Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Galloism]

SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

You hate freedom of religion? Wow I can't believe in oppression.

I believe in freedom from religion as a part of official government proceedings.

When you force someone to be party to your religious proceedings in order to participate in government, that's oppression.

SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

They're masochists.

I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.

[Dyakovo]

SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

You hate freedom of religion? Wow I can't believe in oppression.

The SCotUS decision does not support freedom of religion in any way.

[MERIZoC]

SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

You hate freedom of religion? Wow I can't believe in oppression.

You don't know what freedom of religion is? Wow, I'm not surprised.

[Jocabia]

Greed here's the problem with the not forced to be there idea. A townhall meeting is a chance for the citizens to directly contact their representatives. By saying they don't have to attend you are also removing one more avenue for them to discuss their feelings and issues in a public setting. In legislative sessions, the public may watch, but they do not directly participate.

You can also write them a letter, or attend their campaign events, or make an appointment to talk with them in their office( really easy for municipal government). Attending a city council meeting is but one small way to be involved. If the prayer really bothers and you really need to be at the meeting you that much just attend the meetings a little late after the prayer is done.

If you were required to pray or listen to someone pray before voting I would be all with you. But you are not.

You're actually make a solid argument for why this was a bad ruling. You're explicitly explaining why this ruling limits the access to government for non-Christians, unless you want to subject yourself to preaching from another religion. One of two things happens. Either you're subjected to the preaching against your will, which you're arguing is a problem, or you are given less avenues to interact with your government or, as you pointed out, even join in the running of government.

That is a bad thing in every way and something that the separation should protect against. Otherwise, what is the point?

What could possibly be more coercive than a lack of inclusiveness in governmental proceedings?

[Vazdania]

You hate freedom of religion? Wow I can't believe in oppression.

I believe in freedom from religion as a part of official government proceedings.

When you force someone to be party to your religious proceedings in order to participate in government, that's oppression.

They're masochists.

I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.

Sorry, but prayer is traditionally done before or after offical proceedings, so what's the problem?

[Galloism]

I believe in freedom from religion as a part of official government proceedings.

When you force someone to be party to your religious proceedings in order to participate in government, that's oppression.



I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.

Sorry, but prayer is traditionally done before or after offical proceedings, so what's the problem?

It's considered part of the proceedings, held in the same place as government business, at the same time period as the government function, performed by or procured by the same group of people acting officially for the government, and therefore a function of government.

Prayer, a function of government. Frightening.

[Death Metal]

SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

You hate freedom of religion? Wow I can't believe in oppression.

This is tyranny of religion, not freedom.

[Othelos]

I believe in freedom from religion as a part of official government proceedings.

When you force someone to be party to your religious proceedings in order to participate in government, that's oppression.



I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.

Sorry, but prayer is traditionally done before or after offical proceedings, so what's the problem?

You can't argue an appeal to tradition.

[Timothia]

This is fine so long as any person who wishes to plug their ears and "la-la-la" is allowed to do so. Seriously, Christians aren't free from exposure to other people's beliefs, so why does every non-Christian have to be free from exposure to our beliefs? if you aren't strong enough in your beliefs to survive hearing a non-mandatory prayer before a proceeding, then you should question why you hold those beliefs in the first place.

Besides, if people want to pray that a session or meeting goes well, what can it hurt? What's the worst that can happen? If you don't believe in a God, then it does nothing. If you do believe in God, then you would hope that the meeting after the prayer would go well. It's not like people are cursing the meeting: if someone prayed to the unicorns to bless the procession, I wouldn't care and I would appreciate that the person wanted the meeting to go well. If you think God is as real as unicorns, then why should you care?

[Ostroeuropa]

This is fine so long as any person who wishes to plug their ears and "la-la-la" is allowed to do so. Seriously, Christians aren't free from exposure to other people's beliefs, so why does every non-Christian have to be free from exposure to our beliefs? if you aren't strong enough in your beliefs to survive hearing a non-mandatory prayer before a proceeding, then you should question why you hold those beliefs in the first place.

Besides, if people want to pray that a session or meeting goes well, what can it hurt? What's the worst that can happen? If you don't believe in a God, then it does nothing. If you do believe in God, then you would hope that the meeting after the prayer would go well. It's not like people are cursing the meeting: if someone prayed to the unicorns to bless the procession, I wouldn't care and I would appreciate that the person wanted the meeting to go well. If you think God is as real as unicorns, then why should you care?

Here is the problem.


viewtopic.php?p=19971279#p19971279
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=294949&p=19972865&hilit=ostroeuropa#p19972865

[Dyakovo]

I believe in freedom from religion as a part of official government proceedings.

When you force someone to be party to your religious proceedings in order to participate in government, that's oppression.



I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.

Sorry, but prayer is traditionally done before or after offical proceedings, so what's the problem?

The tradition violates the first amendment.

[Timothia]

This is fine so long as any person who wishes to plug their ears and "la-la-la" is allowed to do so. Seriously, Christians aren't free from exposure to other people's beliefs, so why does every non-Christian have to be free from exposure to our beliefs? if you aren't strong enough in your beliefs to survive hearing a non-mandatory prayer before a proceeding, then you should question why you hold those beliefs in the first place.

Besides, if people want to pray that a session or meeting goes well, what can it hurt? What's the worst that can happen? If you don't believe in a God, then it does nothing. If you do believe in God, then you would hope that the meeting after the prayer would go well. It's not like people are cursing the meeting: if someone prayed to the unicorns to bless the procession, I wouldn't care and I would appreciate that the person wanted the meeting to go well. If you think God is as real as unicorns, then why should you care?

Here is the problem.


viewtopic.php?p=19971279#p19971279
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=294949&p=19972865&hilit=ostroeuropa#p19972865

But wouldn't it be just as divisive to remove prayer? There is (I would assume) a sizable majority that is in favor of prayers. If they are ignored simply so that several members of the meeting don't feel left out, wouldn't that harbor animosity towards this minority that overrides people's beliefs just to be politically correct? Wouldn't the act of removing prayer frustrate people of faith as much as allowing it would frustrate people of no creed?

Besides, we don't always need to be the same. We don't always need to be united. We are each unique and special, each of us has our own beliefs and thoughts. There is no need to pretend that we all think the same way. Prayer doesn't need to unify us: we should celebrate our differences because they are what keep this world lively and interesting. If people can't put differences behind them to discuss whatever their meeting is about, then they aren't very good people to be in the government anyway. if an atheist wants an atheist to come and open the meeting, then he should suggest that the group do this and the group should honor his request. If no request is made, there is no need to provide for a minority that won't speak up for themselves, and there is certainly no need to cancel all prayers before a meeting.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here is the problem.


viewtopic.php?p=19971279#p19971279
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=294949&p=19972865&hilit=ostroeuropa#p19972865

But wouldn't it be just as divisive to remove prayer? There is (I would assume) a sizable majority that is in favor of prayers. If they are ignored simply so that several members of the meeting don't feel left out, wouldn't that harbor animosity towards this minority that overrides people's beliefs just to be politically correct? Wouldn't the act of removing prayer frustrate people of faith as much as allowing it would frustrate people of no creed?

Besides, we don't always need to be the same. We don't always need to be united. We are each unique and special, each of us has our own beliefs and thoughts. There is no need to pretend that we all think the same way. Prayer doesn't need to unify us: we should celebrate our differences because they are what keep this world lively and interesting. If people can't put differences behind them to discuss whatever their meeting is about, then they aren't very good people to be in the government anyway. if an atheist wants an atheist to come and open the meeting, then he should suggest that the group do this and the group should honor his request. If no request is made, there is no need to provide for a minority that won't speak up for themselves, and there is certainly no need to cancel all prayers before a meeting.

That's why I proposed the 2 minute silence. We DO all have our own beliefs etc. Using a single persons choice of prayer is bad for that reason.

2 minutes of silence during which time the religious can pray, and atheists can simple contemplate existence, serves all parties without discriminating, and without anyone having to reveal their group-loyalties.

[Mavorpen]

But wouldn't it be just as divisive to remove prayer? There is (I would assume) a sizable majority that is in favor of prayers. If they are ignored simply so that several members of the meeting don't feel left out, wouldn't that harbor animosity towards this minority that overrides people's beliefs just to be politically correct? Wouldn't the act of removing prayer frustrate people of faith as much as allowing it would frustrate people of no creed?

No. Because, you DO know that no one is calling for banning prayer, right? Which is, of course, why many simply call for a simple moment of silence. If you want to silently pray, do so during that time.

Besides, we don't always need to be the same. We don't always need to be united. We are each unique and special, each of us has our own beliefs and thoughts. There is no need to pretend that we all think the same way. Prayer doesn't need to unify us: we should celebrate our differences because they are what keep this world lively and interesting. If people can't put differences behind them to discuss whatever their meeting is about, then they aren't very good people to be in the government anyway. if an atheist wants an atheist to come and open the meeting, then he should suggest that the group do this and the group should honor his request. If no request is made, there is no need to provide for a minority that won't speak up for themselves, and there is certainly no need to cancel all prayers before a meeting.

Or, we can actually follow the constitution and use basic empathy to understand the very, very, simple fact that there is utterly no need for a group prayer before a meeting.

[Dyakovo]

Here is the problem.


viewtopic.php?p=19971279#p19971279
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=294949&p=19972865&hilit=ostroeuropa#p19972865

But wouldn't it be just as divisive to remove prayer?

No.

[Timothia]

But wouldn't it be just as divisive to remove prayer? There is (I would assume) a sizable majority that is in favor of prayers. If they are ignored simply so that several members of the meeting don't feel left out, wouldn't that harbor animosity towards this minority that overrides people's beliefs just to be politically correct? Wouldn't the act of removing prayer frustrate people of faith as much as allowing it would frustrate people of no creed?

Besides, we don't always need to be the same. We don't always need to be united. We are each unique and special, each of us has our own beliefs and thoughts. There is no need to pretend that we all think the same way. Prayer doesn't need to unify us: we should celebrate our differences because they are what keep this world lively and interesting. If people can't put differences behind them to discuss whatever their meeting is about, then they aren't very good people to be in the government anyway. if an atheist wants an atheist to come and open the meeting, then he should suggest that the group do this and the group should honor his request. If no request is made, there is no need to provide for a minority that won't speak up for themselves, and there is certainly no need to cancel all prayers before a meeting.

That's why I proposed the 2 minute silence. We DO all have our own beliefs etc. Using a single persons choice of prayer is bad for that reason.

2 minutes of silence during which time the religious can pray, and atheists can simple contemplate existence, serves all parties without discriminating, and without anyone having to reveal their group-loyalties.

I can agree that a two minute period of silence wouldn't be a bad idea. It would be one of the best way of doing things. However, I don't think that having prayers before is unconstitutional. If the meeting wishes to have prayers beforehand, then it is not wrong: not ideal, yes, but also not wrong. If I were the leader of the town session, I would have a two minute silence. But other people are allowed to think differently and arrange things differently: there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things other than the way that you or I would consider best.

[Mavorpen]

That's why I proposed the 2 minute silence. We DO all have our own beliefs etc. Using a single persons choice of prayer is bad for that reason.

2 minutes of silence during which time the religious can pray, and atheists can simple contemplate existence, serves all parties without discriminating, and without anyone having to reveal their group-loyalties.

I can agree that a two minute period of silence wouldn't be a bad idea. It would be one of the best way of doing things. However, I don't think that having prayers before is unconstitutional. If the meeting wishes to have prayers beforehand, then it is not wrong: not ideal, yes, but also not wrong. If I were the leader of the town session, I would have a two minute silence. But other people are allowed to think differently and arrange things differently: there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things other than the way that you or I would consider best.

Why is it not unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional to do it before a school football game but not at a town hall meeting?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

So a town can hold a prayer session which presumes one is Christian and some other sort of sect?
Lovely. What silliness to say this isn't respect for an establishment of religion.

[Timothia]

I can agree that a two minute period of silence wouldn't be a bad idea. It would be one of the best way of doing things. However, I don't think that having prayers before is unconstitutional. If the meeting wishes to have prayers beforehand, then it is not wrong: not ideal, yes, but also not wrong. If I were the leader of the town session, I would have a two minute silence. But other people are allowed to think differently and arrange things differently: there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things other than the way that you or I would consider best.

Why is it not unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional to do it before a school football game but not at a town hall meeting?

The best question you've asked so far is why it is unconstitutional to pray before a football game.

[Galloism]

Why is it not unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional to do it before a school football game but not at a town hall meeting?

The best question you've asked so far is why it is unconstitutional to pray before a football game.

Because a school is an arm of the government.

[Mavorpen]

Why is it not unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional to do it before a school football game but not at a town hall meeting?

The best question you've asked so far is why it is unconstitutional to pray before a football game.

Because we aren't a theocracy?

[Timothia]

The best question you've asked so far is why it is unconstitutional to pray before a football game.

Because a school is an arm of the government.

So? If kids in school are so impressionable that they cannot hear a prayer before a football game without being converted, then they shouldn't be near any peer or teacher who has any strong convictions of any kind, either. So long as no money is spent, what is the issue? If people wanted to beg the great fairy godmother for pixie dust and safety before football games, I wouldn't care. Their intentions are good and their prayer means nothing to me: why would it matter? If an atheist spoke before the game and said that he hoped the game would be good and that everyone would be safe, I wouldn't care. If a Native-American shaman came out and did a tribal dance that brought safety and good luck to the teams that were playing, it would be a bit weird, but I wouldn't think it was established religion. So what is the issue?

[Mavorpen]

So? If kids in school are so impressionable that they cannot hear a prayer before a football game without being converted, then they shouldn't be near any peer or teacher who has any strong convictions of any kind, either. So long as no money is spent, what is the issue? If people wanted to beg the great fairy godmother for pixie dust and safety before football games, I wouldn't care. Their intentions are good and their prayer means nothing to me: why would it matter? If an atheist spoke before the game and said that he hoped the game would be good and that everyone would be safe, I wouldn't care. If a Native-American shaman came out and did a tribal dance that brought safety and good luck to the teams that were playing, it would be a bit weird, but I wouldn't think it was established religion. So what is the issue?

You...you DO know that the answers to your question are readily available on the internet, right?

[Timothia]

The best question you've asked so far is why it is unconstitutional to pray before a football game.

Because we aren't a theocracy?

Unpaid preacher asking soemone you don't believe in for safety =/= theocracy.

[Mavorpen]

Because we aren't a theocracy?

Unpaid preacher asking soemone you don't believe in for safety =/= theocracy.

Of course it isn't. Why would I care if someone in a church prays? It's a good thing that isn't what we're talking about.