Do you Truly believe in Freedom of Religion.

[Howler63]

...But the act of praying doesn't draw on those taxes, and hurts no one. You might as well ban reading non-curricular books at school, or ban daydreaming. They're about as reasonable, and almost as impossible to enforce.

Permitting prayer in a public building is establishment of religion. Can't have that. Just like posting the big 10 in a courthouse.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

To the extent that it isn't interfering with anyone's school work, yes, students should be able to pray on their own.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I agreed that an official should not use their position to force their opinions on third parties. I probably erred in saying that someone reporting to her should be allowed to perform the activity. That is not the same as refusing to participate in activities the official believe are against their conscience, but it is participation nonetheless. So it is rather iffy.

I would certainly feel much better, if we reworded the Constitution instead of redefining it all the time though.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say government service workers can block minorities they don't like from exercising their rights. It doesn't exist.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Permitting prayer in a public building is establishment of religion. Can't have that. Just like posting the big 10 in a courthouse.

It isn't establishment unless it's mandatory that you participate. And since mandating that children go to a place where they do not have the right to pray is establishing a lack of religion, that would violate one's rights.

Speaking of the big 10, did you know that the building housing the Supreme Court has several depictions of the Ten Commandments?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If you would've continued reading you'd see the context that I meant a government service worker can not use their position to advance their religion and personal beliefs. She was given every opportunity to abstain and she decided instead to block ANYONE from granting licenses. Do you think a Muslim DMV manager should be able to prevent his workers from issuing drivers licenses to non-Muslims? We wouldn't want to violate his first amendment right to proselytize and obstruct, right?

First off, I read your whole misdirected post, so how about lets be a little less condescending, especially when you have no point and no real idea what you are talking about.

And what say we break it down into components and you just answer the questions so we can make some actual headway here. Feel free to ask me some in return, but your last post was arrogant and a total deflection.

1. What is your meaning of a government service worker? All government is meant to serve We, the People... so am not seeing your distinction. She is not a simple bureaucrat, her's is an elected position.

2. If you elect someone, you expect, just like you do with Obama, some positional discretion... correct or not?

3. You certainly did not answer my question about whether service worker Obama has that right...does he? If so, didn't she as a similarly elected government worker also have the right?

4. If not, why not?

 

[joG]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say government service workers can block minorities they don't like from exercising their rights. It doesn't exist.

Quite right. IT says Congress will make no law.

 

[Cephus]

Sure. I know that is your spin on this.

That's not spin, those are facts. You ought to learn the difference.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Quite right. IT says Congress will make no law.

Nor did they. Glad we're finally on the same page. There are no laws forcing poor little Kim Davis to do anything she doesn't want to do.

First off, I read your whole misdirected post, so how about lets be a little less condescending, especially when you have no point and no real idea what you are talking about.

And what say we break it down into components and you just answer the questions so we can make some actual headway here. Feel free to ask me some in return, but your last post was arrogant and a total deflection.

1. What is your meaning of a government service worker? All government is meant to serve We, the People... so am not seeing your distinction. She is not a simple bureaucrat, her's is an elected position.

2. If you elect someone, you expect, just like you do with Obama, some positional discretion... correct or not?

3. You certainly did not answer my question about whether service worker Obama has that right...does he? If so, didn't she as a similarly elected government worker also have the right?

4. If not, why not?

I'm not going to be answering any of your questions until you tell me what your actual point is and substantiate it. Are you saying a Muslim DMV manager should be able to block all Christians, blacks, homosexuals, or any other minority they find atrocious from getting a license? This isn't about religious freedom, it's about going out of your way to try to force your religion on other people. I'm not interested in your red herring about Obama as that's completely irrelevant and I'm not an Obama voter.

Oh and as to the actual topic of the thread: There is no school in America that has banned children from praying. There are only schools who do not allow the religious to hijack education time in order to proslytize and showboat.

 

[Cephus]

It shows we are not very tolerant of her religion and we go to extremes for others .

We don't have to be tolerant of anyone's religion once it goes from a private belief to a public display. At the core of tolerance is that the act in question be tolerable. What she did was not.

 

[Cephus]

Permitting prayer in a public building is establishment of religion. Can't have that. Just like posting the big 10 in a courthouse.

Nope, sorry. Permitting teacher-led prayer in a public building is. Permitting people to pray to themselves certainly isn't.

 

[joG]

Nor did they. Glad we're finally on the same page. There are no laws forcing poor little Kim Davis to do anything she doesn't want to do.



I'm not going to be answering any of your questions until you tell me what your actual point is and substantiate it. Are you saying a Muslim DMV manager should be able to block all Christians, blacks, homosexuals, or any other minority they find atrocious from getting a license? This isn't about religious freedom, it's about going out of your way to try to force your religion on other people. I'm not interested in your red herring about Obama as that's completely irrelevant and I'm not an Obama voter.

Oh and as to the actual topic of the thread: There is no school in America that has banned children from praying. There are only schools who do not allow the religious to hijack education time in order to proslytize and showboat.

IT appears there are in as much as she is out.

 

[Howler63]

Nope, sorry. Permitting teacher-led prayer in a public building is. Permitting people to pray to themselves certainly isn't.

Does it lead to distraction? Does it take away from the building's core purpose? When are these prayers held? By whom? Where? Public buildings are not the proper place for prayer. They are for the peoples business.

 

[joG]

That's not spin, those are facts. You ought to learn the difference.

No law forbidding her behavior, but she is out? On what grounds then?

 

[Cephus]

Does it lead to distraction? Does it take away from the building's core purpose? When are these prayers held? By whom? Where? Public buildings are not the proper place for prayer. They are for the peoples business.

Did you notice where I said "pray to themselves"? Praying in your own head is not a distraction. Nobody is talking about allowing zealots to stand on their desks and scream at people.

 

[Cephus]

No law forbidding her behavior, but she is out? On what grounds then?

Because she violated her oath of office? Because she decided that her own personal religious views are more important to her position than the law of the land?

 

[AGENT J]

I very much believe in freedom of religion and would fight tooth and nail defending it but it like all rights it does have limits and those limits are set where it becomes infringing on the rights of others just like all rights.

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

thats easy

she went to jail for purposely(by her own words) breaking the law(court order) and because she was intentionally infringing on the rights of others, not practicing freedom of religion and not jesus. There's nothing jesus requires or in her religion that required her to break the law. that was a voluntary choice she made that had nothing to do with freedom of religion.

 

[Howler63]

Did you notice where I said "pray to themselves"? Praying in your own head is not a distraction. Nobody is talking about allowing zealots to stand on their desks and scream at people.

Well, obviously. How can one monitor that? Praying to one's self falls outside of any reasoned debate of public prayer. I thought we were discussing actual PUBLIC prayer?

 

[AGENT J]

There is no real question that she might be an odd ball or bigot. But the law that forces her to act against her religious belief is Unconstitutional.

no the law does NO such thing whatsoever LMAO
if she feels that doing that job is against her religious believes then she shouldn't have taken the job, she CHOOSE that job.

 

[AGENT J]

Sure. I know that is your spin on this.

Its actually the facts. Facts he can support and facts which you have none to counter. She CHOOSE that job.

 

[AGENT J]

That is up to her, to speak her conscience. You cannot look in a person's head. That is always a problem with any type of opinion or conscientious objection. It was one reason why as of the 1960s porn became a regular business. You cannot forbid opinion and porn might be that. Even when it is dirty, dirty, naughty or why conscientious objectors could not be forced to use weapons. The Supreme Court defined the criteria, but it proved a steady irritant and messy. It was tried, but eased. You can never tell, what someone is thinking and at today's technological level letting the state decide is a grossly slick slope.

Then she should have CHOOSE a different line of work. The fault is hers, nobody elses.

 

[AGENT J]

That's not spin, those are facts. You ought to learn the difference.

Ding ding ding
100% correct.

 

[Socrates1]

We don't have to be tolerant of anyone's religion once it goes from a private belief to a public display. At the core of tolerance is that the act in question be tolerable. What she did was not.

And yet most choose to overlook the ways of the Muslims and their acratic beliefs ! :roll:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And yet most choose to overlook the ways of the Muslims and their acratic beliefs ! :roll:

Can you give us examples of Muslim public school teachers leading prayer in a US classroom or a Muslim county clerk denying rights to minorities he finds distasteful? Please provide links. I'd like to see all of the horrible things we just let them get away with while punishing Christians for no good reason.

 

[Socrates1]

Can you give us examples of Muslim public school teachers leading prayer in a US classroom or a Muslim county clerk denying rights to minorities he finds distasteful? Please provide links. I'd like to see all of the horrible things we just let them get away with while punishing Christians for no good reason.

Was it about her leading others in pray ? Are you going to talk about things that happened in this CENTURY ? Most religions work to help and provide for those of ALL faiths , while the Muslim religion is still acting as those it's 200 AD . When has the Muslims helped build homes , offer clothes , food , water , meds , schooling for those of other faiths ? NEVER !

 

[matchlight]

The SC defended their decision by counting sexual orientation as protected by the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments

There certainly is no shortage of gobbledygook by Anthony Kennedy in Obergefell, but even so, I don't recall him saying anything about any part of the Constitution protecting sexual orientation. And if he said anything about the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, please cite me to it. The cases being considered in Obergefell involved actions by states. Obergefell is a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process decision concocted to force the social policy five judges happen to favor down the throats of majorities who did not agree, and to hell with the votes of all those millions of Americans. Obergefell belongs right down there in the Supreme Court's Hall of Shame with such other SDP masterpieces as Lochner and Roe. I hope more state officials like Ms. Davis will refuse to respect it, because it is an unconstitutional edict that deserves the respect of no one.

As to school prayer, I agree with Justice Thomas' arguments in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow that the Court grossly misinterpreted the Establishment Clause by ever holding, as it first did in Everson v. Board in 1947, that it was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and therefore applied to the states. Thomas--and other justices before him--have argued that the states insisted on the Establishment Clause in 1791 to prevent the newly created United States from interfering with their right to make religious establishments. Therefore, by incorporating the Establishment Clause and applying it as a restriction on state religious establishments, the Court has brought about the very thing the clause was intended to prevent.

I don't have any particular reaction to the photos, but they remind me of just how incoherently the Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause. It's gotten so fouled up that in Elk Grove Unified, the Court, in order to avoid holding the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, had to ignore its own precedent in Lee v. Weisman.