muslim prayer?

 

[thraashman]

I am an Atheist, I would be just as against an Atheist getting up at the beginning of a meeting and giving a pro-atheist speech. The government is supposed to be secular, period. That doesn't mean Atheist. But starting a government meeting with a pray serves no purpose.

BTW: I really don't have a problem with religious speech, even on government property. As long as it is no way supported by or interfering with the official government business. For example, when I was in college we had a very fundamentalist preacher come on to campus for a week at a time a couple times a semester. I used to go listen to him all the time, because I enjoyed it. I had no issue with him standing on public land to do it, since he was no disrupting any official business and no one had to listen or stay around him. The school made him stay on the lawn in front of the library, where no on would be required to listen to him. If a professor had brought him into class to pray before lecture, I would've been pretty annoyed by that.

I also have no problem if a group of government employees wants to get together to pray/bible study during their breaks. Or if schools offer optional religious classes. But as soon as it is brought into an official meeting/event it is unconstitutional, as far as I am considered.

I do think it is funny a lot of the people that are good with ruling are the same people that were completely against the Muslim community center 2 blocks from the WTC. What will you all think when you go to a government meeting and it opens with a Muslim prayer?

Sadly it seems many in here believe that being secular is favoring atheists over other religions. No atheists are attempting to force others to listen to anti-theistic prayers, but there are Christians who seem to think not being allowed to force others to give them government time and money is an attack on their religion. Those people are generally known as assholes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well as everyone knows all conservatives are Christians. So clearly a Satanist would be a liberal(Also note where I said PRESUMABLY LIBERALS). Not sure what you don't understand?

Perhaps worried your satan worship might be exposed?:sneaky:

As I said, dumb as a sack of hammers.

 

[thraashman]

As I said, dumb as a sack of hammers.

I honestly think that's insulting to hammers. At least they can be made useful.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wonder who between stew, TH, nehalm, and IC is on the most ignore lists.

stew at least provides entertainment by dredging up some of the kookier parts of the internet.

TH is rapidly going downhill

nehalm is really just our dumb toaster lover.

IC is well just IC, an automated troll account or an alt.

Some of the dumbest trolling I think I've ever run across.

I've never understood the need that some folks have to anonymously humiliate themselves on the interwebs. Takes all kinds <shrug>

 

[Victorian Gray]

I honestly think that's insulting to hammers. At least they can be made useful.

True.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sadly it seems many in here believe that being secular is favoring atheists over other religions. No atheists are attempting to force others to listen to anti-theistic prayers, but there are Christians who seem to think not being allowed to force others to give them government time and money is an attack on their religion. Those people are generally known as assholes.

Actually, allowing the propose censorship (previewing prayers and removing references they don't like) is favoring atheists over religions.

Guess you forgot about that part. Religion does need protection from atheism.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Actually, allowing the propose censorship (previewing prayers and removing references they don't like) is favoring atheists over religions.

Guess you forgot about that part. Religion does need protection from atheism.

Or the government can just do what they are supposed to do and make no laws regarding the free expression of religion

 

[alzan]

So you don't understand what a hypothetical question is, or you just scared that you'd be outed?

I understand perfectly what a hypothetical question is. Do you understand the subject of this thread? Your question that I "refused" to answer is multi-pronged.

The thread, as I understand it, is about the establishment and freedom of expression clauses of the first amendment and the recent USSC ruling. My comments centered on the establishment clause; in that government cannot establish/endorse religion. My comment that your question was moot was based on my posts re the establishment clause.

If you're asking me my thoughts about public prayer based on the freedom of expression clause my answer is I can't stop you or anyone else from praying in public as a general rule. But when my elected government officials want to open official legislative meetings, sessions, debates, etc. with religious prayer it is my duty as a citizen to speak out against it and work to get it stopped, due to the establishment/endorsement clause.

As others have pointed out, life and it's issues are not either/or situations, nor are the resolutions or answers to the issues.

< snip >

Religion does need protection from atheism.

If atheists/agnostics are so scary and powerful perhaps theists should hire bodyguards to protect them.

He could ask me the same question; if it weren't for the Bible, would I support gay marriage? And my goal isn't to give him a binary question, I would like to know if his objections are personal or constitutional.

I can honestly say that if the Bible supported it fully, then I would. But just like my question to him, the conversation would be completely different.

For me it's not about whether a particular faith is for or against homosexuality/SSM but about the constitutional rights and protections all citizens (are supposed to) share. Since government grants marriage licenses they need to do that regardless of sexual orientation.

A legislator needs to remove their personal biases when debating or legislating issues that affect all citizens.

 

[nehalem256]

Sadly it seems many in here believe that being secular is favoring atheists over other religions. No atheists are attempting to force others to listen to anti-theistic prayers, but there are Christians who seem to think not being allowed to force others to give them government time and money is an attack on their religion. Those people are generally known as assholes.

So is that like how homosexuals seem to think that not being allowed to force others to give them government time and money is an on their sexual orientation?:sneaky:

 

[Retro Rob]

So far I have just disagreed with you, but your last statement was offensive. You do not know me, and yet you feel that you can say what I fight for or against. We have been talking about religion in the government and thus the conversation has remained in that arena.

Didn't mean to offend you, sorry about that.

War can be immoral, and it can be moral. Depends on why war started in the first place.

Giving money to poor lazy people can be immoral, if they are in fact too lazy to work. (I'm a libertarian at heart)

Measuring the amount someone should be paid in the public sector is very subjective, but on the whole you may be right that they are over paid.

I think my overall point was that if your argument is about the morality of the issue, then I think there are more things that are would be considered highly immoral than the sensitive ears of atheists out in the hallway of a town meeting having to hear a reference to God.