Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Bullshit. Respecting the establishment of religion is a violation of the constitution, and no "but muh expression!!1!" is ever going to change that. I would be in total support of the "two minutes of group silence" that was suggested above, but actual open law-mandated prayer is very much illegal and it scares me that the SCOTUS didn't strike it down.

How exactly is this "mandated prayer"? Nobody was forced to pray. If people have the option to say no, then it isn't mandatory.

[Bezombia]

Bullshit. Respecting the establishment of religion is a violation of the constitution, and no "but muh expression!!1!" is ever going to change that. I would be in total support of the "two minutes of group silence" that was suggested above, but actual open law-mandated prayer is very much illegal and it scares me that the SCOTUS didn't strike it down.

How exactly is this "mandated prayer"? Nobody was forced to pray. If people have the option to say no, then it isn't mandatory.

It's a town law. Did you even read the article?

[Azinar]

Good. Just because a few atheists don't like hearing prayers doesn't give them the right to stop other people from praying. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to; the United States has freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and people have the right to pray in public if they want to, and no matter how offended atheists and anti-theists might be by it, they don't have the right to stop it.

It's not that they're trying to stop public prayer, but prayer in this setting is a little different than a group of people getting together to pray in a public place. Because it's used to open a meeting, it's something that atheists or members of other religions are required to sit through to be involved. To me, the captive audience (of sorts) makes the presence of prayer come across like preaching. Not to mention the already stated fact that it could become a source of division if people decline to participate.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

It's a town law. Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did, and it said that meetings were opened with prayers. It didn't mention anything about people being forced to pray.

It's not that they're trying to stop public prayer, but prayer in this setting is a little different than a group of people getting together to pray in a public place. Because it's used to open a meeting, it's something that atheists or members of other religions are required to sit through to be involved. To me, the captive audience (of sorts) makes the presence of prayer come across like preaching. Not to mention the already stated fact that it could become a source of division if people decline to participate.

If atheists don't want to hear people pray, they can show up a few minutes late or just walk outside while everyone else prays.

[Bezombia]

It's a town law. Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did, and it said that meetings were opened with prayers. It didn't mention anything about people being forced to pray.

Nobody said that anyone was being forced to pray.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Nobody said that anyone was being forced to pray.

You said that praying was mandatory, which is a blatant lie.

but actual open law-mandated prayer is very much illegal and it scares me that the SCOTUS didn't strike it down.

[Bezombia]

Nobody said that anyone was being forced to pray.

You said that praying was mandatory, which is a blatant lie.

but actual open law-mandated prayer is very much illegal and it scares me that the SCOTUS didn't strike it down.

I most certainly did not say that praying was mandatory.
There's a difference between something that is mandatory and something that is mandated.

[Viritica]

I'm kind of split on this.

Opening town council meetings with a prayer could be perceived as endorsing a religion. Then again, no one is being forced to partake in the prayer.

Also, a prayer really isn't coercing someone to join that religion.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a town law. Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did, and it said that meetings were opened with prayers. It didn't mention anything about people being forced to pray.

It's not that they're trying to stop public prayer, but prayer in this setting is a little different than a group of people getting together to pray in a public place. Because it's used to open a meeting, it's something that atheists or members of other religions are required to sit through to be involved. To me, the captive audience (of sorts) makes the presence of prayer come across like preaching. Not to mention the already stated fact that it could become a source of division if people decline to participate.

If atheists don't want to hear people pray, they can show up a few minutes late or just walk outside while everyone else prays.

You're asking us to divide ourselves from the group.
Something that public ritual has always been the point to avoid. Human societies use public ritual to denote society. By making this ceremony a part of the state, you are implying that atheists are not part of society.
By asking us to show up "after" the group bonding ritual, you are saying you do not wish to have us in your society. That is the psychological effect of group bonding excercises.

There is a big reason why public prayer was always very popular in smaller tight knit communities.

The fact is, nothing about your religion actually requires public prayer. The entire point of the excercise is group solidarity and bonding.
When people started becoming atheists, the failure to alter state ceremonies to include them, was a failure of the state to account for this.

A public prayer now, in effect, unites christians against non-christians.

That is it's actual psychological effect.
It may be minor, but that's what it does.
I cannot think of why any christian would support that, beyond simply not having considered the themes and what is actually happening, or just blatant bigotry.

Just because I am an atheist, does not mean that I think the societal rituals should exclude christians.
I want them included. They are supposed to include everyone.

[MERIZoC]

I love the double standard I see here all the time. So basically it is more than fine for non christians to protest all kinds of christian things but let a christian protest anything or stand up for their beliefs about anything and everyone is butthurt about it. Now me, I am my own Person and my own Christian I do not go for alot of the very stereotypical views christians get foisted with on this site such as the whole anti gay thing or the abortion thing etc but I do think that people who have those beliefs have just as much right to express them and stand for them as you all do to express your beliefs and opinions. In this case, I wonder how many of the people who attend these meetings are christian or just agnostic and just plain don't care if there is a prayer or not and that being the case why on earth is it anyone elses business? especially if they don't live in that town or community? how is it their business?

inB4 "americuh has christain roots"
inB4 "most americuhns are christain"
inB4 "freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion"
inB4 Shie

I think I've covered all the usually responses.

Shots fired.

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

There Is still some morality left in America today. There is hope!

[MERIZoC]

People do have a right to stop government sponsored prayer. The precedent was established with Engel vs. Vitale, which barred administrative-sponsored prayer in schools.

Engle vs. Vitale bans prayer in school, and has nothing to do with people praying in government buildings.

If we can't force our views down your throat, why can you force your views down ours?

Nobody is forcing jack shit down your throat by holding non-sectarian, non-mandated prayer. Unless you get forced to do something, you just have to deal with the fact that freedom of speech and freedom of religion means people can pray whenever they want, government property or not.

But it is mandated.

[Viritica]

There Is still some morality left in America today. There is hope!

Hope for what?

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

There Is still some morality left in America today. There is hope!

Hope for what?

Hope for a bright future.

[Viritica]

Hope for what?

Hope for a bright future.

Religion doesn't lead to bright futures.

It leads to religious wars, jihads, slavery, and general suppression of civil rights.

[MERIZoC]

Hope for a bright future.

Religion doesn't lead to bright futures.

It leads to religious wars, jihads, slavery, and general suppression of civil rights.

Wow. I think this is the first time I've agreed with you on something.

[Viritica]

Religion doesn't lead to bright futures.

It leads to religious wars, jihads, slavery, and general suppression of civil rights.

Wow. I think this is the first time I've agreed with you on something.

Must be a blue moon or something.

[Azinar]

It's not that they're trying to stop public prayer, but prayer in this setting is a little different than a group of people getting together to pray in a public place. Because it's used to open a meeting, it's something that atheists or members of other religions are required to sit through to be involved. To me, the captive audience (of sorts) makes the presence of prayer come across like preaching. Not to mention the already stated fact that it could become a source of division if people decline to participate.

If atheists don't want to hear people pray, they can show up a few minutes late or just walk outside while everyone else prays.

It would be more logical if prayer was held prior to the meeting or outside of the meeting place than atheists needing to choose to enter later or sit outside. That way, those who want to pray can still pray, and those who don't want to be included don't have to be included, without obviously separating themselves.

But really, the whole moment of silence idea seems like the best solution.

[Bezombia]

There Is still some morality left in America today. There is hope!

Hope for what?

For a Hippoaen future, apparently.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Hope for a bright future.

Religion doesn't lead to bright futures.

It leads to religious wars, jihads, slavery, and general suppression of civil rights.

If we're judging purely on the past, atheism leads to mass murder, genocide, forced famine, and silencing of the opposition. The Soviet Union must have been such a bright future for all those lovely people in eastern Europe and Russia. Oh, wait, state atheism wasn't a bright future? Hmm, big fucking surprise.

The world is inherently bad, and there will always be tyranny whether people kill in the name of God or just for their own self interests. Blaming religion for the world's problems is utterly ridiculous, especially when the only state-atheist countries in history have been genocidal hell holes.

[Death Metal]

There Is still some morality left in America today. There is hope!

This is the exact opposite of morality.

[Viritica]

Hope for what?

For a Hippoaen future, apparently.

Hippostania would be proud.

[Viritica]

Religion doesn't lead to bright futures.

It leads to religious wars, jihads, slavery, and general suppression of civil rights.

If we're judging purely on the past, atheism leads to mass murder, genocide, forced famine, and silencing of the opposition. The Soviet Union must have been such a bright future for all those lovely people in eastern Europe and Russia. Oh, wait, state atheism wasn't a bright future? Hmm, big fucking surprise.

The world is inherently bad, and there will always be tyranny whether people kill in the name of God or just for their own self interests. Blaming religion for the world's problems is utterly ridiculous, especially when the only state-atheist countries in history have been genocidal hell holes.

I think you're referring to Stalinism, not atheism.

[Geilinor]

Bullshit. Respecting the establishment of religion is a violation of the constitution, and no "but muh expression!!1!" is ever going to change that. I would be in total support of the "two minutes of group silence" that was suggested above, but actual open law-mandated prayer is very much illegal and it scares me that the SCOTUS didn't strike it down.

How exactly is this "mandated prayer"? Nobody was forced to pray. If people have the option to say no, then it isn't mandatory.

They are required to sit through it if they have been elected. A prayer is required to be said on behalf of the legislature and on behalf of the people of the town.

[Bezombia]

If we're judging purely on the past, atheism leads to mass murder

Source?

genocide,

Source?

forced famine,

Source?

and silencing of the opposition.

Source?

The Soviet Union must have been such a bright future for all those lovely people in eastern Europe and Russia. Oh, wait, state atheism wasn't a bright future? Hmm, big fucking surprise.

So when any atheist does something, even if not in the name of atheism, it's atheisms fault, but when people do thinks specifically in the name of a religion then it's just "the world's" fault? Yeah that's not deluded at all.