Supreme stupidity...

[crispybits]

Excuse me but the right to pray? Nobody is trying to take away the "right to pray" (though I'd be curious where you get that it's a "right"), the people opposed to this kind of thing are simply opposed to the insistence on having prayer meetings or other religious expressions during government meetings. There's plenty of time outside of working hours to pray and express religious beliefs however you like and nobody is calling for that to be stopped...

[kuthoer]

Excuse me but the right to pray? Nobody is trying to take away the "right to pray" (though I'd be curious where you get that it's a "right"), the people opposed to this kind of thing are simply opposed to the insistence on having prayer meetings or other religious expressions during government meetings. There's plenty of time outside of working hours to pray and express religious beliefs however you like and nobody is calling for that to be stopped...

We'll said Crispy. We don't need religion to open government meetings at the local, state or federal levels. To me at least, it makes religion sort of being in collusion with those in power.

[notyou2]

Excuse me but the right to pray? Nobody is trying to take away the "right to pray" (though I'd be curious where you get that it's a "right"), the people opposed to this kind of thing are simply opposed to the insistence on having prayer meetings or other religious expressions during government meetings. There's plenty of time outside of working hours to pray and express religious beliefs however you like and nobody is calling for that to be stopped...

We'll said Crispy. We don't need religion to open government meetings at the local, state or federal levels. To me at least, it makes religion sort of being in collusion with those in power.

The people in power use religion to get there.

[kuthoer]

Excuse me but the right to pray? Nobody is trying to take away the "right to pray" (though I'd be curious where you get that it's a "right"), the people opposed to this kind of thing are simply opposed to the insistence on having prayer meetings or other religious expressions during government meetings. There's plenty of time outside of working hours to pray and express religious beliefs however you like and nobody is calling for that to be stopped...

We'll said Crispy. We don't need religion to open government meetings at the local, state or federal levels. To me at least, it makes religion sort of being in collusion with those in power.

The people in power use religion to get there.

We have Christians who complain about Muslims using their religion to maintain and abuse power in their countries, but see nothing wrong if they use their religion in politics in America.

[universalchiro]

Holy shit! It's the end of the 1st amendment! Quick, everyone, get your pitchforks and torches and meet chang in the village square to burn some praying people!


Sheesh. I guess people get freaked out by just about everything.

Actually it was the so-called religious people who burn people at the stake.

Never heard of any non-religious people who burned any people at the stake.

With all respect kuthoer, your statement is not accurate and is slightly mis-leading. If you are implying that believers in God burned people at the stake, well you would be in error, for it's not in the Bible to burn people at the stake. The so-called religious people that burned people at the stake was a corrupt bunch trying to control the masses for self gain via any means. The Bible does require people to be stoned for egregious sins, yet followed with he without sin cast the first stone. Therefore, no one is allowed to stone.

And you have never heard of non-religious people burning people at the stake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

Old Babylonia

The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, and priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive

Atheism is ruling the day and growing to become the majority in the USA. Christians use to have the right to pray publicly, then the right was taken away and we were reduced to having a privilege, now Christians don't even have the privilege to pray publicly. But we accept this and pray in our private areas for blessings, forgiveness of sin, God's will be done and proper interpretation of the scriptures, etc. As a result of blocking believers from praying publicly, this has reduced the false prideful sin of praying aloud for others to hear and gain self praise. Therefore, we thank you for the censorship. One sin down, thousands to go

I'm fine with no public praying, for half the time I don't know who they are praying to. So what is worse, no prayer or praying to a false god (by default from a believers perspective is Satan). I'm all for public meetings to have moments of silence for clarity of mind for optimal wisdom of decision making. Seems a worthy cause no matter what land, area of the world, region, etc.
I'm good with a world wide agreement of any public meeting to have 5-10 seconds of silence for clarity of mind. I don't get caught up in politics anymore, seems corruption is pervasive.

[kuthoer]

Holy shit! It's the end of the 1st amendment! Quick, everyone, get your pitchforks and torches and meet chang in the village square to burn some praying people!


Sheesh. I guess people get freaked out by just about everything.

Actually it was the so-called religious people who burn people at the stake.

Never heard of any non-religious people who burned any people at the stake.

With all respect kuthoer, your statement is not accurate and is slightly mis-leading. If you are implying that believers in God burned people at the stake, well you would be in error, for it's not in the Bible to burn people at the stake. The so-called religious people that burned people at the stake was a corrupt bunch trying to control the masses for self gain via any means. The Bible does require people to be stoned for egregious sins, yet followed with he without sin cast the first stone. Therefore, no one is allowed to stone.

And you have never heard of non-religious people burning people at the stake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

Old Babylonia

The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, and priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive

Atheism is ruling the day and growing to become the majority in the USA. Christians use to have the right to pray publicly, then the right was taken away and we were reduced to having a privilege, now Christians don't even have the privilege to pray publicly. But we accept this and pray in our private areas for blessings, forgiveness of sin, God's will be done and proper interpretation of the scriptures, etc. As a result of blocking believers from praying publicly, this has reduced the false prideful sin of praying aloud for others to hear and gain self praise. Therefore, we thank you for the censorship. One sin down, thousands to go

I'm fine with no public praying, for half the time I don't know who they are praying to. So what is worse, no prayer or praying to a false god (by default from a believers perspective is Satan). I'm all for public meetings to have moments of silence for clarity of mind for optimal wisdom of decision making. Seems a worthy cause no matter what land, area of the world, region, etc.
I'm good with a world wide agreement of any public meeting to have 5-10 seconds of silence for clarity of mind. I don't get caught up in politics anymore, seems corruption is pervasive.

Christians burnt their fair share of Jews in the Dark Ages, especially if they didn't convert. It's in the history books, my friend.

Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?

[Jmac1026]

Universalchiro vs. Kuthoer.

Who will win?? Taking all bets!

[kuthoer]

Universalchiro vs. Kuthoer.

Who will win?? Taking all bets!

I'll bet my horde of bitcoins.

[AndyDufresne]

Christians burnt their fair share of Jews in the Dark Ages, especially if they didn't convert. It's in the history books, my friend.

Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?

The animated Star Trek series (a version that aired Saturday mornings in the 70's) indicated the witches that were burned and persecuted were in fact aliens from the center of the Galaxy, who lived in a dimension where "magick" was the "science" of the land. And that Satan was simply an alien from this place, and that Satan is a semi-decent guy, worthy of forgiveness and defense by Captain Kirk from the other aliens who didn't like him.

Seriously, this is one of the strangest episodes of Star Trek out there. Give the 24 minute episode a watch. It is on Netflix, and if you don't have Netflix, here it is for Free on MSN video for some reason: http://video.us.msn.com/watch/video/the ... /17uwan7pe


--Andy

[mrswdk]

a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive

Funny that they had a special provision for this eventuality.

[crispybits]

UC - care to explain why you think "no prayer to open government meetings" equates to "ban public prayer"? I have no problem with people praying in public - just not whilst acting as government officials on duty.

[universalchiro]

Holy shit! It's the end of the 1st amendment! Quick, everyone, get your pitchforks and torches and meet chang in the village square to burn some praying people!


Sheesh. I guess people get freaked out by just about everything.

Actually it was the so-called religious people who burn people at the stake.

Never heard of any non-religious people who burned any people at the stake.

With all respect kuthoer, your statement is not accurate and is slightly mis-leading. If you are implying that believers in God burned people at the stake, well you would be in error, for it's not in the Bible to burn people at the stake. The so-called religious people that burned people at the stake was a corrupt bunch trying to control the masses for self gain via any means. The Bible does require people to be stoned for egregious sins, yet followed with he without sin cast the first stone. Therefore, no one is allowed to stone.

And you have never heard of non-religious people burning people at the stake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

Old Babylonia

The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, and priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive

Atheism is ruling the day and growing to become the majority in the USA. Christians use to have the right to pray publicly, then the right was taken away and we were reduced to having a privilege, now Christians don't even have the privilege to pray publicly. But we accept this and pray in our private areas for blessings, forgiveness of sin, God's will be done and proper interpretation of the scriptures, etc. As a result of blocking believers from praying publicly, this has reduced the false prideful sin of praying aloud for others to hear and gain self praise. Therefore, we thank you for the censorship. One sin down, thousands to go

I'm fine with no public praying, for half the time I don't know who they are praying to. So what is worse, no prayer or praying to a false god (by default from a believers perspective is Satan). I'm all for public meetings to have moments of silence for clarity of mind for optimal wisdom of decision making. Seems a worthy cause no matter what land, area of the world, region, etc.
I'm good with a world wide agreement of any public meeting to have 5-10 seconds of silence for clarity of mind. I don't get caught up in politics anymore, seems corruption is pervasive.

Christians burnt their fair share of Jews in the Dark Ages, especially if they didn't convert. It's in the history books, my friend.

Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?

Salem witch trials? No what's that? LOL.
I fully understand your point, but let me give mine in a different way, because we aren't connecting yet. No where in the Bible does it say to burn people at the stack. There are ample examples of people doing their own thing trying to be holy, such as the Israelites and their golden calf and your selam witch example. They both acted evil in the sight of the Lord and carried out their own ways. This is analogous to cowboys dressing up as Indians, raiding a village and then blaming the Indians. Or Hitler burning his own building and blaming the Jews. Since the Bible never says to burn people at the stake, then wicked people carrying out wicked deeds no matter how nice their title is not Christian and not associated with believers of the Bible. Take the corrupt church that did awful corrupt things to control the masses via any means. This lead to a "Protest" movement.

Point being, there always have been & always will be wolves in sheep's clothing. Don't generalize all sheep. The sheep follow the Shepherd's voice.

[BigBallinStalin]

No political or politico-religious system is perfect since all are vulnerable to opportunism (e.g. twisting religious documents into support suicide attacks or Crusades).

Nevertheless, which system best mitigates that opportunism?

And would you expect a society with more atheists to be inclined to more rational thought? Would this reduce opportunism? Would it create other unintended consequences (e.g. an increased hubris about technocracy and other forms of controlling people for the 'greater good')?

[universalchiro]

@Crispybits, I am under the impression that there are fewer believers in the US and world than people think. 90% of US claims they are going to Heaven, yet 10% know who Jesus was? So who would lead prayer? Obama? A quasi christian with open Muslim beliefs, or his prior pastor Jeremiah Wright who has called the white man the devil? Now a days who knows what people believe and to whom are they praying to. Best to let this country continue on its course of moving away from the God of the Bible. Why? The sooner mankind falls away, the sooner Christ comes back. So either way I'm fine. Personally Id rather not see someone be the prayer person, because God knows when that person falters all of Christianity gets trashed. QED salem's evil of burning people.

Prayer at public schools use to be common place, now it is forbidden. It is what it is. Let's give America a report card, graded on the morality today with prayer being removed versus the morality 70-100years ago: compare abortions, murder, theft, pornography, etc

Having God present in this country via prayer was more a blessing than we know.

[crispybits]

Sidestepping

You claimed that:

Christians use to have the right to pray publicly, then the right was taken away and we were reduced to having a privilege, now Christians don't even have the privilege to pray publicly.

You still have the right to pray publicly - it's called freedom of speech. It's granted to you by exactly the same constitutional amendment that prevents government getting involved in religion.

So I ask again: care to explain why you think "no prayer to open government meetings" equates to "ban public prayer"?

[universalchiro]

@crispy: bro I'm sorry for not clarifying, I've been referencing public as public buildings, not public as in outside. I went with opening thread discussing public buildings. My bad.

I agree freedom of speech.

[crispybits]

Then why did you follow that quote with:

But we accept this and pray in our private areas for blessings, forgiveness of sin, God's will be done and proper interpretation of the scriptures, etc.

(it's the very next sentence)

That's not a statement that makes any sense in the context of public meaning only public buildings, unless "outside" is a private area...

[notyou2]

UC, no one took away your right to pray. People are simply asking that church and state be separate, that is not persecution in any way shape or form, nor is it taking your rights away.

Why do so many religious people insist on forcing their beliefs on others? That is the true question and issue.

[universalchiro]

Then why did you follow that quote with:

But we accept this and pray in our private areas for blessings, forgiveness of sin, God's will be done and proper interpretation of the scriptures, etc.

(it's the very next sentence)

That's not a statement that makes any sense in the context of public meaning only public buildings, unless "outside" is a private area...

Private as in private schools, churches , homes, etc.
I've always been in agreement with right to free speech with proviso addendums rules conditions etc.
There is no argument here crispy:)

[rdsrds2120]

There's nothing wrong, or illegal, with public prayer. That isn't the issue. If you're religious and want to do a prayer every day (before a meal at school or work, for instance), you are well within your rights. The ability to exercise your religious practices isn't really debatable if they don't infringe or deny the rights of others.

The issue is with non-private (private vs public in the sense of gov't controlled vs private sector) regulated religious rituals. In a private college, for instance, the college can institute prayer time whenever they want as long as their willing to isolate their demographic. Beginning official, public town meetings with a Christian prayer is definitely a violation of the first amendment clause, regardless of your religious stance. Separation of Church and State is important for many reasons, and I disagree with the ruling.

--Gomez

[mrswdk]

I can't believe anyone cares that much.

[Phatscotty]

Kills the 1st amendment.RIP seperation of church and state (1787-2014).Wtf??
With all the domestic problems besetting the US they do crazy stuff like this?

told ya so

[chang50]

terrified.jpg

I guess it's only a matter of time before the town of Greece is voting to join the Russian Federation then.

Thin end of the wedge : )

I must be clairvoyant..now we have Judge Clarence Thomas arguing states can establish an official religion.
Wonder what would happen if for example Islam was established in maybe NY,home of the former twin towers,would that be acceptable?
It's a slippery slope..please protect the 1st amendment with the same passion as the 2nd (now I'm dreaming).

[mrswdk]

Wonder what would happen if for example Islam was established in maybe NY,home of the former twin towers,would that be acceptable?

Would it be unacceptable?

[chang50]

Wonder what would happen if for example Islam was established in maybe NY,home of the former twin towers,would that be acceptable?

Would it be unacceptable?

I can see a lot of people being unhappy about it..