• 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!

Mayor Forces Man To Leave Public Meeting Because He Won’t Stand During Prayer

Thank You.

Mr Paine: I would like to address your description of how Mr. Richardson should have entered the room. Mr. Richardson has every right in the world to be seated at that meeting when people are being let in to sit and leave when it is being concluded no more or less than the way every one else is doing the same.

Anything else differently would be suggesting, in a way, that Mr. Richardson get on a public bus and have to sit in the back because he doesn't pray or recite the "pledge of allegiance"; that was wrong then and it's still wrong now.

Same to you.

Thanks for the response Bob,

Since you condensed things, I'll try to better explain my thought.

I do not dispute the gentleman's right to present himself as/when he wishes.

His comportment alludes a specific intent other than normal meeting participation. Had he truly wished to fully participate, he might have made different choices of when to enter and where to seat in a manner which allowed him participation while showing respect for others of differing thought. He was demanding tolerance he was not willing to give.

I really dislike the term 'tolerance'; and prefer respect and courtesy in it's stead.

Hopefully this better explains my view. ????

Have a great day Bob

Thom Paine
 
“Okay. I asked him to either stand or please be escorted out as we do the Pledge,” Rees says in the video. “It’s just not fair to our troops and people overseas, sir.”

My husband and I both find this to be horrendously offensive.

What right does he have to declare 'it's not fair'.

My husband - while in the service and now that he is retired out - doesn't care. He'd rather someone NOT be pressured to STAND for anything if they don't want to. His position in the military shouldn't be used to bully or coerce other people to do things. Especially not over something so menial.
 
I feel sorry for our servicemen, who must know that some percentage of the residents of the U.S. they are running risks to defend are freeloading bums who have no loyalty whatever to the wonderful country they have chose to take up space in. If they all left tomorrow, it would be good riddance.
I believe service members should feel honored anytime someone exercises their Constituional rights. After all, it is the CONSTITUTION they took an oath to defend. The only people disrespectful to the troops in this scenario were the mayor and the police who enforced his unConstituional order.
 
Didn't say he did have an obligation. Mearly pointed out that just standing up and saying nothing would not have escalated the situation. So your ok showing no respect for those who are ok with the plege/prayer?

In this case, he had absolutely no reason to stand. He did exactly what should have been done. "Stand (figuratively obviously) his ground" for his principles, but obey the officer. Then he needs to take it to court. All the way up. This is a blatant violation of his rights, both in trying to make him stand for the prayer and then kicking him out for not standing for the pledge. It is his right to not be coerced into any action that is an expression of his freedom of speech. The city doesn't stand a chance on this issue if he sues them.
 
Yes, we have freedom in this country, and once the mayor made his feelings known, he should have let the rest of the attendees observe what an America-hater looks and acts like, especially when our Flag is involved.

As far as the prayer is concerned though, I have to wonder if the man causing the problem would dare try something like that in the ME - not giving homage to Allah when expected to do so, for instance. I suspect his polite refusal to comply would be viewed quite differently, and I doubt simply being ejected from a meeting would suffice to smooth over the implied insult! Of course we're "civilized," so we should overlook things like that - political correctness is so important! It will be iInteresting to see if a lawsuit is filed.....

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Good evening Lady P - hope you're well - hot and humid here all weekend, just when I was getting used to the milder summer we've had.

To your point, I think many in the west are often as intolerant as those in the ME, it's just that we generally hide our intolerance behind a pleasant exterior and bitch about it in the privacy of our homes or in the anonymity of the internet.
 
Yes, since their prayer was disrespecting his right to sit in a public meeting.

Here is a take. If it is a know standard practice in that town. The person who finds it objectionable should not enter the room till after the opening.

You know its impossible to please everyone at the same time. But my rights trumps your rights.:mrgreen:
 
I also wanted to agree with whoever it was who pointed out the shirts the council is wearing. That is really creepy. Even if it is for a benign reason, it is just so weird. Not saying it should be illegal or anything (obviously not), but it really makes the situation itself creepier with how they all look alike. It sort of drives in that message of mandated conformity (even if it was just a coincidence or something they simply agreed to do by their choice).
 
In this case, he had absolutely no reason to stand. He did exactly what should have been done. "Stand (figuratively obviously) his ground" for his principles, but obey the officer. Then he needs to take it to court. All the way up. This is a blatant violation of his rights, both in trying to make him stand for the prayer and then kicking him out for not standing for the pledge. It is his right to not be coerced into any action that is an expression of his freedom of speech. The city doesn't stand a chance on this issue if he sues them.

"You can't please everyone one, so you got to please yourself"

Yep. take it to court. I have said we basically have turned into the United Stated of Litigation. Only people who wins are the lawyers.:mrgreen:
 
Here is a take. If it is a know standard practice in that town. The person who finds it objectionable should not enter the room till after the opening.

You know its impossible to please everyone at the same time. But my rights trumps your rights.:mrgreen:

They have a right to attend that public meeting that affects them and not be forced to do things like stand for either a prayer or a pledge. Even students have a right not to stand up for the pledge of allegiance, certainly adults attending a town meeting should (and do) as well.
 
Here is a take. If it is a know standard practice in that town. The person who finds it objectionable should not enter the room till after the opening.

You know its impossible to please everyone at the same time. But my rights trumps your rights.:mrgreen:

Here's a better take. They shouldn't be praying during government business. He politely objected to their first amendment breach, and was wrongfully ejected for so doing.
 
"You can't please everyone one, so you got to please yourself"

Yep. take it to court. I have said we basically have turned into the United Stated of Litigation. Only people who wins are the lawyers.:mrgreen:

This case definitely belongs in court so it doesn't happen again (or at least makes it less likely). This was wrong. No government officials should ever force someone to stand for either a prayer or a pledge. I feel very strongly about this.

Likely, the ACLU would easily take on a case like this. And it wouldn't need to be for money (personally, I'd prefer it wasn't). Just get it ruled on in court that this is a violation of rights.
 
What is boils down is a group wants to make sure that no "prayer" or pledge is presented at public meetings. Seems form the OP article the individual had no other agenda and was not interested in what the meeting was really about.

While it was most likely wrong action by the Mayor, imo, the person could/should have stayed home if he doesn't want to comment on subjects the meeting was dealing with.
 
They have a right to attend that public meeting that affects them and not be forced to do things like stand for either a prayer or a pledge. Even students have a right not to stand up for the pledge of allegiance, certainly adults attending a town meeting should (and do) as well.

Didn't say they didn't have a right to attend. From the OP, one could conclude the only reason the person was there was to draw attention to how the meeting is opened and not the towns business.
 
Here's a better take. They shouldn't be praying during government business. He politely objected to their first amendment breach, and was wrongfully ejected for so doing.

You may be correct in this day and age.

Funny. I attend many club meetings, town meetings where payer and pledge are voiced. No objections , even from non believers.
 
Didn't say they didn't have a right to attend. From the OP, one could conclude the only reason the person was there was to draw attention to how the meeting is opened and not the towns business.

Doesn't matter. Even if that was his purpose, it was likely because of this horrid practice of expecting everyone to stand. It is wrong. It needed to be fought and this is the way to do it.
 
I also wanted to agree with whoever it was who pointed out the shirts the council is wearing. That is really creepy. Even if it is for a benign reason, it is just so weird. Not saying it should be illegal or anything (obviously not), but it really makes the situation itself creepier with how they all look alike. It sort of drives in that message of mandated conformity (even if it was just a coincidence or something they simply agreed to do by their choice).

It's probably by design so they can't be identified - "the white guy in the blue shirt" could be anyone.
 
This case definitely belongs in court so it doesn't happen again (or at least makes it less likely). This was wrong. No government officials should ever force someone to stand for either a prayer or a pledge. I feel very strongly about this.

Likely, the ACLU would easily take on a case like this. And it wouldn't need to be for money (personally, I'd prefer it wasn't). Just get it ruled on in court that this is a violation of rights.

OK, I agree. The person should have been allowed to just sit there.
However I support having the pledge given at the opening of meetings. Heck I don't even care if a prayer is also given.
 
They have a right to attend that public meeting that affects them and not be forced to do things like stand for either a prayer or a pledge. Even students have a right not to stand up for the pledge of allegiance, certainly adults attending a town meeting should (and do) as well.

While I don't argue the validity of your point, I'd simply say that a child not having to stand in school for the recitation of the pledge of allegiance is simply a symptom of the greater "me first" society that is, in my view, ruining what made America great. Is it any wonder so many young people today have trouble acting respectfully and cooperatively in collective society when they are pampered from an early age with the "right" to be obnoxious?
 
OK, I agree. The person should have been allowed to just sit there.
However I support having the pledge given at the opening of meetings. Heck I don't even care if a prayer is also given.

I don't have any objection whatsoever to the pledge being said at a public meeting. I believe it is inappropriate to say a prayer at a public meeting, but wouldn't find it offensive. I just think it is wrong to expect everyone there to show the exact kind of respect for either that you want. If the person actually causes a disruption during either, that is different (for instance, singing a song, playing music, talking, or actually doing something like this), but just not standing for them is their right, just as much as not joining in verbally or through other gestures is.
 
This case definitely belongs in court so it doesn't happen again (or at least makes it less likely). This was wrong. No government officials should ever force someone to stand for either a prayer or a pledge. I feel very strongly about this.

Likely, the ACLU would easily take on a case like this. And it wouldn't need to be for money (personally, I'd prefer it wasn't). Just get it ruled on in court that this is a violation of rights.

I'm just wondering. If you sit in a court room, awaiting the beginning of a hearing or trial, and the bailiff or court clerk announces, "all rise, this court is now in session...." how many people get to sit on their asses while the judge walks in and takes his/her seat and are they chastised by the judge and if they give the same type of response are they removed from the court or held in contempt, etc?
 
While I don't argue the validity of your point, I'd simply say that a child not having to stand in school for the recitation of the pledge of allegiance is simply a symptom of the greater "me first" society that is, in my view, ruining what made America great. Is it any wonder so many young people today have trouble acting respectfully and cooperatively in collective society when they are pampered from an early age with the "right" to be obnoxious?

I don't think that is it at all. I think it is because such things are pushed as required and result in punishment for not doing it is why we end up with incidents of more pushing back. There is a right to be obnoxious. It sucks when it is taken too far, but I don't see legitimately standing up for your rights or your beliefs as taking it too far. It all depends on what actions are taken and how, especially what the person's attitude is while taking the actions. I think their attitude tells us the most about whether they are doing it to be obnoxious or doing it to stand up for their beliefs, their rights.
 
I'm just wondering. If you sit in a court room, awaiting the beginning of a hearing or trial, and the bailiff or court clerk announces, "all rise, this court is now in session...." how many people get to sit on their asses while the judge walks in and takes his/her seat and are they chastised by the judge and if they give the same type of response are they removed from the court or held in contempt, etc?

I think it would be wrong to charge them, but definitely think that courts might see it differently. I don't know how such a thing would turn out in court.
 
You may be correct in this day and age.

Funny. I attend many club meetings, town meetings where payer and pledge are voiced. No objections , even from non believers.

Since the "non believers" have to interact with these same people outside of town and club meetings they may feel pressured not to make waves. Or they may simply consider it a courtesy. I wouldn't be surprised if some were intimidated as well. Club meetings are one thing but prayer should not be part of town meetings. Respect works both ways. Anyone ever ask the "non believers" if they object to prayer at town meetings? Maybe change things up and add a Hebrew, Muslim, Hindu or other type of prayer. Just thinking out loud.
 
Since the "non believers" have to interact with these same people outside of town and club meetings they may feel pressured not to make waves. Or they may simply consider it a courtesy. I wouldn't be surprised if some were intimidated as well. Club meetings are one thing but prayer should not be part of town meetings. Respect works both ways. Anyone ever ask the "non believers" if they object to prayer at town meetings? Maybe change things up and add a Hebrew, Muslim, Hindu or other type of prayer. Just thinking out loud.

Actually, this town now is reviewing if they have to do just that, and may end up having to open with words from an atheist.

I can't find it now, but one of the stories on this says something about them having to look into allowing other religions to open their meetings, and they may have to also allow atheists to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom