• 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!

Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting [W:93:217]

Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

The NYT article showed how the Left leaning justices ruled much more evenly on free speech issues than the Right Leaning ones. That suggest they judges on the Right are biased, by definition.

The NYT is a left leaning paper so that is not quite unusual that they would side with the liberal judges. of course the SCOTUS isn't suppose to be political it is suppose to be a neutral party and uphold the constitution. which is what the judges did.

How can I be biased when I have no qualms with people practicing their religion in church or in private? It's the public displays of religion which I spurn. BTW: Did not your Christ warn his followers against such displays of pretense?

UMM you just said that religous views are BS or do i need to repost it for you? i am not making any pretense so i have no clue about what you are talking about.


Every day I see that the "Christians" are doing anything and everything except following the teachings of their Christ.

then you are only looking at you want to see.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

That would be difficult since I don't see anyone could be harmed. If you feel otherwise, I'd love to see your definition.

You can't see anyone being harmed, you've asked if anyone has been harmed, yet you cannot define the term in the context of the OP! How is it possible that you can or cannot see harm if you are unable to define it? It renders your position baseless.

If we are to answer your question, "Has anyone ever been harmed by prayer before a public meeting?" I, for one, would need to know your definition of "harm".
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

In your view, perhaps. That doesn't negate the fact that people do, and should, have the freedom to say it whether you agree or not.
`
Exactly, which is why this ruling might eventually lead the way to a corporate controlled, religious oligarchy of a) Christian dominionism and b) Christian Reconsructualism
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

And that's definitely the problem. Personal definitions of harm? Legal definitions of harm? Etc.

Calamity, for example, feels that a public prayer in a public meeting "harms" him simply because he desires a secular society. So similarly, I could see Moon feeling that a Public Official engaging in sexual actions with a subordinate while married "harms" him simply becasue he desires a moral and ethical society.

Then again, those would seemingly be personal definitions largely based upon opinion, as opposed to legal definitions. They would also be personal definitions that I could very easily see the majority of people disagreeing with as it relates to "harm".

As it relates to this case, I'm unsure how much "harm" really played in. I need to read the actual ruling on it. However, I don't think it's a black and white notion that a prayer prior to a local public meeting, even if it happens to be towards a specific religion, is inherently the establishment of a state religion or a tangible push in that direction. I would imagine that if it was actually an official part of the proceedings OR if prayers of other religions in a similar situation were denied then it'd be more clearly problematic.

Absolutely. If "harm" remains undefined how would there be a general agreement as to where the line is crossed? The definition will have to be defined and generally agreed upon AND equally applied.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

`
Exactly, which is why this ruling might eventually lead the way to a corporate controlled, religious oligarchy of a) Christian dominionism and b) Christian Reconsructualism
As opposed to a secular buracracy of unaccountabilty? Hat is far more down the path of actually occurring the a religious take over of the country.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

You can't see anyone being harmed, you've asked if anyone has been harmed, yet you cannot define the term in the context of the OP! How is it possible that you can or cannot see harm if you are unable to define it? It renders your position baseless.

If we are to answer your question, "Has anyone ever been harmed by prayer before a public meeting?" I, for one, would need to know your definition of "harm".

No, my position is not baseless. If you have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how. It really is an honest question.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

As opposed to a secular buracracy of unaccountabilty? Hat is far more down the path of actually occurring the a religious take over of the country.

Yet you don't deny rich Christianity has their own designs on society.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

No, my position is not baseless. If you have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how. It really is an honest question.

"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.

Well, he seems to be suggesting that an individual use their own definition for harm.

"If YOU have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how."

Basically, he's asking that if you personally think you've been harmed (so however you personally define harm), or think you could be, he would like you to explain how that is.

His definition of harm doesn't really matter much when asking you if YOU think you have or could be harmed...because nothing forces you to use his definition, so there's no reason for you to think you've been harmed or not harmed based on HIS definition.

Basically, he seems to be asking people to do what calamity did....explain whether or not they personally think prayer at a public meeting harms them, and how.

Calamity explained by explaining his apparent definition of harm....IE, an action that runs counter to his particular desire for how the world should be.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

How embarrassing, adults who are supposed to be in charge bowing their heads to talk to the invisible man. :(

Happened since the beginning of the country. Heck, most of the best civilizations in history acknowledged their Gods in functions of the State.

Embarrassing, childish? No.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I somehow doubt you would agree to have several prayers of different religions before a meeting and only "approve" of Christian prayers being forced on everyone to hear. So please, don't try and pretend this is a 1st amendment issue for you. This is a "We want to cram our CHRISTIAN prayers down people's throats" concern.

I think that would be a decent thing. If a significant portion of the community were of multiple faiths, inclusion of the big hitters would be good.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

When there is a thread about banning things, then we can discuss that then. For now, this is a thread about what they are permitting and my suggestion that if they have to do a prayer, then do it at the end so those who do not wish to participate can leave when the official proceedings end. This is especially true if 100 religions show up for each meeting and they all want to do a prayer before official proceedings begin. I'm trying to come up with a reasonable compromise. What's yours?

My compromise? None. If they don't like it they don't have to attend the meeting; they can take their complaints to the ballot box and vote in a new council. If the will of the people is to change the situation, then let that happen by democratic process.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

`
You're not too quick on the uptake.
Well I must not be! Because I can't make sense of what you are saying. You are comparing the words of "love" that one would have for a spouse, to a prayer before a public meeting? Likewise your reply to MrVicchio would seem to indicate that you think Christianity has its "own designs on society" and they are to take over the country. A corporate controlled, religious oligarchy. See I don't think that it is really a matter of me not being 'quick on the uptake' as much as a matter of a really muddy message. Delivered sloppily. Coming from someone throwing around the word meaningless. Just saying. :shock:
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

My compromise? None. If they don't like it they don't have to attend the meeting; they can take their complaints to the ballot box and vote in a new council. If the will of the people is to change the situation, then let that happen by democratic process.

I guess you are mixing up common courtesy with politics. Oh well, that's your opinion.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Satanic Priest don't lead prayers, they lead meditations and view prayer as following dogma. MAYBE THEY SHOULD START!

Good try though. But as Kreton said and you ignored, if a Satanic Priest wants to arrive before a meeting to lead a meditation and all the state laws are followed?

It is hard to imagine anyone would really mind. REALLY? That's odd considering the number of folks freaking out by gay marriages

I'd require Mr. Hail Satan to actually attend the meeting though. In order to discourage grand standers and types there to disrupt the meeting with their "meditation/prayer" who have no interest in the meeting itself. WHY? Isn't Mr. Hail Satan protected under the same Constitution?

As to the rest of your questions, you know it is 2014 right? What's religious oppression have to do with the year? It never stopped it from happening before.

Or do you really think none of this has come up before or none of your questions have ever been addressed? Uhmmmm, ever hear of Separation of Church and State? Yeah, it's come up many times before.

Or you just need posters at an internet message board to answer them for you? :confused:
Yes, obviously you are confused.



See post #90. Wait, let me share it with you.

Quote by LUDIN view post

it isn't during the meeting it is BEFORE the meeting.

sorry but the constitution doesn't limit you on where and when you can pray. what it does say is that government can't tell you when and where to pray.
Ah...So it's a prayer meeting before the public meeting? In other words, before the meeting is called into business the prayer is said?

I replied

Quote by RM

Hmmmmm,

THEN I QUOTED: A small New York town’s practice of opening its government meetings with a prayer does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, in a decision that both sides said could signal a major shift in the role of religion in the public square.

Supreme Court OKs prayer before public meetings - Washington Times

Quote by RM

I think the meeting has been called into business...then the prayer is said.


************************************************************************************

The above post was preceded by #85, which I posted:


My stance is:
[/U]
Wanna pray? Go to church and pray among and with one's religious peers. Wanna pray? Fire away, inside one's mind anytime or anyplace. If prayers don't work when they are done so in silences...then maybe people are praying to the wrong deity. Maybe a deity doesn't want to answer a prayer or think that it fits the big plan.

Have public business that needs to be remedied? Go to a meeting with the agenda to resolve a public problem. Public debate helps resolve issues, not prayer.

In other words, what is the end game by saying a prayer at a public meeting? Fellowship maybe? What about those who don't subscribe to, or is affiliated with religion? Do those who subscribe to minority religions get their form of prayers invoked in a public meeting? Like say should the meeting include those who want to spread a prayer blanket, get on their knees, face the west, and bow in prayer?

In other words:

If a local, county, state, or federal government meeting has been called into business and a prayer is invoked, - That's an infringement on the rights of those who don't want TO HAVE RELIGIOUS PRAYER FORCED ON THEM!

IN A PUBIC GOVERNMENT MEETING - when prayer is forced on people who go for public business and problems to be addressed - and who doesn't want go to a public meeting for a religious ceremony performed. - That's the harm.

What's next? Start having all public agenda meeting used to solve public problems be held in churches as opposed to a government building or town halls?

"Well now!" you say. "If you don't like prayers at public meetings, then don't go to the meeting!'

So then I will have to reply: BUT I HAVE PUBIC BUSINESS TO ADDRESS - NOT RELIGION.
So what do I have to do...pray that you'll stop praying at public meetings and whoever prays the hardest and gets their way...wins?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I guess you are mixing up common courtesy with politics. Oh well, that's your opinion.


I find it discourteous when a minority of people wish to dictate which traditions must be silenced. Why are you offended by a prayer?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Tell you what. If a Christian doesn't mind listening to this from start to finish:



or hearing an abbreviated, a cappela version sung at the beginning of a council meeting, then I might be willing to entertain his or her privilege to pray at a council meeting. If not, then he or she advocates treating Islam differently than Christianity in the eyes of the law. To do that is to destroy any credibility one might have on this issue.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.

It's a simple question. I can't define the harm you suffer from someone saying a prayer because it's not something I've experienced. If you're not able.or willing to answer, then I guess that's an answer in and if itself.

If you're not familiar the dictionary definition of the word, then by all means look it up.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

I find it discourteous when a minority of people wish to dictate which traditions must be silenced. Why are you offended by a prayer?
When there could be a long line of different prayers to accommodate a large group of people, then I think it is excessive. Why can't the prayer be done at the end? Will God be so bored by the proceedings that he won't listen if the prayers are done at the end?

Oh, and I don't really care about your traditions one way or the other, since you asked. I was seeking a workable compromise, why are you so inflexible?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Well I must not be! Because I can't make sense of what you are saying. You are comparing the words of "love" that one would have for a spouse, to a prayer before a public meeting? Likewise your reply to MrVicchio would seem to indicate that you think Christianity has its "own designs on society" and they are to take over the country. A corporate controlled, religious oligarchy. See I don't think that it is really a matter of me not being 'quick on the uptake' as much as a matter of a really muddy message. Delivered sloppily. Coming from someone throwing around the word meaningless. Just saying. :shock:

Like I said; You are not too quick on the uptake.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Yes, obviously you are confused.



See post #90. Wait, let me share it with you.



I replied








************************************************************************************

The above post was preceded by #85, which I posted:




In other words:

If a local, county, state, or federal government meeting has been called into business and a prayer is invoked, - That's an infringement on the rights of those who don't want TO HAVE RELIGIOUS PRAYER FORCED ON THEM!

IN A PUBIC GOVERNMENT MEETING - when prayer is forced on people who go for public business and problems to be addressed - and who doesn't want go to a public meeting for a religious ceremony performed. - That's the harm.

What's next? Start having all public agenda meeting used to solve public problems be held in churches as opposed to a government building or town halls?

"Well now!" you say. "If you don't like prayers at public meetings, then don't go to the meeting!'

So then I will have to reply: BUT I HAVE PUBIC BUSINESS TO ADDRESS - NOT RELIGION.
So what do I have to do...pray that you'll stop praying at public meetings and whoever prays the hardest and gets their way...wins?
Good lord, a few honest questions. Does this wall of text above mean something? What? Because by the end of it, I'm not even sure you are sure who you are speaking to or what about. Particularly when you get into that part about what I'd say and you'd say and whatever else someone would say at the end. So what was that all supposed to mean? That Satanist now don't view prayer as dogmatic and practice meditation instead? That your hypothetical was not hyper fictional and based upon a misunderstanding? That most people probably would not have a problem with the practice alongside traditional prayer at a public meeting? Particularly if they had to attend the meeting or have a reason to be there? That the sound of this silent mediation would be a problem? What about those straight forward questions was it that was so intimidating? So much so that you launched into this, I can only call it a diatribe above?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

When there could be a long line of different prayers to accommodate a large group of people, then I think it is excessive. Why can't the prayer be done at the end? Will God be so bored by the proceedings that he won't listen if the prayers are done at the end?


In this situation was there a long line of people asking for different prayers? Why do you feel it necessary to impose the will of the minority on the majority? Your comment about what "God" would be bored with tells it all. You are offended that there are people who have either a faith in something, or just don't mind the tradition of having an invocation before a proceeding.

Oh, and I don't really care about your traditions one way or the other, since you asked. I was seeking a workable compromise, why are you so inflexible?

Here is a compromise: Don't enter the meeting until after the prayer.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

The NYT is a left leaning paper so that is not quite unusual that they would side with the liberal judges. of course the SCOTUS isn't suppose to be political it is suppose to be a neutral party and uphold the constitution. which is what the judges did.



UMM you just said that religous views are BS or do i need to repost it for you? i am not making any pretense so i have no clue about what you are talking about.




then you are only looking at you want to see.
Simple. There's a time and a place for everything. A city council meeting is neither time nor place for prayer. After all, a large number of people are actually offended by it.

Why must prayer be imposed on those who want no part of it?

Church is for prayer. Home is for prayer. City Council meetings are for discussing community related matters. It's a shame that religious people can't keep the prayer out of the public square.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

<snip>
In other words:

If a local, county, state, or federal government meeting has been called into business and a prayer is invoked, - That's an infringement on the rights of those who don't want TO HAVE RELIGIOUS PRAYER FORCED ON THEM!

IN A PUBIC GOVERNMENT MEETING - when prayer is forced on people who go for public business and problems to be addressed - and who doesn't want go to a public meeting for a religious ceremony performed. - That's the harm.

What's next? Start having all public agenda meeting used to solve public problems be held in churches as opposed to a government building or town halls?

"Well now!" you say. "If you don't like prayers at public meetings, then don't go to the meeting!'

So then I will have to reply: BUT I HAVE PUBIC BUSINESS TO ADDRESS - NOT RELIGION.
So what do I have to do...pray that you'll stop praying at public meetings and whoever prays the hardest and gets their way...wins?

The decision by SCOTUS to allow prayers at public government meetings is seen by at least SOME politicians as allowing them to promote only one religious belief
Roanoke County supervisor ready to strike prayer policy after Supreme Court ruling - Roanoke Times: Roanoke County News

Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.

When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

If a non-Christian wished to pray during a meeting under his idea for the prayer policy, Bedrosian said, he or she would be able to do so during the allotted time for citizen comment. “I think America, pretty much from founding fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”

Christians are so 'persecuted' in this country.

Add this little bit of bigotry to statements by the Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, Roy Moore, and the rational person has to wonder if Margaret Atwood was being prescient when she wrote The Handmaid's Tale or maybe it was Robert Heinlein when he wrote a tale of American theocracy all the way back in 1940 - Revolt in 2100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islam and Buddhism don't have First Amendment protection, chief justice says

"Everybody, to include the United States Supreme Court, has been deceived as to one little word in the first amendment called 'religion,'" he said. "They can't define it."

Moore insisted that freedom of religion applies only the God of the Bible, and therefore the protections of the establishment clause do not extend to other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism.

"They don't want to do that, because that acknowledges the creator God," he said. "Buddha didn't create us. Muhammad didn't create us. It's the God of the Holy Scriptures."

According to Moore, the government and the Supreme Court should define religion as James Madison and George Mason did – "The duties we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it."

"They didn't bring a Koran on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower," he said. "Let's get real. Let's learn our history. Let's stop playing games."
 
Back
Top Bottom