• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

As stated before, government doesn't have to "force" religion for there to be a violation. I've cited case law to back this argument up. Because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Yes it does in order for it to be a rightful violation in which another branch of government can legitimately then intercede, because in order to mix church and state you have to have action by the State. There has to be a force applied. Show me the force. If there is no force there can be no mixing as the government isn't DOING ANYTHING. Government operates through force, it's actions are various forms of force. To mix Church and State, there must be action, which means that the government must try to exert some amount of force.

You cannot legitimately ban individuals from certain practices based on some absurd notion that it mixes church and state if there is no state action. There has to be a real and measurable quantity, measure it, come back and tell me the value. If you cannot, then you cannot legitimately claim improper government force (since that inherently requires GOVERNMENT FORCE).
 
Last edited:
Ships disappearing beyond the horizon show the curvature of the Earth.

Yes, but there was some sort of argument against that. I forget what it was. There was already tons of circumstantial proof long before we were able to circumnavigate the earth. I was pointing out that one could conceive of a test that would conclusively prove that either position was false. Flat earthers, as stupid as that opinion is and was, WAS a valid scientific theory according to Popper's criteria. The idea of God is not. It is belief alone and can never be anything more, unless God comes down and falsifies the position that no God exists.
 
Recognizing that god cannot be proven is not tossing logic out the window.

God can be proven. He can show himself or he could be discovered in an empirically observable way. He cannot be disproven, because the definition is based on supernatural bs.
 
Would it have been better that the people who owned slaved been able to use their slaves to get more representation? I would have to say the founders were pretty smart.

Woulda been better if they actually gave a **** about all men being equal to begin with.
 
Yes it does in order for it to be a rightful violation in which another branch of government can legitimately then intercede, because in order to mix church and state you have to have action by the State. There has to be a force applied. Show me the force. If there is no force there can be no mixing as the government isn't DOING ANYTHING. Government operates through force, it's actions are various forms of force. To mix Church and State, there must be action, which means that the government must try to exert some amount of force.

You cannot legitimately ban individuals from certain practices based on some absurd notion that it mixes church and state if there is no state action. There has to be a real and measurable quantity, measure it, come back and tell me the value. If you cannot, then you cannot legitimately claim improper government force (since that inherently requires GOVERNMENT FORCE).

Despite your assertions to the contrary, I see no evidence that there needs to be coercion by the state or government for there to be a violation. In fact, case law would suggest the opposite.

The governor is an agent of the state compelling his constituents to pray for rain. There is no secular purpose in that. It's only purpose is to advance religion. That's a violation of the establishment clause as it's outlined by the Lemon Test.

I'm not butt hurt about it, it doesn't bother me, I'm not crying about it... please stop making this argument. It's a straw-man.

I think we're just talking at each other at this point.
 
The result was the same.

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

The 3/5ths of a person gave slave states representation disproportionate to the population of free persons. They should not have been counted at all. The slave state would then have had less power.
 
I'll ask again. What part of a city government erecting a creche passes that test?

I'm not familiar with the term creche but when I looked it up, it said nativity scene. If that's what you're referring, I think it too is a violation of the establishment clause. It doesn't "offend" me or anything like that, but I see no secular purpose for one. I think such a thing on government property (unless the government has created a public forum inviting people of all faiths to put up whatever they like) would fail the Lemon Test.
 
Despite your assertions to the contrary, I see no evidence that there needs to be coercion by the state or government for there to be a violation. In fact, case law would suggest the opposite.

In fact there does need to be actual force applied for there to be a violation. If there is no force, there is choice of the individual and that necessarily must be upheld over assuption and supposition with lack of actual evidence. To violate establishment, the government must actually be doing something to violate it. All government operates through various forms of force. For the government to do anything, it requires an amount of government force to do so. That's the actual dynamics, those are the measureables of the system. It's best to go off of measurement than bias and assumption as measurement tells us the world. If there is no force, then there can be no violation. It requires action from government. Government acts through force. In the end, the rights and liberties of the individual must be maintained if we wish to remain a free Republic. If you cannot prove government force against that; then there is no legitimate action which can be taken. In this case there is no force, merely a request. At no point is everyone made to pray, it's a choice. People can choose to participate. Nothing is conducted through the government. There is no actual law and there is no actual force. So how can there be violation without action?

The governor is an agent of the state compelling his constituents to pray for rain. There is no secular purpose in that. It's only purpose is to advance religion. That's a violation of the establishment clause as it's outlined by the Lemon Test.

com·pel
   /kəmˈpɛl/ Show Spelled [kuhm-pel] Show IPA verb, -pelled, -pel·ling.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.
5.
Archaic . to drive together; unite by force; herd.
–verb (used without object)
6.
to use force.
7.
to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc.

Where's the force?
 
I was using compel improperly. Even if he asks us to as a request, it's still a violation because the request has no secular purpose.

Would it be a violation for him to ask us to pray to a specific God? Say, Allah? It is after all... a request.
 
I see. If you were living back then, you would have stood with the Southern slaveholders in demanding slaves be counted 5/5 for the purposes of bringing revenue into Southern states. Knowing of course that those slaves would never see any benefit from that added revenue... quite the contrary.

Tell me Great Seer of the Past, Present and Future, what else would I have done?
 
That was a dumbass ruling too. I think that while we should watch for violation of church and state and work to keep our government secular; things like this prayer rally or even prayer in school are fine so long as it's not forced. I sometimes think we are getting well too touchy-feely for our own good. Get some thicker skin, let people do as they like. So long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, people should be free to do as they like.

People can do whatever they want. The state should not be involved. It encourages a culture that is hostile to other beliefs and creates an environment where people are afraid to challenge such nonsense for fear that they will not be protected from violent reprisal. It definitely should not be allowed in school as children are more easily persuaded by the influence of authority figures.

I don't much care about a day of prayer because it just not a hill that is worth dyin on, today. That's my choice and not that of those bringing suit. I will let them do what they want. I certainly think their efforts are more worthwhile than those of a bunch of idiots praying for rain.
 
I was using compel improperly. Even if he asks us to as a request, it's still a violation because the request has no secular purpose.

Would it be a violation for him to ask us to pray to a specific God? Say, Allah? It is after all... a request.

No it wouldn't be. But if he asked to pray to Allah, he'd probably not be getting elected next time. If the government is not doing anything to entangle itself with the church, it cannot be said to be violation of establishment. He's not taking tax payer dollars and having a "Pray to the Christian God" day. There's no police coming around to make sure that you're going to pray. There's no requirement that you pray. There is no government force to compel the action. Without that, there cannot be establishment. The only reason the public school decision even flew was because it was a public school and thus funded by taxpayer dollars. It's still a bad decision because it infringes upon the individual's ability to practice and express their religion.
 
God obviously likes for Oklahoma to get ice storms, wind, tornadoes, drought and heat waves. That's what he wants for that little frying pan shape of his creation because that's all he ever sends it. The real question is, why is the Governor of Oklahoma asking the citizens of the state to question the Good Lord's divine providence on this?

This is a perfect example of why I became agnostic. The whole premise in what the governor is asking his citizens to do kind of make's God out to be just a total douche. It's like God is up there in heaven: "I am sending the people of Oklahoma the torment of drought and day after day of extreme heat, but if they all beg me enough, I might send them some rain, but only if they really beg me for it."

Really, at least the volcano Gods held out for something slightly worthwhile, i.e., a virgin. The Christian God is a just a manic, narcissistic jerk.
 
I'm not familiar with the term creche but when I looked it up, it said nativity scene. If that's what you're referring, I think it too is a violation of the establishment clause. It doesn't "offend" me or anything like that, but I see no secular purpose for one. I think such a thing on government property (unless the government has created a public forum inviting people of all faiths to put up whatever they like) would fail the Lemon Test.

Much like the Pagan tradition of the christmas tree.
 
Not at all. I'm not saying that atheists are correct either. I'm saying that religious people are the ones making the claim. The burden of proof is on them. Until they meet that burden, I'm justified in not believing their claim.

Likewise, if atheists make the claim (as some do, but not all) "God does not exist", they'd have to back that claim up.

Seeing as how god isn't even really clearly defined and not even a falsifiable proposition, I don't know how either side would go about backing up their claim.

The position that God does not exists is falsifiable. Father Guido Sarducci gave an example of it at the Rally for Sanity. Just have God produce a rainbow or something on command.

Father Guido Sarducci - Rally Benediction - Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear - Video Clip | Comedy Central
 
Your comment was still rude. Not all people can "just quit" like you propose. If something helps someone get through a bad place then good, period. What won't help is people sitting in high and mighty judgement of those who need help.

The idea that it is a "disease" makes the word meaningless and indistingusihable from any negative behavior. It is a denial of responsibility which is why they follow it with the higher power nonsense.

I am not judging the alcoholic. AA does that by turning away those people that will not buy into their dogmatic bs. I am judging AA and its bs.

AA IS very accepting if you don't say anything against their nonsense. That is where the group therapy comes in. They sit and tell each other about their fears, bad experiences, regrets, pain and all the rest without fear of judment or exposure. That is very effective in helping people to deal with the problems that may have lead them to abuse alcohol.
 
I'm not familiar with the term creche but when I looked it up, it said nativity scene. If that's what you're referring, I think it too is a violation of the establishment clause. It doesn't "offend" me or anything like that, but I see no secular purpose for one. I think such a thing on government property (unless the government has created a public forum inviting people of all faiths to put up whatever they like) would fail the Lemon Test.

Lynch v. Donnelly: Information from Answers.com
 
I know this thread was about the OK governor asking to pray for rain but seeing as how it's similar to what Rick Perry has done and is doing, check out this video.

Looks like he's endorsing it in an official capacity.

You can read what this guy (who teaches law) says on his blog as well. He cited County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989).

"government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization..."

Here's another funny side note:

Matthew 6:5-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to (A)stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners [a](B)so that they may be seen by men. (C)Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But you, when you pray, (D)go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and (E)your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

WHOOPS!
 

Viewing the display within the context of the city's celebration of a national public holiday, the majority concluded that the crèche served the legitimate secular purpose of symbolically depicting the historical origins of the Christmas holiday. In contrast, five years later, in Allegheny County v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989), the Court found the display of the crèche in a public building, ungarnished by other holiday decorations, to violate the Establishment Clause.

In the first ruling they found that it had a secular purpose (even though another court ruled differently).

What's the secular purpose for praying for rain?
 
"government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization..."

He is full of crap. The government affiliates itself with religious organizations all the time. There are likely hundreds of examples one could come up with. A military chaplain would be one. The original link I posted about prayer in Congress would be one.

But I only need to provide one example to prove the point wrong.
 
In the first ruling they found that it had a secular purpose (even though another court ruled differently).

What's the secular purpose for praying for rain?

EXACTLY. While you saw it as not reaching the threshhold, justices did because that's how they wanted to rule. If this was some set in stone guideline there wouldn't be conflicting rulings would there?
 
Back
Top Bottom