• 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!

Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

They also said a black person was only 3/5 of a person. The Founders were after all, only people, not deities.

And that was how they acted. They said that slaves were 3/5 a person and treated them as such. If they had meant their words to exclude religion from all aspects of government, that is how they would have acted.
 
Last edited:
They also said a black person was only 3/5 of a person. The Founders were after all, only people, not deities.
Nope, this is false. If you have an interest in the truth, I suggest you do a little background reading on this.
 
and that's why i think it's funny (or silly) for that matter.
I have a hard time taking religion seriously because logic is tossed out the window.

I get where you're coming from (because I used to think the same) Sorry, I know that sounds condescending, it's not meant to.

I'm an atheist, but from talking to a lot of my religious friends it seems to be that a lot of people don't "toss out logic" as one might think. Their standard of evidence is just different (less perhaps) than ours.

It also has a lot to do with how you feel. Some people are aware of the evidence but they just feel very strongly that there is a god.

It's like when a guy tries to get in a girl's pants. He can use logic to tell her all the benefits. It increases endorphins, it's good for her cardiovascular system, it relieves stress, etc. Bottom line, if she's not "feeling it"... no amount of logical evidence is going to persuade her.

Much to my frustration :)
 
and that's why i think it's funny (or silly) for that matter.
I have a hard time taking religion seriously because logic is tossed out the window.
Recognizing that god cannot be proven is not tossing logic out the window.
 
:roll

They did not say they were 3/5ths of person and slavery would have ended much sooner if they had said they were 0/5ths of a person for purposes of representation.

The result was the same.

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
 
If you don't believe me, try telling the black community that MLK was overhyped, or rock fans that the Beatles provided no influence on music, or democrats that Obama is an idiot. Are you going to claim that if they get defensive that they must not be secure in their beliefs?

I forgot to answer this.
unlike a god, the MLK, Beatles, and Democrats on Obama examples are opinions. These opinions are based on what people see or experience. Can these opinions be proven as fact or false? of course, but religion/god can not.
 
History does not make something right.

See Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

"Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees..."

Walz v. Tax Commission of the state of New York (1970)

"No one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it."

By that same logic one could have argued that slavery was okay because we've been doing it for so many years.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) is a good case for Church/State separation.
 
They also said a black person was only 3/5 of a person. The Founders were after all, only people, not deities.

Would it have been better that the people who owned slaved been able to use their slaves to get more representation? I would have to say the founders were pretty smart.
 
Recognizing that god cannot be proven is not tossing logic out the window.

not necessarily proving god can not be proven, but just a lot of different things that come out of religion as a whole.
 
Would it have been better that the people who owned slaved been able to use their slaves to get more representation? I would have to say the founders were pretty smart.

Yeah, the 3/5 compromise was all about power in congress.

The slave states wanted slaves to count as full people. Not out of some altruistic "we think the slaves are people too" nonsense, it was because they wanted more seats in congress and that would give their states more power.

Similarly, the non-slave states wanted slaves to count as zero persons because it would decrease the power of the slave states.
 
‪Where did it all come from?‬‏ - YouTube

Your statement is wrong in a similar fashion, although I'd say not to nearly the staggering degree of stupidity that O'Reilly showed.

bread-goes-in-toast-comes-out.jpg
 
The result was the same.

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
I see. If you were living back then, you would have stood with the Southern slaveholders in demanding slaves be counted 5/5 for the purposes of bringing revenue into Southern states. Knowing of course that those slaves would never see any benefit from that added revenue... quite the contrary.
 
How stupid can one be? Well it is Oklahoma. So it fits the local mentality.

Not sure what issues you have with "Live and let live". If they want to pray, stand on their heads and twiddle their toes - it's up to them. If they believe it help, who am I to say it doesn't?
 
not necessarily proving god can not be proven, but just a lot of different things that come out of religion as a whole.
I believe in science, but also recognize that there's a bunch of crap that derives from it, and crackpots that practice it. Logic tells ME not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
I'm new here, but it sounds like you're making the argument that slavery is not inherently wrong. Is that right? I hope not.

No, why would I do that?

My post was meant to refute the previous poster's assertion that prayer is okay because congress has been doing it every morning.

That was my point.

As the court rulings I cited back up, the notion that something is "okay to do because we've always done it that way" is flawed logic.

And yet they have not stopped this and many more religous actions the government undertakes. There are cases that I would agree conflicts with the 1st and the courts would be right to overturn those actions. Such as if the guv had stated that all government employee's had to stop what they were doing at 2:00 and pray for rain. He did nothing of the sort though.
 
I believe in science, but also recognize that there's a bunch of crap that derives from it, and crackpots that practice it. Logic tells ME not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's probably because your politics tells you there's crap in science. Im not saying there isnt. I dont know, im not a scientist and i try not to listen to "opinions" based on science. if anything, i'll look at scientific journals that have peer reviews.
 
Fun fact...

Before Rick Perry asked people to pray for rain...

tmp.bmp


After people prayed.

tmp.bmp


Whatever you do, don't pray OR LISTEN TO RICK PERRY ABOUT ANYTHING, FOR ANY REASON. It appears to make things worse! :)

Fixed that for ya. :D
 
Please point me to what state religion this has established

1Perry said:
And yet they have not stopped this and many more religous actions the government undertakes. There are cases that I would agree conflicts with the 1st and the courts would be right to overturn those actions. Such as if the guv had stated that all government employee's had to stop what they were doing at 2:00 and pray for rain. He did nothing of the sort though.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

"The establishment clause...does not depend upon a showing of direct governmental compulsion..."

You can have violations of the establishment clause without establishing a state/government religion.

Government shall make no law RESPECTING and establishment of religion.
 
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

"The establishment clause...does not depend upon a showing of direct governmental compulsion..."

You can have violations of the establishment clause without establishing a state/government religion.

Government shall make no law RESPECTING and establishment of religion.

Nor do we have one here. As I stated, if he had directed employee's to pray to his god at 3:00 there would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Nor do we have one here. As I stated, if he had directed employee's to pray to his god at 3:00 there would be a prolem.

Whether or not he told them to pray or suggested that they pray is irrelevant when it comes to determining if this is a constitutional violation. "The establishment clause DOES NOT depend upon direct governmental compulsion".

The government has to have a secular purpose for asking people, urging people, or telling people to pray. If it doesn't have a secular purpose, it fails the Lemon Test and is unconstitutional.

Asking for people to pray is unconstitutional for the same reasons asking people to blaspheme is unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom