• 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!

Federal court halts Christian prayers at North Carolina county meetings [W:656]

Ikari said:
You can use this same argument against gays too. It's not a good argument. The rights and liberties of the individual must be upheld.
Click to expand...

Using government platforms as a means of voicing one's religious beliefs is a perfect example of exploitation and a very intrusive means of proselytization. It is also elitist and prideful.
 
Hatuey said:
As these adults are pushing their religious nonsense on a secular meeting. There is no difference. Both are based on one simple notion: Secular event. Your religion? Personal matter. Pray on your own and keep it outside of secular events. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Let's make it illegal to talk about football in public, too.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Using government platforms as a means of voicing one's religious beliefs is a perfect example of exploitation and a very intrusive means of proselytization. It is also elitist and prideful.
Click to expand...

No different than using a government platform to promote gay marriage.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
So much for free speech and freedom of religion.....
Click to expand...

You have freedom of religion, you just don't have the freedom to push it on others. Try again.
 
Knowledge=power said:
So then, by your terms, a Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Jew, or even an Atheist, could come into your church and open the sermon with a prayer from their religion?
Click to expand...

Wait, now you're talking a church. That's different from a county meeting. Don't twist an ankle on that spin.
 
Hatuey said:
Gays invite you to pray? What is it gays are inviting you to engage in at a government function? This has been brought up before but I'm not sure what people are referring to. What are gays inviting everyone to at council meetings or government functions?
Click to expand...

Don't be daft. If you take the time to read in context, you'd understand what I was responding to. Stupid comments will get you no where, read and respond with intelligent posts which address the context. The line was "The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason. There is no need to involve everyone in the room when you feel the need to pray. There is no need to say the words out loud. If one is truly comfortable with his religion, a silent prayer is more than satisfactory. The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason."

You see that? I quoted it in my response so there would be no confusion as to what I was referencing. That general statement applies to a lot of groups, as humans in general like to be in groups and are often loud. "The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason". It can be said against the homosexual community who have large parades and events in public. It can be said of pro-lifers and pro-choicers and pretty much any group you want. Which is why it's a bad argument, which is clear from the context of my post and anyone with enough intellectual honesty to respond within coherent and cognizant context.
 
Cephus said:
You have freedom of religion, you just don't have the freedom to push it on others. Try again.
Click to expand...

Nor do people have freedom to push their religionism on others.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Using government platforms as a means of voicing one's religious beliefs is a perfect example of exploitation and a very intrusive means of proselytization. It is also elitist and prideful.
Click to expand...

You made no mention of that. And elitist and prideful? Welcome to the human race, buddy. So long as they rule by laws of man and not laws of gods, it's fine. No skin off my teeth.
 
apdst said:
No different than using a government platform to promote gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is on a government platform because it is a political issue, because marriage has legal benefits and is blatantly discriminatory towards homosexuals.

Religion is a not relevant to real world issues.
 
Knowledge=power said:
So then, by your terms, a Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Jew, or even an Atheist, could come into your church and open the sermon with a prayer from their religion?
Click to expand...

Well Church is private property, so it's not the same. This would only be true of YOU were willing to allow theists to come into your house and open your dinner with a sermon. Which I doubt you'd like, I surely wouldn't. Take it outside Churchy-La-Femme.
 
Caine said:
I fail to see how saying a prayer is establishing a state religion.
Click to expand...

By praying to a SPECIFIC deity, they are saying "this is the official religion" in a way.

I understand that the right is honor-bound to go on about the "war on Christianity," but you're making a fool of yourselves here. What would happen in this meeting if Muslims ran in and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" Would that be OK? They're just practicing their religion, right?
 
Ikari said:
Don't be daft. If you take the time to read in context, you'd understand what I was responding to. Stupid comments will get you no where, read and respond with intelligent posts which address the context. The line was "The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason. There is no need to involve everyone in the room when you feel the need to pray. There is no need to say the words out loud. If one is truly comfortable with his religion, a silent prayer is more than satisfactory. The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason."

You see that? I quoted it in my response so there would be no confusion as to what I was referencing. That general statement applies to a lot of groups, as humans in general like to be in groups and are often loud. "The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason". It can be said against the homosexual community who have large parades and events in public. It can be said of pro-lifers and pro-choicers and pretty much any group you want. Which is why it's a bad argument, which is clear from the context of my post and anyone with enough intellectual honesty to respond within coherent and cognizant context.
Click to expand...

So you're comparing somebody holding a parade - to somebody using a government function to hold prayer. Two things which have nothing to do with each other.
 
apdst said:
Let's make it illegal to talk about football in public, too.
Click to expand...

Football isn't a religion and nobody has made it illegal to talk about religion in public. :shrug:
 
Knowledge=power said:
The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason.
Click to expand...


Which is, oddly enough, directly contradictory to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
 
apdst said:
Wait, now you're talking a church. That's different from a county meeting. Don't twist an ankle on that spin.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh so NOW there's a technicality?

I figured.

Just because it is a church, by your interpretation of the 1st amendment, does not mean I should not be able to speak or practice my religion anywhere without prohibition.
 
Hatuey said:
So you're comparing somebody holding a parade - to somebody using a government function to hold prayer. Two things which have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason. There is no need to involve everyone in the room when you feel the need to pray. There is no need to say the words out loud. If one is truly comfortable with his religion, a silent prayer is more than satisfactory. The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason.

Did it say government? No it didn't. It was a general statement against a certain group because that group is public and loud. But there are plenty of groups the person probably does support who do the same and would likely not be categorized by them as an "asinine reason".

Do you understand this at all? It's not rocket science.
 
Ikari said:
Well Church is private property, so it's not the same. This would only be true of YOU were willing to allow theists to come into your house and open your dinner with a sermon. Which I doubt you'd like, I surely wouldn't. Take it outside Churchy-La-Femme.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the same. Church will obviously find a way to invoke a double standard in their favor. So much for this thread.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Of course it's not the same. Church will obviously find a way to invoke a double standard in their favor. So much for this thread.
Click to expand...

Lots of people and groups push for the double standard. Though I don't quite see it in this case given the private nature of Churches.
 
Ikari said:
Don't be daft. If you take the time to read in context, you'd understand what I was responding to. Stupid comments will get you no where, read and respond with intelligent posts which address the context. The line was "The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason. There is no need to involve everyone in the room when you feel the need to pray. There is no need to say the words out loud. If one is truly comfortable with his religion, a silent prayer is more than satisfactory. The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason."

You see that? I quoted it in my response so there would be no confusion as to what I was referencing. That general statement applies to a lot of groups, as humans in general like to be in groups and are often loud. "The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason". It can be said against the homosexual community who have large parades and events in public. It can be said of pro-lifers and pro-choicers and pretty much any group you want. Which is why it's a bad argument, which is clear from the context of my post and anyone with enough intellectual honesty to respond within coherent and cognizant context.
Click to expand...

It's forbidden to be even remotely crtical of politically correct groups.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Ohhhh so NOW there's a technicality?

I figured.

Just because it is a church, by your interpretation of the 1st amendment, does not mean I should not be able to speak or practice my religion anywhere without prohibition.
Click to expand...

I thought you were against pushing religion on others.
 
Ikari said:
*sigh*

The problem here is that Christians in particular feel the need to pray in groups or out loud for some reason. There is no need to involve everyone in the room when you feel the need to pray. There is no need to say the words out loud. If one is truly comfortable with his religion, a silent prayer is more than satisfactory. The need to do it at a public gathering is just prideful show and an attempt to be heard for whatever asinine reason.

Did it say government? No it didn't. It was a general statement against a certain group because that group is public and loud. But there are plenty of groups the person probably does support who do the same and would likely not be categorized by them as an "asinine reason".

Do you understand this at all? It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

The context of the conversation is whether religious proselytizing has a place in government. As it doesn't, your comments about gay parades have nothing to do with it.
 
Why should I,as a taxpayer,pay for some politician to display their religion in public setting when they can't even get that giant pothole filled on Mamareneck Rd just outside my subdivision or fix the flooding problem at the Fenimore Rd underpass (which has been a problem for years) heading toward the Scarsdale Country Club?
 
Knowledge=power said:
Ohhhh so NOW there's a technicality?

I figured.

Just because it is a church, by your interpretation of the 1st amendment, does not mean I should not be able to speak or practice my religion anywhere without prohibition.
Click to expand...

You are correct.But that doesn't that ,me as taxpayer and you a politician,that I should be required to pay you for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom