Advertisement
by Mavorpen » Tue May 06, 2014 11:51 am
by Emmadog » Tue May 06, 2014 12:08 pm
by Bezombia » Tue May 06, 2014 12:11 pm
Emmadog wrote:The constitution does not dictate when and where we can pray. Therefore, as long as it is voluntary I think this is perfectly okay.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Dyakovo » Tue May 06, 2014 12:12 pm
Emmadog wrote:The constitution does not dictate when and where we can pray. Therefore, as long as it is voluntary I think this is perfectly okay.
by Azinar » Tue May 06, 2014 12:21 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hey, look at what's already happening.Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.
by Pope Joan » Tue May 06, 2014 12:23 pm
Mavorpen wrote:The solution is to, of course, start having Satanic prayers before town hall meetings to balance out the disgusting prayers of Christians.
by Dyakovo » Tue May 06, 2014 12:51 pm
Azinar wrote:
Looks like the ruling has opened the door for religious discrimination, instead of defending religious freedom.
by The Black Forrest » Tue May 06, 2014 12:57 pm
Mavorpen wrote:The solution is to, of course, start having Satanic prayers before town hall meetings to balance out the disgusting prayers of Christians.
by Dyakovo » Tue May 06, 2014 12:59 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Mavorpen wrote:The solution is to, of course, start having Satanic prayers before town hall meetings to balance out the disgusting prayers of Christians.
Hmmm How long should we hold our breath for that happening.
But you are correct. You open it to the Christians; you have to open it to all requests.
by Threlizdun » Tue May 06, 2014 1:30 pm
Mavorpen wrote:The solution is to, of course, start having Satanic prayers before town hall meetings to balance out the disgusting prayers of Christians.
by Geilinor » Tue May 06, 2014 3:02 pm
Azinar wrote:
Looks like the ruling has opened the door for religious discrimination, instead of defending religious freedom.
by JeebusCrust » Tue May 06, 2014 3:02 pm
Emmadog wrote:The constitution does not dictate when and where we can pray. Therefore, as long as it is voluntary I think this is perfectly okay.
by Greed and Death » Tue May 06, 2014 5:31 pm
by Greed and Death » Tue May 06, 2014 5:36 pm
Brilliant Equestria wrote:Caninope wrote:That's not really the case, especially given life terms. In fact, given the state of the Senate Judiciary, it's impossible to get a "partisan hack" on the court- judges, these days, often lack extremely controversial decisions and are often evasive in Judiciary proceedings.
That's also presuming that ideologically motivated jurists cannot be good jurists, which is definitely not the case.
They're certainly a lot better at failing to openly-state their positions after Bork, yes. They have no such restrictions once they're confirmed.
The Roberts court has decided more cases by 5-4 than any other, about 22%. That's only a point or two higher than the Rehnquist court, but they've most likely got quite a bit more time before Roberts is replaced to widen the gap. Two-thirds of those are split along purely ideological lines; Sebelius was the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. That one was likely because Roberts is smart enough to realize, as he himself said, SCOTUS is in danger of "los[ing] its credibility and legitimacy as an institution".
The composition of the court is a problem too. It's the most conservative court since the 1930's: 4 of the 5 most conservative justices in history are serving now and only 1 of the top 10 most liberal is. Of course, it could be the opposite and we'd still be having the same problem. The whole idea behind life appointments was to protect justices from being influenced by partisan politics. Now, it's just protecting them from the consequences of that.
by Greed and Death » Tue May 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Mavorpen wrote:The solution is to, of course, start having Satanic prayers before town hall meetings to balance out the disgusting prayers of Christians.
by Mavorpen » Tue May 06, 2014 6:57 pm
by Greed and Death » Tue May 06, 2014 7:55 pm
by Utceforp » Tue May 06, 2014 7:59 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hey, look at what's already happening.Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.
by Galloism » Tue May 06, 2014 8:05 pm
by Mavorpen » Tue May 06, 2014 8:17 pm
greed and death wrote:Mavorpen wrote:No shit. Which is why I said it.
I have a feeling the Wiccan was trying to do the same thing you would be doing with the satanist. Annoy the Christians into changing their mind. Since most small town Xtians like the ones at issues consider wiccans=Satanist I doubt you will get anywhere.
by Greed and Death » Tue May 06, 2014 8:36 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Hey, look at what's already happening.Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Tue May 06, 2014 9:54 pm
greed and death wrote:
Kennedy has already been on a school prayer case and found it violates the establishment clause.
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) and Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
So it is unlikely school prayer will be upheld. Town of Greece very likely represents as far as prayer during officials activities goes.
by Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 6:07 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:greed and death wrote:
Kennedy has already been on a school prayer case and found it violates the establishment clause.
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) and Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
So it is unlikely school prayer will be upheld. Town of Greece very likely represents as far as prayer during officials activities goes.
This has nothing to do with school prayer.
by Vazdania » Wed May 07, 2014 7:34 am
Galloism wrote:SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?
by JeebusCrust » Wed May 07, 2014 7:35 am
Galloism wrote:SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Big Eyed Animation, Corporate Collective Salvation, El Lazaro, Emotional Support Crocodile, Free Land of The Free Land of Freedo, Habsburg Mexico, Post War America, Republika Srpska i Srbija, The Huskar Social Union, Tungstan, Turenia, Vanuzgard, Zalora-Bravo, Zancostan
Advertisement