Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[Retro Rob]

Not all are equally valid or deserving of accommodation? Are you serious?

Yes, I am, for the reasons I outlined above.

I'm sure that you concur that beliefs against allowing gays to marry are invalid, and are not deserving of "accommodations" to espouse those views.

Not valid because a large majority of people in the area are worshippers or because they're different from the predominant religious culture of this country? Not valid because the total number of worldwide worshippers is less than x%?

Did you not read my reasons above? My views have nothing to do with what you're asking -- they have everything to do with the tenets....TENETS of said belief(s).

Good grief, just pay attention to what I said.

Per your example; in this country, if the followers of x religion claimed their beliefs called for them to sacrifice children to their deity, they would not be legally allowed to do so because of the laws against murder.

Exactly. Those views are invalid because they contradict the laws of this country.

My point was that all beliefs are not valid for the simple fact that people hold them; I cannot make myself more clear on that.

Too bad I had to use an extreme example of murder to get my point across.

 

[alzan]

Yes, I am, for the reasons I outlined above.

I'm sure that you concur that beliefs against allowing gays to marry are invalid, and are not deserving of "accommodations" to espouse those views.

Did you not read my reasons above? My views have nothing to do with what you're asking -- they have everything to do with the tenets....TENETS of said belief(s).

Good grief, just pay attention to what I said.

Exactly. Those views are invalid because they contradict the laws of this country.

My point was that all beliefs are not valid for the simple fact that people hold them; I cannot make myself more clear on that.

Too bad I had to use an extreme example of murder to get my point across.

Beliefs against allowing SSM may or may not be valid, however that has nothing to do with whether the government should discriminate against homosexuals by not issuing them marriage licenses.

Religious bigotry at it's finest!

You should probably be clearer in what you say.

Certain Native American tribe(s) hold that believers consume the flower of the peyote cactus to connect with their spirit; is that religion invalid?

 

[Retro Rob]

You should probably be clearer in what you say.

You should try comprehending what I say.

Certain Native American tribe(s) hold that believers consume the flower of the peyote cactus to connect with their spirit; is that religion invalid?

Personally, no. However, I don't think they really care about being included in prayer before meetings.

I just think you all should drop this myth that tolerance means all views are equally valid, and just because the US accommodates one (or several) belief(s), all beliefs MUST be accommodated.

Generally speaking, I believe we should be accommodating as possible, but its dangerous to advocate absolute accommodation.

 

[alzan]

You should try comprehending what I say.



Personally, no. However, I don't think they really care about being included in prayer before meetings.

I just think you all should drop this myth that tolerance means all views are equally valid, and just because the US accommodates one (or several) belief(s), all beliefs MUST be accommodated.

Generally speaking, I believe we should be accommodating as possible, but its dangerous to advocate absolute accommodation.

Whether a particular religion wants to be included in prayer before government meetings is not the point, the point is that no prayer should be part of a official government event, meeting, session, debate, etc.

The US government is not in the business of deciding which religious views are valid; at least in as far as how the tenets of said belief may conflict with the laws of the land are concerned.

True, just as the freedom of speech, et al is not absolute. All freedoms or rights have restrictions.

 

[zinfamous]

That is the thing. The ruling said that because the prayer had been tradition, it could stay. An Islamic prayer would not be allowed, because it would be new. It was a very narrow ruling to likely stop things just like what you brought up.

oh, so "because tradition?"

sounds like an obviously unconstitutional ruling. But that's exactly my point. A scary Muslim or even Sik is going to request their prayer, some redneck will get offended, and regardless of this being ruled b/c "tradition," it will be challenged.

Nothing scares a redneck more than a brown person's religion.

 

[zinfamous]

This isn't the first time prayers are allowed -- Muslim prayers have never been offered, so they would rightfully be denied as they wish to continue what was "traditionally" done.

Perhaps try to think about this a little more rather than always positing the "what if a Muslim" fallacy.
.

Oh, you're talking argumentative fallacies now? How about your wtfBBQ gay marriage = incest whopper earlier today:

Why not comment on what's real and what's relevant?

All these hypotheticals are nothing but smoke-screens. If you want to play the "what if" game, we should ban gay marriage because "what if" fathers want to marry their daughters?

lmao:

I correctly acknowledge that the constitution says that all religions are equal, and that tradition is not a constitutional argument. If it were, then there would be no amendment process, and there would barely be a need for a SCOTUS.
And then I apply that, since all religions are recognized equal (by the actual constitution, not some redneck's understanding of such), it is worthwhile to consider how a non-Christian would apply this ruling, and if they would be treated equally--you know, because constitution. I don't see this ruling as being specific to Christians, anyway.

Now, I stick with like: two equally-valid religions, and you go on and play "what if" with two completely un-related issues: homosexuality and incest.

So, how about I just ignore your posts due to hilarious logical stumbling?

I'm sure in predominately Islamic countries, Christian prayers are not allowed.

what does that have to do with this? Two wrongs make a right? Is that what you're saying? Well, that's obviously 3rd grade level, but it's irrelevant. This ruling says nothing about how other countries should act.

 

[justoh]

My point was that all beliefs are not valid for the simple fact that people hold them; I cannot make myself more clear on that.

You could make yourself clearer by recognizing the difference between all not and not all. What you meant to say is not all are valid. This universal quantification error is less offensive than your "this ruling was based on tradition" comment, where you failed to recognize the point of it being traditional in the sense of it being "part of our expressive idiom," like the other rituals they mention (pledge, etc.) as part of the analysis as to whether it was an action respecting the establishment of religion or not. Also, if i recall correctly, you were a racist? That's also not cool.

edit: and now you have others repeating your mistake about tradition. It's like nobody can read here. Stop being so superficial, people (and rob, stop being so superstitious).

 

[UberNeuman]

So it begins...



Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

 

[master_shake_]

The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,

it most certainly does.

you can not pick and choose what religions are more important than others. thats not how laws work.

either adopt and all or none way of thinking or stick it.

 

[Retro Rob]

You could make yourself clearer by recognizing the difference between all not and not all. What you meant to say is not all are valid. This universal quantification error is less offensive than your "this ruling was based on tradition" comment, where you failed to recognize the point of it being traditional in the sense of it being "part of our expressive idiom," like the other rituals they mention (pledge, etc.) as part of the analysis as to whether it was an action respecting the establishment of religion or not. Also, if i recall correctly, you were a racist? That's also not cool.

edit: and now you have others repeating your mistake about tradition. It's like nobody can read here. Stop being so superficial, people (and rob, stop being so superstitious).

What a bizarre post. Thanks for the education. Secondly, where did you read where I was a racist? Thirdly, I am not superstitious.

Really your point about my alleged racism and superstition is confusing.

 

[Zorba]

So it begins...



Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

Funny how quickly it turns from being "Atheists don't want to here prayers and are intolerant of religion and hate freedom of religion." To "Oh, you don't want to pray to Jesus? Oh your religion is not valid." or "Your religion is too odd, and makes me uncomfortable, lets just talk about Jesus."

Amazing how quickly Chistians turn against "freedom of religion" when they find out it is actually "freedom of ALL religions."

 

[Exterous]

So it begins...

Funny how quickly it turns from being "Atheists don't want to here prayers and are intolerant of religion and hate freedom of religion." To "Oh, you don't want to pray to Jesus? Oh your religion is not valid." or "Your religion is too odd, and makes me uncomfortable, lets just talk about Jesus."

Amazing how quickly Chistians turn against "freedom of religion" when they find out it is actually "freedom of ALL religions."

Yay! Gross generalizations of a group of people is fun!

There are people who will 'abuse' rights and will make a scene of things as most freedoms will come with a side effect. (see: Westboro). The freedom to have an invocation can clash with the freedom to not hear an invocation. For this reason I prefer the court's decision that essentially leaves this as a local decision as long as it does not denigrate or attempt to convert others. If Dearborn wants to do a Muslim prayer before a meeting that falls within the constraints all the better. If there is a large Wiccan population - sure go ahead. No invocation? good for you.

The problem with this guy is that he seems to be violating the ruling already. I would think that actively denying applications of non-Christians to give the invocation solely based on their beliefs would be considered 'denigrating'. That said this is merely a discussion at this point. He may well know that this won't work out the way he is proposing but doing it in a way to score political points.

Regardless I expect many other issues with people testing this to come up. A 5-4 decision usually means there will be a fair bit of controversy\angst\boundary testing

 

[sportage]

First, my devils advocate response:

Well isn't this ruling special <satire>.
No wonder this country is so screwed up.
Start off a meeting with a group of people supposedly intelligent people with the power to decide real issues that have effects on real people, and they start off their decision making by praying to some invisible make-believe pretend illusion.
Sounds typical.
And explains a lot about the idiocy in America.

Optional response:
This is fine but only "if" all religions are given the same respect.
Gee... I remember not so long ago when the Muslims wanted to build a religious structure in N.Y. near the site of where the world trade center once stood.
And people had a shit fit.
So... Christianity prayer is just fine but Islam prayers?
Apparently here is where your religious freedom ends.
If this US Supreme Court is going to go down this road, this highly activist right wing court if ever there was an activist court, then in the name of consistency all religions should also have their moment of prayer.
Simply ask your members and audience if there are any Christians present, if so then continue with a prayer.
But don't stop there...
Then ask if there are any Muslims guided by the Islam religion present, and allow them their prayers.
And so on and so on...
But first before all that praying stuff, ask if any Atheist present would like to leave the room for prayer time. Either that, or allow the Atheist present to put fingers in their ears and chant la la la la la la la during prayer time.

That is, if the highest court in the land truly believes in consistency and fairness.
Which I'm sure they are NOT concerned with, and have proven over and over again lately that they are not concerned with by any means...

I got it... Why not just nail their stockings on the wall and ask Santa for a nice big juicy apple in each members sock? Instead?

 

[nehalem256]

So it begins...



Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

As I said. If a liberal member of the city council wants to come out and lead a Satanist prayer I am 100% in support of it!

 

[IronWing]

As I said. If a liberal member of the city council wants to come out and lead a Satanist prayer I am 100% in support of it!

In the movies Satanists are always creepy old rich conservative white guys, like the Koch Brothers. Hmmm. :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Say that to a muslims face.

Probably the first time I ever said that was to a Muslim's face. In college there were a LOT of Muslims, especially in engineering, and some of them were greatly offended by encountering any kind of Judeo-Christian religious trappings even though many of them had memorized part or all of the Koran. Probably the first time I ever said "Put on your big girl panties and deal with it" as well. Certainly a lot more polite than a classmate's comment of "He double parked his camel" as one Arab was leaving.

Contrary to popular belief, Muslims do not attack everyone who expresses a contrary opinion, even sarcastically.

Can the government force anyone to join a particular religion? Of course not, therefore all citizens do have freedom from religion.

Not all are equally valid or deserving of accommodation? Are you serious?

Not valid because a large majority of people in the area are worshippers or because they're different from the predominant religious culture of this country? Not valid because the total number of worldwide worshippers is less than x%?

Per your example; in this country, if the followers of x religion claimed their beliefs called for them to sacrifice children to their deity, they would not be legally allowed to do so because of the laws against murder.

Um, no. Government cannot force anyone to join a particular religion because that would be establishing a state religion, something consciously prohibited by our Constitution. That is completely different from this view that government has an obligation to keep you from encountering any religious activity.

Yay! Gross generalizations of a group of people is fun!

There are people who will 'abuse' rights and will make a scene of things as most freedoms will come with a side effect. (see: Westboro). The freedom to have an invocation can clash with the freedom to not hear an invocation. For this reason I prefer the court's decision that essentially leaves this as a local decision as long as it does not denigrate or attempt to convert others. If Dearborn wants to do a Muslim prayer before a meeting that falls within the constraints all the better. If there is a large Wiccan population - sure go ahead. No invocation? good for you.

The problem with this guy is that he seems to be violating the ruling already. I would think that actively denying applications of non-Christians to give the invocation solely based on their beliefs would be considered 'denigrating'. That said this is merely a discussion at this point. He may well know that this won't work out the way he is proposing but doing it in a way to score political points.

Regardless I expect many other issues with people testing this to come up. A 5-4 decision usually means there will be a fair bit of controversy\angst\boundary testing

Well said.

 

[nehalem256]

In the movies Satanists are always creepy old rich conservative white guys, like the Koch Brothers. Hmmm. :hmm:

And movies are made by liberals. Same idea as how its always the anti-gay preachers who get caught soliciting gay sex.

 

[JD50]

Um, no. Government cannot force anyone to join a particular religion because that would be establishing a state religion, something consciously prohibited by our Constitution. That is completely different from this view that government has an obligation to keep you from encountering any religious activity.

Where do you people keep getting this from and why do you continue to repeat it after you've been corrected?

 

[realibrad]

Where do you people keep getting this from and why do you continue to repeat it after you've been corrected?

It seems that some equate not being able to express their religion at any time and any place, with religious oppression.

 

[alzan]

Um, no. Government cannot force anyone to join a particular religion because that would be establishing a state religion, something consciously prohibited by our Constitution. That is completely different from this view that government has an obligation to keep you from encountering any religious activity.

I never said or implied that government has an obligation to keep it's citizens from encountering religious activity; I corrected the notion that citizens only enjoy freedom of religion.

Several USSC cases and arguments have shown that citizens who hold no religious beliefs are due the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs.

If an elected government official is using my tax dollars and my time to invoke a prayer tied to his and/or others religious beliefs then it is my duty as a tax-paying citizen to voice my objection and to get it stopped. Tradition is a poor argument to continue an unconstitutional practice.

 

[werepossum]

Where do you people keep getting this from and why do you continue to repeat it after you've been corrected?

Expressing your desire to be protected from any exposure to religion is not correcting me, it is merely expressing your opinion on government's preferred purpose. In this case, SCOTUS disagrees that you have the right to be so protected.

I never said or implied that government has an obligation to keep it's citizens from encountering religious activity; I corrected the notion that citizens only enjoy freedom of religion.

Several USSC cases and arguments have shown that citizens who hold no religious beliefs are due the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs.

If an elected government official is using my tax dollars and my time to invoke a prayer tied to his and/or others religious beliefs then it is my duty as a tax-paying citizen to voice my objection and to get it stopped. Tradition is a poor argument to continue an unconstitutional practice.

You HAVE the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs. If I am Lutheran, I have no Constitutional right to be "protected" from the horrors of sitting through a two minute non-Lutheran prayer, even though I am not Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, but I do have the Constitutional right to not be forcibly converted to the Jewish or Muslim or Catholic faith. You are in the exact same boat, only you are asking that government spend its resources making sure no one prays in school, or at government meetings, or on public lands. I by contrast am celebrating this as proof of America's freedom of religion, that we can peaceably sit through prayers said by those with whom we do not share a religion and still respect their views and good wishes.

If you wish to get on the roster and say public thanks to a billion billion random accidents of genetic mutation, they'll probably have to accommodate you too. Hope that helps.

 

[alzan]

You HAVE the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs. If I am Lutheran, I have no Constitutional right to be "protected" from the horrors of sitting through a two minute non-Lutheran prayer, even though I am not Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, but I do have the Constitutional right to not be forcibly converted to the Jewish or Muslim or Catholic faith. You are in the exact same boat, only you are asking that government spend its resources making sure no one prays in school, or at government meetings, or on public lands. I by contrast am celebrating this as proof of America's freedom of religion, that we can peaceably sit through prayers said by those with whom we do not share a religion and still respect their views and good wishes.

If you wish to get on the roster and say public thanks to a billion billion random accidents of genetic mutation, they'll probably have to accommodate you too. Hope that helps.

The government spends resources on a lot of things with which I don't agree.

Prayer at official government meetings by an elected or appointed official is inappropriate and unconstitutional.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why would I want to thank, publicly or privately, random genetic mutations?

 

[Darwin333]

I always thought that the "one red cent" statement is just as silly as you think theists are for praying over a steak.

I mean, seriously, there is money being dumped into religion...always has, always will be.

That's a battle you'd never win.

Actually, we are winning that battle.

As I stated earlier, there are plenty of bad things that I wouldn't want my tax money going to. Guess what? We don't get to tell the .gov exactly where our percentage goes.

The Constitution and the Supreme Court do...

 

[realibrad]

Expressing your desire to be protected from any exposure to religion is not correcting me, it is merely expressing your opinion on government's preferred purpose. In this case, SCOTUS disagrees that you have the right to be so protected.


You HAVE the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs. If I am Lutheran, I have no Constitutional right to be "protected" from the horrors of sitting through a two minute non-Lutheran prayer, even though I am not Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, but I do have the Constitutional right to not be forcibly converted to the Jewish or Muslim or Catholic faith. You are in the exact same boat, only you are asking that government spend its resources making sure no one prays in school, or at government meetings, or on public lands. I by contrast am celebrating this as proof of America's freedom of religion, that we can peaceably sit through prayers said by those with whom we do not share a religion and still respect their views and good wishes.

If you wish to get on the roster and say public thanks to a billion billion random accidents of genetic mutation, they'll probably have to accommodate you too. Hope that helps.

You used a lot of words that did not relate to the actual issue. The issue is that by using government resources such as time, money, land ect, the government is effectively taxing its citizens to use for religious purposes. If a group wants to pray on their time, fine. If a group wants to pray on government's time, that is a problem.

Respond to that argument, not this fake one that anyone who has a problem with this ruling wants religion stripped so they never have to hear religion.

 

[emperus]

Expressing your desire to be protected from any exposure to religion is not correcting me, it is merely expressing your opinion on government's preferred purpose. In this case, SCOTUS disagrees that you have the right to be so protected.


You HAVE the same constitutional rights and protections of those who do hold religious beliefs. If I am Lutheran, I have no Constitutional right to be "protected" from the horrors of sitting through a two minute non-Lutheran prayer, even though I am not Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, but I do have the Constitutional right to not be forcibly converted to the Jewish or Muslim or Catholic faith. You are in the exact same boat, only you are asking that government spend its resources making sure no one prays in school, or at government meetings, or on public lands. I by contrast am celebrating this as proof of America's freedom of religion, that we can peaceably sit through prayers said by those with whom we do not share a religion and still respect their views and good wishes.

If you wish to get on the roster and say public thanks to a billion billion random accidents of genetic mutation, they'll probably have to accommodate you too. Hope that helps.

But why should there be prayers during a government meeting? Is there any compelling reason why somebody should be allowed to segregate time in a government space for prayer?

Your argument seems to proceed from the view that there is some absolutely compelling reason that prayer time in a government meeting is necessary to begin with.