• 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!

Kansas House prayer gets political

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

Considering the religious nature of the church and family i was raised in: I think what's actually strange is that churches have kept a lid on their view to avoid paying some taxes. I think churches have sold their selves out for some savings and apparently they've suffered for it.

If I had to keep my opinions to myself to avoid paying taxes - I'd be shelling out dough left and right like Sam on ICarly.
 
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.


Protecting FREE SPEECH and keeping religion out of politics, not controlling religious speech is my objective.


You on the other hand…going back thru your post,Kinda looks like you’re in favor mixing politics with religion. You started out in post #2 stating, “The views he’s putting forth are religious ones as well as political ones. Connecting the dots.

In #4 its this” The absurdity of you whining about separation of church and state with regards to a State House prayer is absurd.”



Another dot. Post#13 “where you state, “pontificating political positions from the pulpit has been going on for a very long time on both sides “ of course you had several add homs thrown in that post for good measure.


What could be a better way of keeping religion out of politics than the threat of loosing their tax-exempt status? That would not keep them from expressing their views on a subject but it would keep them from spouting them in taxpayer-supported venues.:2wave:
 
Considering the religious nature of the church and family i was raised in: I think what's actually strange is that churches have kept a lid on their view to avoid paying some taxes. I think churches have sold their selves out for some savings and apparently they've suffered for it.

If I had to keep my opinions to myself to avoid paying taxes - I'd be shelling out dough left and right like Sam on ICarly.


That’s why some churches (mine) refuse any and all federal money because of the strings attached to it.
 
My state is sooo stupid.
 
That’s why some churches (mine) refuse any and all federal money because of the strings attached to it.

I think it's funny that a lot of people seem void of the knowledge that the only reason why there's any such 'separation' is so churches qualify for a tax break. . . it's apparent that this has been the 'default norm' for so long that people assumed it was just outrightly unethical, at least - or even illegal perhaps?
 
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.

State House prayers are absurd.
 
Protecting FREE SPEECH and keeping religion out of politics, not controlling religious speech is my objective.
Religious speech isnt free speech?


You on the other hand…going back thru your post,Kinda looks like you’re in favor mixing politics with religion. You started out in post #2 stating, “The views he’s putting forth are religious ones as well as political ones. Connecting the dots.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to restrict what churches talk about and force their works to conform to your political views. They are an affected party, they directly have the right to talk about things that affect them.

In #4 its this” The absurdity of you whining about separation of church and state with regards to a State House prayer is absurd.”
Free speech is whole hog, either you have it or you do not, unless it damages another. If you are going to have a State House prayer, you release control over the content or it isnt free.



Another dot. Post#13 “where you state, “pontificating political positions from the pulpit has been going on for a very long time on both sides “ of course you had several add homs thrown in that post for good measure.
Characterizing your words is not an ad hom, if you believe differently I urge you to hit the triangle and issue a report. Im going to turn your argument against you now, should primarily black churches be restricted from speaking on civil rights legislation? Its political is it not? I believe your problem is entirely about whose ox is being gored by the speech.


What could be a better way of keeping religion out of politics than the threat of loosing their tax-exempt status? That would not keep them from expressing their views on a subject but it would keep them from spouting them in taxpayer-supported venues.
"threats" to free speech are the exact sort of thing that the chilling effect upon it is designed to thwart. Again, Im not a church advocate, Im a speech advocate, whether I like the speech or not. You are free to counter someone's speech with your own, you are not free to prevent them from expressing theirs.
 
Quote tree

Protecting FREE SPEECH and keeping religion out of politics, not controlling religious speech is my objective.
Quote OpportunityCost

Religious speech isnt free speech?

Not when politics is in the mix, in a taxpayer supported venue, then it takes on a CORP TAX RATE in tree’s world.

Quote OpportunityCost

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Strawcake??:shock:


You want to restrict what churches talk about and force their works to conform to your political views.

Crystal ball?:shock:


They are an affected party, they directly have the right to talk about things that affect them.

Nothing wrong with talk, just that there is an place for it…when it’s in a state/federal building, with representatives that may or may not agree with the political ax that you happen to be grinding that day, imo is not the appropriate venue.


Free speech is whole hog, either you have it or you do not, unless it damages another. If you are going to have a State House prayer, you release control over the content or it isnt free.

GOOD, in trees world, the priest and the flock that he represents just got hit with the CORP tax rate. And not the GE rates, the real world rate.


Im going to turn your argument against you now, should primarily black churches be restricted from speaking on civil rights legislation? Its political is it not? I believe your problem is entirely about whose ox is being gored by the speech.

Right back atcha…When did a black pastor that was ask to pray at a state house session start grinding his fav ax?:2wave:
 
Not when politics is in the mix, in a taxpayer supported venue, then it takes on a CORP TAX RATE in tree’s world.
The venue is irrelevant, speech rights are not restricted by location. Thats in the real world.



I edited out your snark. Im giving your posts respect, grant me the same courtesy.



Nothing wrong with talk, just that there is an place for it…when it’s in a state/federal building, with representatives that may or may not agree with the political ax that you happen to be grinding that day, imo is not the appropriate venue.
"Appropriate" is another way of saying censoring.




GOOD, in trees world, the priest and the flock that he represents just got hit with the CORP tax rate. And not the GE rates, the real world rate.
Why? Because he commented on religious issues that are also political issues? Because they are religious issues as well. You want to silence religious speech because it is also, in part, political. But if a church representative cannot speck on religious matters, as defined by a secular government, is their speech not being restricted in their bailiwick?




Right back atcha…When did a black pastor that was ask to pray at a state house session start grinding his fav ax?:2wave:
Guess thats the difference between you and me, his speech should be protected and it does touch on the religious as well as the political and should be respected as such. I have no desire to restrict his speech, but if you were consistent, you would. Proving that its about the political views being espoused for you and not the speech itself.
 
QUOTE OpportunityCost

Guess thats the difference between you and me, his speech should be protected and it does touch on the religious as well as the political and should be respected as such.


True, I believe in what a rural preacher said a couple of K years ago.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's,"

the First Amendment of our Constitution says it a bit differently "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

On the other hand,you seem quite content with letting the camel of religion poke its nose in our governmental tent, under the guise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.



I have no desire to restrict his speech, but if you were consistent, you would.

Where do you get the idea that i want to restrict speech?


Proving that its about the political views being espoused for you and not the speech itself.


Strange how you keep dancing around and taking out of context what I have posted…repeatedly. The ole obtuse defenses eh?:2wave:
 
Last edited:
If you are going to be this dishonest, Im done with you. You have argued throughout the thread that the prayer should touch on nothing political, including things that can affect a church directly and are moral issues that churches also have to deal with. The issues mentioned in the prayer are moral ones, as well as political ones.
 
If you are going to be this dishonest, Im done with you. You have argued throughout the thread that the prayer should touch on nothing political, including things that can affect a church directly and are moral issues that churches also have to deal with. The issues mentioned in the prayer are moral ones, as well as political ones.



When ask to give a prayer in taxpayer-supported venues, damn right, I expect that they should be held to not poppen off on whatever ax they’re grinding at the moment. If you consider that restricting speech then the “ dishonestly” in on your lap, not mine.
 
When ask to give a prayer in taxpayer-supported venues, damn right, I expect that they should be held to not poppen off on whatever ax they’re grinding at the moment. If you consider that restricting speech then the “ dishonestly” in on your lap, not mine.

So what youre saying is you want to restrict speech :p
Got it.

Limiting expression because its controversial is not a reason its a rationalization. Abortion is a moral religious issue just as much as it is political one. Why cant he speak about it? The fact that its a tax payer supported venue is completely beside the point, you either ban religious speech completely or you leave it completely alone---trying to find a middle ground is just hypocritical. Ban it completely or leave it completely alone and let the invites work as a limiting factor, the politicians in the congressional body will make decisions on whats over the line and what isnt.

Restricting someone's speech because you do not like it is not a valid reason to silence it. Controversy is not a reason to silence it. Whats that leave? You think its too political? Or you think its too critical of your views?

Ill repeat my position over again, ban it completely or leave it alone completely. Whats your position? Control his speech? Well, looky-looky, thats censorship.
 
So what youre saying is you want to restrict speech :p
Got it.

Limiting expression because its controversial is not a reason its a rationalization. Abortion is a moral religious issue just as much as it is political one. Why cant he speak about it? The fact that its a tax payer supported venue is completely beside the point, you either ban religious speech completely or you leave it completely alone---trying to find a middle ground is just hypocritical. Ban it completely or leave it completely alone and let the invites work as a limiting factor, the politicians in the congressional body will make decisions on whats over the line and what isnt.

Restricting someone's speech because you do not like it is not a valid reason to silence it. Controversy is not a reason to silence it. Whats that leave? You think its too political? Or you think its too critical of your views?

Ill repeat my position over again, ban it completely or leave it alone completely. Whats your position? Control his speech? Well, looky-looky, thats censorship.


No, what I’m saying is that I agree with the court ruling In “Everson v. Board of Education” and associate Justice Hugo Black, when he stated the following.
“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. “

Note last sentence in the paragraph above? Slightest breach. The rant by Father Gordon, before the Kansas Legislators ranked as an attempted breach imo.:2wave:
 
This is EXACTLY the kind of people that Jesus was talking about when he said: " And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward."
 
No, what I’m saying is that I agree with the court ruling In “Everson v. Board of Education” and associate Justice Hugo Black, when he stated the following.


Note last sentence in the paragraph above? Slightest breach. The rant by Father Gordon, before the Kansas Legislators ranked as an attempted breach imo.:2wave:

Then there should not be a prayer at all. If the prayer is permitted at all, the content is not allowed to be then be censored, limiting the speech already being allowed. As I said before you want to both allow the speech and limit it. If you allow the speech you cannot then limit it. You are trying to apply separation to limit speech that has already been excepted. You dont get to pick and choose, you allow without restrictions or you dont allow it at all. You are wildly inconsistent in application of the law. Let the invitiations make the decision, letting the law pick what speech is and isnt allowed would be censorship at best.
 
Quote OpportunityCost

Then there should not be a prayer at all.

So be it. If they can’t keep there political axes on the back burner long enough to give blessing to a legislative assembly then they have bigger problems than prayer can help. maybe they should see a shrink.

If the prayer is permitted at all, the content is not allowed to be then be censored, limiting the speech already being allowed.

WTF is this jumbled package of ****? :shock:If the wingers want to say a political prayer then they should go to the Salvation Army bright and early on a Sunday morning and give a blessing and a political rant.I’m sure the bloodshot eyeballs peering back at him will be thankful.

As I said before you want to both allow the speech and limit it.

And as I said before that’s BS.

If you allow the speech you cannot then limit it.


Sure you can, it happens all the time.

You are trying to apply separation to limit speech that has already been excepted.


Explain how it has been accepted in the OP.

You dont get to pick and choose, you allow without restrictions or you dont allow it at all.

Sorry you think that way… you’re in the minority. thankfully.

You are wildly inconsistent in application of the law.


What law? Surely you’re not referring to the First Amendment. Did you forget the part about, that wall must be kept high and impregnable? We could not approve the slightest breach.

Let the invitiations make the decision,

In the Kansas case, that’s what they did but Father Gordon ignored their request.

letting the law pick what speech is and isnt allowed would be censorship at best.

Like I said before there are plenty of park benches in Pershing Square…might have to kick a few winos off first but I’m sure they will appreciate the rant as much as the Kansas legislators appreciated it.:roll:
 
You are already allowing the breach in allowing the prayer in the House at ALL. You then want to exacerbate things by mixing religion and government further by allowing or disallowing speech by deciding what is and is not the church's business. Ive spelled this out several times, you dont seem to be getting it.

WTF is this jumbled package of ****? If the wingers want to say a political prayer then they should go to the Salvation Army bright and early on a Sunday morning and give a blessing and a political rant.I’m sure the bloodshot eyeballs peering back at him will be thankful.
Dont be a jerk. It IS a forum rule.

Sorry you think that way… you’re in the minority. thankfully.
DBAJ...again.
Like I said before there are plenty of park benches in Pershing Square…might have to kick a few winos off first but I’m sure they will appreciate the rant as much as the Kansas legislators appreciated it.
and....again. Stop fishing, Im not taking the bait. You arent debating, youre trying to provoke me. You do it again in this thread and I will report you.

In the Kansas case, that’s what they did but Father Gordon ignored their request.
They invited him, that says someone wanted to hear him speak. If hes not invited back, that shows others where the line is.

What law? Surely you’re not referring to the First Amendment. Did you forget the part about, that wall must be kept high and impregnable? We could not approve the slightest breach.
Explain how it has been accepted in the OP.
Applies for both qutoed sections :Everson v. Board of Education was in 47, why is there still a prayer in the House? That seems to be a breach. Which has been my point all along. Once the breach is allowed the same rule cannot then be re-applied to evoke control over the content of the breach. Dont allow the breach at all or dont try to control it all. Be consistent. You are not being consistent at all.

Sure you can, it happens all the time.
Examples please.
 
This is EXACTLY the kind of people that Jesus was talking about when he said: " And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward."

That makes no sense - everyone who goes to church to pray and commune is a hypocrite? Or what?
 
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

Religion is mixing in the state politics
 
Back
Top Bottom