\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-legislative-prayer-at-council-meetings/2014/05/05/dc142ede-cf9d-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Ummmmm.....oh heck, why not? Well! So much for the first amendment! Isn't it great when the courts wipe their rear ends with the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Ummmmm.....oh heck, why not? Well! So much for the first amendment! Isn't it great when the courts wipe their rear ends with the Constitution? You dolt, they would be doing that if they voted the other way. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Edited May 5, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You dolt, they would be doing that if they voted the other way. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Theocracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Theocracy! You can't help but be a joke, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Well! So much for the first amendment! Isn't it great when the courts wipe their rear ends with the Constitution? How dare they! That's Obama's job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 How dare they! That's Obama's job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) 'Allowing’ a public place prayer to take place is the free exercise of religion. And, what IS being condoned is free speech and freedom of religion. Amazing to me how close this was (5-4). Don’t the liberals understand that there is no “separation of church and state” clause? It's Freedom OF Religion.........not Freedom FROM Religion All there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” How anyone could think an invocation prayer–delivered by officials representing various religions–could constitute an “establishment of religion” is just an (dare I say it) extremist. Ya think maybe they’re just hostile to religion generally? Edited May 5, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) 'Allowing’ a public place prayer to take place is the free exercise of religion. And, what IS being condoned is free speech and freedom of religion. Amazing to me how close this was (5-4). Don’t the liberals understand that there is no “separation of church and state” clause? It's Freedom OF Religion.........not Freedom FROM Religion All there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” How anyone could think an invocation prayer–delivered by officials representing various religions–could constitute an “establishment of religion” is just an (dare I say it) extremist. Correct. The the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment speaks directly against The Divine Right of Kings to govern common man by Divine Authority. Understand the historical timeline, including rebellion against a King placed on his Throne by Divine Right, the influenece of John Locke on the Document's authors, and the power and uniqueness of these words in the time they were written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." All the Constitution does in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is disallow a Theocracy of Divine Rights. Edited May 5, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 "The law and the Court could not draw this line for each specific prayer or seek to require ministers to set aside their nuanced and deeply personal beliefs for vague and artificial ones," writes Justice Kennedy, in today's new Establishment Clause case, Town of Greece v. Galloway: "The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian." I'd say Amen...............but I certainly don't wish to ofend anybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The government is for We the people, not the We who believe is some mystic supernatural being or beings. Having to endure the ignorance of a religious service just to attend to government business is a terrible affront. Take your crap to your churches if you want to pray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The government is for We the people, not the We who believe is some mystic supernatural being or beings. Having to endure the ignorance of a religious service just to attend to government business is a terrible affront. Take your crap to your churches if you want to pray Cite the passage of the Constitution, or Constitutional precedent that backs your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 C'mon, people...he's not even trolling particularly well this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Cite the passage of the Constitution, or Constitutional precedent that backs your position. We the people... C'mon, people...he's not even trolling particularly well this time around. Yes, c'mon people! Little Tom wants you to rally 'round him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Yes, c'mon people! Little Tom wants you to rally 'round him. Y'know, this is one time you and I are on the same page: I disagree with mixing the secular (e.g. government) and religious. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, and all that. And yet, even though you happen to agree with me, it can only be accidental, because you're STILL a !@#$ing idiot. You are completely incapable of discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Y'know, this is one time you and I are on the same page: I disagree with mixing the secular (e.g. government) and religious. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, and all that. And yet, even though you happen to agree with me, it can only be accidental, because you're STILL a !@#$ing idiot. You are completely incapable of discussing it. Just proves what a jack ass you really are. Even though you know I am right you just can't handle going along with me. Get in line and follow me Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 We the people... Now explain your reasoning. Y'know, this is one time you and I are on the same page: I disagree with mixing the secular (e.g. government) and religious. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, and all that. And yet, even though you happen to agree with me, it can only be accidental, because you're STILL a !@#$ing idiot. You are completely incapable of discussing it. Explain your reasoning please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Just proves what a jack ass you really are. Even though you know I am right you just can't handle going along with me. Get in line and follow me Tom! Proves how much of an idiot you are: you still can't understand that you're not an idiot because you're wrong, you're an idiot because you're an idiot. Explain your reasoning please. Because I believe that when "my Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than your Flying Spaghetti Monster" gets involved in governance, either explicitly through the establishment of state religion or implicitly through the acknowledgement of such in an otherwise non-religious setting, it can create a situation with the potential for inequality in the eyes of the law. For example: opening any court session with a prayer recognized as Christian could (and should) be recognized as being prejudicial to any Jew or Muslim tried by said court. Beyond that, I have no need to explain. It's an opinion; feel free to disagree if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Geez, I can't help but feel the Roberts court gets just about everything exactly wrong.....and more worrisome - looks like the operate with no rudder or logic in the 5 "conservative" majority. Think of the ramifications of this ruling.....it is really a liberalization of specific religions expressing their specific views in a goverment setting. Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling. Further to the liberal and activist rulings.....the overturning of the election funding laws. These laws were near unaminous in their bipartison support....but this court saw to be actvist, overturn them from the bench and actually liberalize how our elections are funded. Does anyone here feel more freedom in their speech lately. Or do you feel like legislation is even more easily purchased? Maybe a victory for the religious right.....but for separating goverment condoned religon....how can it be? Forgive typos ipad Edited May 6, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Because I believe that when "my Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than your Flying Spaghetti Monster" gets involved in governance, either explicitly through the establishment of state religion or implicitly through the acknowledgement of such in an otherwise non-religious setting, it can create a situation with the potential for inequality in the eyes of the law. For example: opening any court session with a prayer recognized as Christian could (and should) be recognized as being prejudicial to any Jew or Muslim tried by said court. Beyond that, I have no need to explain. It's an opinion; feel free to disagree if you'd like. So you're not offering an opinion on Constitutionality, but rather are simply expressing your feelings on the issue, if I'm understanding correctly? If so, that's reasonable, though I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts