• 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]

If you were a real libertarian you would support the First Amendment....

Right now you're siding with a bunch of intolerant clowns that believe civil liberties are "limited" to weather or not an atheist is in the room.

No I'm siding with the employers right to not be FORCED to pay for prayer. If you were a true libertarian you would support the employee's right to not have to pay for work not done.
 
Sorry to explain to you that government CANNOT ENDORSE A RELIGION considering government is not a living being - it's a system.

Besides, even if government DID endorse a religion that would be perfectly fine just as long as they didn't pass laws that forbid individuals from partaking in other religions or no religion at all.

A government endorsing a religion would be establishing a state religion. Therefore it fails even your reading of the Constitution.
 
You're talking about something that takes a minute on average from start to finish and will not cause any sort of impact on the amount of work that they will get done that day. You might as well be crying about wasting money on an unused chair.

And that prayer can be done BEFORE the meeting starts. You are complaining about something that can be done BEFORE the meeting. Why does it HAVE TO BE DURING the meeting that it is done? Oh yeah, you don't mind grandstanding.
 
Sorry to explain to you that government CANNOT ENDORSE A RELIGION considering government is not a living being - it's a system.

State religions beg to differ. A government can most certainly endorse a religion.

Besides, even if government DID endorse a religion that would be perfectly fine just as long as they didn't pass laws that forbid individuals from partaking in other religions or no religion at all.

Nonsensical statement #52662. State religion are in an incredible contradiction to even your ridiculously flawed understanding of the constitution.
 
Most of the people who are defending the prayer would probably have a fit if it were a prayer to Vishnu instead of Jesus.

Make it to the almighty Satan for all I care. It's not my faith.
 
Who the hell are you to decide when people can or cannot pray? right now you're acting flippin tyrant - no better than Hitler or Stalin....

Who the hell are you to decide that I have to pay for someone praying? And take your Godwin comment and go pound sand with it.
 
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion! No one is denying them the right to pray- I fully support people's right to prayer, I could care less which god you pray to; however when this praying is done while in the process of conducting official government business then we have a problem!

No actually it does not. No where in any part of the Constitution does it state or even imply that you have the freedom to not be offended by something you don't like. Which is what your claim of "freedom FROM religion" is all about.
 
For goodness sakes, it is people practicing their faith.



No one was forced to pray. The worst they had to deal with was tolerate a prayer.

So if they loudly went in shouting "Allah Akbar!" that would be OK with you? Isn't that just people practicing their religion?
 
The prayer in question was at a government function and it was in regards to a specific religion. That is tantamount to government establishment of a religion.

As a Libertarian, I would think you'd find the freedom not to have to pray to a particular god to be pretty important.

NO ITS NOT...

When there is a ****ing law that states everyone at the meeting must partake in prayer or be charged with a crime THEN I WILL side with you but that isn't the case.....

Clearly the first two sentences of our First Amendment are too difficult for you to compute....
 
Who the hell are you to decide that I have to pay for someone praying? And take your Godwin comment and go pound sand with it.

That's the thing - I don't decide, and neither do you. That decision was decided when our Bill of Rights was ratified.

Not my fault you have troubles respecting and obeying the Bill of Rights as a whole....
 
So tell me, how do you from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "separation of church and state" that restricts the liberty of the people to practice their religion?

Your religion does not force you to pray at government functions. It just doesn't. So the government not endorsing a particular religion through prayer or otherwise is not in any way a restriction of your beliefs. You don't have to pray at a government function. You want to. Which is 1) in contradiction to the very notion of a secular government and 2) unacceptable for official government functions.

I don't understand how anyone can find that interpretation makes any sense.

If you stopped making asinine statements. You probably would.
 
That's the thing - I don't decide, and neither do you. That decision was decided when our Bill of Rights was ratified.

Not my fault you have troubles respecting and obeying the Bill of Rights as a whole....

So where in the Bill of Rights does it say I have to pay for your praying. Point that part out for me please.
 
NO ITS NOT...

When there is a ****ing law that states everyone at the meeting must partake in prayer or be charged with a crime THEN I WILL side with you but that isn't the case.....

Clearly the first two sentences of our First Amendment are too difficult for you to compute....

If they are at the meeting, then they have to be involved in the prayer beforehand. It's not just about a law passed, and if it was, you'd say "Well, it wasn't Congress, so it's OK.

I'm not the one who can't compute the First Amendment, you are. My understanding is in line with that of years of jurisprudence and rulings from people who actually ARE Constitutional experts.
 
Do people not realize that the intent of the First Amendment was to outright ban theocracy but not religion?
 
Do people not realize that the intent of the First Amendment was to outright ban theocracy but not religion?

No, they don't.
 
If they are at the meeting, then they have to be involved in the prayer beforehand. It's not just about a law passed, and if it was, you'd say "Well, it wasn't Congress, so it's OK.

I'm not the one who can't compute the First Amendment, you are. My understanding is in line with that of years of jurisprudence and rulings from people who actually ARE Constitutional experts.

They don't have to be involved with prayer.... Using your logic I have to be a progressive to have a debate with a progressive.
 
Most of the people who are defending the prayer would probably have a fit if it were a prayer to Vishnu instead of Jesus.
Probably, and the Muslims would have a conniption if the prayer was to other than Allah. Everybody is offended, and I will defend the right of everybody to be equally offended, with someone else's life, if necessary. We could call this the defense of offense.
 
So where in the Bill of Rights does it say I have to pay for your praying. Point that part out for me please.

First of all, you're one of 300,000,000 taxpayers, so don't make it sound like you're a substantial contributor to our governments piggy bank.

Where does it say in the Bill of Rights that you don't have to pay?
 
Your religion does not force you to pray at government functions. It just doesn't. So the government not endorsing a particular religion through prayer or otherwise is not in any way a restriction of your beliefs. You don't have to pray at a government function. You want to. Which is 1) in contradiction to the very notion of a secular government and 2) unacceptable for official government functions.

So you're going to use the "you don't need to do it" argument. I don't need to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to do it.
 
So where in the Bill of Rights does it say I have to pay for your praying. Point that part out for me please.

I didn't realize that prayer costed anything. I assumed it was free of charge.
 
The legislators CHOOSE to pray, and now their freedom to make that choice has been removed.

And that is a clear violation of the First Amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
Would a discrete Druid sacrifice of a chicken be acceptable as a preamble to a meeting?

Why not? Apparently anything is acceptable as long as it's not a prayer, and it would be a novelty ... for a while. Reading the auspices of the entrails might help, too. :shock:
 
Why not? Apparently anything is acceptable as long as it's not a prayer, and it would be a novelty ... for a while. Reading the auspices of the entrails might help, too. :shock:

Almost forgot. Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom