Day of Prayer Ritual Deemed Unconstitutional
-
Again, God doesn't signify one or any religion. Much like, Yahweh, it is a name given to a conceptual believe. Like the definition I gave Vapor in another thread it is just a name we give to a definition. Also, again someone please explain to me how praying signifies a religion so to violate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd does not say freedom FROM it says freedom OF. For this judge to rule in the manner she did presupposes the later. Also, if you are an atheist or even agnostic than you should have no problem any way, shape or form with any of this. To my knowledge there is no atheist 'sec' or religion. Since there is no religion there is not one that can be violated by the notion of pray or meditation in general.
I might be able to buy this ruling if praying was solely a Catholic or even Christian practice, but it is not, it covers (especially when considering praying and meditation signify the same purpose (in general)) practically all religions. Certainly enough to where having a National Day of Prayer doesn't equate to the government sanctioning one religion over another (again the purpose of the 2nd amendment).
-
Again, God doesn't signify one or any religion. Much like, Yahweh, it is a name given to a conceptual believe. Like the definition I gave Vapor in another thread it is just a name we give to a definition. Also, again someone please explain to me how praying signifies a religion so to violate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd does not say freedom FROM it says freedom OF.
I think the point to take away from this is that people of any belief should not be discriminated against by the government for those beliefs. I would contend that since some Americans are atheists, that their religious beliefs of a lack of belief (ironic, eh?) should be respected too. I just think that the "of vs from" argument is really sketchy because atheists' beliefs are still religious beliefs.
For this judge to rule in the manner she did presupposes the later. Also, if you are an atheist or even agnostic than you should have no problem any way, shape or form with any of this. To my knowledge there is no atheist 'sec' or religion. Since there is no religion there is not one that can be violated by the notion of pray or meditation in general.
Yes, while there is no 'sect' of atheism, it's still a set of beliefs that gets infringed upon by encouraging us to pray. I am an atheist and I see no reason that a government should encourage me to go out and pray, it's a fruitless and completely religious activity as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to say, as a government, that you're going to treat all of the beliefs of every American citizen equally, then holding a special day of prayer singles out atheists because it's a religious function.
-
Then I'm going to start a new religion - we worship freedom, and the prayer is that
the attempted economic and legal tyranny by the Obamao admin will be ruled unconstitional,
as an attempt to impose the statist religion of socialistic tyranny upon us.
Which violates our rights, since some of us don't believe in that tyranny.
Thusly, we have our rights to our beliefs, and they cannot be infringed upon.
The Obamao and leftist Congressional regimes are trying to impose their religion upon us.
Separation of Church and state, says I.
Gar-r-r-r-r. (crap. where's a pirate emoticon when you need it?)
-
Again, God doesn't signify one or any religion. Much like, Yahweh, it is a name given to a conceptual believe. Like the definition I gave Vapor in another thread it is just a name we give to a definition. Also, again someone please explain to me how praying signifies a religion so to violate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd does not say freedom FROM it says freedom OF. For this judge to rule in the manner she did presupposes the later. Also, if you are an atheist or even agnostic than you should have no problem any way, shape or form with any of this. To my knowledge there is no atheist 'sec' or religion. Since there is no religion there is not one that can be violated by the notion of pray or meditation in general.
I might be able to buy this ruling if praying was solely a Catholic or even Christian practice, but it is not, it covers (especially when considering praying and meditation signify the same purpose (in general)) practically all religions. Certainly enough to where having a National Day of Prayer doesn't equate to the government sanctioning one religion over another (again the purpose of the 2nd amendment).
Again, God doesn't signify one or any religion. Much like, Yahweh, it is a name given to a conceptual believe. Like the definition I gave Vapor in another thread it is just a name we give to a definition. Also, again someone please explain to me how praying signifies a religion so to violate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd does not say freedom FROM it says freedom OF. For this judge to rule in the manner she did presupposes the later. Also, if you are an atheist or even agnostic than you should have no problem any way, shape or form with any of this. To my knowledge there is no atheist 'sec' or religion. Since there is no religion there is not one that can be violated by the notion of pray or meditation in general.
I might be able to buy this ruling if praying was solely a Catholic or even Christian practice, but it is not, it covers (especially when considering praying and meditation signify the same purpose (in general)) practically all religions. Certainly enough to where having a National Day of Prayer doesn't equate to the government sanctioning one religion over another (again the purpose of the 2nd amendment).
Meditation is a mental exercise that some religions have incorporated but is not inherently religious...... Prayer to a "higher power" IS inherently religious which is why there is a problem with state sanctioning of prayer.........
Get over the fact that a federal judge is enforcing secularism......
-
Judge Crabb was using the First amendment for her argument.
Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray. Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment. It neither creates or endorses a national religion.
Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.
It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".
-
Judge Crabb was using the First amendment for her argument.
Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.
Agreed.
Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, it is.
It neither creates or endorses a national religion.
That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.
Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.
Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.
It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".
I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.
-
Judge Crabb was using the First amendment for her argument.
Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.
Agreed.
Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, it is.
It neither creates or endorses a national religion.
That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.
Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.
Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.
It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".
I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.
Judge Crabb was using the First amendment for her argument.
Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.
Agreed.
Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, it is.
It neither creates or endorses a national religion.
That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.
Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.
Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.
It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".
I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.
Tough. It won't be.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Judge Crabb was using the First amendment for her argument.
Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.
Agreed.
Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, it is.
It neither creates or endorses a national religion.
That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.
Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.
Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.
It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".
I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.
Tough. It won't be.
Tough. It won't be.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in the next 10-15 years.
You still gotta love the misguided ones who feel that we need to be fair.
What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.
Here is an ideal, all of those liberals who feel that the world is not neutral enough should stay silent so they wont offend anybody.
Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.
-
Tough. It won't be.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in the next 10-15 years.
You still gotta love the misguided ones who feel that we need to be fair.
What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.
Here is an ideal, all of those liberals who feel that the world is not neutral enough should stay silent so they wont offend anybody.
Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in the next 10-15 years.
What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.
Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.
I think you're in for a shocker. Some atheist from San Francisco tried to sue to have them removed a few years back and lost. It will never happen, not in your lifetime. Sorry. You can always move to a more atheist friendly country (are there any?). The majority of people in this and all countries are not atheist. You are a small minority.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in the next 10-15 years.
What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.
Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.
I think you're in for a shocker. Some atheist from San Francisco tried to sue to have them removed a few years back and lost. It will never happen, not in your lifetime. Sorry. You can always move to a more atheist friendly country (are there any?). The majority of people in this and all countries are not atheist. You are a small minority.
I think you're in for a shocker. Some atheist from San Francisco tried to sue to have them removed a few years back and lost. It will never happen, not in your lifetime. Sorry. You can always move to a more atheist friendly country (are there any?). The majority of people in this and all countries are not atheist. You are a small minority.
So I should just give up and move out? Nope, we're a growing minority. Some estimates have shown that we are up to 15% of voters, though it's more likely ~10%. How atheists were perceived between today and 10 years ago is completely different. Obviously we're starting to gain respect in the world of politics as shown by Obama taking time to meet with us. You can plug your ears and close your eyes and pretend that the number of faithful isn't shrinking and the number of godless isn't growing, but you'd be wrong. I feel that secularists will have even more muscle 10 years from now.
-
It will grow Vapor much to the chagrin of religious types...... Education and scientific advancement have a direct relationship to degrading religious control......
Seriously the "dark" ages were glorious for religions for a reason...... ignorance enhances their value proposition......
why do you think they have fought scientific growth for the last few thousand years? Why do you think they pushed the Intelligent Design PR campaign into education? They were losing ground to generations of children being taught to think ......CRITICALLY by science..... they can not stand that.
Dogma and fables written by humans who would have worshipped a plane as a chariot of gods a few hundred to thousands of years ago is not exactly critical thinking......
Of course they know they cant stand up to historical or scientific scrutiny so they use catch all concepts like Faith to turn of inquisitive or critical thinking to logic that does not stand up to observation.
It will grow as long as education and science grows.......... Missionaries teach 3rd wold countries with food and from the Bible for a reason..... they dont want to teach from real education curriculum for a reason.
-
"critical thinking"... used by Sev... I...
....wait... I just can't.................
..........................................
ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry, I tried to stifle it.
-
"critical thinking"... used by Sev... I...
....wait... I just can't.................
..........................................
ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry, I tried to stifle it.
"critical thinking"... used by Sev... I...
....wait... I just can't.................
..........................................
ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry, I tried to stifle it.
Like you calling yourself a programmer
sorry, i tried to stifle it.
maybe you should stick to posting some more Hitler to Obama or Mao references at least than you can always fall back on some folksy Palinesque references to your farming.
-
I didn't put your career down, Sev, just made fun of your serious lack of
critical thinking, when you criticize others for not thinking critically.
You however, have ridiculed my career over decades, and my
love and career of farming for no good reason.
Just a hateful low blow, justified by all liberals by NON critical thinking.
But, I guess I brought a piece of sawdust to an argument, so you brought
a gun, per Obamao's orders.
Sad. and wrong.
-
If he did would you tear down your wall of hate toward gays?
-
Cal a personal attack is what it is maybe you need to understand that if you want to go there well be prepared for the same. Others and myself have tried to reason with you but like others of your attitude you only understand blunt force. SEV
*****************************************************
I didn't go there. I simply chided you on what you say other times, and what you referred to that one time.
That doesn't seem very outlandish, does it? It's a chat board.
But to hate anybody who disagrees with you, or teases you, and you think that it's okay to bite their ear off?
Or ridicule their professions? What? So blunt force is okay if somebody disagrees with your opinions on stuff?
Must be weird to so hateful, and accuse anybody who disagrees with you of "Hate".
Maybe you hate yourself like you hate religion or something.
I am quite capable of defending myself, Sev, but I didn't attack you, so grow up a bit.
-
If he did would you tear down your wall of hate toward gays?
If he did would you tear down your wall of hate toward gays?
I dont hate anyone except steelers fans.
edit: I hate the acts of sinful nature, but not those who commit them.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login