Kansas House prayer gets political

Donc · Mar 17, 2012

Looks to me like the church is sticking its nose in where is doesn’t belong. Don’t mistake me for someone that supports abortion, but I am definitely for keeping religion out of politics.

This political attack, by Father Gordon, should warrant a look into the church’s tax-exempt status. :2mad:

< Topeka — A prayer to open the House session on Thursday included comments about abortion, same-sex marriage and religious freedom. >

< "We ask you to strengthen our understanding of traditional marriage: one man and one woman. >

< We ask you to bring us back to virtuous morals in society, morals that kept us from killing a child in the womb through abortion. >

Kansas House prayer gets political / LJWorld.com

OpportunityCost · Mar 18, 2012

Pick a different church and different pastor or minister to deliver the prayer. The views hes putting forth are religious ones as well as political ones.

BTW high irony alert, youre worried about politics and religion mixing in a state house prayer? What did you think was going to happen? Its a religious ceremony at the state legislature. LOL

Donc · Mar 18, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Pick a different church and different pastor or minister to deliver the prayer. The views hes putting forth are religious ones as well as political ones.

OK..i just picked one for the next session.:2wave:

OpportunityCost · Mar 19, 2012

Which maybe addresses 1/3 of what I said. The absurdity of you whining about separation of church and state with regards to a State House prayer is absurd.

Donc · Mar 19, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Which maybe addresses 1/3 of what I said. The absurdity of you whining about separation of church and state with regards to a State House prayer is absurd.

A rant about about abortion,and same-sex marriage is hardly opening prayer.

katiegrrl0 · Mar 19, 2012

There should be no prayer in a State House unless every time it is brought forth by a different religion. Otherwise the State is showing religious favoritism and supporting a specific church which is frowned upon by the Constitution.

Donc · Mar 19, 2012

katiegrrl0 said:
There should be no prayer in a State House unless every time it is brought forth by a different religion. Otherwise the State is showing religious favoritism and supporting a specific church which is frowned upon by the Constitution.

That,s right.The next step on that slippery slope is...?

katiegrrl0 · Mar 19, 2012

treedancer said:
That,s right.The next step on that slippery slope is...?

The nation turns into a theocracy and starts to look like Iran.

OpportunityCost · Mar 19, 2012

Only thing stupider than this thread and the views you two are espousing is the fact you two are liking each others moronic posts. The hyperbolic knee jerks you two are going for is a bit much for me, why dont you two have a nice conversation and build your like counts. At least then you will get your affirmation bias in for the week.

Ikari · Mar 19, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
What did you think was going to happen? Its a religious ceremony at the state legislature. LOL

I expect the government to behave like rational adults. They are free to pray, but about general guidance and wisdom and blah blah blah. Praying for specific legislation not so much. They know how to act within the boundaries of decorum and respect; they just choose not to. And I don’t think that’s a quality we want in politicians.

OpportunityCost · Mar 19, 2012

Ikari said:
I expect the government to behave like rational adults. They are free to pray, but about general guidance and wisdom and blah blah blah. Praying for specific legislation not so much. They know how to act within the boundaries of decorum and respect; they just choose not to. And I don’t think that’s a quality we want in politicians.

Easy solution: dont invite them back.

Lots of pushback occurring right now in regards to church beliefs in their public works, do you really expect them not to push back?

I have no expectations for politicians. Which is why I think we need to turn them out, either party, after 2 maybe 3 terms.

Donc · Mar 19, 2012

Quote OpportunityCost

Only thing stupider than this thread

Yet here you are, in a thread that you consider stupid…amazing.:shock:

the views you two are espousing is the fact you two are liking each others moronic posts.

Hhmm…giving someone thumbs up for posting something in favor of the First Amendment is considered stupid in your world???

the hyperbolic knee jerks you two are going for is a bit much for me, why dont you two have a nice conversation and build your like counts. At least then you will get your affirmation bias in for the week.

How about you giving us an opinion of how Father James Gordon giving his so-called “A prayer to open the House session “ squares with “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Or, would you be in favor of a law that states, Official prayers in public schools could start with a rant against abortion and same sex marriage?:2wave:

If so would you be in favor of giving those pastors/priest/rabbis…whatever, tax exempt status?

OpportunityCost · Mar 19, 2012

treedancer said:
Yet here you are, in a thread that you consider stupid…amazing.:shock:

Hhmm…giving someone thumbs up for posting something in favor of the First Amendment is considered stupid in your world??? Im struck by the irony of you apparently being unable to reconcile a prayer in a public forum and the content of that prayer. In other words its ok if you like the subject matter.

How about you giving us an opinion of how Father James Gordon giving his so-called “A prayer to open the House session “ squares with “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."
Or you could say no prayer at all in that forum, which I have no problem with.

Or, would you be in favor of a law that states, Official prayers in public schools could start with a rant against abortion and same sex marriage?:2wave:
That wave, is that a strawman waving at you in the distance because I didnt present this argument.

If so would you be in favor of giving those pastors/priest/rabbis…whatever, tax exempt status?

Maybe you havent taken notice and judging by your other hypocritical, hyperbolic rants, you havent, but pontificating political positions from the pulpitt has been going on for a very long time on both sides.

Maybe the problem with this speech is that you dont agree with it.

Donc · Mar 19, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you havent taken notice and judging by your other hypocritical, hyperbolic rants, you havent, but pontificating political positions from the pulpitt has been going on for a very long time on both sides.

Maybe the problem with this speech is that you dont agree with it.

Speaking of “hypocritical, hyperbolic rants “.DUH…maybe you didn’t notice but Father James Gordon wasn’t “pontificating political positions from a pulpit “ but, at the beginning of a Kansas legislature session.

Not surprising that you would miss this though…them blinders on and all.

OpportunityCost · Mar 20, 2012

treedancer said:
Speaking of “hypocritical, hyperbolic rants “.DUH…maybe you didn’t notice but Father James Gordon wasn’t “pontificating political positions from a pulpit “ but, at the beginning of a Kansas legislature session.

Not surprising that you would miss this though…them blinders on and all.

Once again they invited him. His sermons are what they are. They are completely able not to invite him back. I would say be more selective or make it clear that prayers are to be non political in nature or spiritual only in nature...but if they do so, I can see religious people feeling constrained because of the venue, especially on ideas such as abortion. Again, I really think the problem you have is that you do not agree with what he said.

Also again, I have no problem with an absence of a prayer of any sort before a legislative session. Im saying it again because I think you missed it.

Id agree to disagree with you but you shoved a strawman at me instead of staying on point about this particular instance.

Donc · Mar 20, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Once again they invited him. His sermons are what they are. They are completely able not to invite him back. I would say be more selective or make it clear that prayers are to be non political in nature or spiritual only in nature...but if they do so, I can see religious people feeling constrained because of the venue, especially on ideas such as abortion. Again, I really think the problem you have is that you do not agree with what he said.

Also again, I have no problem with an absence of a prayer of any sort before a legislative session. Im saying it again because I think you missed it.

Id agree to disagree with you but you shoved a strawman at me instead of staying on point about this particular instance.

The only strawman in this thread was posted by you, in post# 9, when you got all hot and bothered about a few likes that were passed around…how juvenile.:roll:

As for as Father Gordon being invited by THEY. That’s not quite true. Father Gordon was the guest of Rep. Mike Kiegerl, R-Olathe Ks. Who ask him to lead the daily prayer to open the House session.

People who are invited to lead the prayer to open the House session are also asked to steer away from political topics .Looks like the good Father had another agenda huh?:2wave:

OpportunityCost · Mar 21, 2012

Then do not invite him back.

Or, would you be in favor of a law that states, Official prayers in public schools could start with a rant against abortion and same sex marriage

I did not present this argument. You tried to push that at me, which is the definiton of a strawman.

I would say this much, Mike Kiegerl is probably suitably embarassed and his next choice will be a good deal less contreversial. Which is what this fight is all about in the first place: controlling religious speech. Eventually people push back, and churches are being pushed right now.

Im searching and I dont see a strawman from me, but if you think you see one, go ahead and quote it.

Donc · Mar 21, 2012

QUOTE OpportunityCost

Then do not invite him back.

More than likely he wont be back.

I did not present this argument. You tried to push that at me, which is the definiton of a strawman.

Hardly a strawman with a question mark at the end of the sentance.

I would say this much, Mike Kiegerl is probably suitably embarassed and his next choice will be a good deal less contreversial. Which is what this fight is all about in the first place:

maybe.

controlling religious speech. Eventually people push back, and churches are being pushed right now.

An opening prayer turned, into a politica statement by the invitee is hardly "controlling religious speech ".

Im searching and I dont see a strawman from me, but if you think you see one, go ahead and quote it.

Evidently you don't know what a strawman is. This is from your post #9

STAW="Only thing stupider than this thread and the views you two are espousing is the fact you two are liking each others moronic posts. "

ATTACK ON STRAW=The hyperbolic knee jerks you two are going for is a bit much for me, why dont you two have a nice conversation and build your like counts.:2wave:

OpportunityCost · Mar 21, 2012

treedancer said:
Hardly a strawman with a question mark at the end of the sentance.

An opening prayer turned, into a politica statement by the invitee is hardly "controlling religious speech ".

Evidently you don't know what a strawman is. This is from your post #9

STAW="Only thing stupider than this thread and the views you two are espousing is the fact you two are liking each others moronic posts. "

ATTACK ON STRAW=The hyperbolic knee jerks you two are going for is a bit much for me, why dont you two have a nice conversation and build your like counts.:2wave:

At no point did I distort your position, I did ridicule it. You, on the other hand, pushed forward a question that distorted my position. You presented the 2nd step of strawman by its exact definition. I just didnt fall for it.

Suggesting that he self censor is a method of control isnt it?

Id suggest you stop debating but you havent really started....

Donc · Mar 22, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
At no point did I distort your position, I did ridicule it. You, on the other hand, pushed forward a question that distorted my position. You presented the 2nd step of strawman by its exact definition. I just didnt fall for it.

Suggesting that he self censor is a method of control isnt it?

Id suggest you stop debating but you havent really started....

You consider self-censoring is a method of control? When Father Gordon was told beforehand, by the person that invited him to say the opening prayer and keep his politics out of it? Amazing.

I reiterate my opening statement. "This political attack, by Father Gordon, should warrant a look into the church’s tax-exempt status".

If CHURCHES wants to make political statements like CORP people lets tax them at the CORP rate.:2wave:

OpportunityCost · Mar 22, 2012

treedancer said:
You consider self-censoring is a method of control? When Father Gordon was told beforehand, by the person that invited him to say the opening prayer and keep his politics out of it? Amazing.

I reiterate my opening statement. "This political attack, by Father Gordon, should warrant a look into the church’s tax-exempt status".

If CHURCHES wants to make political statements like CORP people lets tax them at the CORP rate.:2wave:

Hes still undoubtedly representing a church. Again, I feel, the reason you want his speech controlled in the venue is because you do not agree with it. Attacking the tax exempt status makes it even worse, if that isnt presenting a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of religion, I dont know what is. As far as I know if political speech was all it took to revoke tax exempt status, Westboro would have been done ages ago, to take the most extreme example I can think of.

Censoring of any sort, by its definition is control. Im not sure how you define censoring without using the word control when it refers to speech.

beerftw · Mar 22, 2012

i really just think hes butthurt over religion and doesnt want anyone to enjoy it cuz he dont.

politics should not be in a prayer,but saying prayer within government is wrong in itself is wrong.the military has prayers led by chaplains before every mission.

Donc · Mar 22, 2012

QUOTE OpportunityCost

Hes still undoubtedly representing a church.

True. Giving that church a bad name in the process.

Again, I feel, the reason you want his speech controlled in the venue is because you do not agree with it.

Better clean the fog off of the ole crystal ball then. Where do you get the idea that I want to control Father Gordon’s speech? Didn’t say anything about limiting his “speech” just want him to limit his political rants to wherever he feels he has a like-minded audience, be it pulpit,or a park bench In Pershing Square, wherever.

But not before Representatives of people,(when ask to give a prayer:roll

that don’t necessarily believe as he does. It’s best given in the friendly confines of his church, where people are free to walk out (are grab a quick nap) if they don’t agree with the message.

Attacking the tax exempt status makes it even worse, if that isnt presenting a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of religion, I dont know what is. As far as I know if political speech was all it took to revoke tax exempt status,

There already is a law in place here.check it out, I believe that you will see that implies that if anyone wanted to counter Father Gordon’s rants, before a captive audience, they could demand equel time; on the taxpayer’s dime, of course.:2wave:

Westboro would have been done ages ago, to take the most extreme example I can think of.

I don’t have a problem about taxing Westboro…but they have not had been ask to give opening prayer…but if they were I would be willing pay an exorbitant ticket price for admission and bring a big ass bag of popcorn with me.:mrgreen:

Im not sure how you define censoring without using the word control when it refers to speech.

Putting them (wesboro) in a confined, outa the way place is control; duck taping their mouths shut is censoring them.

OpportunityCost · Mar 23, 2012

treedancer said:
True. Giving that church a bad name in the process.
Personal opinion, snarky irrelevance that doesnt make your case.

Better clean the fog off of the ole crystal ball then. Where do you get the idea that I want to control Father Gordon’s speech? Didn’t say anything about limiting his “speech” just want him to limit his political rants to wherever he feels he has a like-minded audience, be it pulpit,or a park bench In Pershing Square, wherever.
Political "rants" are speech. You call them political rants because you do not agree with them. You are really good at being disingenuous and tipping your hand at the same time.

But not before Representatives of people,(when ask to give a prayer:roll that don’t necessarily believe as he does. It’s best given in the friendly confines of his church, where people are free to walk out (are grab a quick nap) if they don’t agree with the message.
The legislature is a public forum. Legislators are still free to leave and furthermore and able to control the content by being choosy with the invites.

There already is a law in place here.check it out, I believe that you will see that implies that if anyone wanted to counter Father Gordon’s rants, before a captive audience, they could demand equel time; on the taxpayer’s dime, of course.:2wave:
Nope, read all 21 situations outlined. Didnt see an equal time clause for invited guests to a state legislature. Maybe you could give the exact example.

I don’t have a problem about taxing Westboro…but they have not had been ask to give opening prayer…but if they were I would be willing pay an exorbitant ticket price for admission and bring a big ass bag of popcorn with me.:mrgreen:
Public forum, public speech. The only rules are those of the legislature and enforceable by not inviting the guest back.

Putting them (wesboro) in a confined, outa the way place is control; duck taping their mouths shut is censoring them.

If you limit their speech forums, you must limit all other groups attempting to speack in those forums. Equal protection under the law. Confining the places they and only they may speak is censorship.

You have to protect speech you dont like as equally as you do the speech you do like. Some would say even more so. The speech problem is self correcting, the legislature wont invite him back if they dont like his speech. Revoking his church's 501c is an overstep. Right now, churchs' ability to engage in charitable works and mainting the tenets of the church is being affected by political decisions, they are an affected party and have the right to speak on it. You have the right to be offended, you do not have the right to shut him up unless and until you are injured by the speech. Toughen up. He said something you didnt like. Tough. Free speech is like that.

jet57 · Mar 23, 2012

treedancer said:
Looks to me like the church is sticking its nose in where is doesn’t belong. Don’t mistake me for someone that supports abortion, but I am definitely for keeping religion out of politics.

This political attack, by Father Gordon, should warrant a look into the church’s tax-exempt status. :2mad:

< Topeka — A prayer to open the House session on Thursday included comments about abortion, same-sex marriage and religious freedom. >

< "We ask you to strengthen our understanding of traditional marriage: one man and one woman. >

< We ask you to bring us back to virtuous morals in society, morals that kept us from killing a child in the womb through abortion. >

Kansas House prayer gets political / LJWorld.com

And so, that's Kansas!

Kansas House prayer gets political

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever

Donc

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever

OpportunityCost

Ikari

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

Donc

OpportunityCost

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Donc

OpportunityCost

jet57