• 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]

Caine said:
They aren't "VOICING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" they are simply praying. They aren't telling everyone they have to be Christian too, they are simply praying.
Click to expand...

Simply praying can be done in one's head. It can also be done before the meeting or after the meeting. Praying outloud when you have an entire audience listening to you is attention seeking.
 
nota bene said:
So just out of curiosity, do you attend town hall meetings or city council or school board (shudder) meetings? I ask because with the exception of the last, I have and do sometimes. What I've noticed is that those who are politically engaged on the local level are, irrespective of their positions, generally earnest, prepared, and respectful--definitely not "looking for trouble."
Click to expand...

Well presently it's the slow time. Wait until campaign season - then things will get real interesting and the troublemakers will come out...

Furthermore I really wasn't trying to imply that council/board members were trouble (although they most certainly can be) I was saying that it's not unusual to find partisan wannabe pundits at town meetings arguing partisan issues (in campaign season)..

Who the hell would even want to get involved in local politics anyways... All the board members hear is disputes over zoning and other arbitrary nonsense....

Of course it all depends where you live.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It's actually a blatant violation of the First Amendment...

Despite what you have been brainwashed with - "separation of church and state" does not exist..

"separation of church and state" is First Amendment propaganda drilled into the US public by communists.

If you show me anywhere in our founding documents wording that even implies "separation of church and state" I will pull a rabbit out my ass...
Click to expand...

That is a highly debatable point. There are lots of documents that support the idea of separation of church and state, and anyone would even HALF a brain can easily understand why it's the smart thing to do.
 
ChrisL said:
I imagine one day we might have to have multiple prayer sessions/religious services before any kind of government meetings so that the religious people can get it out of their systems. :roll:
Click to expand...

If prayer were mandatory under law that WOULD violate the First Amendment because that would be forcing people to pray which violates the first sentence of our Bill of Rights.

You see how that works?

I support your right not to pray equally with the right to pray.

However you're saying people don't have the right to pray when they want, and apparently a persons right to pray is based on YOUR tolerance.
 
Mr.Nick said:
If prayer were mandatory under law that WOULD violate the First Amendment because that would be forcing people to pray which violates the first sentence of our Bill of Rights.

You see how that works?

I support your right not to pray equally with the right to pray.

However you're saying people don't have the right to pray when they want, and apparently a persons right to pray is based on YOUR tolerance.
Click to expand...

When legislators are involved in the praying, that makes it a bit different scenario than how you portray it as simply "people praying." Seems to me that would be showing a preference to a specific religion.
 
ChrisL said:
That is a highly debatable point. There are lots of documents that support the idea of separation of church and state, and anyone would even HALF a brain can easily understand why it's the smart thing to do.
Click to expand...

Good then do the other half of my brain a solid and post those documents.
 
ChrisL said:
When legislators are involved in the praying, that makes it a bit different scenario than how you portray it as simply "people praying." Seems to me that would be showing a preference to a specific religion.
Click to expand...

Of course you have a different perspective because you don't comprehend the First Amendment.

There is absolutely nothing in our constitution that forbids public official(s) from praying while on official duty.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Good then do the other half of my brain a solid and post those documents.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have time for that right now. I'm only on a break, but this should do, it makes reference to other documents and interpretations.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[3][4][5][6]
Click to expand...

Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature.[27] In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.[28] Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;"[29] however, others point to Jefferson’s support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation.[30] Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history[31]
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[32] Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how many people actually bothered to read the First Amendment before spewing THEIR opinions?

Of course now they feel obligated to defend their tyrannical opinions...

I hope someone learns from this, otherwise it would be a total waste of time.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, I don't have time for that right now. I'm only on a break, but this should do, it makes reference to other documents and interpretations.
Click to expand...

Cute, but that is not law and that is not a founding document.

You could have just gone to the Jefferson letters where "separation of church and state" originated but was completely taken out of context by communists in an attempt to discredit our First Amendment.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Cute, but that is not law and that is not a founding document.

You could have just gone to the Jefferson letters where "separation of church and state" originated but was completely taken out of context by communists in an attempt to discredit our First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Oh what, that's not good enough for you? Fine, I hope you have a lot of time for reading then. Now, I'm not an atheist so I don't agree with this entire article, but it references all documents and quotes, etc. made around the founding fathers' time regarding separation of church and state.

And BTW, it has NOTHING to do with communists. What are you from the 1950s or something? Good God! How ridiculous and paranoid. :roll:

Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church
 
ChrisL said:
Oh what, that's not good enough for you? Fine, I hope you have a lot of time for reading then. Now, I'm not an atheist so I don't agree with this entire article, but it references all documents and quotes, etc. made around the founding fathers' time regarding separation of church and state.

And BTW, it has NOTHING to do with communists. What are you from the 1950s or something? Good God! How ridiculous and paranoid. :roll:

Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of understanding "opinion" from "fact."

I waste my time with your ilk.

If you could possibly make a good point that jibes with the Bill of Rights I will certainly hail you as a "hero."
 
Mr.Nick said:
Are you incapable of understanding "opinion" from "fact."

I waste my time with your ilk.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? That was the whole point of our discussion, that the First Amendment is STILL under debate, that is what my link discusses and why.
 
From the link, this information is taken directly from some of the founding fathers. So, I don't know WTH your problem is with this link. It is no less valid than any of the bull crap you post.

Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor. (Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, c. 1776. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 498.)
Click to expand...
 
Prayer to open public meetings is a long-standing tradition. How long? Since the opening of the first Congress at least.
 
nota bene said:
Prayer to open public meetings is a long-standing tradition. How long? Since the opening of the first Congress at least.
Click to expand...
What's your point? Just because something may be traditional, doesn't mean it is right.
 
nota bene said:
Prayer to open public meetings is a long-standing tradition. How long? Since the opening of the first Congress at least.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but the demographics of our country have changed exponentially since those times. What is the need for religious people to pray before a town meeting anyhow?
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm bewildered as to why anyone even gives a **** if someone prays or not...

Would people give a **** if a council meeting opened with humming the Super Mario Bros theme song? I think not.

This is why I view this as an attack on Christianity .... This prayer stuff is so petty that only a hater is going to hate.
Click to expand...
That is EXACTLY what it is.

I am a deist, I don't care too much for tales from the book or people saying god is like this cuz this guy said so, etc, etc.
But at the same time, when I had dinner at my friend's house (who is the pastor at his church) with my family and his, and he said a dinner prayer, I was respecful, bowed my head and said Amen at the end.

He knows I am a deist, and he respects that I am not a tool about his religious beliefs to be rude and disrespectful at his table.


And I know someone is going to bitch and while thinking I am equating this to a council meeting.... I am not.

I AM saying that people can just be respectul and wait until the end and move on with the business of the council without causing too much grief.
 
ChrisL said:
Perhaps but the demographics of our country have changed exponentially since those times. What is the need for religious people to pray before a town meeting anyhow?
Click to expand...

The complainers just got more active that is all.

The ACLU turds who attended these meetings were probably not even members of the community.
 
Caine said:
That is EXACTLY what it is.

I am a deist, I don't care too much for tales from the book or people saying god is like this cuz this guy said so, etc, etc.
But at the same time, when I had dinner at my friend's house (who is the pastor at his church) with my family and his, and he said a dinner prayer, I was respecful, bowed my head and said Amen at the end.

He knows I am a deist, and he respects that I am not a tool about his religious beliefs to be rude and disrespectful at his table.


And I know someone is going to bitch and while thinking I am equating this to a council meeting.... I am not.

I AM saying that people can just be respectul and wait until the end and move on with the business of the council without causing too much grief.
Click to expand...

Or religious people can be respectful and not say their prayers in public settings and hold up important meetings, out of respect for other people who may not share their religious views. It works both ways.
 
ChrisL said:
Or religious people can be respectful and not say their prayers in public settings and hold up important meetings, out of respect for other people who may not share their religious views. It works both ways.
Click to expand...

If it has always been done that way.... is it really "being held up" ??

No.

If you think council meetings are always "important", I ask you to attend one in your local county one day.

The council is required to be there, if the council wants to pray, its on them.
YOU are NOT required to be there, and thus, you can go away.
 
Caine said:
If it has always been done that way.... is it really "being held up" ??

No.

If you think council meetings are always "important", I ask you to attend one in your local county one day.

The council is required to be there, if the council wants to pray, its on them.
YOU are NOT required to be there, and thus, you can go away.
Click to expand...

Did I say they were all important? That's subjective. Whether or not you are "required" to be there is besides the point. Every citizen can attend a town meeting and yes, sometimes a citizen may feel that he or she HAS to attend because the meeting could relate to them in some way. You can't just say, "we're going to pray, so go away."

Out of respect for others, people should keep their praying private.
 
Monserrat said:
This has nothing to do with civil liberties and everything to do with dumbasses wasting time and money on non-issues.
Click to expand...

Upholding the Constitution is "dumbasses wasting time and money"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Upholding the Constitution is "dumbasses wasting time and money"?
Click to expand...

The Dumbasses wasting time and money are the ACLU retards who attended these meetings just to troll the court system with this bull****.
 
Mr.Nick said:
If prayer were mandatory under law that WOULD violate the First Amendment because that would be forcing people to pray which violates the first sentence of our Bill of Rights.

You see how that works?

I support your right not to pray equally with the right to pray.

However you're saying people don't have the right to pray when they want, and apparently a persons right to pray is based on YOUR tolerance.
Click to expand...

People can pray anytime they want in most situations. The members of the council can pray silently shortly before the meeting starts or can go out in the hallway or outside to pray out loud. They can also have a non-religious moment of silence ritual for people to pray or not.

When they pray out loud as part of the official meeting it is sending a message to all in attendance that the particular religion's prayer that they use is considered something of an officially privileged religion. That is both the intent and the effect. It is disrespectful to everyone who is not in their particular religious sect and it should be considered unconstitutional. It saddens me that so many can't understand that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom