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: 61049
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Wed May 07, 2014 7:38 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.

JeebusCrust wrote:
Galloism wrote:SCOTUS, why do you make me hate you so?

They're masochists.


I'm headed to get my Death Star. BRB.
Last edited by Galloism on Wed May 07, 2014 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Wed May 07, 2014 8:04 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
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
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23691
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Wed May 07, 2014 8:15 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
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.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed May 07, 2014 8:48 am

greed and death wrote:
Neutraligon wrote: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?
Last edited by Jocabia on Wed May 07, 2014 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Vazdania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19448
Founded: Mar 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vazdania » Wed May 07, 2014 9:53 am

Galloism wrote:
Vazdania wrote: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.

JeebusCrust wrote: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?
NSG's Resident Constitutional Executive Monarchist!
We Monarchists Stand With The Morals Of The Past, As We Hatch Impossible Treasons Against The Present.

They Have No Voice; So I will Speak For Them. The Right To Life Is Fundamental To All Humans Regardless Of How Developed They Are. Pro-Woman. Pro-Child. Pro-Life.

NSG's Newest Vegetarian!

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61049
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Wed May 07, 2014 9:56 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
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
Death Metal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13542
Founded: Dec 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Death Metal » Wed May 07, 2014 9:57 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
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
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12707
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Othelos » Wed May 07, 2014 10:03 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
Pro: Human rights, classical liberalism, equality, LGBT rights, the EU, capitalism, property rights, innovation, green politics, public transportation
Anti: Autocratic regimes, the Chinese government, leftist "progressivism", identity politics, die Linke/SPD, populism, organized religion, Erdogan, intellectual property theft, assault weapon ownership
Free Tibet and Hong Kong
How China exploits developing countries and undermines democratic institutions worldwide
How chinese espionage and information theft is becoming more sophisticated
How the chinese government encourages espionage among chinese students and expats in Europe

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

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 10:09 am

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?
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52250
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

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

Timothia wrote: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
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Wed May 07, 2014 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

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

Postby Dyakovo » Wed May 07, 2014 10:14 am

Vazdania wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.
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
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 10:21 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Timothia wrote: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.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52250
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Wed May 07, 2014 10:28 am

Timothia wrote:

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.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

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

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 10:29 am

Timothia wrote: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.
Timothia wrote: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.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed May 07, 2014 10:29 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
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Wed May 07, 2014 10:29 am

Timothia wrote:

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

No.
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
Timothia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1819
Founded: Sep 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 10:32 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Timothia wrote: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.
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 10:35 am

Timothia wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
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 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
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9659
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Wed May 07, 2014 10:35 am

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.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to encourage settlement of all habitable worlds in the Galaxy and perhaps the Universe by the human race;
to ensure that human rights are respected, with force if necessary, and that all nations recognize the inevitable and unalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their individual and harmless differences, or Idiosyncrasies;
to represent the interests of all humankind to other sapient species;
to protect all humanity and its’ colonies from unneeded violence or danger;
to promote technological advancement and scientific achievement for the happiness, knowledge and welfare of all humans;
and to facilitate cooperation in the spheres of law, transportation, communication, and measurement between nation-states.

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

Postby Timothia » Wed May 07, 2014 10:39 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote: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.
The only unofficial person in the room still wearing a monocle. ಠ_ರೃ

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61049
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Wed May 07, 2014 10:42 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote: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.
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
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed May 07, 2014 10:45 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote: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?
"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 10:48 am

Galloism wrote:
Timothia wrote: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?
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 10:52 am

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?
"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 10:55 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Timothia wrote: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.

Image

Image

Image

Image
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 10:57 am

Timothia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote: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.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed May 07, 2014 10:57 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

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Blueflarst, Cannot think of a name, Chan Island, Chernoslavia, Elfland, Fartsniffage, Galloism, Google [Bot], Lost Memories, Matsumo, Miami Shores, Ngelmish, Ors Might, Ostroeuropa, Shrillland, Talibanmark, Telconi, The Huskar Social Union, The Noviaskiet, Valentine Z, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads