• 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

1Perry said:
EXACTLY. While you saw it as not reaching the threshhold, justices did because that's how they wanted to rule. If this was some set in stone guideline there wouldn't be conflicting rulings would there?
Click to expand...

Sure, different justices will rule differently. I never argued otherwise. But notice the test they used to determine that it was (in their opinion) not a violation of the establishment clause. They used the lemon test. They asked "Is there a secular purpose". They found (again, in there opinion) that there was a secular purpose.

So... we apply that same test here.

18 pages, still no secular purpose for praying for rain.
 
1Perry said:
"government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization..."

He is full of crap. The government affiliates itself with religious organizations all the time. There are likely hundreds of examples one could come up with. A military chaplain would be one. The original link I posted about prayer in Congress would be one.

But I only need to provide one example to prove the point wrong.
Click to expand...

He was quoting the decision in that case ruling. This wasn't his opinion.
 
Ikari said:
I think the two efforts are equivalent.
Click to expand...

Because you don't understand what it is like to be surrounded by those who disagree with you in such a violent way that it is clear they can barely keep themselves from attacking you. They are allowed to have their prayers, but if the atheist or minority religion, says "I disagree" he is just a troublemaker. Having an agent of the state that insists on using his office as a bully pulpit makes the fear of assault even greater because one cannot count on the state for protection. It should not be done, it is offensive and certainly chills speech and freedom of religion.

The lawsuit is worthwhile, though I am not sure it is the best use of resources. Praying for rain is a complete waste of time.
 
SlackMaster said:
In the first ruling they found that it had a secular purpose (even though another court ruled differently).

What's the secular purpose for praying for rain?
Click to expand...

Rain makes corn, corn makes whiskey, whiskey makes my baby feel a little frisky. :D
Luke Bryan.
 
Polotick said:
Rain makes corn, corn makes whiskey, whiskey makes my baby feel a little frisky. :D
Luke Bryan.
Click to expand...

Heh... you'd first have to prove that prayer causes rain.

If you could do that, then yes... you'd have your secular purpose and I'd have no problem with it :)

Until then though :)
 
Polotick said:
No, a non-event is evidence of exactly nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are not following along or you are purposefully missing the point. The idea that God does not exist is falsifiable. If God descends from the clouds or does some sort of miracle on command the atheist position would be proven false. No, that does not imply that a failure to do so is evidence of the atheist position. That was not the point. The atheist position is falsifiable, the theistic one is not.
 
Last edited:
SlackMaster said:
Heh... you'd first have to prove that prayer causes rain.

If you could do that, then yes... you'd have your secular purpose and I'd have no problem with it :)

Until then though :)
Click to expand...

I just had to post that, I am a bad Panda.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, you are not following along or you are purposefully missing the point. The idea that God does not exist is falisfiable. If God descends from the clouds or does some sort of miracle on command the atheist position would be proven false. No, that does not imply that a failure to do so is evindence of the atheist position. That was not the point. The atheist position is falisfiable, the theistic one is not.
Click to expand...

Militant atheists give me a rash. Their position is completely indefensible.
 
SlackMaster said:
Sure, different justices will rule differently. I never argued otherwise. But notice the test they used to determine that it was (in their opinion) not a violation of the establishment clause. They used the lemon test. They asked "Is there a secular purpose". They found (again, in there opinion) that there was a secular purpose.

So... we apply that same test here.

18 pages, still no secular purpose for praying for rain.
Click to expand...

But the Lemon Test requires government action. What actions has the government taken in this accord?
 
RStringfield said:
Because you don't understand what it is like to be surrounded by those who disagree with you in such a violent way that it is clear they can barely keep themselves from attacking you. They are allowed to have their prayers, but if the atheist or minority religion, says "I disagree" he is just a troublemaker. Having an agent of the state that insists on using his office as a bully pulpit makes the fear of assault even greater because one cannot count on the state for protection. It should not be done, it is offensive and certainly chills speech and freedom of religion.

The lawsuit is worthwhile, though I am not sure it is the best use of resources. Praying for rain is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

Praying for rain is a complete waste of time, as is the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit isn't for government action aimed against atheists. If there was something denying atheists their ability to speak, sure it's worthwhile. If it's just something stupid like "I don't want people praying for rain", then it's worthless. Like that one douche of an atheist who sued a church because of its bells. There's nothing here which puts us at more risk, the State is not going to stop upholding laws for atheists because some jerks go into a field and pray for rain. If you could PROVE that point, then maybe the lawsuit would be worthwhile. I can't see anything here which supports your conclusion that it "...certainly chills speech and freedom of religion". I see assumption and supposition; but no proof.
 
RStringfield said:
God can be proven. He can show himself or he could be discovered in an empirically observable way. He cannot be disproven, because the definition is based on supernatural bs.
Click to expand...
Really? He must exist then, because I actually know someone who was 100% certain that he appeared before her, spoke to her, and told her that unless she killed herself, thousands would die. On another occaision, he showed himself and told her that when she blew out a candle, some random person in Africa would die.
 
SlackMaster said:
Sure, different justices will rule differently. I never argued otherwise. But notice the test they used to determine that it was (in their opinion) not a violation of the establishment clause. They used the lemon test. They asked "Is there a secular purpose". They found (again, in there opinion) that there was a secular purpose.

So... we apply that same test here.

18 pages, still no secular purpose for praying for rain.
Click to expand...

The article notes that many simply dismiss the notion that it means anything.

There is no need to answer the question as it's basis is false. I provided an example as to why. What is the secular purpose for military chaplains?
 
SlackMaster said:
He was quoting the decision in that case ruling. This wasn't his opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't care who all said it. They are wrong. I've provided examples to back up my position.
 
Taylor said:
LOL what?? How could that possibly prove the existence of God?
Click to expand...

Because Rosanna Rossanna Danna and Father Sarducci after smoking a bone behind the studio decided God existed - and they smoke him... and it was good. :lol:
 
The should do a rain dance with the Native Americans as well!
Oh i forgot thats just silly to dance as a form of prayer...
 
Ikari said:
Praying for rain is a complete waste of time, as is the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit isn't for government action aimed against atheists. If there was something denying atheists their ability to speak, sure it's worthwhile. If it's just something stupid like "I don't want people praying for rain", then it's worthless. Like that one douche of an atheist who sued a church because of its bells. There's nothing here which puts us at more risk, the State is not going to stop upholding laws for atheists because some jerks go into a field and pray for rain. If you could PROVE that point, then maybe the lawsuit would be worthwhile. I can't see anything here which supports your conclusion that it "...certainly chills speech and freedom of religion". I see assumption and supposition; but no proof.
Click to expand...

Strawman. No one is against anyone praying for rain.

Oklahoma did not elect the governor to lead them in prayer but to execute the laws of the state. It is inappropriate for him use the power of his office to promote the practice of religion.
 
Taylor said:
LOL what?? How could that possibly prove the existence of God?
Click to expand...

WTF RU talking about? If God revealed himself or even responded in some observable way that would obviously prove the existence of God. You need that explained to you any further. How much simpler can I make it for you?
 
RStringfield said:
WTF RU talking about? If God revealed himself or even responded in some observable way that would obviously prove the existence of God. You need that explained to you any further. How much simpler can I make it for you?
Click to expand...
What could he possibly do to prove that he was God? You seem to be saying that there is something he could do that would have you say, "I have no idea how that could be explained except as an act of God"

You pretend to know what science is, and yet you're no different than those who looked up at a rainbow 10,000 years ago and said, "I have no idea how that could be explained except as an act of God"

But thanks for playing.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant these fools are when it comes to what the bible actually says.

There is no need for a prayer group or prayer movement, all that is needed is for ONE -1- person to pray and it will be done according to the bible.

Matthew, Chapter 7

7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Click to expand...

SAB, John 14

14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Click to expand...

Now tell me why this doesn't work!
 
W00ster said:
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant these fools are when it comes to what the bible actually says.

There is no need for a prayer group or prayer movement, all that is needed is for ONE -1- person to pray and it will be done according to the bible.




Now tell me why this doesn't work!
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding what is being said. Jesus says "what you ask in my name." This doesn't mean ending a prayer by saying "in Jesus name." It means praying according to the teachings of Christ and in the will of God. It doesn't say all prayers will be answered with a yes.
 
madman said:
And that's what makes it silly. People having mental conversations with a "being" that has no evidence of it existing, or even a method of gathering data for that matter.
Click to expand...

It makes people frightened by the unknown feel more at ease, its sort of like a drug or placebo effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom