NATION

PASSWORD

Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61159
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Wed May 07, 2014 10:58 am

Timothia wrote:
Galloism wrote:
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?

Mainly we have this thing called a constitution that prohibits government endorsement of religion.

I mean, that's my go-to argument.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 10:59 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote: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?

Because the courts say it, it must be right. The courts are always correct. No mistakes are made.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61159
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Wed May 07, 2014 11:00 am

Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:04 am

Galloism wrote:
Timothia wrote: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?

Mainly we have this thing called a constitution that prohibits government endorsement of religion.

I mean, that's my go-to argument.

Endorsement? ENDORSEMENT? Permission to pray means that we are endorsing a certain faith? So if we allow a company to display their cutting-edge technology at a science fair, we are "endorsing" that company? Really? We are simply allowing someone to make statements that people in the crowds would find tasteful and relevant. Just because some people don't agree with these statements doesn't mean that the government is endorsing Christianity.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:04 am


What a beautiful straw man you have there. Would you like to show me saying anything close to that? Or, do you want to go back and read my post. I mean, REALLY read it.

...Actually the problem might be that you read it TOO much. I didn't imply the court was right. You asked a question: what is the issue. I gave you a link so that you could EXPLORE the reasoning over what the issue was. There was nothing in my post saying anything close to what you WANTED me to say so that you could attack a shitty straw man.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:05 am

Timothia wrote:Endorsement? ENDORSEMENT? Permission to pray means that we are endorsing a certain faith?

No. In fact, Gallo said utterly nothing about it endorsing "a certain faith".
Timothia wrote:So if we allow a company to display their cutting-edge technology at a science fair, we are "endorsing" that company? Really? We are simply allowing someone to make statements that people in the crowds would find tasteful and relevant. Just because some people don't agree with these statements doesn't mean that the government is endorsing Christianity.

Again, Gallo didn't talk about any specific religion. NO religion can do it.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:08 am

Mavorpen wrote:

What a beautiful straw man you have there. Would you like to show me saying anything close to that? Or, do you want to go back and read my post. I mean, REALLY read it.

...Actually the problem might be that you read it TOO much. I didn't imply the court was right. You asked a question: what is the issue. I gave you a link so that you could EXPLORE the reasoning over what the issue was. There was nothing in my post saying anything close to what you WANTED me to say so that you could attack a shitty straw man.

Thanks for your sarcastic link then. I obviously knew what we were talking about, I read the OP and I read the first page's worth of opinions. I'm perfectly aware of what the subject we are discussing. My question might have said "what is the problem" rather than "why is this a problem", but I assumed that you would be able to understand what I meant. Your link failed to answer my implied question "why is this a problem".
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:10 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:What a beautiful straw man you have there. Would you like to show me saying anything close to that? Or, do you want to go back and read my post. I mean, REALLY read it.

...Actually the problem might be that you read it TOO much. I didn't imply the court was right. You asked a question: what is the issue. I gave you a link so that you could EXPLORE the reasoning over what the issue was. There was nothing in my post saying anything close to what you WANTED me to say so that you could attack a shitty straw man.

Thanks for your sarcastic link then. I obviously knew what we were talking about, I read the OP and I read the first page's worth of opinions. I'm perfectly aware of what the subject we are discussing. My question might have said "what is the problem" rather than "why is this a problem", but I assumed that you would be able to understand what I meant. Your link failed to answer my implied question "why is this a problem".

No it doesn't. The link EXPLAINS "why this is a problem." In fact, it's easily answered WITHOUT a link. Why is it a problem? Because people saw it as unconstitutional. It's literally that simple.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:12 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote:Thanks for your sarcastic link then. I obviously knew what we were talking about, I read the OP and I read the first page's worth of opinions. I'm perfectly aware of what the subject we are discussing. My question might have said "what is the problem" rather than "why is this a problem", but I assumed that you would be able to understand what I meant. Your link failed to answer my implied question "why is this a problem".

No it doesn't. The link EXPLAINS "why this is a problem." In fact, it's easily answered WITHOUT a link. Why is it a problem? Because people saw it as unconstitutional. It's literally that simple.

So if I see lemons as unconstitutional, then they are? Just because someone sees something as unconstitutional doesn't mean it is. It isn't that simple.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:13 am

Timothia wrote:So if I see lemons as unconstitutional, then they are?

Hooray, another straw man! I didn't say it's unconstitutional. I said it's a problem. It's a "problem" because someone viewed it as unconstitutional, took it to court, and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

You aren't even trying anymore, are you?
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed May 07, 2014 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:19 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote:So if I see lemons as unconstitutional, then they are?

Hooray, another straw man! I didn't say it's unconstitutional. I said it's a problem. It's a "problem" because someone viewed it as unconstitutional, took it to court, and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

You aren't even trying anymore, are you?

Can you make a point or prove a case? You are really just arguing semantics rather than actually making a point. What do you think and why do you think that? Then I will look at what you believe and argue on the points where they disagree. I've had enough of this "I didn't say why did, I said why does" crap.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:21 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Hooray, another straw man! I didn't say it's unconstitutional. I said it's a problem. It's a "problem" because someone viewed it as unconstitutional, took it to court, and it was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

You aren't even trying anymore, are you?

Can you make a point or prove a case? You are really just arguing semantics rather than actually making a point. What do you think and why do you think that? Then I will look at what you believe and argue on the points where they disagree. I've had enough of this "I didn't say why did, I said why does" crap.

If you've REALLY had enough, then go actually read the link. Seriously. This could have been completely avoided if you'd have read the link instead of pursuing a silly path down translating everything I've said into something you WANT them to say instead of what they actually said.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:25 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote:Can you make a point or prove a case? You are really just arguing semantics rather than actually making a point. What do you think and why do you think that? Then I will look at what you believe and argue on the points where they disagree. I've had enough of this "I didn't say why did, I said why does" crap.

If you've REALLY had enough, then go actually read the link. Seriously. This could have been completely avoided if you'd have read the link instead of pursuing a silly path down translating everything I've said into something you WANT them to say instead of what they actually said.

I went to the link already, I'm not one of those rude people who refuses to click links or pretends to read them but really doesn't. I know what the ruling was and I know what the OP thinks and I know what I think and I know what Ostereuropa thinks: I asked what you think, not what the link says.

And I don't mean to translate anything you say into something else, I'm only looking at what you say as it appears.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:27 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:If you've REALLY had enough, then go actually read the link. Seriously. This could have been completely avoided if you'd have read the link instead of pursuing a silly path down translating everything I've said into something you WANT them to say instead of what they actually said.

I went to the link already, I'm not one of those rude people who refuses to click links or pretends to read them but really doesn't. I know what the ruling was and I know what the OP thinks and I know what I think and I know what Ostereuropa thinks: I asked what you think, not what the link says.

And I don't mean to translate anything you say into something else, I'm only looking at what you say as it appears.

...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Destiny Island
Minister
 
Posts: 2317
Founded: Feb 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Destiny Island » Wed May 07, 2014 11:28 am

Oh SCOTUS. You silly individuals. That's not how you protect freedom of religion.
The game.
Kirby Delauter.

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:29 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote:I went to the link already, I'm not one of those rude people who refuses to click links or pretends to read them but really doesn't. I know what the ruling was and I know what the OP thinks and I know what I think and I know what Ostereuropa thinks: I asked what you think, not what the link says.

And I don't mean to translate anything you say into something else, I'm only looking at what you say as it appears.

...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

:palm: WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:31 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

:palm: WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

Once again, refer to the link I provided.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23691
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Wed May 07, 2014 11:32 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:...I think it's unconstitutional.

That...that isn't obvious?

:palm: WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?
FUTBOL GANG
Somewhere to the left of Attila the Hun
Social Juchetice Warrior
More cool stuff

Pizzagate expert
Guinean Unionist

The NS Parliament—Christian People's Congress: Join us! For family and faith.

Donut section
 
Founded:

Postby Donut section » Wed May 07, 2014 11:33 am

Dear Christians, no one can stop you from praying.
Seriously you can do it under your breath and no one will know.
And even if we did know, do you think anyone would care as long as you don't expect them to hear it.
No one is trying to stop you from doing this.
What you need to stop doing is interfering in things that have nothing to do with your faith.
Like everything that isn't on your church grounds.

User avatar
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:35 am

Merizoc wrote:
Timothia wrote: :palm: WHY do you think it is unconstitutional? What does it violate and how does it do so?

It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Destiny Island
Minister
 
Posts: 2317
Founded: Feb 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Destiny Island » Wed May 07, 2014 11:36 am

Donut section wrote:Dear Christians, no one can stop you from praying.
Seriously you can do it under your breath and no one will know.
And even if we did know, do you think anyone would care as long as you don't expect them to hear it.
No one is trying to stop you from doing this.
What you need to stop doing is interfering in things that have nothing to do with your faith.
Like everything that isn't on your church grounds.

Please don't lump me with the xtians. It's my sig for pete's sake.
The game.
Kirby Delauter.

Donut section
 
Founded:

Postby Donut section » Wed May 07, 2014 11:37 am

Timothia wrote:
Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.


No one is saying your not allowed to pray.
Just stop trying to mix it in publicly, it doesn't have to be a group activity.

User avatar
JeebusCrust
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 421
Founded: May 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby JeebusCrust » Wed May 07, 2014 11:38 am

Timothia wrote:
Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

Well, yes, that's exactly what having a picture of a famous athlete would be. And a poster of Hitler would be an endorsement of Hitler. Similarly, a school-run prayer session is a government endorsement of religion. This is strictly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:38 am

Timothia wrote:
Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

Actually, you're entirely right. It would be an endorsement of that athlete.

Now what does that have to do with the constitutionality of this?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23691
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Wed May 07, 2014 11:39 am

Timothia wrote:
Merizoc wrote:It's a government endorsement of religion. You know the first amendment, right?

Like I said before, this is as much an endorsement of religion as having a picture of a famous athlete on the school hallways is an endorsement of that athlete. It's like saying that because there is a picture of Kobe Bryant in the locker room that the coach is endorsing rape. And yes, thank you, I am aware of the first amendment. I think it allows people to pray as long as others aren't allowed to pray as well, but feel free to correct me.

The government is mandating that part of the meeting include some kind of prayer. It is an endorsement. And people have already pointed out that those who don't want to pray may be stigmatized.
FUTBOL GANG
Somewhere to the left of Attila the Hun
Social Juchetice Warrior
More cool stuff

Pizzagate expert
Guinean Unionist

The NS Parliament—Christian People's Congress: Join us! For family and faith.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bodovonia-Selo, Duhon, Emulation White, Evil Dictators Happyland, Forsher, Google [Bot], Lost Memories, MSN [Bot], Nea Byzantia, Nuclear Wastelands, Proctopeo, Salandriagado, Samadhi, Sodoran Alesia, The Blaatschapen, The Emerald Legion, The New California Republic, Thermodolia, True Sons, West Leas Oros 2, Xuloqoia, Zambet Fata, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads