• 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!

Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting [W:93:217]

Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Kreton said:
Implications? You mean like people who hate on anything religious because its religious and attempt to suppress it at every opportunity constantly whining?
Click to expand...

I mean that you want to impose your religious rituals on people who either don't subscribe to the way you pray...or those who don't subscribe to religion.

The people who can't cope or problem solve or function in a secular world are the whiners.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Removable Mind said:
I mean that you want to impose your religious rituals on people who either don't subscribe to the way you pray...or those who don't subscribe to religion.

The people who can't cope or problem solve or function in a secular world are the whiners.
Click to expand...

(In this instance) Noone is trying to force anything on you. THEY are praying among themselves. For their benefit. It has nothing to do with you.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Moon said:
What was the harm they experienced?
Click to expand...

I'm not getting into that with you. You know what harm is. There's no need for me to explain it.

Along with other angry and concerned parents the issue has long since been addressed with the school principal, the superintendent and the nutcase fire and brimstone preacher.

What I'm trying to get to is that freedom of speech, expression and religion harm no one. Being offended is not harming you. Hearing a prayer from another religion is not harming anyone. I think it would do people a whole lot more good if they were exposed more often to things with which they disagree.
Click to expand...

How then does not having public prayer in the context of the OP harm anyone?

If I agreed with everything I heard in Christian prayers I'd still be a Christian. If I agree with everything I hear in Muslim prayers I'd be a Muslim. The prayers don't personally offend me. Public prayers that preach and denigrate, damn and condemn have no place in publicly funded meetings, events, venues. Therein lies the rub.

What do you suggest should happen when a religionist disrespects others during a public prayer by tramping into damning alcoholics to hell, rebuking homosexuals and accusing Muslims of being godless heathens?

I can see the political maneuvering to get "the right" religious leader on the dais to provide the prayer before a local council meeting that will address the location and/or operation of an abortion clinic. If the religious leader strays even a little bit into the issue of abortion the prayer becomes political. Do you stop the religious leader mid prayer and tell him to sit down and be quiet? Or do you wait until he/she is finished and admonish them never to do it again. No harm, no foul. It won't be viewed as no harm, no foul by the people who oppose the references made in the prayer.

Political prayer posturing in public meetings is and should be a very real concern in everything from zoning to funding school vouchers.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Kreton said:
This isnt a matter of religious extremists. So I am going to exclude that.

To your other point that noone attends them, yes they absolutely do. Especially in smaller towns. And if those people who are attending choose to say a prayer how does that infringe on the rights of anyone? How does it actually negatively effect anyone? Truth is it doesn't. These people are the people of that town mostly coming to have their voice heard on an issue and/or offer ideas on how to fix/address certain issues. Prayer does have a mental effect on those who believe it. It may just be in their heads, noone really knows. But it may help them personally. And with these meetings individual contributions matter. These individuals matter.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly religion doesn't matter, it is prayer that makes the difference. In that regard you'd be fine with predominantly Muslim prayers prior to most of your town hall meetings?

I could see an issue if they forced everyone to pray with them. Or if they refused to hear anyone who didnt pray. Soemthing along those lines, yes that would be wrong. But them choosing to is not wrong.
Click to expand...

Your experience is completely different than mine. I have served on councils, committees, task forces, commissions and even a school board in small towns and large cities and at state level as well and unless their are hot items on the agenda relatively few people show up. I provided a few examples of what might/probably will happen as a result of the SC decision. You conveniently ignored those scenarios.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Removable Mind said:
I mean that you want to impose your religious rituals on people who either don't subscribe to the way you pray...or those who don't subscribe to religion.

The people who can't cope or problem solve or function in a secular world are the whiners.
Click to expand...

Seems that you are whining.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

It is only the minority demanding things of the majority when someone else is the minority. When you become the minority, then "they" are taking over.

I remember vividly the story of Antelope, Oregon back in the 1980's. Quite a mess: Rajneeshpuram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I am no grammar nazi, but I am compelled to point out that "noone" is not a word.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Risky Thicket said:
If I understand you correctly religion doesn't matter, it is prayer that makes the difference. In that regard you'd be fine with predominantly Muslim prayers prior to most of your town hall meetings?
Click to expand...

I've already answered that. If there was a group of people who wanted to say a muslim prayer before, after or during I wouldn't care less. I doubt most people would other than the religious intolerant.

Your experience is completely different than mine. I have served on councils, committees, task forces, commissions and even a school board in small towns and large cities and at state level as well and unless their are hot items on the agenda relatively few people show up. I provided a few examples of what might/probably will happen as a result of the SC decision. You conveniently ignored those scenarios.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I have attended town hall meetings as well. And generally there is a turn out.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Removable Mind said:
You don't have the capacity to grasp the implications related to this decision by the S.C.
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who has thus far lacked the capacity to actually reply to comments made to them? That ad hominem personal insult is rich. The last resort of those who can't convince anyone that what "offends" them should be the law? Ad hominem personal attacks. You're really "winning" the debate now!
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting [W:93]

MrVicchio said:
Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting - Washington Times


Too bad they forgot about high school football game prayers. ... /smh
Click to expand...

What a lot of people don't understand is that the government cannot endorse a religion, nor can they prohibit an individual from practicing their religion (even if they're politicians - which the coach is not but I thought it was necessary to add).

The First Amendment defends freedom of religion and forbids the government from sponsoring a particular religion and forcing that religion on the populace.

Obviously if a student didn't want to partake in the prayer that would be a First Amendment violation, however if all the ball players by their own will participated in the prayer that is perfectly fine.

The First Amendment is clear - our government cannot establish a national religion and cannot force individuals to adhere to a specific religion.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Risky Thicket said:
I'm not getting into that with you. You know what harm is. There's no need for me to explain it.

Along with other angry and concerned parents the issue has long since been addressed with the school principal, the superintendent and the nutcase fire and brimstone preacher.


How then does not having public prayer in the context of the OP harm anyone?

If I agreed with everything I heard in Christian prayers I'd still be a Christian. If I agree with everything I hear in Muslim prayers I'd be a Muslim. The prayers don't personally offend me. Public prayers that preach and denigrate, damn and condemn have no place in publicly funded meetings, events, venues. Therein lies the rub.

What do you suggest should happen when a religionist disrespects others during a public prayer by tramping into damning alcoholics to hell, rebuking homosexuals and accusing Muslims of being godless heathens?

I can see the political maneuvering to get "the right" religious leader on the dais to provide the prayer before a local council meeting that will address the location and/or operation of an abortion clinic. If the religious leader strays even a little bit into the issue of abortion the prayer becomes political. Do you stop the religious leader mid prayer and tell him to sit down and be quiet? Or do you wait until he/she is finished and admonish them never to do it again. No harm, no foul. It won't be viewed as no harm, no foul by the people who oppose the references made in the prayer.

Political prayer posturing in public meetings is and should be a very real concern in everything from zoning to funding school vouchers.
Click to expand...
The fact is that we all know what harm is. So you can't or won't explain how you or your children will be harmed by prayer. OK. But you then want to turn around and ask how not having prayer before a meeting is harming people? Who said it was? Anyone in this thread? Then get out of here with that self serving strawman.

You can "see" the political maneuvering to get a "religonist" to the dais to provide a prayer before a local council meeting? :lamo First off, where do you imagine city council meetings have a "dais" that prayers or anything else is conducted at or on? I have never even seen a religous leader or clergy lead a prayer before a council meeting. I've been to hundreds if not thousands of such meetings. I've never seen anyone but council members lead the "Lord's Prayer" before a meeting. Before the meeting. So your vision of these "religionist " who are going to take over and interject all manner of imagined sermons into council meetings is balderdash. Where do you get this stuff at? Got even a single example of this happening anywhere? The suit this ruling is associated with regards the reading of the Lord's Prayer and that is it. Period. There is no threat of "religionist" enforcing sermons about abortion during the lord's prayer or during a meeting. Seriously, "religionist " jockeying to get the coveted spot reciting the Lord's Prayer before city council meetings, so they can interject abortion and damming alcoholism into meetings? Even if such lunacy were realistic guess what? Every city council has polices and policeman on hand to enforce them, if ever someone did try to do this fantasy sermonizing you speak of. :roll:

Frankly you make a good case for why hyperbolic claims like yours carry no weight. You have this fantasy problem you warn of, about "rreligionist " imposing abortion and damning alcoholics to hell from the dais at city council meetings. What next? These religionist will be doing all of this from a replica of the Iron Throne of Westeros at city council meetings?:shock:
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Filthy McNasty said:
The fact is that we all know what harm is. So you can't or won't explain how you or your children will be harmed by prayer. OK. But you then want to turn around and ask how not having prayer before a meeting is harming people? Who said it was? Anyone in this thread? Then get out of here with that self serving strawman.

You can "see" the political maneuvering to get a "religonist" to the dais to provide a prayer before a local council meeting? :lamo First off, where do you imagine city council meetings have a "dais" that prayers or anything else is conducted at or on? I have never even seen a religous leader or clergy lead a prayer before a council meeting. I've been to hundreds if not thousands of such meetings. I've never seen anyone but council members lead the "Lord's Prayer" before a meeting. Before the meeting. So your vision of these "religionist " who are going to take over and interject all manner of imagined sermons into council meetings is balderdash. Where do you get this stuff at? Got even a single example of this happening anywhere? The suit this ruling is associated with regards the reading of the Lord's Prayer and that is it. Period. There is no threat of "religionist" enforcing sermons about abortion during the lord's prayer or during a meeting. Seriously, "religionist " jockeying to get the coveted spot reciting the Lord's Prayer before city council meetings, so they can interject abortion and damming alcoholism into meetings? Even if such lunacy were realistic guess what? Every city council has polices and policeman on hand to enforce them, if ever someone did try to do this fantasy sermonizing you speak of. :roll:

Frankly you make a good case for why hyperbolic claims like yours carry no weight. You have this fantasy problem you warn of, about "rreligionist " imposing abortion and damning alcoholics to hell from the dais at city council meetings. What next? These religionist will be doing all of this from a replica of the Iron Throne of Westeros at city council meetings?:shock:
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath. It's just an internet forum.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Risky Thicket said:
Take a deep breath. It's just an internet forum.
Click to expand...
In other words you figured out the obvious fact that "religionist" are not jockeying for position on "the dais" to interject abortion or sermons about damning alcoholics to hell, into the lord's prayer before council meetings.:sarcasticclap
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Okay, I am totally and unapologetically NON-religious, as is my husband, and we were both raised by parents who "believed". We have chosen not to expose our kids to religion preferring instead that they decide when they're older of and what religion they will honor/follow.

However....I am never offended if they are exposed to religion and can't imagine why anyone would think they are harmed by someone praying, or that they are being "forced" into exposure to someone else's religion because of prayer in a group setting. Hell we're "exposed" to **** all day long against our will if you want to look at it that way. If I said I think my kids would be harmed by seeing two women sticking their tongues down each other's throats in public, or by a woman whipping out her breast on a plane to nurse her baby, some people would be all over me calling me everything from a bigot to a bitch (I don't have a problem with either one, BTW, just tossing out examples).

It's also my opinion that some people hide behind the "separation of chuch and state" to justify their contempt for people with strong religious beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I'm not the biggest Bill Mahr fan but he did say something (and at times) I agree with.

Mahr: "I'm and Atheist not a Vampire"

I think that sums up the whole anti-religion crowed.

You wont melt if you see a crucifix or a 6 point star - nor does it mean the government is endorsing a religion because a community voted to erect such monuments.

If you're an atheist and don't believe in religion then why do religious symbols bother you considering you don't believe in them in the first place.

A lot of progressive believe Obama is the best thing since sliced bread but when I see his mug on TV talking **** I don't feel the need to change my politics nor to I believe he is at all "converting me" with his nonsense --- Also, I just change the channel... That was just an analogy because I don't watch TV.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Moderator's Warning:
American said:
Seems that you are whining.
Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:
yeah, I learned how from you.
Click to expand...

Filthy McNasty said:
Coming from someone who has thus far lacked the capacity to actually reply to comments made to them? That ad hominem personal insult is rich. The last resort of those who can't convince anyone that what "offends" them should be the law? Ad hominem personal attacks. You're really "winning" the debate now!
Click to expand...

The personal comments stop here. As per the earlier warning, stick closely to the topic which is NOT each other. Thread bans and/or points will be awarded for those who make zero-content/baiting/personal comment posts or for responding in-kind to posts like that. This is a zero tolerance warning.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

tres borrachos said:
However....I am never offended if they are exposed to religion and can't imagine why anyone would think they are harmed by someone praying, or that they are being "forced" into exposure to someone else's religion because of prayer in a group setting.

It's also my opinion that some people hide behind the "separation of chuch and state" to justify their contempt for people with strong religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your comment - I see willingly tolerating displays of the locally dominant religion as nothing more than good citizenship, good manners, being a decent neighbor, etc.

But in the case they do cite examples where the prayer leader requested public participation - all stand, bow your heads, etc. This requires an affirmation, or absence, that you're part of the dominant 'club.' And if you have important business in front of the council, who are all pious members in this club, it's understandable some might believe they might not get a fair shake or their odds decrease when you declare up front you're an outsider.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

JasperL said:
I agree with most of your comment - I see willingly tolerating displays of the locally dominant religion as nothing more than good citizenship, good manners, being a decent neighbor, etc.

But in the case they do cite examples where the prayer leader requested public participation - all stand, bow your heads, etc. This requires an affirmation, or absence, that you're part of the dominant 'club.' And if you have important business in front of the council, who are all pious members in this club, it's understandable some might believe they might not get a fair shake or their odds decrease when you declare up front you're an outsider.
Click to expand...

It's funny. I'm a Christian (I don't practice as much as I should) but I see signs and billboards preaching ideas that I don't agree with personally and at times contradict my Christian beliefs, however those groups have every right to display their message - that is what makes the United States so great - First Amendment rights, yet atheists get bent when Christians advertise their ideas?

In my opinion it appears Atheists have a war against Christianity and potentially Judaism, however it seems Islam is immune from their disgust and hate - and that, within itself raises a lot of questions as to the motives of the Atheists - because the way I see it they're really not "non believers" they just hate CERTAIN religions. Now why - I can only speculate but I can only assume by their actions they have a vendetta against Jews and Christians.

Now of course I cannot claim every Atheist adheres to such a radical ideal but I do believe there is a majority that does.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

JasperL said:
I agree with most of your comment - I see willingly tolerating displays of the locally dominant religion as nothing more than good citizenship, good manners, being a decent neighbor, etc.

But in the case they do cite examples where the prayer leader requested public participation - all stand, bow your heads, etc. This requires an affirmation, or absence, that you're part of the dominant 'club.' And if you have important business in front of the council, who are all pious members in this club, it's understandable some might believe they might not get a fair shake or their odds decrease when you declare up front you're an outsider.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and I agree with that. I've been in certain situations where others bow their head in prayer (saying grace and whatnot) and my husband, kids or I bow our heads - sort of - but don't pray. We have also stood for certain things, such as prayer at weddings and even Eagle Scout ceremonies. We do it, but are silent. But it still doesn't offend me or harm me in any way.

I actually respect people who hold religious beliefs, no matter what they are - Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. I think those beliefs are good ones and I've seen people on the hairy edge of disaster turn their lives around when they find God.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Mr.Nick said:
It's funny. I'm a Christian (I don't practice as much as I should) but I see signs and billboards preaching ideas that I don't agree with personally and at times contradict my Christian beliefs, however those groups have every right to display their message - that is what makes the United States so great - First Amendment rights, yet atheists get bent when Christians advertise their ideas?

In my opinion it appears Atheists have a war against Christianity and potentially Judaism, however it seems Islam is immune from their disgust and hate - and that, within itself raises a lot of questions as to the motives of the Atheists - because the way I see it they're really not "non believers" they just hate CERTAIN religions. Now why - I can only speculate but I can only assume by their actions they have a vendetta against Jews and Christians.

Now of course I cannot claim every Atheist adheres to such a radical ideal but I do believe there is a majority that does.
Click to expand...

I share your opinion. My husband & I neither one of us believes, but we completely respect those who do, and see most atheists as being very very intolerant of religious folks, to the degree that they show unabashed hatred towards them. It's ugly.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I think we all can pretty much agree that the nation was founded and structured under the tenets of Freemasonry.

Freemasons have long proclaimed that no important undertakings should begin without the blessing of deity.

Granted, no specific deity was endorsed, but prayer was encouraged nonetheless.

Therefore, in my opinion, there is precedent and tradition to favor prayer in meetings of importance in American society.

Don't **** with the Masons. :mrgreen:

So mote it be. ;)
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

tres borrachos said:
I understand what you're saying and I agree with that. I've been in certain situations where others bow their head in prayer (saying grace and whatnot) and my husband, kids or I bow our heads - sort of - but don't pray. We have also stood for certain things, such as prayer at weddings and even Eagle Scout ceremonies. We do it, but are silent. But it still doesn't offend me or harm me in any way.

I actually respect people who hold religious beliefs, no matter what they are - Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. I think those beliefs are good ones and I've seen people on the hairy edge of disaster turn their lives around when they find God.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with people reaching out to God. It's when the reaching out turns into shoveling Him down our throats that I begin to object.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

tres borrachos said:
I share your opinion. My husband & I neither one of us believes, but we completely respect those who do, and see most atheists as being very very intolerant of religious folks, to the degree that they show unabashed hatred towards them. It's ugly.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it's the proselytizing that annoys the non believers.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

AliHajiSheik said:
So you are advocating only the prayers of the majority of the group to begin the meeting, but are against more people praying in their own faith before the meeting? Yes, I have an issue with that. I would be against it if you were in the minority and don't want to hear some Hindu prayer (or whatever, assuming you are not Hindu) and not hear your own prayer said. It is called respect and if you don't respect the religions of others before a civic meeting, then why should they respect yours.
Click to expand...

If I'm in India I would respect the customs and wishes of the majority there. If I am attending a meeting in a predominantly Jewish community I would respect their customs. If I am in Provo Utah I would respect a prayer by Mormons. But you don't respect the majority of Christians who want to have a prayer, so why do you accuse me of being disrespectful?

AliHajiSheik said:
You are looking for a reason to think I'm against you, your God, or your prayers. I'm not. Schedule the prayers so that they end at the meeting beginning and all if fine with me. I was making a fricking suggestion to compromise. You want it your way and view anything else as an infringement of your right to pray.
Click to expand...

That is not a compromise. In the OP it was stated that the prayer began before the meeting, that is the normal custom, probably the same for most religions. Like I said, if the prayer bothers you don't enter the meeting until after the prayer, or you could just ignore the prayer. Sitting in your seat in silence would not disrupt what others are choosing to do, why isn't that good enough for you?

AliHajiSheik said:
My beliefs--Freedom of religion and freedom from religion--just don't impose on my time.
Click to expand...

The time in question belongs to others as well. Don't impose your demands on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom