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.
Location: Where Sunday shopping is banned in the USA
334 posts, read 438,216 times
Reputation: 57
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Yes you can. But you can not force others who are trying to take care of business to sit and listen to your preaching. BTW this ruling was limited to this one case, it wasn't a nationwide decision.
Can you provide me a Canadian citizenship? I am actually willing to move there where Christians are being exclusively promoted and has no Establishment Clause discrimination! Until there is no free movement between USA and Canada, I will continue to pray in public and promote Christianity based on freedom from the First Amendment.
No, it now allows public Christian prayers nationwide since it was a US Supreme Court case, not a lower state/municipal court case.
how is not being allowed to be exclusively promoted "discrimination"? You're treated just the same as every other faith. Whereas if Christianity were the only religion allowed to be promoted, you would be discriminating against all other religions. Why is discrimination okay when you're the one doing it?
Can you provide me a Canadian citizenship? I am actually willing to move there where Christians are being exclusively promoted and has no Establishment Clause discrimination! Until there is no free movement between USA and Canada, I will continue to pray in public and promote Christianity based on freedom from the First Amendment.
No, it now allows public Christian prayers nationwide since it was a US Supreme Court case, not a lower state/municipal court case.
Maybe you need to read the decision.
It said nothing about only allowing Christian prayers.
Quote:
First: Such prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings.
Second: The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy.
Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.
Fourth: The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths.
Fifth: In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” — that is, promote one faith as the true faith — and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
Sixth: The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message.
Seventh: Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults — thus raising the question whether the same outcome would apply if the audience were a group of children or youths, such as the Boy or Girl Scouts, appearing before a government agency or a government-sponsored group. (The Court did not abandon its view that, at public school graduations or at events sponsored by public schools, prayers are not allowed because they may tend to coerce young people in a religious way.)
Eighth: A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances. In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith.
The Supreme Court said Monday that city councils and other public boards are free to open their meetings with an explicitly Christian prayer, ruling that judges may not act as "censors of religious speech" simply because the prayers reflect the views of the dominant faith.
The 5-4 decision rejected the idea that government-sponsored prayers violate the Constitution if officials regularly invite Christian clerics to offer the prayers.
Location: Where Sunday shopping is banned in the USA
334 posts, read 438,216 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by omaha hughes
how is not being allowed to be exclusively promoted "discrimination"? You're treated just the same as every other faith. Whereas if Christianity were the only religion allowed to be promoted, you would be discriminating against all other religions. Why is discrimination okay when you're the one doing it?
Ehm.... It is Christians who are being attacked, persecuted and oppressed by the intolerant and disrespectful minority
There's no litmus test. Your anti Semitic self will have to deal with it. If you want a religious based court, move to Iran.
^^^^^
This.
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.
Sheesh it looks like Britt is on a short cycle of renewal.