Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[nehalem256]

You must mean ban religious prayers at government meetings?

Yes, that would be the specific form of speech you wish to ban. No need to repeat yourself.

 

[thraashman]

I would like to ask you, if public prayer in Government buildings was Constitutional, would you have an issue with it?

Anyone who is not leading a prayer as an agent of the government would be welcome to pray in a government building so long as they are also not a public nuisance. I have no issues with that nor do most (really all I've ever known) atheists have any problems with that. If it were to come to pass that every session of Congress had to begin with a public statement that there is no such thing as a god, you'd see how absurd your insistence upon forcing others to be a part of your religious ceremonies is.

I will say this again as you consistently have been unable to grasp it. NOT ALLOWING YOU TO FORCE OTHERS TO TAKE PART IN YOUR RELIGION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR RELIGION!

 

[nehalem256]

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

It appears that the House of Representatives also has an opening prayer.

Not only that by there appears to be an Office of the Chaplain. Sounds like government resources being spent on religion. Better get rid of it.

 

[nehalem256]

Anyone who is not leading a prayer as an agent of the government would be welcome to pray in a government building so long as they are also not a public nuisance. I have no issues with that nor do most (really all I've ever known) atheists have any problems with that. If it were to come to pass that every session of Congress had to begin with a public statement that there is no such thing as a god, you'd see how absurd your insistence upon forcing others to be a part of your religious ceremonies is.

I will say this again as you consistently have been unable to grasp it. NOT ALLOWING YOU TO FORCE OTHERS TO TAKE PART IN YOUR RELIGION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR RELIGION!

So being near the exercise of religion now constitutes taking part?

 

[schmuckley]

Not having a prayer before the local government meetings is not "imposing views" on the rest of the nation. It is keeping with the tradition of secular government. Having a Christian prayer before the government meetings is tacit approval of a certain religious orientation by the local government.

Pray tell what tradition of secular government?
I surely hope you're not referring to the United States of America.
If so sir;I have many,many references that speak otherwise.

Here's one:http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

That's Congress, too.

doh! Nehalem beat me to it.

It has been thus since the inception of this country.

Here's a couple more, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast
yes,Obama too.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ans-about-persecuted-prisoners-of-conscience/

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/earnestprayer.html

http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/national-prayer-peace

Anyone that states prayer and God isn't what the U.S.A was founded upon can be easily refuted.

 

[alzan]

Doesn't matter. My point is that it gives bigots an "out" without having to simply acknowledge that they hate religion.

I would like to ask you, if public prayer in Government buildings was Constitutional, would you have an issue with it?

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.

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

The fact that our Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion makes your question moot.

As well, the fact that local/state/federal government officials sometimes do start meetings/sessions with prayer demonstrates two things: 1) the separation of powers and; 2) that the judicial branch continues to kick the can of unconstitutionality down the road.

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.

 

[TheSiege]

Because this was done as a group you are forced to be there.

I can come and go from public hearings all I want. Children are required to be in school, a big difference.

 

[Retro Rob]

Anyone who is not leading a prayer as an agent of the government would be welcome to pray in a government building so long as they are also not a public nuisance. I have no issues with that nor do most (really all I've ever known) atheists have any problems with that. If it were to come to pass that every session of Congress had to begin with a public statement that there is no such thing as a god, you'd see how absurd your insistence upon forcing others to be a part of your religious ceremonies is.

I will say this again as you consistently have been unable to grasp it. NOT ALLOWING YOU TO FORCE OTHERS TO TAKE PART IN YOUR RELIGION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR RELIGION!

You're an idiot. I never said that its religious discrimination to disallow religion to be forced onto others.

Show me where I said it, and I'll offer to leave the thread.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

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

The fact that our Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion makes your question moot.

As well, the fact that local/state/federal government officials sometimes do start meetings/sessions with prayer demonstrates two things: 1) the separation of powers and; 2) that the judicial branch continues to kick the can of unconstitutionality down the road.

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.

Of course my question is moot, because if you answer it, it would be a resounding "yes", as you'd have a problem with public prayers even if the constitution allows it.

In no uncertainty terms, you'd be expose as a hateful bigot. I don't think your anti-religious views has anything to do with the constitution, as shows by your complete refusal to answer my clearly hypothetical question.

 

[LightPattern]

I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating for the banning or regulation of religious speech. People are simply arguing that the local government meeting is neither the time nor the place for religious speech.

There were arguments in the court about the prayer perhaps being acceptable if the content is limited to being nonsectarian.

Kennedy said judges should not be involved in evaluating the content of prayer because it could lead to legislatures requiring "chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere."
He added, "Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy."

 

[Thebobo]

I can come and go from public hearings all I want. Children are required to be in school, a big difference.

Didn't see anything about hearings the case was about a monthly government meeting

they agreed that an opening prayer at a public government meeting, delivered by a Christian pastor.

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

 

[fskimospy]

Of course my question is moot, because if you answer it, it would be a resounding "yes", as you'd have a problem with public prayers even if the constitution allows it.

In no uncertainty terms, you'd be expose as a hateful bigot. I don't think your anti-religious views has anything to do with the constitution, as shows by your complete refusal to answer my clearly hypothetical question.

Not wanting others to use government resources to proselytize does not make one hateful or bigoted towards religion. I for one would never want someone to preach to me, regardless of its constitutionality. I am also an atheist. That being said, I am a great admirer of religion as most people practice it.

 

[BUnit1701]

Why else would you open a meeting with a prayer other than to demonstrate piety or to evangelize? There is certainly no governmental purpose for an opening prayer. Maybe we could sell commercial ad space at the beginning of public meetings.

Its actually quite simple. In their mind, God has tremendous power over their day to day lives, and they are asking his blessings upon the work to be completed at the meeting.

Now I personally think that is batshit crazy, but I don't think I have a right to tell them they aren't allowed.

 

[Thebobo]

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

It appears that the House of Representatives also has an opening prayer.

Not only that by there appears to be an Office of the Chaplain. Sounds like government resources being spent on religion. Better get rid of it.

They should and the national prayer breakfast, its hypocritical.

 

[LightPattern]

No one is arguing to ban religious speech, they are simply arguing that government resources should not be used to promote someone's religion.

Allowing for something is not the same thing as promoting it.
It was mentioned that proselytizing for a religion is not allowed.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not outraged by the decision to be honest. I wouldn't have been outraged if it went the other way either. We have a long history of generalized "prayers" or invocations before public meetings in this country.

What is lame though is the OP's reaction and virtual spiking of a football because his sports team won.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not wanting others to use government resources to proselytize does not make one hateful or bigoted towards religion. I for one would never want someone to preach to me, regardless of its constitutionality. I am also an atheist. That being said, I am a great admirer of religion as most people practice it.

Of course it doesn't necessarily, but I want atheists to stop lying by asserting that they oppose it on constitutional grounds when, as demonstrated by Alzan's refusal to answer the question, it's more on the lines of a personal distain.

 

[alzan]

Of course my question is moot, because if you answer it, it would be a resounding "yes", as you'd have a problem with public prayers even if the constitution allows it.

In no uncertainty terms, you'd be expose as a hateful bigot. I don't think your anti-religious views has anything to do with the constitution, as shows by your complete refusal to answer my clearly hypothetical question.

Your question is moot because the authors of the Constitution clearly wanted to set up a secular government. Had they written the Constitution to allow for government establishment/endorsement of religion this thread would have an altogether different tone and comments.

They clearly wanted government officials to view and legislate issues in an objective light and without the narrow-minded bias of the officials' religious beliefs, if any. The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment is proof of that.

As I've said before, hate is a pretty strong word and I don't know many theists well enough to hate them. As far as bigotry, I do not fear or hate theists, and questioning someone's motives is an analytical tool; I've questioned my own motives many times in the past and will continue to do so to weed out subjectivity.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your question is moot because the authors of the Constitution clearly wanted to set up a secular government. Had they written the Constitution to allow for government establishment/endorsement of religion this thread would have an altogether different tone and comments.

They clearly wanted government officials to view and legislate issues in an objective light and without the narrow-minded bias of the officials' religious beliefs, if any. The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment is proof of that.

As I've said before, hate is a pretty strong word and I don't know many theists well enough to hate them. As far as bigotry, I do not fear or hate theists, and questioning someone's motives is an analytical tool; I've questioned my own motives many times in the past and will continue to do so to weed out subjectivity.

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

 

[nehalem256]

Not wanting others to use government resources to proselytize does not make one hateful or bigoted towards religion. I for one would never want someone to preach to me, regardless of its constitutionality. I am also an atheist. That being said, I am a great admirer of religion as most people practice it.

I don't think you understand what that word means:

convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another

Unless of course you are so uncomfortable in your atheism that you are afraid that merely being in the presence of someone praying might force you to convert

 

[realibrad]

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

You are trying to establish an either or situation, and its clearly not.

He does not want prayer in the public place not because he hates religion, and not because its not in the constitution. He does not want it because he believes its wrong to take from others and give it to someone so they can spread speech he disagrees with.

The issue is not if 1 person prays, its getting someone to lead other to pray and having the taxpayers pay for it. If individuals want to pray alone and are not disrupting others then fine. The issue is not to stop religion, its to stop the government subsidizing it.

 

[Exophase]

The point has already been made but I really feel like it should be stressed more. If the meetings were opened with a short speech saying that the people can only rely on each other and not any gods I'd find it just as inappropriate, and I think most people would regardless of what their religious beliefs are. It's totally unfair to characterize any opposition to this sort of thing as nothing more than wanting to censor religious expression.

 

[Sonikku]

If anything, they should be obligatory.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are trying to establish an either or situation, and its clearly not.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think you understand what that word means:

Unless of course you are so uncomfortable in your atheism that you are afraid that merely being in the presence of someone praying might force you to convert

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.