• 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]

When those "individuals" are elected officials making an agreement during, or about, the proceedings of an official meeting it is law.

No its not law..

Are you really that "confused?"

State governments legislate via the Tenth Amendment...
 
I'm not going to even reply to comments like these with my own articulation anymore - I'll just prove you're a communist shill using the points of the "communist goals of 1963" outlined via the Naked Communist.

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths (constitution in this case).

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

The point of this discussion has eluded you completely. :lamo

I mean wow. Talk about your instant leap to tinfoil hat territory. You should try to use some of that so-called articulation of yours to explain how my taking a broader interpretation of the first amendment makes me a communist.
 
Last edited:
The point of this discussion has eluded you completely. :lamo

I mean wow. Talk about your instant leap to tinfoil hat territory. You should try to use some of that so-called articulation of yours to explain how my taking a broader interpretation of the first amendment makes me a communist.

No explanation is necessary - you disagree with Mr Nick, QED - you are obviously one of those radical commie types
 
No explanation is necessary - you disagree with Mr Nick, QED - you are obviously one of those radical commie types

And it's a big secret agenda that only Mr. Nick has seen! Our dastardly plot to... not have the government use religion as the basis for its laws and thereby enforce that religion onto the entire population. How unAmerican of us.
 
You don't know what the hell you're talking about and a brief google doesn't do your argument any justice considering you're wrong.

:lamo
Yes a USSC justice who ruled on a subject like this "dosnt know what the hell he is talking about"
 
Moderator's Warning:
EVERYONE needs to reduce the tone and stop the sniping. Anyone crosses the line will be removed from the thread, at the least... and no amount of prayer will help you.
 
What's your point? Just because something may be traditional, doesn't mean it is right.
My point is that our earliest representatives didn't see prayer opening a meeting as a violation of church and state.
Again, why does that matter? Our earliest representatives didn't see wrong in a plethora of laws that are now considered incredibly offensive: divorce, Blue laws, slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, etc. I don't understand why we'd appeal those 'tradition' or politicians from bygone eras without considering that our society has put in decades of moral, legal and rational thought beyond those positions. Like, we don't go to 18th Century textbooks to perform heart surgeries; we'd probably kill someone. Why would we do the same for law?
 
Last edited:
You mean it's a win for a cornerstone on the Separation of State from Church. Once again, it's all about the atheists and what they want.

I didnt know this was all about what "atheists want"..
 
I didnt know this was all about what "atheists want"..

Why do some people believe that only atheists are intelligent enough to see why there should be separation of church and state?
 
They excluded them because they specifically mentioned things in the prayer from a specific religion. This excludes people with religions that do not agree, even if "they don't mean to".

That is some twisted logic. Do you consider it excluding when they also talk about firing teachers without talking with people that have no children? Or hell, even if they don't talk to people WITH children?
 
Yep, it was those horrible atheists in Delaware who stopped the Lord's Prayer from being recited before meetings of the Sussex County Council

In Sussex County, Del., lawmakers also agreed to alter their practice this year. For decades the County Council president opened meetings by leading the Lord’s Prayer, which appears in the New Testament. Michael H. Vincent, the current president, said it makes him feel better to begin by “asking a higher power for some guidance in our decision making process.”

Now, however, after a lawsuit, the council has settled on beginning with the 23rd Psalm, a prayer that appears in the Old Testament and is therefore significant to both Christians and Jews.

One of the Delaware residents who challenged the prayer, retired Lutheran minister John Steinbruck, says he’s satisfied with the resolution, though he would have preferred a moment of silence.
 
Yep, it was those horrible atheists in Delaware who stopped the Lord's Prayer from being recited before meetings of the Sussex County Council

That's the dumbest solution to the problem I have heard. It is not OK to exclude everyone except Christians, but if you include Jews and still exclude everyone else, you have solved the problem.
 
No its not law..

Are you really that "confused?"

State governments legislate via the Tenth Amendment...

Local governments pass resolutions and ordinances, including rules about the structure of governmental meetings.
 
That's the dumbest solution to the problem I have heard. It is not OK to exclude everyone except Christians, but if you include Jews and still exclude everyone else, you have solved the problem.
Actually by using words from Psalms, many Muslims would find the prayer acceptable - not radical Wahabbists but most normal Muslims.
 
Actually by using words from Psalms, many Muslims would find the prayer acceptable - not radical Wahabbists but most normal Muslims.

That still leaves the Buddhas, Taoists, Athiests, Shintos, Hindus and a host of others.
 
That is some twisted logic. Do you consider it excluding when they also talk about firing teachers without talking with people that have no children? Or hell, even if they don't talk to people WITH children?

There is a huge difference there. Firing teachers, hiring teachers, education in general, is an official part of their job, praying is not.
 
There is a huge difference there. Firing teachers, hiring teachers, education in general, is an official part of their job, praying is not.

Ok, do you consider it exclusion when they take a drink? Go to the bathroom? How about expounding on what they feel about abortion or gay marriage? Either for or against. After all, neither of those are really the governments concern either.
 
Ok, do you consider it exclusion when they take a drink? Go to the bathroom? How about expounding on what they feel about abortion or gay marriage? Either for or against. After all, neither of those are really the governments concern either.

Those activities are not on the meeting agenda as an official part of the meeting. Individual Board/Council members can say anything they want, including a prayer, during portions of the meeting set aside for their individual comments. It becomes a 1st amendment violation when the praying is agendized as an official part of the public meeting's opening rituals.
 
If a group of teachers get together to pray in one of our classrooms before school starts, is that the school "sponsoring" or "endorsing" a religion?

No.

As I am very new to this site, I would tell you there have been accusations of my "wonky" thought processes on other sites.

I will go with "wonky". If you are a tax paying resident of the locality where you teach, you own the chair and a certain amount of space in the school based upon your taxes. Your question is predicated on gathering before the official start of your duties. Based on your ownership of the chair and space, you are entitled to utilize it in any non destructive or disruptive manner you choose.

May the saints preserve you if the ACLU finds out you are utilizing your paid for space in praying. :hitsfan:
 
Ok, do you consider it exclusion when they take a drink? Go to the bathroom? How about expounding on what they feel about abortion or gay marriage? Either for or against. After all, neither of those are really the governments concern either.

There is no one particular thing being promoted if they go to the bathroom or take a break, neither are what they specifically doing noted in the meeting minutes. The prayer is. Marriage and abortion are part of laws, praying in the meetings and what God to pray to, if any, is not, and in fact cannot be legally part of the laws. No one is excluded in any of your examples.
 
There is no one particular thing being promoted if they go to the bathroom or take a break, neither are what they specifically doing noted in the meeting minutes. The prayer is. Marriage and abortion are part of laws, praying in the meetings and what God to pray to, if any, is not, and in fact cannot be legally part of the laws. No one is excluded in any of your examples.

So money doesn't promote God?
 
So money doesn't promote God?

Our money should be changed, but it takes money to do that and we don't have it right now since the plates would have to be redone and the money that actually says "In God We Trust" removed from circulation, which would take a long time. However, the prayers can be dealt with right now with no money spent in changing this policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom