Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The entire concept of separating church from government means that religions don't have the right to oust non believers. They don't have the right to impose their views on the entire population, even if they have a 99% majority. "Just move if you don't like it" isn't an acceptable answer or a solution to religions trying to insinuate their views into government. They don't get to do that, just like a majority of xyz state doesn't have a right to re-institute slavery.
Constitutional protections aren't subject to majority vote.
Just move if *you* don't like it.
I don't need to indulge your (irrational) need to worship sky-beings in America at public meetings.
Do it on your own time, at your own forum.
Look back at your own post if you forgot what you wrote. I didn't say if you don't like a religious expression, you should move. It was you that said your political associates here in Arizona weren't active enough for your liking. I said if you don't like it, do a better job of organizing the Left or move to a state where your party was more active. Both are part of the American Way...
I support strong family values and I'm a republican but I totally concur with you on this point.
For me it's really heartbreaking to see my party not only embrace all this religious hoo-hah, but use religion as a political pressure point. A person's religion is personal, it shouldn't be a political issue or part of any public agenda.
I call upon the self-described christians or anyone of any religious faith that believes in a deity to provide tangible, physical, or scientific proof of such an existence other than quoting bible verses.
Okay. The Anthropic Principle. The Prime Mover Argument. The Ontological Argument. The Kalaam Argument.
See this is what I have problems with----public funds paying for chaplains and other religious services. Religion of any kind doesn't belong in government affairs especially when public taxes are used. Any real conservative touting fiscal prudence should be outraged over this.
Worship, pray, bow, kneel, or chant all ya want on your own time but don't use public funds or valuable time for religious indoctrination.
Nontheless, SCOTUS has held that paying chaplains and conducting religious services for its service members is constitutional. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Coast Guard all pay Chaplains to provide spiritual support for our sons and daughters in the dangerous and far-flung places we send them. I understand that outrages you, but most people don't care that you don't like it. You can fulminate about it all you want, if it makes you feel better.
I think that's a little bit of hyperbole, but your point is valid. But I'd counter by saying that no religion, faux or otherwise, should be participating in official civic events. I actually think the moment of silence that Phoenix went with is a great approach. No one is excluded and no one is having another's belief system forced upon them. Folks can use that time to pray to God, Allah, Satan, a three-eyed martian, or simply spend a few seconds contemplating what they plan on making for dinner that night.
Agree 100% with this and this has always been my stance. To me, religion or lack thereof is a private matter and prayers, chants, yodeling, etc should be done outside of a government or private business environment. Business or a government business environment is a place to conduct business, the end.
All these flavors of religion/beliefs when brought out on stage in a business or government environment I believe only serves to divide and beyond when everyone isn't given an even playing field to express their view. People have died in most ugly ways over eons of time in numbers that numb the mind in the name of "my belief is better than your belief and I'll stamp out the flavor on the other side because it conflicts with my views/you don't submit to my view."
SCOTUS, who gets the last say in this matter, says this is all constitutional. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, they narrowed that to say that there is nothing wrong with prayer before a public meeting as long as they weren't restricted to all Christian or Judaeo-Christian prayers (which, the Phoenix City Council has not, historically - I have been present at a meeting where a Native American prayer was made.)
The issue of devil-worship was even brought up, as a ludicrous example of where a policy could lead, incidentally in Town of Greece.
Ultimately, by a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the town's practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy stated: "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents."
The court concluded that the town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents.
.
I just wanted to post about this framing of the opinion, I'm going to get pedantic but this is a case that the City of Phoenix will be relying on as it loses and wastes money in court in favor of Sal DiCiccio's new proposal.
The issue in Greece was whether the town imposed an 'impermissible' establishment of religion by opening up town meetings with a prayer. Did the city coerce the respondents because they found it offensive as participants during invocations and city meetings?
Quote:
Offense, however, does not equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation reflecting his or her own convictions.
Respondents to the suit were alleging that the establishment of the religion, was a disrespect to them as they did not believe in the same religion, nor were of the belief that it had a place in a public meeting of diverse constituents. They ultimately wanted non-sectarian prayer to take place instead, that is prayer that is unidentifiable to any sect of any religion. The court took the position that it would be more intrusive on the Free Establishment Clause to require that judges be overseer to invocation proceedings. Because of that it was simply easier to allow Greece to do as it was. That doesn't mean that it is 'all Constitutional', but taking the circumstances as a whole, Greece wasn't behaving discriminatory.
-The Town of Greece at no time denied any willing minister.
-Greece made reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one.
-Because of this, the court believed that forcing diversity by searching outside of the bounds of the municipality was also more intrusive to the Free Establishment Clause than simply allowing Greece to function as they had, predominately Christian
-Invocations took place during administrative proceedings, not policy proceedings.
The point being that the case was deciding on narrow holdings, you're talking about it too broadly.
Why is this a waste of time for the City of Phoenix? Well, this isn't the right thread for it, the mods closed that one. (Please don't close this one). But notice what Greece did and what Phoenix is trying to do.
Why is this relevant for Scottsdale? It's important the Scottsdale residents and city coucil understand that there standing is based on the premise that the group is from outside the municipality. BUT, it would be equally easy for the group to have a Phoenix area member do the same thing.
Devil Worshipping isn't Satanism. It's an egocentric religion. That's not a pejorative term, it's a proper term for being within oneself.
I just wanted to post about this framing of the opinion, I'm going to get pedantic but this is a case that the City of Phoenix will be relying on as it loses and wastes money in court in favor of Sal DiCiccio's new proposal.
The issue in Greece was whether the town imposed an 'impermissible' establishment of religion by opening up town meetings with a prayer. Did the city coerce the respondents because they found it offensive as participants during invocations and city meetings?
Respondents to the suit were alleging that the establishment of the religion, was a disrespect to them as they did not believe in the same religion, nor were of the belief that it had a place in a public meeting of diverse constituents. They ultimately wanted non-sectarian prayer to take place instead, that is prayer that is unidentifiable to any sect of any religion. The court took the position that it would be more intrusive on the Free Establishment Clause to require that judges be overseer to invocation proceedings. Because of that it was simply easier to allow Greece to do as it was. That doesn't mean that it is 'all Constitutional', but taking the circumstances as a whole, Greece wasn't behaving discriminatory.
-The Town of Greece at no time denied any willing minister.
-Greece made reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one.
-Because of this, the court believed that forcing diversity by searching outside of the bounds of the municipality was also more intrusive to the Free Establishment Clause than simply allowing Greece to function as they had, predominately Christian
-Invocations took place during administrative proceedings, not policy proceedings.
The point being that the case was deciding on narrow holdings, you're talking about it too broadly.
Perhaps true, but it's the case that most closely addresses the set if facts we have here. No SCOTUS decisions will fully conform to the fact set in each case in which we attempt to apply a previous decision.
What SCOTUS did not address in City of Greece was the issue of hate speech as religion, and whether it comports with the stated goal of the proceedings, and whether an admittedly atheist group (disguised as a mock-religion) should be permitted to make its blatherings in such circumstances, or a group that was created to mock an existing religion, and which abuses objects held sacred in another religion to deride that religion.
The best comparison to the Satanists would be if Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who burned Korans, would insist on addressing the city council. Should he be allowed to, even if he was not actually burning a Koran during the invocation? I would guess the council would say no, and SCOTUS would side with them. As has often been noted, the Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact.
The stated purpose of the invocation is to ask God's blessings (or the gods' blessings, in the case of a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism) on the proceedings. It is not to provide a setting for hate speech (such as Satanism was founded upon), which was not addressed by City of Greece. It also did not address whether any group that declares itself a religion should be allowed to make the invocation. Should the First Church of Pastafarians, an atheist group that exists to mock religion, be allowed to offer an invocation? Should the Westboro Baptist Church be giving an invocation? These are issues that should properly be decided in a future SCOTUS decision.
As the stated purpose of the Satanists is to force the city councils to abolish all prayer invocations, I would suggest that if the councils' legal assistance lack the wherewithal to withstand a legal challenge, simply give them the podium to make their speech, allow the city council members and public to leave the council chambers during the invocation, let them make their hate-filled speech, and then come back in after the media has taken down their cameras. The council will have allowed a minority hate-group to do their thing ("Let the babies have their way," as we used to say as kids), and they won't have to revisit it again. SCOTUS laid no requirement in City of Greece to allow such groups to regularly offer prayers, and if they insist on doing it every week, let them take their case to court. I doubt SCOTUS would decide on their behalf in such circumstances.
Perhaps true, but it's the case that most closely addresses the set if facts we have here. No SCOTUS decisions will fully conform to the fact set in each case in which we attempt to apply a previous decision.
What SCOTUS did not address in City of Greece was the issue of hate speech as religion, and whether it comports with the stated goal of the proceedings, and whether an admittedly atheist group (disguised as a mock-religion) should be permitted to make its blatherings in such circumstances, or a group that was created to mock an existing religion, and which abuses objects held sacred in another religion to deride that religion.
The best comparison to the Satanists would be if Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who burned Korans, would insist on addressing the city council. Should he be allowed to, even if he was not actually burning a Koran during the invocation? I would guess the council would say no, and SCOTUS would side with them. As has often been noted, the Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact.
The stated purpose of the invocation is to ask God's blessings (or the gods' blessings, in the case of a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism) on the proceedings. It is not to provide a setting for hate speech (such as Satanism was founded upon), which was not addressed by City of Greece. It also did not address whether any group that declares itself a religion should be allowed to make the invocation. Should the First Church of Pastafarians, an atheist group that exists to mock religion, be allowed to offer an invocation? Should the Westboro Baptist Church be giving an invocation? These are issues that should properly be decided in a future SCOTUS decision.
As the stated purpose of the Satanists is to force the city councils to abolish all prayer invocations, I would suggest that if the councils' legal assistance lack the wherewithal to withstand a legal challenge, simply give them the podium to make their speech, allow the city council members and public to leave the council chambers during the invocation, let them make their hate-filled speech, and then come back in after the media has taken down their cameras. The council will have allowed a minority hate-group to do their thing ("Let the babies have their way," as we used to say as kids), and they won't have to revisit it again. SCOTUS laid no requirement in City of Greece to allow such groups to regularly offer prayers, and if they insist on doing it every week, let them take their case to court. I doubt SCOTUS would decide on their behalf in such circumstances.
I think you're getting too hung up on the name Satanist. And you're right Greece wasn't required to allow such a group to provide an invocation, however, the city of Phoenix is behaving discriminatorily against a religion. As for hate speech in dicta that was specifically addressed in what I quoted above, offensive language is protected and you aren't coerced to listen to it.
Phoenix's proper route, following this decision, would have been to require that the religion providing invocation to be within the municipality. Of course that would open the door to a similar incident of a local Satanist chapter. But that would then be a protectable invocation putting the city in the wrong.
My point wasn't about facts, it was the holding. They specified that Greece wasn't violating the Free Establishment Clause in light of the non discriminatory behavior. Phoenix is discriminating. Phoenix is censuring citizens who don't conform, precisely against one of Greeces reasons for not violating the First Amendment. Phoenix is limiting who can provide the invocation, unlike Greece. Phoenix is censuring a willing minister, unlike Greece.
Lol, let me guess----
You're a recent convert to religion-christianity, am I right?
I'm on to ya buddy because I've come across many like you that claim to have recently found the lord and then condemn other people that express different points of view.
You have every right to believe what you want but so do other people, including atheists and agnostics. I confess to being a very outspoken agnostic and I'm sick of the religious kooks pushing their beliefs on the rest of us. It has gone on for too long, now it's time for some of us to rise up and take a stand.
This satanist prayer crap is just that----a bunch of crap but I'm glad it's being publicized to bring out the hypocrisy of christians that have had their way for too long. Religion and prayer shouldn't be taking up time in government affairs. If people want to pray they should do so on their own time.
I didnt condemn anyone, did I? In fact I actually said I believe the Satanists have the right to do their invocation, even if Im against it. Dont be so quick to jump down others' throats. I know it might be hard for you to go 5 minutes throughout your day w/o telling everyone your beliefs, so I understand your angst.
And if you want to "rise up and take a stand", bring the fight, we're game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
