• 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]

Caine said:
The Dumbasses wasting time and money are the ACLU retards who attended these meetings just to troll the court system with this bull****.
Click to expand...
So why is it "bull****" and why are members of the ACLU "retards"?
 
Hard Truth said:
People can pray anytime they want in most situations. The members of the council can pray silently shortly before the meeting starts or can go out in the hallway or outside to pray out loud. They can also have a non-religious moment of silence ritual for people to pray or not.

When they pray out loud as part of the official meeting it is sending message to all in attendance that the particular religion's prayer that they use is considered something of an officially privileged religion.
Click to expand...
Only a ****ing retard would take that "message" that you claim away from a situation where they pray.
You'll have to do better than that to prove your point.

That is both the intent and the effect.
Click to expand...
Prove it is their intent. I'll be waiting.

It is disrespectful to everyone who is not in their particular religious sect and it should be considered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
There is no constitutional right to not be offended. Suck it.

It saddens me that so many can't understand that.
Click to expand...
It saddens me that so many can't understand that a simple prayer is harming nobody.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So why is it "bull****" and why are members of the ACLU "retards"?
Click to expand...

Because they attended meetings just to gather data to file a lawsuit and troll a rural North Carolina county.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Upholding the Constitution is "dumbasses wasting time and money"?
Click to expand...
Stopping someone from praying is not upholding the constitution, it's just oversensitive dumbasses who don't know the tiniest bit about american history particularly when it comes to colonialism and the reason why the founding fathers were weary about the place of any religion in the new country they were founding, they escaped "real" issues stemming from religious oppression. Someone wanting to say a prayer in a public setting or a public meeting isn't oppressive and it isn't an issue, and to go after that is just a waste of time and money.
 
Its always fun when people who are intentionally oppressive or disrespectful tell their victims that they have no right to feel bad about it.
 
Caine said:
Because they attended meetings just to gather data to file a lawsuit and troll a rural North Carolina county.
Click to expand...

So they are "retards: because they upheld the separation of church and state?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So they are "retards: because they upheld the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

"Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the constitution but, Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise therof, is.
 
Monserrat said:
"Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the constitution but, Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise therof, is.
Click to expand...
And when Jefferson wrote describing that he wrote: ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And when Jefferson wrote describing that he wrote: ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson was one of many founding fathers stating one of many opinions on how the country should run. Many of the early "americans" were escaping oppressive religious regimes and subsequent dictates of such regimes that were oppressive resulting in highly restricted freedoms when it came to religious expression...much of the time this ended in a great deal of pain, suffering, loss of livelihood and loss of life. This was something that was very real and fresh in the minds of the early americans and early forefathers so with that very basic understanding of how religion affected the way they looked at the establishment of this new and "free" country they wanted to create something that could never take away from the rights of the individual when it came to freedom of religious expression. Seperation of Church and state even as expressed by Thomas Jefferson never meant to take away from the right of the individual to express their faith.

So this great "example of justice and american religious freedom" is really the exact opposite, it's taking away from religious freedoms.


Like I said before:

"Seperation of Church and State" isn't in the constitution but, Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise therof, is.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
A fail to see how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not calling for a separation of church and state? And oh yea those dirty liberals are up to it again:lamo I mean i guess many conservative judges must be "lbierals" too and that dirty lib Jefferson: I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Click to expand...

If you notice, Thomas Jefferson is quoted on every one of my posts. I don't think he's a dirty lib at all. I also don't believe the actions that could have been taken as I described would have done anything to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Therefore the "wall" as Jefferson described it would have still been intact ie the wall of the gov't not being permitted to establish an official religion. The wall he spoke of has had a few bricks added to it by some "lib" judges in my opinion.
 
MarineTpartier said:
If you notice, Thomas Jefferson is quoted on every one of my posts. I don't think he's a dirty lib at all. I also don't believe the actions that could have been taken as I described would have done anything to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Therefore the "wall" as Jefferson described it would have still been intact ie the wall of the gov't not being permitted to establish an official religion. The wall he spoke of has had a few bricks added to it by some "lib" judges in my opinion.
Click to expand...

By praying an official prayer on the legislative record is no "wall" at all.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Which isn't in the constitution. Its a liberal judges interpretation of the 1st Amendment and Establishment Clause. I see no issue with someone praying prior to any meeting including using the name Jesus. What he should have done, however, is require that the prayer start 5 minutes (arbitrary time, just for the sake of debate) prior to the official meeting beginning. This provides no "captive audience" arguement andthe prayer is not done in any offical capacity. Its simply a citizen calling other citizens of like faith together for a prayer in a taxpayer funded building. Of course, if he did this, we would have had panty waists saying "I felt like if I wasn't there that I was late. I felt like I had to go."
Click to expand...

MarineTpartier said:
If you notice, Thomas Jefferson is quoted on every one of my posts. I don't think he's a dirty lib at all. I also don't believe the actions that could have been taken as I described would have done anything to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Therefore the "wall" as Jefferson described it would have still been intact ie the wall of the gov't not being permitted to establish an official religion. The wall he spoke of has had a few bricks added to it by some "lib" judges in my opinion.
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
By praying an official prayer on the legislative record is no "wall" at all.
Click to expand...

PLEASE, read the bolded in my previous posts. You obviously didn't the first time.
 
MarineTpartier said:
PLEASE, read the bolded in my previous posts. You obviously didn't the first time.
Click to expand...

My deepest apologies i was getting a lot of "quotes" at the time of this post and must of over read it or did not click on the link to your quotes of me :3oops:
After reading what you and i agre if they would of done that i would of had no problem, but them keeping it on offical record and mkaing it part of official business i found a problem with that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And when Jefferson wrote describing that he wrote: ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Click to expand...

And yet..... people act like this means our elected officials are not allowed to be seen praying.

Retarded.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
My deepest apologies i was getting a lot of "quotes" at the time of this post and must of over read it or did not click on the link to your quotes of me :3oops:
After reading what you and i agre if they would of done that i would of had no problem, but them keeping it on offical record and mkaing it part of official business i found a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks bro, that was big of you to admit fault. Kudos.
 
Caine said:
And yet..... people act like this means our elected officials are not allowed to be seen praying.

Retarded.
Click to expand...
:roll:
You keep on moving the goal post. No one is saying "oh elected officials cant pray" what this is stating is that a legislator cant open business by praying on the floor as official legislative business..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:
You keep on moving the goal post. No one is saying "oh elected officials cant pray" what this is stating is that a legislator cant open business by praying on the floor as official legislative business..
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Caine said:
Why can't they?

They are a group of individuals saying a prayer at their own meeting.
Click to expand...
Did everything literally go in one ear and out the other for the last 10 posts? We as a country cannot endorse a religion, saying a prayer on the officially legislative record is enterprising a religion.. That is against the 1st amendment..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Did everything literally go in one ear and out the other for the last 10 posts? We as a country cannot endorse a religion, saying a prayer on the officially legislative record is enterprising a religion.. That is against the 1st amendment..
Click to expand...

Individuals praying is not "We as a Country". Not EVERYTHING an elected official does is an endorsement.

I see now you have moved on to using the word "enterprising". It is NOTHING that you say. It is simply saying a damned prayer. You are stretching desperately to find a way to claim that the individuals (they do not lose their individuality when elected) on the council are somehow enforcing a "official" county religion by simply praying together before a meeting. This is simply not the case no matter how many different adjectives you use.
 
Caine said:
Individuals praying is not "We as a Country". Not EVERYTHING an elected official does is an endorsement.
Click to expand...
When its on the record of the official legislative documents it is..


I see now you have moved on to using the word "enterprising". It is NOTHING that you say. It is simply saying a damned prayer. You are stretching desperately to find a way to claim that the individuals (they do not lose their individuality when elected) on the council are somehow enforcing a "official" county religion by simply praying together before a meeting. This is simply not the case no matter how many different adjectives you use.
Click to expand...
Its not single individuals. I have no problem with someone praying on their own. Your missing this part: saying a prayer on the officially legislative record is endorsing a religion.. That is against the 1st amendment..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
When its on the record of the official legislative documents it is..



Its not single individuals. I have no problem with someone praying on their own. Your missing this part: saying a prayer on the officially legislative record is endorsing a religion.. That is against the 1st amendment..
Click to expand...

But you fail to show how it is endorsing a religion.

Besides...... The 1st amendment says congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

*Yawn* Try harder.
 
Caine said:
But you fail to show how it is endorsing a religion.
Click to expand...
Because its saying a prayer as official business of the congress and calling to a sects diety... How is that not endorsing a religion?


Besides...... The 1st amendment says congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

*Yawn* Try harder.
Click to expand...

Yea... Exactly my point. This is making a not establishing any religion...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because its saying a prayer as official business of the congress and calling to a sects diety... How is that not endorsing a religion?
Click to expand...
They are still individuals, and are allowed to have their individual beliefs. And they are not required to not speak of their individual beliefs. You are comparing the "audience" of this council too much to an "audience" of learning elementary school children. I would agree that it would be wrong to pray with them..... as they are young and impressionable and they are there to learn. The "audience" of a county council, however, is mature (or should be.. ****ing crybabies) enough to recognize that individuals have varying beliefs, and that because this council happens to be praying to the god of Hey-Zeus! that is it not an indication that it is the "official religion" of the local government, specifically because they have not voted upon such a thing. To vote upon such a thing would be a violation of the 1st amendment.






Yea... Exactly my point. This is making a not establishing any religion...
Click to expand...
Whut? You lost me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom