• 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

Just imagine if he had something like this.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Some here would have likely demanded his expulsion from the history books even for a statement like that.

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

No... not expulsion from the history books. I do disagree with his statement that people can't be moral without God.

Once again though, just because politicians in the past have used their position to further religion, doesn't make it any less of an establishment clause violation.
 
What does?

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you go back and read the threads, I've already explained why what Rick Perry and the OK governor are doing regarding prayer are establishment violations. People have responded, we've gone back and forth, and I think we've had a pretty good discussion.
 
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you go back and read the threads, I've already explained why what Rick Perry and the OK governor are doing regarding prayer are establishment violations. People have responded, we've gone back and forth, and I think we've had a pretty good discussion.

Ok, fine, briefly tell me how this is un-constitutional. Do you mean the separation of church and state?
 
Just imagine if he had something like this.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Some here would have likely demanded his expulsion from the history books even for a statement like that.

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Hyperbolic nonsese. They might have asked for his resignation, oh wait.

Washington WROTE this as he LEFT OFFICE and returned to the state of a PRIVATE CITIZEN. It would not have been as widely distributed as a statment from a government official is today. It was read only by those who had a strong interest in what he had to say. Further, he was not encouraging anyone to engage in a specific exercise of religion, but rather was commenting on his views of the general worth of religion. Still, many of the founders found this sort of expression as inappropriate.

Rick Perry (edit: I guess it was Mary Fallin... whoever) should do the honorable thing and practice his faith privately. Instead he wishes to stir up trouble. If he was just as private as Washington then few would bother to take notice.
 
Last edited:
Ok, fine, briefly tell me how this is un-constitutional. Do you mean the separation of church and state?

Rick Perry acting in an official capacity as "Governor Rick Perry" is the initiator of a Prayer Rally whose main purpose is the advancement of religion, specifically Christianity.

Doing so violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Case Law shows that the test to determine if there is an establishment clause violation is the "Lemon Test".

It has three parts. You need only fail one for it to be a violation.

1. Government needs a secular purpose. (No secular purpose to the prayer rally)

2. It must not have the primary purpose of advancing religion (The prayer rally's primary purpose is to advance religion, specifically Christianity)

3. It must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion (We could argue all day about what is "excessive" but it doesn't matter because it's already failed the first two.)
 
Rick Perry acting in an official capacity as "Governor Rick Perry" is the initiator of a Prayer Rally whose main purpose is the advancement of religion, specifically Christianity.

Doing so violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Case Law shows that the test to determine if there is an establishment clause violation is the "Lemon Test".

It has three parts. You need only fail one for it to be a violation.

1. Government needs a secular purpose. (No secular purpose to the prayer rally)

2. It must not have the primary purpose of advancing religion (The prayer rally's primary purpose is to advance religion, specifically Christianity)

3. It must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion (We could argue all day about what is "excessive" but it doesn't matter because it's already failed the first two.)

I'm not trying to be mean, either; but this thread is about the governer of Ohio encouraging people to pray for rain.
 
Because obviously God is just a make-believe cartoon super action hero brought about by our superstitions and fears.

Save it. We've heard it before. We're just not as intelligent as you.

Happy you figured it out.
 
No... not expulsion from the history books. I do disagree with his statement that people can't be moral without God.

Which is absolutly fine. But not the point.

Once again though, just because politicians in the past have used their position to further religion, doesn't make it any less of an establishment clause violation.

Somehow I believe they knew better what was a violation than we do.
 
Hyperbolic nonsese. They might have asked for his resignation, oh wait.

Washington WROTE this as he LEFT OFFICE and returned to the state of a PRIVATE CITIZEN. It would not have been as widely distributed as a statment from a government official is today.

Not long ago it was taught to every school kid in America. But as I said, some would take actions to try and erase it from the history books.
 
Rick Perry acting in an official capacity as "Governor Rick Perry" is the initiator of a Prayer Rally whose main purpose is the advancement of religion, specifically Christianity.

Doing so violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Case Law shows that the test to determine if there is an establishment clause violation is the "Lemon Test".

It has three parts. You need only fail one for it to be a violation.

1. Government needs a secular purpose. (No secular purpose to the prayer rally)

2. It must not have the primary purpose of advancing religion (The prayer rally's primary purpose is to advance religion, specifically Christianity)

3. It must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion (We could argue all day about what is "excessive" but it doesn't matter because it's already failed the first two.)

The "Lemon test" is not law. It's a guide that some use to make a determination. Others ignore and even when used, seperate jurists have still came to different conclusions.
 
Not long ago it was taught to every school kid in America. But as I said, some would take actions to try and erase it from the history books.

So you believe that their should be one official history that every school should teach? I don't know what your point is here.

Washington's farewell address is not the law of the land and his thoughts on general value of religion are not that important. Why should it be taught?

Besides, that as I pointed out, it is not at all the same. Washington was giving his general opinion on the value of religion as it concerned civics. He was not using the power of his office to encourage a specific practice of religion, in this example.
 
Last edited:
The "Lemon test" is not law. It's a guide that some use to make a determination. Others ignore and even when used, seperate jurists have still came to different conclusions.

You always seem to argue around the edges without making any relevant points.

It is not codified or statuory law. It is case law.

Any type of law can be interepreted in different ways. So?

SlackMaster has made an argument that it cannot pass the first two tests. Sure, someone could interepret it differently but they would have to do so in a way that stands up to scrutiny by other courts. If they can offer no workable precedent then their interpretation will be discarded. Do you have some sort of viable interpretation that differs?
 
You always seem to argue around the edges without making any relevant points.

It is not codified or statuory law. It is case law.

Any type of law can be interepreted in different ways. So?

SlackMaster has made an argument that it cannot pass the first two tests. Sure, someone could interepret it differently but they would have to do so in a way that stands up to scrutiny by other courts. If they can offer no workable precedent then their interpretation will be discarded. Do you have some sort of viable interpretation that differs?

Case law is just as valid as statutory law. Judges may not ignore any law, regardless of its' source
 
BS. If some sort of being can demonstrate omnipotence and/or omniscience then there is proof that such a being can and does exist. God could be proven if he existed.

You are just under some stupid delusion that atheist are as delusional and unmoved by proof as believers. That is not the case. It is believers that operate on blind faith not atheists.
The only one under a stupid delusion here is you. Again, there was a time that some people like you believed that the appearance of a rainbow was god demonstrating omnipotence. They believed that only God was capable of producing such a thing.

You're in the exact same boat. In saying "god parting the red sea would do it for me" you're adopting the premise "only god can part the red sea." That's an assumption on your part, and is not something that can be proven. To believe such a thing proves god exists is irrational. At best you've made a theory and found some support for that theory.
 
I don't see any promotion of a prayer rally on the Office of the Governor of Texas website.

I don't really think there is. Though I will say that I do believe the whole of this to be more a publicity sort of stunt than any actual attempt to make it rain.
 
The only one under a stupid delusion here is you. Again, there was a time that some people like you believed that the appearance of a rainbow was god demonstrating omnipotence. They believed that only God was capable of producing such a thing.

That's not proof. It is an example of retrofitting and an argument from ignorance.

IF God existed with ominpotence, as is claimed by most theist then he could prove his existence. He could say, "I am going to create a rainbow, right over there" and "!" there would be the rainbow. And he should be able to repeat that.

You're in the exact same boat. In saying "god parting the red sea would do it for me" you're adopting the premise "only god can part the red sea." That's an assumption on your part, and is not something that can be proven. To believe such a thing proves god exists is irrational. At best you've made a theory and found some support for that theory.

Nonsense. I am not adopting the premise that only God can part the Red Sea. I am adopting the premise that only a God could do it on command and without any other trickery.

You are adopting the premise that all evidence is invalid, which is irrational, anti science and just stupid.
 
Atheism could be proven false in the same way that one could prove false the proposition that magical powers/witchcraft does not exist. A magician/sorcerer could prove that he had magical powers, IF he had any. Of course, the test would employ controls.

You are arguing some nonsese that all tests are invalid.
 
Nonsense. I am not adopting the premise that only God can part the Red Sea. I am adopting the premise that only a God could do it on command and without any other trickery.
OHHhhhh! That's so much better! How are you going to prove that only God can part the red sea on command? And how are you going to verify that no trickery was involved, or are you assuming that, too? [hint: you're assuming that because you can't prove that, either.]

You are adopting the premise that all evidence is invalid, which is irrational, anti science and just stupid.
No, I am the one taking the scientific viewpoint in this discussion, which is that evidence can be consistent with a theory but doesn't prove the theory.
 
Atheism could be proven false in the same way that one could prove false the proposition that magical powers/witchcraft does not exist. A magician/sorcerer could prove that he had magical powers, IF he had any. Of course, the test would employ controls.

You are arguing some nonsese that all tests are invalid.

Not to detract from the discussion that you're having with the other poster, but I should point out that "atheism" in itself can't be proved wrong because atheism by itself makes no claim. It's just non-acceptance of a theistic claim.

a = without
theism = belief
gnostic = knowledge

a theism = without belief
theism = with belief
a gnostic = without knowledge
gnostic = with knowledge

There are two types of atheism and two types of theism.

Gnostic Atheism (strong atheism) = "I know there is no god and I don't believe in one.". (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

Agnostic Atheism (weak atheism) = "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

Gnostic Theist (strong theism) = "I know there is a god, and I believe in it." (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

Agnostic Theist (weak theism) = "I don't know if there is a god, but I believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

It's not about who can be proved wrong, but who can be proved right. The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

If you setup a god concept that can be falsified and people fail to falsify it, that lends credence to your god concept. Does it prove it right? No, we just failed to prove it wrong.

If however your god concept can not be falsified, nobody can prove it false. It's still up to you to prove it true though.
 
OHHhhhh! That's so much better! How are you going to prove that only God can part the red sea on command?

Who said anything about that? Now you are arguing that proof that a God exists does not disprove multiple Gods.

You are going at this backwards. The existence of a God does not prove Christianity, monotheism or any other religious tenet and that was never the point. It would disprove atheism.

And how are you going to verify that no trickery was involved, or are you assuming that, too? [hint: you're assuming that because you can't prove that, either.]

Are you kidding? You check to see if there is any sort of device at work that could cause it. There is nothing difficult about that.

There is no reason why we can't conduct the test in an environment that is more easily controlled, though, if that is your concern.

No, I am the one taking the scientific viewpoint in this discussion, which is that evidence can be consistent with a theory but doesn't prove the theory.

You are not taking a scientific position. Your view is DEFINITELY anti science. You are pretending that all proof is invalid or equally valid, whether it is vetted through the scientific method or not.

Again, you are going at it backwards. I am not talking about proving any theory, but disproving the theory that God(s) do not exist.
 
Last edited:
If God comes down from the heavens and parts the Red Sea in a verifiable way then that IS proof of God. Does it end all debate on the matter. No, there are conspiracy theorist that still demand the moon missions were all a hoax and present the argument from ignorance for their belief in such nonsense. What constitutes proof to them is not the same as scientific proof.

If God can pass the test then your "theory" of God would then have some basis in science. It could be properly termed a theory in scientific jargon. Is it possible that there may be a competing scientific theory for why the sea parted. Sure, but it would have to be based on something testable and falsifiable. If it were based solely on the argument from ignorance then that would be an article of faith or at best a hunch. It would not be a valid scientific theory.

As it is now, the "theory" of creationism is not valid science and belief is solely based on faith. That is not true for atheism. I am atheist because there is NO proof for the existence of a God, not because I stubbornly reject all forms of proof.
 
Not to detract from the discussion that you're having with the other poster, but I should point out that "atheism" in itself can't be proved wrong because atheism by itself makes no claim. It's just non-acceptance of a theistic claim.

There are two types of atheism and two types of theism.

Gnostic Atheism (strong atheism) = "I know there is no god and I don't believe in one.". (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

Agnostic Atheism (weak atheism) = "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

Gnostic Theist (strong theism) = "I know there is a god, and I believe in it." (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

Agnostic Theist (weak theism) = "I don't know if there is a god, but I believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

It's not about who can be proved wrong, but who can be proved right. The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

If you setup a god concept that can be falsified and people fail to falsify it, that lends credence to your god concept. Does it prove it right? No, we just failed to prove it wrong.

If however your god concept can not be falsified, nobody can prove it false. It's still up to you to prove it true though.

I don't believe in magic. That belief is not based on faith but science that has proven all such testable claims false. For it to be based on science it must be possible that someone could prove that belief wrong. No one has.

Yes, someone could pass the test but still not be magic. However, for a counter theory to have any credit it would have to offer some other testable explanation for the results, otherwise it is an article of faith.

Atheism CAN be based on faith. That's not what I am arguing. I am arguing against the notion that it IS based on faith just as theism is. That is absurd and plainly wrong.
 
I don't believe in magic. That belief is not based on faith but science that has proven all such testable claims false. For it to be based on science it must be possible that someone could prove that belief wrong. No one has.

Yes, someone could pass the test but still not be magic. However, for a counter theory to have any credit it would have to offer some other testable explanation for the results, otherwise it is an article of faith.

Atheism CAN be based on faith. That's not what I am arguing. I am arguing against the notion that it IS based on faith just as theism is. That is absurd and plainly wrong.

If one makes the claim that "there is no god" which is a positive assertion, that requires evidence to back it up. If sufficient evidence can not be provided to back up that claim and they persist in believing it... that is an article of faith.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all atheism is like this. Agnostic atheist are not making a truth claim. The burden of proof is not on them. No faith is required to be an agnostic atheist.

I think the other poster was just pointing out that "parting the red sea" isn't a good enough standard of evidence to "prove" that such an entity is god. I agree. It would be impressive though :wink:

Back on the topic though....
 
If one makes the claim that "there is no god" which is a positive assertion, that requires evidence to back it up. If sufficient evidence can not be provided to back up that claim and they persist in believing it... that is an article of faith.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all atheism is like this. Agnostic atheist are not making a truth claim. The burden of proof is not on them. No faith is required to be an agnostic atheist.

I think the other poster was just pointing out that "parting the red sea" isn't a good enough standard of evidence to "prove" that such an entity is god. I agree. It would be impressive though :wink:

Back on the topic though....

Your error is the same as Taylor's. You are going at it backwards. Science does not prove, it tests and falsifies.

We can use logic to falsify most stated conceptions of God as you did in another post, e.g., [the idea of an "all good" and "all powerful" god makes that god logically inconsistent in a world where evil exists. That god can not exist.]

The statement that there is no God can be disproven by demonstrating the existence of God or god, that is, an existent with the qualities of God. The test I outlined would be proof of the existence of a God. Would it prove the existence of the Christian God. No. Not the point. Would it prove that God created the universe. Nope. Again, not the point. It would offer proof of a God. Without some sort of alternate explanation for the test results any continued belief in atheism would be based on faith.

Every experiment that test natural cause and effect is a test of atheism. That is, an atheist would predict that an existent would react to stimuli based on the nature of the existent and the stimulus rather than attributing it to God.

How do you disprove magic? Is the lack of belief in magic an article of faith?
 
Last edited:
Which "she" are you referring to?

Yea... Establishment Clause. Really. :)

Can you explain how proclamations for prayer and a Christian lead prayer rally is not a violation?

I've already stated numerous times on this thread how it is. Did you read those posts?

Did she lead a prayer?
 
Back
Top Bottom