• 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

Last edited:
VanceMack said:
I havent ever apologized for religion..
Click to expand...

That of course explains how you run around defending the actions of those on the religious right despite having zero facts to support your argument. Yeah, I'd certainly call that an apology.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Do you live in OK? Texas? If not then you have no say, or buisness, in what thier gov says or does.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't catch on quickly. It's is the "business" of citizens the actions of their elected officials. No I don't live in Texas. "Thank God"




"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

Never said he didn't have the right to say what he wanted to say. But it certainly flies in the face of intelligence.
 
Top Cat said:
And FDR was wrong too. There, so how easy that is?

Prayers didn't win the war. The sacrifices (read, blood, sweat, tears, loss of life and limb) of men and women with skin on them did.

Spare me the historical reference. I concede that he wasn't the first politician to play the prayer card.

Those who don't learn from history...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Santayana, but perhaps you should question the lack of harm caused by it and the increased morale, and unity in purpose resulting from such simple gestures of humility and hope.
 
SlackMaster said:
I've stated three times now that it's a violation of the establishment clause REGARDLESS of party lines.

You're arguing against an argument that I haven't made. I think that's called straw-man fallacy.

The fact that others may be guilty of this special pleading has nothing to do with the argument that I made. It seems to me like, perhaps you don't want to address my arguments and instead are trying distract attention away from that.
Click to expand...

The President or Governor or whoever does not lose their freedom of religious belief or free speech when they take office.
 
Caine said:
The President or Governor or whoever does not lose their freedom of religious belief or free speech when they take office.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, and if Rick Perry the private citizen was going to a prayer rally I'd have no problem with it. That's not the case though. He's going as Governor Rick Perry in an official capacity. He's listed as one of the leaders and is promoting it from his website.

THAT is a violation of the establishment clause.
 
Taylor said:
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"
Click to expand...

Any of the miracles claimed in the bible. Part the Red Sea. That would do it for me.

Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are talking gibbersih.
 
Fiddytree said:
Thanks, Santayana, but perhaps you should question the lack of harm caused by it and the increased morale, and unity in purpose resulting from such simple gestures of humility and hope.
Click to expand...

Oh please. That's bunch of bull****. Asking people to pray increases their morale about as much as prayer makes it rain. That's a fairy tale.
 
SlackMaster said:
You are absolutely correct, and if Rick Perry the private citizen was going to a prayer rally I'd have no problem with it. That's not the case though. He's going as Governor Rick Perry in an official capacity. He's listed as one of the leaders and is promoting it from his website.

THAT is a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

I don't see any promotion of a prayer rally on the Office of the Governor of Texas website.
 
Caine said:
I don't see any promotion of a prayer rally on the Office of the Governor of Texas website.
Click to expand...

On "The Response" leadership page he's listed as "Governor Rick Perry, initiator of The Response"

http://theresponseusa.com/leadership.php

On the homepage is a big video of him that starts out, "I'm Governor Rick Perry..."

http://theresponseusa.com/

Here's where he made the proclamation to pray for rain:

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/16038/

Here's what The Response spokesperson had to say about the event...

Bearse: A lot of people want to criticize what we're doing, as if we're somehow being exclusive of other faiths. But anyone who comes to this solemn assembly regardless of their faith tradition or background, will feel the love, grace, and warmth of Jesus Christ in that assembly hall, in that arena. And that's what we want to convey, that there's acceptance and that there's love and that there's hope if people will seek out the living Christ. And that's the message we want to spread on August 6th.
Click to expand...

See... They want people of all faith to come and worship Jesus :/

I'm on a mobile device right now, didn't see on the government website but they may have taken it down, it wasn't there, or I'm just not finding it.

Looks like he's trying to distance himself from the supporters of the event.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...xtremists-participating-in-prayer-meeting.ece
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Any of the miracles claimed in the bible. Part the Red Sea. That would do it for me.
Click to expand...
It may very well do it for you, but it doesn't prove the existence of god by any rational measure.
 
SlackMaster said:
There may be people that make this party line distinction, but I did not.

Republican, Democrat, other... doesn't matter to me. If you use your office to promote an event whose sole purpose is to promote religion or a specific religion over another specific religion or non-religion... you're in violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

It is not an event. She didn't propose people gather in a particular place to pray in the name of any religion. She didn't promote a specific religion. She promoted prayer in a very generalized way. I don't think it precluded for example Muslims from gathering at their mosques and praying or a bunch of hippies gathering in the woods to pray to some fairy god. It was one sentence dude. Establishment Cause? Really?
 
Taylor said:
It may very well do it for you, but it doesn't prove the existence of god by any rational measure.
Click to expand...

BS. If some sort of being can demonstrate omnipotence and/or omniscience then there is proof that such a being can and does exist. God could be proven if he existed.

You are just under some stupid delusion that atheist are as delusional and unmoved by proof as believers. That is not the case. It is believers that operate on blind faith not atheists.
 
Last edited:
jambalaya said:
It is not an event. She didn't propose people gather in a particular place to pray in the name of any religion. She didn't promote a specific religion. She promoted prayer in a very generalized way. I don't think it precluded for example Muslims from gathering at their mosques and praying or a bunch of hippies gathering in the woods to pray to some fairy god. It was one sentence dude. Establishment Cause? Really?
Click to expand...

Which "she" are you referring to?

Yea... Establishment Clause. Really. :)

Can you explain how proclamations for prayer and a Christian lead prayer rally is not a violation?

I've already stated numerous times on this thread how it is. Did you read those posts?
 
RStringfield said:
BS. If some sort of being can demonstrate omnipotence and/or omniscience then there is proof that such a being can and does exist. God could be proven if he existed.

You are just under some stupid delusion that atheist are as delusional and unmoved by proof as believers. That is not the case. It is believers that operate on blind faith not atheists.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is that "God" is such a nebulous term. It means so many different things to so many different people.

If your "God" is the wind, or a force of nature, or something like that... it might be easier to prove than if your "God" is the creator of the universe. By the latter measure, even if a being was to show that he's all powerful in this universe, it doesn't mean that he/she/it made it. It would be a good start though.
 
SlackMaster said:
I think the problem here is that "God" is such a nebulous term. It means so many different things to so many different people.

If your "God" is the wind, or a force of nature, or something like that... it might be easier to prove than if your "God" is the creator of the universe. By the latter measure, even if a being was to show that he's all powerful in this universe, it doesn't mean that he/she/it made it. It would be a good start though.
Click to expand...

Believers refuse to give God a real definition because then it would be falisfiable. They insist on defining it as unknowable because then it is unassailable. Their belief is based on nothing but faith. It is not at all true that atheism must be based on the same sort of faith. There is no reason to believe that God is the wind or a force of nature or any of the other mythological nonsense and fairy tales that are the basis of religion. One need not employ faith to reject the argument from ignorance.
 
RStringfield said:
Believers refuse to give God a real definition because then it would be falisfiable. They insist on defining it as unknowable because then it is unassailable. Their belief is based on nothing but faith. It is not at all true that atheism must be based on the same sort of faith. There is no reason to believe that God is the wind or a force of nature or any of the other mythological nonsense and fairy tales that are the basis of religion. One need not employ faith to reject the argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

I agree, faith is not needed to reject it. I was just pointing out that whether or not a god hypothesis can be proven or not depends on how you define that god. Some gods could be falsified, others not.

Example 1: The idea of an "all good" and "all powerful" god makes that god logically inconsistent in a world where evil exists. That god can not exist.

Example 2: "God is everything". That definition of god is too nebulous and isn't even really defined. By saying that god is everything you're saying he's nothing.

Example 3: "God is the thing that created the universe." We don't know yet what created the universe and it may be unknowable. As such, that God can't be falsified.

Depending on which god hypothesis you give will depend on which type of atheist I am towards it.

To most god claims I'm an "agnostic atheist" meaning, I don't know if that god exists, but I don't believe in it"

To some, like examples 1 and 2, I'm a "gnostic atheist" meaning, I know that god doesn't exist, and I don't believe in it."

Religious people can use the agnostic/gnostic qualifier too. Some claim to "know there is a god and believe in it" (gnostic theist) and some claim not to know there is a god, but still believe there is one (agnostic theist).

My main thrust was that falsifiability depends on the definition of the god claim.
 
madman said:
LOL, silly :lamo

'Massive heat wave' on way; Okla. tries prayer - Weather - msnbc.com

In the thick of the heat wave is Oklahoma where Gov. Mary Fallin asked Oklahomans to pray for rain this Sunday.

"The power of prayer is a wonderful thing, and I would ask every Oklahoman to look to a greater power this weekend and ask for rain," Fallin said in a news release on Thursday.
Fallin on Thursday also issued a ban on outdoor burning for the western half of the state because of the extreme drought conditions.

---
Prayer does not work, never has, never will. There is ZERO scientific evidence. it only give people that warm fuzzy feeling.
Click to expand...

This almost sounds like religaphobia. Why else would some one start a thread attacking people for their faith in the power of prayer?
 
apdst said:
This almost sounds like religaphobia. Why else would some one start a thread attacking people for their faith in the power of prayer?
Click to expand...

Because it violates the constitution maybe?:shrug:
 
Just imagine if he had something like this.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Some here would have likely demanded his expulsion from the history books even for a statement like that.

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Just imagine if he had something like this.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Some here would have likely demanded his expulsion from the history books even for a statement like that.

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796
Click to expand...


I wouldn't believe anyone actually advocates Orwellian history revisions.

However, CS Lewis has a wonderful quote for the moral busybodies.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
 
SlackMaster said:
Example 3: "God is the thing that created the universe." We don't know yet what created the universe and it may be unknowable. As such, that God can't be falsified.
Click to expand...

That's not a definition. It is a refusal to define, no different than the God is everything definition and just as worthless.

My main thrust was that falsifiability depends on the definition of the god claim.
Click to expand...

That is quite true. However, belief in God depends on a definition of God too.

Of course, one can not test a theory that does not exist or it is so vague as to be meaningless. Atheism can be tested and falisfied by anyone who cares to offer a theory of God and then offers proof of the theory or demonstrates the existence of the entity described as God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom