• 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]

The question that no one has asked:

WHY are these country-types (they are always found in rural districts) so insistent upon exhibiting their specific religious beliefs at a public forum?

Matthew 6:5-7
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
 
Yea... Well the founding documents of our country say otherwise.

1. No they don't

2. Even if they did, why would I give the least inkling of a **** what some old men with powdered wigs thought about the issue hundreds of years ago?

It's a matter of personal freedom being taken away. That's wrong, I don't care if you're in Washington DC or in Istanbul, it's wrong.
 
Unless you consider the state being pro gay marriage. That's certainly an ideology, and is against many religions (as well as being against the religion portion of the first amendment of the Constitution).

Being pro gay marriage is endorsing a religion?
 
They have been praying in our federal buildings and White House and Courts and Congress and States since the very beginning. They may make no law! So long as their rule is by the rights and liberties of the individual, they are free to do as they like. Prayer in our government is not new. Hell we put "One Nation Under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. So people had been doing it and talking of it well before then as well.

It's a prayer, it's not a nuke, it's not a law, it's not force. Y'all need to chill out and stop overreacting to these things.

this is not saying that you cannt pray in a legislative building. This ruling states that prayer cannot be part of the official business of the legislature and on the record.
 
1. No they don't
:doh
Yes.


2. Even if they did, why would I give the least inkling of a **** what some old men with powdered wigs thought about the issue hundreds of years ago?
So **** the legal foundation of our country?


It's a matter of personal freedom being taken away. That's wrong, I don't care if you're in Washington DC or in Istanbul, it's wrong.
No ones personal freedom is being taken away... You can still pray...
 
this is not saying that you cannt pray in a legislative building. This ruling states that prayer cannot be part of the official business of the legislature and on the record.

OK...so they shouldn't write down that they prayed. Fine. Whatever. It's still a null factor, still not a big deal, still nothing to get your panties in a twist about.
 
you wrote, "And God listens to ALL prayers, including ones that are given by groups." ... How do you know this?

God knows and hears everything. I'm sure even you know that is what is said about Him.

you keep it out of chambers because that's a secular space and I like the idea of separation of church and state ... I like the following ...

No, its not secular. Secular is an idea, not a place.

As for your quotes I'll only address the ones from the Founders as they're the only ones that matter as they are the ones that made the Constitution and the BoR's.

Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”


That wall was talking about making it to where the government cannot make laws for or against any religion/s. The letter in which that phrase was taken from is to the Danbury Baptist church who were being persecuted at the time. They wanted clarification as to what the religion clause meant in the 1st Amendment. It was written to assure them that the government could not make any laws against them...or for them.

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
― John Adams

This is correct as they use parts from several forms of government to create the Constitution. This is just a fact of history and has nothing to do with the Seperation of Church and State arguement.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
― James Madison

Again, correct. In Europe at that time and farther back in History the Church often interfered with the State and convinced rulers to use the law to ban and persecute anyone that they considered pagans and heretics. The 1st Amendment by its very words of "Congress shall make no law" prevents that from happening. No where in the 1st Amendment does it state that certain people due to class or profession or whatever could not openly practice thier belief system. In fact it specifically prohibits the government from doing just that with the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In each of those quotes context is everything.
 
Please tell me WHY do these hicks insist on praying before a public gathering when the deity they claim to worship was rather specific in telling believers to not pray in public?
 
Please tell me WHY do these hicks insist on praying before a public gathering when the deity they claim to worship was rather specific in telling believers to not pray in public?

No deity is specific about anything. All deities say whatever the believer whats it to say at the time.

Why do people seem so shocked that theists sound off in public? And what business is it of yours if they do?
 
No deity is specific about anything. All deities say whatever the believer whats it to say at the time.

Why do people seem so shocked that theists sound off in public? And what business is it of yours if they do?

So you didn't see my post quoting Matthew 6:5-7?
 
So you didn't see my post quoting Matthew 6:5-7?

The Bible says a lot of things that are ignored, or changed, or "honored" in different ways. They ain't supposed to be wearing cloths of intermixed material either. What's your point? That the religious have been doing what the religious have been doing since the beginning of religion? What other big news you got? Sky is blue? Gravity is an attractive force between massive objects?
 
The Bible says a lot of things that are ignored, or changed, or "honored" in different ways. They ain't supposed to be wearing cloths of intermixed material either. What's your point? That the religious have been doing what the religious have been doing since the beginning of religion? What other big news you got? Sky is blue? Gravity is an attractive force between massive objects?

Well -- yeah for most of what you post. I'm simply noting the sheer hypocrisy of the rednecks being so adamant about doing something they aren't supposed to do if they are true "Christians" Oh, and gravity is an attractive force between objects, not just massive objects. It's just that it's a whole lot easier to notice when you got at least one big object. Afterall, a marble is not what one might designate as massive but gravity does cause it to fall toward the earth's surface when dropped.
 
Well -- yeah for most of what you post. I'm simply noting the sheer hypocrisy of the rednecks being so adamant about doing something they aren't supposed to do if they are true "Christians"

So....it's the same as it's always been. K.

Oh, and gravity is an attractive force between objects, not just massive objects.

Incorrect. Massive object does not mean one of immense weight, but rather an object that has mass, positive mass.
 
:doh
Yes.

Prove it.


So **** the legal foundation of our country?

No, that would mean I have negative feelings toward the legal foundation of our country, which I don't. I simply don't give a **** either way. It's not important to me, my priorities, or my worldview.

No ones personal freedom is being taken away... You can still pray...

One day, the legislators were free to pray, the next day that freedom is somewhat restricted. You can argue the merits of putting restraints on religion all you want, but you insult my intelligence by trying to frame intervention and restriction as being something other than a removal of freedom.

There are a lot of freedoms we don't have, some are for the better. I can't snort cocaine off a naked hooker's breasts at noon in the middle of Times Square while getting a blowjob from a 17 year old cheer captain. That's a restriction of my freedom, but it's for the better.

Likewise, I can't take a dump on the White House lawn while reading the funny pages. Also a restriction of my freedom, but probably for the better.

At least call it what it is and justify WHY a given restriction is beneficial, don't try to play it off like something it isn't.
 
If they're not Catholic, I don't care what they agree to. And even then, personally, don't care, care about the right position of what the Magisterium says it is, because, well, that's what it is.

I think people have this misconception about the 1st Amendment and Sep of C&S. For one, no single group is asking for accommodation by the government, the government is at all levels made up by the people. The people whose right it is to not have the government, that is, other people prohibit them from the free exercise of religion. Don't you see the very thing you are trying repress under on the grounds of the 1st Amendment is the very thing, for this very reason why it is protected under the 1st Amendment.
Except no one is preventing them from praying. They can go on and do that if they want to, I have no objection whatsoever to that, and I would defend them vigorously. But not as an official prayer, starting the meeting. When they act in an official capacity, they represent all stakeholders, not just themselves and the people of their faith. People should always be free to pray, unless for the purpose of disruption or the like.

Suppose a representative believed that an official prayer should last an hour. Would you support him under freedom of religion?
 
Why are you posting the demented ravings of a complete nutjob, a man Glenn Beck idolises. Skousen's so-called "Communist Goals" came out of his rather deranged mind. The communists supported by the USSR were bad enough but the words of Skousen came only from his rather disturbed brain.

Why are you denying that socialists exist in the United States and many progressives are sympathetic?

You act like it's a lie that socialists exist because guys like Glenn Beck understand the prerequisites of a socialist based revolution...

It's not exactly like this is the first time socialists have attempted to coup a government - people who enjoy history generally understand the social conditions preceding a coup - you "liberals" call it "progress."
 
Except no one is preventing them from praying. They can go on and do that if they want to, I have no objection whatsoever to that, and I would defend them vigorously. But not as an official prayer, starting the meeting. When they act in an official capacity, they represent all stakeholders, not just themselves and the people of their faith. People should always be free to pray, unless for the purpose of disruption or the like.

Suppose a representative believed that an official prayer should last an hour. Would you support him under freedom of religion?


If brought to a vote and agreed upon, why not? Have a big tent revival. What you're advocating is a tyranny of the minority. On something like prayer, the one or two people need to learn what I can almost guarantee they squawk about -- being tolerant.
 
In my humble opinion,far too many people,whether they are religious or not, are too busy poking their noses in other peoples business rather than attending to their own.
If it's not not one group bitching about people people praying in public,then it is another group bitching about gays getting married.If it is not one group bitching about some religious group putting religious displays on government property,then it is another group bitching about how their religion doesn't automatically get their way all the time.

Yes this world can be quite difficult however, I'm not the one obsessing over/dreaming of new ideas to bitch about.

This is on par with some idiot getting upset because a woman is breastfeeding her baby in public...

How could anyone be this intolerant over prayer??? These clowns who are even attempting to debate this idea wouldn't say **** if this was over Muslim prayer 5 times a day. No, they only feel comfortable to criticize Christianity when they themselves stereotypically believe most Christians are conservative - not only that but white conservative males that are 3000 years old.. That or they belong to a Church that psychologically flogs them while preaching "Baptist social justice."
 
If brought to a vote and agreed upon, why not? Have a big tent revival. What you're advocating is a tyranny of the minority. On something like prayer, the one or two people need to learn what I can almost guarantee they squawk about -- being tolerant.

Such thinking would entirely circumvent the 1st amendment. I can tell I am not dealing with a person who is rational about this matter. Carry on.
 
Such thinking would entirely circumvent the 1st amendment. I can tell I am not dealing with a person who is rational about this matter. Carry on.

I suppose considering your agenda you wouldn't follow the logic, but I do adore your dismissive remarks in place of sound rebuttal. :peace
 
Our world and our country has gone to **** and people want to debate this??

Well I do suppose this thread does shed light on some posters true political ideals and the authoritarians that "co-exist" on this forum so it is useful for weeding out the classical liberals from the progressives.

Just don't respond to my post because it may make me offended and that is against the law allegedly.
 
The Constitution says this....." Article 13 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. "

It does not say it is illegal to pray, nor are there any words alluding to 'separation of church and state' which is a catch phrase invented by liberals who swear it is stated in the Constitution.
 
I suppose considering your agenda you wouldn't follow the logic, but I do adore your dismissive remarks in place of sound rebuttal. :peace

I would just rather contend with someone who has thought this through carefully. Nothing against you personally. :peace
 
Why are you denying that socialists exist in the United States and many progressives are sympathetic?

You act like it's a lie that socialists exist because guys like Glenn Beck understand the prerequisites of a socialist based revolution...

It's not exactly like this is the first time socialists have attempted to coup a government - people who enjoy history generally understand the social conditions preceding a coup - you "liberals" call it "progress."

What does this reply have to do with the supposed "Communist Goals" you posted?
 
I would just rather contend with someone who has thought this through carefully. Nothing against you personally. :peace

No, you would like to converse with someone who seeks to diminish or destroy the right of people to freely exercise their religion. I'm not offended, I would just rather you be honest. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom