• 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]

Federal court halts Christian prayers at North Carolina county meetings

AlabamaPaul said:
And one is free to do so, but not to require that anyone else do the same...
Click to expand...

True however the issue at heart here and the point of the OP is the acknowledgment by a federal court that gov officials cannot and begin official sessions with prayer.
 
greyhat said:
True however the issue at heart here and the point of the OP is the acknowledgment by a federal court that gov officials cannot and begin official sessions with prayer.
Click to expand...

In case you can't tell, I have little respect for our federal court system as should you...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You probably wouldn't have remained awake through the discussion...
Click to expand...

"Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep" would have had me snoring long before the discussion..................Quit ducking..................
 
paddymcdougall said:
Actually the whole point of this thread is a federal court said they AREN'T fine as a matter of law or constitutionality.
Click to expand...


yes, a federal judge isn't aware of precedent and/or ignored it.... it happens... more often than any of us would like.

SCOTUS ruled opening prayers are constitutional, provided they are no materially supported ( as in paying for the chaplain to give the prayer).. that is just a simple fact.
 
Federal court halts Christian prayers at North Carolina county meetings

Thrilla said:
yes, a federal judge isn't aware of precedent and/or ignored it.... it happens... more often than any of us would like.

SCOTUS ruled opening prayers are constitutional, provided they are no materially supported ( as in paying for the chaplain to give the prayer).. that is just a simple fact.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the gov paying for the lights to be on during this prayer is material support...
 
Federal court halts Christian prayers at North Carolina county meetings

AlabamaPaul said:
In case you can't tell, I have little respect for our federal court system as should you...
Click to expand...

So far there isn't a better system so ill keep it even with all it's flaws..
 
greyhat said:
One could argue that the gov paying for the lights to be on during this prayer is material support...
Click to expand...

well, sure.. one is free to argue anything they like.

that particular argument being successful is quite another matter.
 
Federal court halts Christian prayers at North Carolina county meetings

Thrilla said:
well, sure.. one is free to argue anything they like.

that particular argument being successful is quite another matter.
Click to expand...

It has merits specially if the activities took place at night.
 
tererun said:
when it is required and all have to participate it is being forced.
Click to expand...

Participate? No. Tolerate? Yes. I thought Libbos were all about tolerance.
 
apdst said:
Participate? No. Tolerate? Yes. I thought Libbos were all about tolerance.
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want, but do it on your own time. Doing it on my time is requiring me to participate. No one is preventing any of those people to take moments out of their day to pray, and they should do it on their time. This is the problem with people like you, you want everyone else to be inconvenienced because of your prayers. We do not need it, nor to be bothered wasting time watching you do it because you are bothered because we have more free time than you.
 
greyhat said:
Freedom of religion IS freedom FROM religion.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What does that say? What does it say? it doesn't say except on government property, it says "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF" of what? RELIGION, what are they doing? PROHIBITING.

So no, freedom OF religion isn't freedom FROM it is freedom for them to practice it and freedom for you not to, it doesn't mean that you have to pray but it does mean that you or anyone else cannot prohibit others from praying ANYWHERE.
 
Would y'all be ok with this city council starting out each meeting prayer with "Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with Thee.... "? I mean, since it isn't an endorsement of anything and all, it should be ok, I should think.
 
Dezaad said:
Would y'all be ok with this city council starting out each meeting prayer with "Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with Thee.... "? I mean, since it isn't an endorsement of anything and all, it should be ok, I should think.
Click to expand...


Why would we be opposed?
 
greyhat said:
Freedom of religion IS freedom FROM religion.
Click to expand...

No, freedom of religion is being able to practice your religion when, where and how you desire. If you don't desire to practice one at all then of course you can easily make that choice as well.
 
tererun said:
You can do whatever you want, but do it on your own time. Doing it on my time is requiring me to participate. No one is preventing any of those people to take moments out of their day to pray, and they should do it on their time. This is the problem with people like you, you want everyone else to be inconvenienced because of your prayers. We do not need it, nor to be bothered wasting time watching you do it because you are bothered because we have more free time than you.
Click to expand...

What exactly about this is forcing you to take part? Why should anyone care if you are inconvenienced by someone practicing their freedom? Is that supposed to be a good reason to restrict their freedom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom