quade 4 #1 May 5, 2014 Dangerous precedents are being set by the Supreme Court. I would like to think they know what they’re doing, but it seems to me they’re forgoing the Constitution in favor of short term politics. I do not think this is wise. QuoteThe Supreme Court's decision Monday to allow Christian prayers at city council and other public meetings divided justices not only ideologically, but along religious lines as well. The five justices in majority are Catholics, and they agreed that an opening prayer at a public government meeting, delivered by a Christian pastor, brings the town together. Source and more; http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505,0,5918654.storyquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #2 May 5, 2014 If they were allowing only Christian representatives, then it would be a problem.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 May 5, 2014 StreetScoobyIf they were allowing only Christian representatives, then it would be a problem. Which is precisely what the issue was that brought the case. From the article: QuoteFrom 1999 to 2007, all the ministers who delivered the opening prayers were Christians. And as the court noted, many of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,445 #4 May 5, 2014 Hi Paul, Accordinging to what I have been hearing on NPR radio, this city allows the prayer to be given by any religion that wants to do it. It seems that so far only Christian preachers have stepped to give the prayer. Again according to what I have heard, this is why the SC allowed it. The req'ments were not Christian specific. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 May 5, 2014 Just read the article, and found it interesting that Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion. First, Kennedy told the people filing the suit to grow up. I found that refreshing. Second, the town isn't allowing only Christians to say the prayer. IIRC, the intent behind separation of Church/State as discussed somewhere in the Federalist papers was to prevent the State from having an official religion (e.g., Maryland is a Catholic state). This was pretty common in the original colonies. Even now, prayer before deliberative bodies convene is common, e.g. our own House of Representatives: Office Of The Chaplain, United States House of RepresentativesWe are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 May 5, 2014 JerryBaumchenAccordinging to what I have been hearing on NPR radio, this city allows the prayer to be given by any religion that wants to do it. It seems that so far only Christian preachers have stepped to give the prayer. Again according to what I have heard, this is why the SC allowed it. The req'ments were not Christian specific. Just heard the NPR report. It may be true, but conflicts with the article I linked, not so much in words, but definitely in historical recounting of events. What the city says are the rules may be one thing, but actions speak far louder if the article I linked in the original post is correct.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 May 5, 2014 QuoteThe req'ments were not Christian specific. But the prayers - by definition, of course - were theist-specific. And there's the rub. The net effect gives official sanction to giving non-theists a lose-lose choice: either be forced by social pressure to pretend to be a theist, or be openly non-theist and risk (and almost certainly receive) relegation to second-class citizenship. There's already a heapin' helpful of that in society at large. But government, at least in the US, should steer clear of that. And the fact that, historically, "it's always been done" (a/k/a "prayer before deliberative bodies convene is common") is irrelevant. Historical wrongs always can eventually be righted. Today the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #8 May 5, 2014 quade***Accordinging to what I have been hearing on NPR radio, this city allows the prayer to be given by any religion that wants to do it. It seems that so far only Christian preachers have stepped to give the prayer. Again according to what I have heard, this is why the SC allowed it. The req'ments were not Christian specific. Just heard the NPR report. It may be true, but conflicts with the article I linked, not so much in words, but definitely in historical recounting of events. What the city says are the rules may be one thing, but actions speak far louder if the article I linked in the original post is correct. It would be very interesting to see what happens if a Muslim preacher steps up.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #9 May 5, 2014 Quote It would be very interesting to see what happens if a Muslim preacher steps up. Something tells me he wouldn't be getting into the jihad thingy in front of that crowd... We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #10 May 5, 2014 Oh the carnage begins http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/05/violent-persecution-atheism-continues-supreme-court-allows-public-prayer/You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 May 5, 2014 Who the hell is that? "TheMattWalshBlog.com in Association with Liberty Alliance" Oh, a blogger associated with http://libertyalliance.com. I see . . . that's obviously an unbiased opinion. Especially since it says right on their web site, "The Leader in Conservative Media" as well as cites chapters and verse from the Bible. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #12 May 6, 2014 fucks sake... This is speakers corner. It's not like it needs to be accurate. This is where opinions go to die. It's not like it's the evening news... oh wait. I see your point. -- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #13 May 6, 2014 And you address not a single point. It's an opinion piece, doesn't claim to be anything else, yet makes a good statement. Sorry you're so offended...nah, I don't really care.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 May 6, 2014 futuredivotIt's an opinion piece, doesn't claim to be anything else, yet makes a good statement. Sorry you're so offended...nah, I don't really care. I'm not "offended" by it, it's just that it's no more authoritative than my opinion. I can't argue against it, because that particular guy isn't here. I have no interest in discussing against the wind. Copy and paste is NOT a discussion. What do YOU think? Not what do you copy and paste, but what do you actually think? Do you not recognize this as perhaps setting a horrible unintended precedent? If not, why not?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,445 #15 May 6, 2014 Hi Andy, QuoteThe net effect gives official sanction As I am sure you noted, I made no comment about the outcome of the Court's decision. I was only correcting what I felt was not completely factual, based upon what I had heard on NPR. Just sayin . . . JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #16 May 6, 2014 futuredivot Oh the carnage begins http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/05/violent-persecution-atheism-continues-supreme-court-allows-public-prayer/ I'll remember that the next time the war on christmas / war on easter / war on religion in general / militant atheists ate my baby meme pops up here. You're safe. Relax. Chill the fuck out.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 May 6, 2014 Not really They followed the Constitution for a change you just do not like that I say is it way past time for them to do this"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #18 May 6, 2014 I've been a member of our city council cor 17 years and.attending meetings regularly for 15 years before that. We are one of.the few local.governments in our area that start with an invocation. It has always been open to all religions. Religious leaders or church sign up for.a rotation. While mostly christian we routinely have Hindu. We have had Jewish (not so much their thing to do this.according to our Jewish attorney who.sits.on the dais with us), Sikh, native american, something close to wiccan. Probably a couple more I'm forgetting. I'm trying o remember a muslim but honestly can't. Of course.the Christian prayers run from non-nondenominational that invoke the god of our choice or.one good without mention of Christ (by both catholic and protestant to what amount to short sermons by fundamentalists invoking Jesus in every line. At the complaint of an atheist citizen about this he now is included in the rotation and has given two atheist invocations. The only ones that bother me are the ones that are clearly Christians who invoke Christ. Seems that I should expect that and do but many christian clergy invoke the one god or the god of our choice recognizing the multiple religions in the room. Helps me more feel respectful of the Jew and Muslim on the dais with us. When the scheduled person fails to show up I'm often called on to give.the invocation. While not.particularly religious I have a couple of "god of our choice" invocations in my drawer. I had hoped that SCOTUS would have banned it. But at 5-4 we have a split decision like so many issues. I do agree it is largely ceremonial. BTW we have non Christian about 1 in 8 or 10 or so.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 May 6, 2014 And I don't see your way of doing things to be unreasonable. The issue I had was with the article that specifically said, QuoteFrom 1999 to 2007, all the ministers who delivered the opening prayers were Christians. And as the court noted, many of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ. Which certainly seems as if there is an intentional bias in either the asking or selection of who can say what.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #20 May 6, 2014 quadeAnd I don't see your way of doing things to be unreasonable. The issue I had was with the article that specifically said, QuoteFrom 1999 to 2007, all the ministers who delivered the opening prayers were Christians. And as the court noted, many of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ. Which certainly seems as if there is an intentional bias in either the asking or selection of who can say what. My only info on this is what I have heard on the radio news (so no links to it). But I remember hearing that the Christians were the only ones who asked to give the prayer. The council had opened it up to any who wished to, but no other faith stepped up. If that's the case (I'm not sure that it is, but that's my understanding), then I think the ruling was correct. I'd love to see a Satanic priest ask to give the opening prayer, or an atheist or agnostic say something like: "If God does exist, he's got too much serious stuff to take care of so let's not depend on him for help, but make the best decisions we can without him""There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #21 May 7, 2014 Quoteor an atheist or agnostic say something like: "If God does exist, he's got too much serious stuff to take care of so let's not depend on him for help, but make the best decisions we can without him" Which is an interesting question. What if an agnostic or atheist wanted to address the assembly prior to them starting to ask them to do the right thing? Would that be allowed, or does it have to have a notion of faith? If it HAS to have a notion of faith, then aren't you favouring believers over non-believers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #22 May 7, 2014 So for shits & giggles I Googled "humanist invocation". Got 1,450 hits: https://www.google.com/#q=%22humanist+invocation%22 You'll even see that an Arizona state rep. delivered one about a year ago. Interesting. That said, I've attended lots & lots of local govt council meetings in some fairly conservative towns, where they always begin with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. I imagine a "humanist invocation" at one of those sessions would be about as well-received as doing a strip-tease at a Taliban meeting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #23 May 7, 2014 councilman24I've been a member of our city council cor 17 years and.attending meetings regularly for 15 years before that. We are one of.the few local.governments in our area that start with an invocation. It has always been open to all religions. Religious leaders or church sign up for.a rotation. While mostly christian we routinely have Hindu. We have had Jewish (not so much their thing to do this.according to our Jewish attorney who.sits.on the dais with us), Sikh, native american, something close to wiccan. Probably a couple more I'm forgetting. I'm trying o remember a muslim but honestly can't. Of course.the Christian prayers run from non-nondenominational that invoke the god of our choice or.one good without mention of Christ (by both catholic and protestant to what amount to short sermons by fundamentalists invoking Jesus in every line. At the complaint of an atheist citizen about this he now is included in the rotation and has given two atheist invocations. The only ones that bother me are the ones that are clearly Christians who invoke Christ. Seems that I should expect that and do but many christian clergy invoke the one god or the god of our choice recognizing the multiple religions in the room. Helps me more feel respectful of the Jew and Muslim on the dais with us. When the scheduled person fails to show up I'm often called on to give.the invocation. While not.particularly religious I have a couple of "god of our choice" invocations in my drawer. I had hoped that SCOTUS would have banned it. But at 5-4 we have a split decision like so many issues. I do agree it is largely ceremonial. BTW we have non Christian about 1 in 8 or 10 or so. Wow, what a zoo... Matthew 6:5-8 “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. 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. “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. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #24 May 7, 2014 quadeDangerous precedents are being set by the Supreme Court. I would like to think they know what they’re doing, but it seems to me they’re forgoing the Constitution in favor of short term politics. I do not think this is wise. QuoteThe Supreme Court's decision Monday to allow Christian prayers at city council and other public meetings divided justices not only ideologically, but along religious lines as well. The five justices in majority are Catholics, and they agreed that an opening prayer at a public government meeting, delivered by a Christian pastor, brings the town together. Source and more; http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505,0,5918654.story As long as each prayer was ended in "Jesus Name" and a Amen by all....I'm fine with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #25 May 7, 2014 Quote I see . . . that's obviously an unbiased opinion. Hell Quade YOUR opinion are entirely biase and you post them.......... Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
