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
Brickistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Apr 10, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Brickistan » Wed May 07, 2014 11:42 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.


Freedom of religion must also entail freedom from religion.

When a public institution, like a town hall, hosts prayers to a god (or gods as it might be) then it's an implicit endorsement of religion. That's why you can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. A government entity must be neutral on all things religious and the only way to do so is by not doing anything religious at all.

It will be interesting to see if this will truly mean that the meetings will now be open for all. If they allow a Christian prayer then they must also allow, for example, a Satanic prayer. And with the admission that they're probably not going to allow anything other than a Christian prayer...

How can that not be endorsement of a religion?

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

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:46 am

Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.
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 11:48 am

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.

Psst. Hey. I have a surprise for you: most people on NSG are religious.

But sure, continue to pander to a nonsensical persecution complex.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed May 07, 2014 11:48 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
JeebusCrust
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 421
Founded: May 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby JeebusCrust » Wed May 07, 2014 11:48 am

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.

What a lovely concession. Thank you, come again.

User avatar
Bezombia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29250
Founded: Apr 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bezombia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:48 am

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.

lololololololololololololololololol
Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon...but down this road we've been so many times...
Please, call me Benomia. Post count +14623, founded Oct. 23, 2012.
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.
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
I'm a poet. Come read my poems!

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

Postby MERIZoC » Wed May 07, 2014 11:49 am

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.

:rofl: "uber-liberal"? Have you seen the poll in the thread about the best British PM?
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 11:50 am

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.


Dude, chill out.
Not saying religion is bad.
That's a distinction no one has the evidence to make.
There's nothing wrong for people to pray for success, or for anything at all.

It really just doesn't belong there.

It's better for everyone that way.

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 11:52 am

Brickistan wrote:
Timothia wrote: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.


Freedom of religion must also entail freedom from religion.

When a public institution, like a town hall, hosts prayers to a god (or gods as it might be) then it's an implicit endorsement of religion. That's why you can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. A government entity must be neutral on all things religious and the only way to do so is by not doing anything religious at all.

It will be interesting to see if this will truly mean that the meetings will now be open for all. If they allow a Christian prayer then they must also allow, for example, a Satanic prayer. And with the admission that they're probably not going to allow anything other than a Christian prayer...

How can that not be endorsement of a religion?

While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will.

Also you can have a 10 commandment references in certain circumstances for instance if it is part of a larger display on law. Such as the East Pediment of U.S. Supreme Court Building.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf

Lastly they did allow Wiccan and other denominations to give the prayers. They do not advertise it and they typically only allow locals to do so, but yes in theory a satanist could pray.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Bezombia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29250
Founded: Apr 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bezombia » Wed May 07, 2014 11:52 am

Clearly if you actually want the constitution to be honored your a uber-liberal posse-bearing unchanging hivemind-member who thinks that all religious people should be killed.
Clearly.
Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon...but down this road we've been so many times...
Please, call me Benomia. Post count +14623, founded Oct. 23, 2012.
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.
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
I'm a poet. Come read my poems!

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Wed May 07, 2014 12:03 pm

greed and death wrote:
Brickistan wrote:
Freedom of religion must also entail freedom from religion.

When a public institution, like a town hall, hosts prayers to a god (or gods as it might be) then it's an implicit endorsement of religion. That's why you can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. A government entity must be neutral on all things religious and the only way to do so is by not doing anything religious at all.

It will be interesting to see if this will truly mean that the meetings will now be open for all. If they allow a Christian prayer then they must also allow, for example, a Satanic prayer. And with the admission that they're probably not going to allow anything other than a Christian prayer...

How can that not be endorsement of a religion?

While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will. .

Absolute bullshit.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 12:07 pm

Dyakovo wrote:
greed and death wrote:While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will. .

Absolute bullshit.

Fuck, the individuals who brought it up were then HARRASSED for doing so.
"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
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 12:11 pm

Dyakovo wrote:
greed and death wrote:While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will. .

Absolute bullshit.

Coercive:
using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercive
Coercion- The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion


Yeah someone praying without attempting to convert or disparage other beliefs falls well short of coercive.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 12:14 pm

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Absolute bullshit.

Coercive:
using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercive
Coercion- The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion


Yeah someone praying without attempting to convert or disparage other beliefs falls well short of coercive.

Yet that magically changes before a school football game...why?
"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
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 12:17 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Absolute bullshit.

Fuck, the individuals who brought it up were then HARRASSED for doing so.

If they were harassed or their property vandalized that is a matter for the police.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Wed May 07, 2014 12:17 pm

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Absolute bullshit.

Coercive:
using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercive
Coercion- The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion


Yeah someone praying without attempting to convert or disparage other beliefs falls well short of coercive.

That isn't what is actually happening.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 12:19 pm

greed and death wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Fuck, the individuals who brought it up were then HARRASSED for doing so.

If they were harassed or their property vandalized that is a matter for the police.

Damn, it's almost like intentionally missed the point.
"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
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 12:21 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
greed and death wrote:Coercive:
using force or threats to make someone do something : using coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercive
Coercion- The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion


Yeah someone praying without attempting to convert or disparage other beliefs falls well short of coercive.

Yet that magically changes before a school football game...why?

Is the idea that the law is more protective of minors that surprising ?
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 12:23 pm

greed and death wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Yet that magically changes before a school football game...why?

Is the idea that the law is more protective of minors that surprising ?

Yes. When it comes to this subject, of fucking course it is. Want to know what Justice Anthony Kennedy's answer for non-Christians who don't want to hear Christian prayer before the meeting? "If you don't like it, leave the room." Simple, isn't it? Are you saying students are incapable of following this? Before the football game, just leave!
"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
Death Metal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13542
Founded: Dec 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Death Metal » Wed May 07, 2014 12:29 pm

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


It's not permission. Permission is silent meditation period.

They force it to be spoken out loud, forcing people to hear.

That is coercive, endorsement, and absolutely immoral.
Last edited by Death Metal on Wed May 07, 2014 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Only here when I'm VERY VERY VERY bored now.
(Trump is Reagan 2.0: A nationalistic bimbo who will ruin America.)
Death Metal: A nation founded on the most powerful force in the world: METAL! \m/
A non-idealist centre-leftist

Alts: Ronpaulatia, Bisonopolis, Iga, Gygaxia, The Children of Skyrim, Tinfoil Fedoras

Pro: Civil Equality, Scaled Income Taxes, Centralized Govtt, Moderate Business Regulations, Heavy Metal
Con: Censorship in any medium, Sales Tax, Flat Tax, Small Govt, Overly Large Govt, Laissez Faire, AutoTuner.

I support Obama. And so would FA Hayek.

34 arguments Libertarians (and sometimes AnCaps) make, and why they are wrong.

User avatar
Brickistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Apr 10, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Brickistan » Wed May 07, 2014 12:41 pm

Timothia wrote:Never mind, I give up. I forgot how much of NSG was against my beliefs. I'm not going to change your minds and no one is going to back me up. That's fine, you all should just talk to one another about how terrible religion is and how wrong it is for people to pray for success in a government setting. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place and this is why I should've quit before the uber-liberal posse arrived.

My bad, I should have known better than to challenge the unchanging hive-mind of NSG. Won't happen again any time soon.


Oh, drop the persecution complex, will you? It's getting old...

No-ones ever said that you cannot pray in your own home or in your church. All that's being said is that you cannot pray as part of a public governmental meeting.

greed and death wrote:
Brickistan wrote:
Freedom of religion must also entail freedom from religion.

When a public institution, like a town hall, hosts prayers to a god (or gods as it might be) then it's an implicit endorsement of religion. That's why you can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. A government entity must be neutral on all things religious and the only way to do so is by not doing anything religious at all.

It will be interesting to see if this will truly mean that the meetings will now be open for all. If they allow a Christian prayer then they must also allow, for example, a Satanic prayer. And with the admission that they're probably not going to allow anything other than a Christian prayer...

How can that not be endorsement of a religion?

While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will.

Also you can have a 10 commandment references in certain circumstances for instance if it is part of a larger display on law. Such as the East Pediment of U.S. Supreme Court Building.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf

Lastly they did allow Wiccan and other denominations to give the prayers. They do not advertise it and they typically only allow locals to do so, but yes in theory a satanist could pray.


It is, for all intents and purposes, coersive.

Remember that we're talking about a country where atheists are so distrusted that only rapists beat them for the number one spot (one source among several).

Are you really going to remain silent when everybody else pray out loudly? Are you going to risk getting ostracized and bullied for your lack of faith?

And it's even worse as a politician - good luck getting anywhere as an outspoken atheist.

So yes, it is coercive by means of establishing and endorsing religious peer pressure.

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 12:47 pm

Brickistan wrote:It is, for all intents and purposes, coersive.

Remember that we're talking about a country where atheists are so distrusted that only rapists beat them for the number one spot (one source among several).

Are you really going to remain silent when everybody else pray out loudly? Are you going to risk getting ostracized and bullied for your lack of faith?

And it's even worse as a politician - good luck getting anywhere as an outspoken atheist.

So yes, it is coercive by means of establishing and endorsing religious peer pressure.

Justice Kagan made a great hypothetical addressing just this:

Let’s say that a Muslim citizen of Greece goes before the Board to share her views on policy or request some permit. Maybe she wants the Board to put up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection; or maybe she needs a zoning variance to build an addition on her home. But just before she gets to say her piece, a minister deputized by the Town asks her to pray “in the name of God’s only son Jesus Christ.” App. 99a.

She must think—it is hardly paranoia, but only the truth—that Christian worship has become entwined with local governance. And now she faces a choice—to pray alongside the majority as one of that group or somehow to register her deeply felt difference. She is a strong person, but that is no easy call—especially given that the room is small and her every action (or inaction) will be noticed. She does not wish to be rude to her neighbors, nor does she wish to aggravate the Board members whom she will soon be trying to persuade.

And yet she does not want to acknowledge Christ’s divinity, any more than many of her neighbors would want to deny that tenet. So assume she declines to participate with the others in the first act of the meeting—or even, as the majority proposes, that she stands up and leaves the room altogether, see ante, at 21.

At the least, she becomes a different kind of citizen, one who will not join in the religious practice that the Town Board has chosen as reflecting its own and the community’s most cherished beliefs. And she thus stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives.
"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
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 12:56 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
greed and death wrote:Is the idea that the law is more protective of minors that surprising ?

Yes. When it comes to this subject, of fucking course it is. Want to know what Justice Anthony Kennedy's answer for non-Christians who don't want to hear Christian prayer before the meeting? "If you don't like it, leave the room." Simple, isn't it? Are you saying students are incapable of following this? Before the football game, just leave!

If you do not like sex with an adult do not consent, as though a 17 year old is not capable of following this and the law should protect them more?
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 1:00 pm

greed and death wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Yes. When it comes to this subject, of fucking course it is. Want to know what Justice Anthony Kennedy's answer for non-Christians who don't want to hear Christian prayer before the meeting? "If you don't like it, leave the room." Simple, isn't it? Are you saying students are incapable of following this? Before the football game, just leave!

If you do not like sex with an adult do not consent, as though a 17 year old is not capable of following this and the law should protect them more?

Could you try this again, but in a way where it is actually coherent?
"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
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49091
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Wed May 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Brickistan wrote:
greed and death wrote:While it might be a very minute implicit endorsement of a religion, it is not coercive. And it is only when the it becomes coercive that the courts should feel obliged to override majority will.

Also you can have a 10 commandment references in certain circumstances for instance if it is part of a larger display on law. Such as the East Pediment of U.S. Supreme Court Building.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf

Lastly they did allow Wiccan and other denominations to give the prayers. They do not advertise it and they typically only allow locals to do so, but yes in theory a satanist could pray.


It is, for all intents and purposes, coersive.

Remember that we're talking about a country where atheists are so distrusted that only rapists beat them for the number one spot (one source among several).

Are you really going to remain silent when everybody else pray out loudly? Are you going to risk getting ostracized and bullied for your lack of faith?

And it's even worse as a politician - good luck getting anywhere as an outspoken atheist.

So yes, it is coercive by means of establishing and endorsing religious peer pressure.


Yes as an Atheist (well sometimes agnostic) I do that all the freaking time. And even in the bible belt of Texas it is no where near as bad as you suggest.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Vulpae
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 471
Founded: Mar 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Vulpae » Wed May 07, 2014 1:34 pm

Great Nepal wrote:
Murkwood wrote:People volunteered. If a Hindu or Muslim wanted to, they would let them.

No, people were invited: "the body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer, (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain", I want to know when they invited Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist...

I know this is from early on, but it struck me as being blatantly wrong...

Athiests don't get invited to give a prayer, because they don't pray, especially if they are those vehement anti-theists who are some of the most aggressively boring people I've ever met.
In Islamic communities, like the one in south Carolina, do hold Islamic prayers before town meetings, and have a prayer room set up in public buildings.
Buddisim outside asia isn't exactly "churchy", it's more of a lifestyle of zen and meditation, than going to prayer. But it was not uncommon for Asian communities to use prayer beads and other talismans I public places.

Of course these aren't Christians, are not a majority, They have also not been a major factor in the country's history for long enough for everyone to have a complete understanding of their virtues & flaws. Therefore such religions do not invoke the same sheer amount of outrage over putting a shrine in a public place.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aeritai, Andsed, Auzkhia, Dresderstan, Duhon, Greed and Death, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Kohr, Pacomia, Samudera Darussalam, Sodoran Alesia, Telconi, The Chuck, Uiiop, United Kingdom of Poland

Advertisement

Remove ads