• 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!

Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting [W:93:217]

Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

calamity said:
The NYT article showed how the Left leaning justices ruled much more evenly on free speech issues than the Right Leaning ones. That suggest they judges on the Right are biased, by definition.
Click to expand...

The NYT is a left leaning paper so that is not quite unusual that they would side with the liberal judges. of course the SCOTUS isn't suppose to be political it is suppose to be a neutral party and uphold the constitution. which is what the judges did.

How can I be biased when I have no qualms with people practicing their religion in church or in private? It's the public displays of religion which I spurn. BTW: Did not your Christ warn his followers against such displays of pretense?
Click to expand...

UMM you just said that religous views are BS or do i need to repost it for you? i am not making any pretense so i have no clue about what you are talking about.


Every day I see that the "Christians" are doing anything and everything except following the teachings of their Christ.
Click to expand...

then you are only looking at you want to see.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Moon said:
That would be difficult since I don't see anyone could be harmed. If you feel otherwise, I'd love to see your definition.
Click to expand...

You can't see anyone being harmed, you've asked if anyone has been harmed, yet you cannot define the term in the context of the OP! How is it possible that you can or cannot see harm if you are unable to define it? It renders your position baseless.

If we are to answer your question, "Has anyone ever been harmed by prayer before a public meeting?" I, for one, would need to know your definition of "harm".
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Moon said:
In your view, perhaps. That doesn't negate the fact that people do, and should, have the freedom to say it whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...
`
Exactly, which is why this ruling might eventually lead the way to a corporate controlled, religious oligarchy of a) Christian dominionism and b) Christian Reconsructualism
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


Absolutely. If "harm" remains undefined how would there be a general agreement as to where the line is crossed? The definition will have to be defined and generally agreed upon AND equally applied.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Paxaeon said:
`
Exactly, which is why this ruling might eventually lead the way to a corporate controlled, religious oligarchy of a) Christian dominionism and b) Christian Reconsructualism
Click to expand...
As opposed to a secular buracracy of unaccountabilty? Hat is far more down the path of actually occurring the a religious take over of the country.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


No, my position is not baseless. If you have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how. It really is an honest question.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

MrVicchio said:
As opposed to a secular buracracy of unaccountabilty? Hat is far more down the path of actually occurring the a religious take over of the country.
Click to expand...

Yet you don't deny rich Christianity has their own designs on society.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Moon said:
No, my position is not baseless. If you have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how. It really is an honest question.
Click to expand...

"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Risky Thicket said:
"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.
Click to expand...

Well, he seems to be suggesting that an individual use their own definition for harm.

"If YOU have been harmed by a prayer, or think you could be, then tell me how."

Basically, he's asking that if you personally think you've been harmed (so however you personally define harm), or think you could be, he would like you to explain how that is.

His definition of harm doesn't really matter much when asking you if YOU think you have or could be harmed...because nothing forces you to use his definition, so there's no reason for you to think you've been harmed or not harmed based on HIS definition.

Basically, he seems to be asking people to do what calamity did....explain whether or not they personally think prayer at a public meeting harms them, and how.

Calamity explained by explaining his apparent definition of harm....IE, an action that runs counter to his particular desire for how the world should be.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

calamity said:
How embarrassing, adults who are supposed to be in charge bowing their heads to talk to the invisible man.
Click to expand...

Happened since the beginning of the country. Heck, most of the best civilizations in history acknowledged their Gods in functions of the State.

Embarrassing, childish? No.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


I think that would be a decent thing. If a significant portion of the community were of multiple faiths, inclusion of the big hitters would be good.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


My compromise? None. If they don't like it they don't have to attend the meeting; they can take their complaints to the ballot box and vote in a new council. If the will of the people is to change the situation, then let that happen by democratic process.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Paxaeon said:
`
You're not too quick on the uptake.
Click to expand...
Well I must not be! Because I can't make sense of what you are saying. You are comparing the words of "love" that one would have for a spouse, to a prayer before a public meeting? Likewise your reply to MrVicchio would seem to indicate that you think Christianity has its "own designs on society" and they are to take over the country. A corporate controlled, religious oligarchy. See I don't think that it is really a matter of me not being 'quick on the uptake' as much as a matter of a really muddy message. Delivered sloppily. Coming from someone throwing around the word meaningless. Just saying. :shock:
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


I guess you are mixing up common courtesy with politics. Oh well, that's your opinion.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Yes, obviously you are confused.



See post #90. Wait, let me share it with you.


I replied

Quote by RM

Hmmmmm,
Click to expand...


Quote by RM

I think the meeting has been called into business...then the prayer is said.
Click to expand...


************************************************************************************

The above post was preceded by #85, which I posted:


In other words:

If a local, county, state, or federal government meeting has been called into business and a prayer is invoked, - That's an infringement on the rights of those who don't want TO HAVE RELIGIOUS PRAYER FORCED ON THEM!

IN A PUBIC GOVERNMENT MEETING - when prayer is forced on people who go for public business and problems to be addressed - and who doesn't want go to a public meeting for a religious ceremony performed. - That's the harm.

What's next? Start having all public agenda meeting used to solve public problems be held in churches as opposed to a government building or town halls?

"Well now!" you say. "If you don't like prayers at public meetings, then don't go to the meeting!'

So then I will have to reply: BUT I HAVE PUBIC BUSINESS TO ADDRESS - NOT RELIGION. So what do I have to do...pray that you'll stop praying at public meetings and whoever prays the hardest and gets their way...wins?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

AliHajiSheik said:
I guess you are mixing up common courtesy with politics. Oh well, that's your opinion.
Click to expand...


I find it discourteous when a minority of people wish to dictate which traditions must be silenced. Why are you offended by a prayer?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Tell you what. If a Christian doesn't mind listening to this from start to finish:


or hearing an abbreviated, a cappela version sung at the beginning of a council meeting, then I might be willing to entertain his or her privilege to pray at a council meeting. If not, then he or she advocates treating Islam differently than Christianity in the eyes of the law. To do that is to destroy any credibility one might have on this issue.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Risky Thicket said:
"Harm"? You continue to use a word that you will not define. Define harm or your question is meaningless. Do you fear the answer? If you cannot define the term I'll accept a dictionary definition IF you provide one.
Click to expand...

It's a simple question. I can't define the harm you suffer from someone saying a prayer because it's not something I've experienced. If you're not able.or willing to answer, then I guess that's an answer in and if itself.

If you're not familiar the dictionary definition of the word, then by all means look it up.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Del Zeppnile said:
I find it discourteous when a minority of people wish to dictate which traditions must be silenced. Why are you offended by a prayer?
Click to expand...
When there could be a long line of different prayers to accommodate a large group of people, then I think it is excessive. Why can't the prayer be done at the end? Will God be so bored by the proceedings that he won't listen if the prayers are done at the end?

Oh, and I don't really care about your traditions one way or the other, since you asked. I was seeking a workable compromise, why are you so inflexible?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


Like I said; You are not too quick on the uptake.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Good lord, a few honest questions. Does this wall of text above mean something? What? Because by the end of it, I'm not even sure you are sure who you are speaking to or what about. Particularly when you get into that part about what I'd say and you'd say and whatever else someone would say at the end. So what was that all supposed to mean? That Satanist now don't view prayer as dogmatic and practice meditation instead? That your hypothetical was not hyper fictional and based upon a misunderstanding? That most people probably would not have a problem with the practice alongside traditional prayer at a public meeting? Particularly if they had to attend the meeting or have a reason to be there? That the sound of this silent mediation would be a problem? What about those straight forward questions was it that was so intimidating? So much so that you launched into this, I can only call it a diatribe above?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting



In this situation was there a long line of people asking for different prayers? Why do you feel it necessary to impose the will of the minority on the majority? Your comment about what "God" would be bored with tells it all. You are offended that there are people who have either a faith in something, or just don't mind the tradition of having an invocation before a proceeding.

AliHajiSheik said:
Oh, and I don't really care about your traditions one way or the other, since you asked. I was seeking a workable compromise, why are you so inflexible?
Click to expand...

Here is a compromise: Don't enter the meeting until after the prayer.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Simple. There's a time and a place for everything. A city council meeting is neither time nor place for prayer. After all, a large number of people are actually offended by it.

Why must prayer be imposed on those who want no part of it?

Church is for prayer. Home is for prayer. City Council meetings are for discussing community related matters. It's a shame that religious people can't keep the prayer out of the public square.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling favors prayer at council meeting


The decision by SCOTUS to allow prayers at public government meetings is seen by at least SOME politicians as allowing them to promote only one religious belief

Christians are so 'persecuted' in this country.

Add this little bit of bigotry to statements by the Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, Roy Moore, and the rational person has to wonder if Margaret Atwood was being prescient when she wrote The Handmaid's Tale or maybe it was Robert Heinlein when he wrote a tale of American theocracy all the way back in 1940 - Revolt in 2100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…