• 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

SlackMaster said:
...he stated so matter of factly without anything to back it up. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Since I can't prove a negative, perhaps you could point out the law that prohibits elected officials from excercising their civil rights. Thanks, so much, in advance.
 
apdst said:
Since I can't prove a negative, perhaps you could point out the law that prohibits elected officials from excercising their civil rights. Thanks, so much, in advance.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Please read the thread.
 
RStringfield said:
He added third, to the date.
Click to expand...
We don't know the extent to which he contributed to the proclamation.

RStringfield said:
Congress had a power over him. He could have vetoed it but that would not have gone over well politically and probably would have been passed over his veto.
Click to expand...
They didn't have "a power" over him, they simply issued a joint resolution authorizing a day of Thanksgiving.

RStringfield said:
No mention of Jesus which is common of all Washington's work.
Click to expand...
And which was typical for the time period.
 
SlackMaster said:
If you go back and read the earlier threads, you would see that Rick Perry was brought up because he did the exact same thing as the OK governor.

For the record, the OK governor is also violating the establishment clause.

Please, go back and read the arguments earlier in this thread. You're making arguments that have already been discussed.
Click to expand...

It is not the EXACT same thing at all. Nice try though.
 
Taylor said:
We don't know the extent to which he contributed to the proclamation.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. The word "third" as in "third" day of october was in his hand. The rest was in the hand of William Jackson. The date was left open so that Washington could fill it in when he signed. It's also quite likely that he made sure there was no mention of Christ as he was ALWAYS careful to do. Except, again, in that Treaty of Tripoli. Most of the most prominent founders did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

They didn't have "a power" over him, they simply issued a joint resolution authorizing a day of Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. He did not raise the issue but was forced to respond either by signing or veto. A veto would have likely been overridden and, as I said, he may have gone along with it for political reasons.

And which was typical for the time period.
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. It was common of deists and those who were sensitive to the fact that not all were Christians, but the Christians did not avoid referring to Christ anymore than they do now.
 
Last edited:
SlackMaster said:
OK governor asked people to pray for rain, Perry asked people to pray for rain. How is that not the same thing?
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone asking anyone else to pray for something is a violation of the establishment clause. Without force, there's nothing real here.
 
Ikari said:
I don't see how anyone asking anyone else to pray for something is a violation of the establishment clause. Without force, there's nothing real here.
Click to expand...

Woah... Deja Vu. I feel like I've dealt with this argument before.

Oh yea, that's cause I did.
 
SlackMaster said:
Woah... Deja Vu. I feel like I've dealt with this argument before.

Oh yea, that's cause I did.
Click to expand...

You attempted, but you never answered it with any amount of satisfaction. In the end, there are measurable effects and those effects are what define reality. Establishment requires action on the part of government, as does the Lemon Test. Thus you have to have some amount of force applied, something the the government is actually doing. But there is no government action here, there is no bill, there is no force. Are they using tax payer dollars for it? You may be able to build a case off of that if there is (that's how they brought up school in prayer since public schools are funded by tax payer dollars, though I find the ruling on that to have overstepped the boundaries of what government could legitimately restrict).

Show me the force. You've never once dealt with that. You made little run arounds and such. I deal with reality, and in reality there must be some amount of government activity, government force (as all government action is acted out through various forms of force) to claim that the government is running afoul of establishment. The government can't do nothing and violate establishment. There must be an action, there must be a force. If you truly want to "deal" with this argument; then that's what you will address. Can you?
 
Ikari said:
You attempted, but you never answered it with any amount of satisfaction. In the end, there are measurable effects and those effects are what define reality. Establishment requires action on the part of government, as does the Lemon Test. Thus you have to have some amount of force applied, something the the government is actually doing. But there is no government action here, there is no bill, there is no force. Are they using tax payer dollars for it? You may be able to build a case off of that if there is (that's how they brought up school in prayer since public schools are funded by tax payer dollars, though I find the ruling on that to have overstepped the boundaries of what government could legitimately restrict).

Show me the force. You've never once dealt with that. You made little run arounds and such. I deal with reality, and in reality there must be some amount of government activity, government force (as all government action is acted out through various forms of force) to claim that the government is running afoul of establishment. The government can't do nothing and violate establishment. There must be an action, there must be a force. If you truly want to "deal" with this argument; then that's what you will address. Can you?
Click to expand...

My tax dollars pay Governor Rick Perry's salary, just like they pay for the school teachers.

Governor Rick Perry can no more promote religion, than the school teachers can.

The "Action" you're demanding is the action of Governor Rick Perry, in an official capacity, as my paid Governor endorsing religion over non-religion, specifically Christianity. Government officials aren't allowed to come out and say that people should be a specific religion. That flies right in the face of the constitution for the reasons I stated earlier. There is plenty of case law to support this that I have cited earlier in this thread and much more that I didn't have the time to go dig up.

Government officials can't officially support or promote a particular religion, they're supposed to stay neutral when it comes to religion.

Does this mean that Rick Perry can't go to church, of course not. He has his freedom of religion too. It just means that he has to attend as a private citizen, exercising his right to religious freedom. Not as my Governor.

He can no more promote from an official capacity Christianity than Obama could Satanism, or Islam, or any other religion. Government officials cannot use their position of power to endorse religious institutions.

When he's in an official capacity he has to represent all the people of Texas not just the religious ones.
 
SlackMaster said:
My tax dollars pay Governor Rick Perry's salary, just like they pay for the school teachers.

Governor Rick Perry can no more promote religion, than the school teachers can.

The "Action" you're demanding is the action of Governor Rick Perry, in an official capacity, as my paid Governor endorsing religion over non-religion, specifically Christianity. Government officials aren't allowed to come out and say that people should be a specific religion. That flies right in the face of the constitution for the reasons I stated earlier. There is plenty of case law to support this that I have cited earlier in this thread and much more that I didn't have the time to go dig up.

Government officials can't officially support or promote a particular religion, they're supposed to stay neutral when it comes to religion.

Does this mean that Rick Perry can't go to church, of course not. He has his freedom of religion too. It just means that he has to attend as a private citizen, exercising his right to religious freedom. Not as my Governor.

He can no more promote from an official capacity Christianity than Obama could Satanism, or Islam, or any other religion. Government officials cannot use their position of power to endorse religious institutions.

When he's in an official capacity he has to represent all the people of Texas not just the religious ones.
Click to expand...

But even if he is saying something, the only way he can do so through government is to enact government to do something. Otherwise he's just a dude running his mouth and everyone is allowed to do that. I can't see this as establishment as there is nothing forcing people to go to the prayer meeting thing. There is no repercussions for not attending. If the prayer meeting thing used tax payer dollars, sure; but other than that it's too much of a stretch IMO to claim violation of establishment here. If they were having a prayer meeting and the governor says people should pray for rain at this event and the event is held somewhere wherein tax dollars are being used to fund the prayer meeting; then I think you can make an argument. To just say his salary is paid for by taxpayers and thus he can't run his mouth any way he wants is not, IMO, valid argument. There has to be some amount of action by the government. Lots of politicians have and will continue to evoke gods in their rhetoric, and each case of that is not a case of violation of establishment. It only becomes so if they try to use government to enforce it. That's the real thing right there, that's the measure. Where is the force? Can you address that?
 
Ikari said:
But even if he is saying something, the only way he can do so through government is to enact government to do something. Otherwise he's just a dude running his mouth and everyone is allowed to do that. I can't see this as establishment as there is nothing forcing people to go to the prayer meeting thing. There is no repercussions for not attending. If the prayer meeting thing used tax payer dollars, sure; but other than that it's too much of a stretch IMO to claim violation of establishment here. If they were having a prayer meeting and the governor says people should pray for rain at this event and the event is held somewhere wherein tax dollars are being used to fund the prayer meeting; then I think you can make an argument. To just say his salary is paid for by taxpayers and thus he can't run his mouth any way he wants is not, IMO, valid argument. There has to be some amount of action by the government. Lots of politicians have and will continue to evoke gods in their rhetoric, and each case of that is not a case of violation of establishment. It only becomes so if they try to use government to enforce it. That's the real thing right there, that's the measure. Where is the force? Can you address that?
Click to expand...

I cited case law earlier where is showed that "force" does not need to be there for it to be an establishment clause violation. School teachers can't even lead a voluntary prayer. No prayer. Period.

I'm sorry that in "your opinion" you don't feel like his salary counts, but it DOES.

My tax dollars are being used to promote a religion. THAT IS A VIOLATION.

You said...

"But even if he is saying something, the only way he can do so through government is to enact government to do something."
Click to expand...

What is this "government" you speak of? Rick Perry IS THE GOVERNMENT!

I'm sorry Ikari, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you're arguing against 100 years of case law. Government officials can not use their position to promote a religion, force or not. You can't become Governor and then use that position to initiate prayer rallies for a particular religion.

I'm sorry you disagree with this, but it's the law of our land.
 
Yes, let's make a forum post mocking theism. I am no Christian, but I believe you should consider some religious freedom and leave the subject to personal choice. Either way, he said greater power adhering to your liberal agenda. How hypocritical.. =]
 
Last edited:
Matty said:
Yes, let's make a forum post mocking theism. I am no Christian, but I believe you should consider some religious freedom and leave the subject to personal choice. Either way, he said greater power adhering to your liberal agenda. How hypocritical.. =]
Click to expand...

Matty, did you even read the rest of this thread?

If so, why are you making an argument that others have already made?

Hell... did you read the 3 or 4 posts above the one you just made? I'm thinking not. If you had, you would see that this isn't about "making fun of religion" but about a violation of our constitution.

Nice Straw-man though :)
 
SlackMaster said:
I cited case law earlier where is showed that "force" does not need to be there for it to be an establishment clause violation. School teachers can't even lead a voluntary prayer. No prayer. Period.

I'm sorry that in "your opinion" you don't feel like his salary counts, but it DOES.

My tax dollars are being used to promote a religion. THAT IS A VIOLATION.

You said...



What is this "government" you speak of? Rick Perry IS THE GOVERNMENT!

I'm sorry Ikari, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you're arguing against 100 years of case law. Government officials can not use their position to promote a religion, force or not. You can't become Governor and then use that position to initiate prayer rallies for a particular religion.

I'm sorry you disagree with this, but it's the law of our land.
Click to expand...

It's not 100 years of case law. Because the founders most certainly made appeals to gods in their speeches and emplored the people to keep faith and such. The problem is that over the years, certain abilities have been usurped at the cost of our own rights and liberties. The Lemon Test still requires action by the government. Government action is marked by force. So for there to be an action by the government, there must be a force. If you can't show a force, you can't show an action. If you can't show an action, I find it hard that you can legitimately then claim violation of establishment.

And it's not that his salary doesn't count. Please read. I said that it doesn't account for force in this case. He gets paid by taxpayer dollars to perform duties as governor. But that doesn't mean he doesn't get to run his mouth the same as the rest of us. No, to remain true to the Constitution and the intent of establishment, you MUST have government action. Without it, there is no actual violation of establishment, no matter how much you wish and pray there was. Your tax dollars ARE NOT being used to promote religion in this case. If there was a religious pray event and the government used tax payer dollars to fund THAT, then you can claim establishment. But just because the governor is paid with tax payer dollars does not mean that you can sit there and claim that he can't now run his mouth because he is paid with our money.

If he used the power of his office in any measurable way, I could maybe agree with you. But he didn't. There's no force, there's no action, he did not use his office to carry it out. That's reality. I really wish people could focus more on the broken aspects of our government rather than make ridiculous claims like establishment violations when there has been NO ACTION by the government. Less you want to demonstrate to me that action. Where's the force? Can you show it?

I've asked you repeated times now, and all you've done is dance around the issue. Can you demonstrate force?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It's not 100 years of case law. Because the founders most certainly made appeals to gods in their speeches and emplored the people to keep faith and such. The problem is that over the years, certain abilities have been usurped at the cost of our own rights and liberties. The Lemon Test still requires action by the government. Government action is marked by force. So for there to be an action by the government, there must be a force. If you can't show a force, you can't show an action. If you can't show an action, I find it hard that you can legitimately then claim violation of establishment.

And it's not that his salary doesn't count. Please read. I said that it doesn't account for force in this case. He gets paid by taxpayer dollars to perform duties as governor. But that doesn't mean he doesn't get to run his mouth the same as the rest of us. No, to remain true to the Constitution and the intent of establishment, you MUST have government action. Without it, there is no actual violation of establishment, no matter how much you wish and pray there was. Your tax dollars ARE NOT being used to promote religion in this case. If there was a religious pray event and the government used tax payer dollars to fund THAT, then you can claim establishment. But just because the governor is paid with tax payer dollars does not mean that you can sit there and claim that he can't now run his mouth because he is paid with our money.

If he used the power of his office in any measurable way, I could maybe agree with you. But he didn't. There's no force, there's no action, he did not use his office to carry it out. That's reality. I really wish people could focus more on the broken aspects of our government rather than make ridiculous claims like establishment violations when there has been NO ACTION by the government. Less you want to demonstrate to me that action. Where's the force? Can you show it?

I've asked you repeated times now, and all you've done is dance around the issue. Can you demonstrate force?
Click to expand...

Where was the "government" action in school prayer?

Why can't school teachers lead voluntary prayers at school then?
 
SlackMaster said:
Where was the "government" action in school prayer?
Click to expand...

Public schools are directly funded through tax dollars. Taxation is a form of force, and hence a form of government action.

SlackMaster said:
Why can't school teachers lead voluntary prayers at school then?
Click to expand...

Because people are stupid and can't leave well enough alone. If no one is being forced, there's no problem. If it was nothing more than a silent time before class started; there should have been no problem. It's uppity, smarmy jerks who don't realize that by opening these cans of worms, it's just going to get worse down the road. As you are well demonstrating.

So where's the force in your situation?
 
SlackMaster said:
Woah... Deja Vu. I feel like I've dealt with this argument before.

Oh yea, that's cause I did.
Click to expand...

True, but can you tell me why asking for people to pray is a violation of the establishment clause

23324408.jpg
 
sangha said:
True, but can you tell me why asking for people to pray is a violation of the establishment clause

23324408.jpg
Click to expand...

It isn't. Some people just don't like people praying to God in their secular indoctrination centers. There used to be a day in America when we had religious freedom. Some people just dont' know what the US Constitution says about religion, and they get by with their ignorance because other ignorant people in black robes allow it.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes we do. The word "third" as in "third" day of october was in his hand. The rest was in the hand of William Jackson. The date was left open so that Washington could fill it in when he signed.
Click to expand...
That really doesn't tell us the extent to which he contributed. Were there multiple versions? Outlines? Discussions of content?

RStringfield said:
Sure they did. He did not raise the issue but was forced to respond either by signing or veto. A veto would have likely been overridden and, as I said, he may have gone along with it for political reasons.
Click to expand...
I just don't see it that way. They submitted a joint resolution and it's the President's duty to respond. No different than a joint resolution or bill submitted to the President today.

RStringfield said:
Uhh, no. It was common of deists and those who were sensitive to the fact that not all were Christians, but the Christians did not avoid referring to Christ anymore than they do now.
Click to expand...
Not true. Religion in those days was more about a fear of god than a love of Jesus. Jesus didn't take a central role in American religion until the 19th century with the second great awakening and the rise of evangelism. Whereas Jesus has become the center of christian life for many in this country, this is different than how he was perceived in the colonial period.
 
sangha said:
True, but can you tell me why asking for people to pray is a violation of the establishment clause

23324408.jpg
Click to expand...

No, not really. All he can say is that it does and then dance around any question of what the actual dynamic behind this supposed violation of establishment is.
 
Ikari said:
No, not really. All he can say is that it does and then dance around any question of what the actual dynamic behind this supposed violation of establishment is.
Click to expand...

I agree. How could a politician asking people to pray be a violation of the establishment clause if people are still asking how a politician asking people to pray can be a violation of the establishment clause
 
1Perry said:
Lawsuit tossed.

Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Stop Gov. Perry's Sponsorship of Texas Prayer Rally - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

Yea, I saw this coming. That's how they dealt with the National Day of Prayer. They didn't rule it constitutional, they just ruled that the people suing didn't have standing. I disagree, but what else would you expect from a Texas judge. He was probably one of Perry's buddies. Had the judge ruled in favor of FFRF, he would have been slammed by the media just like the judge who had the balls to rule NDOP unconstitutional. He was looking for any out to not have to rule on the constitutionality and he took it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom