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.
It's a shame that you can't figure out that silencing people from praying is imposing your will. What part of "live and let live" don't you grasp? Don't like it? Ok. Move on.
Right. And you're mad as hell right now about it and want to make a noise. And with the anonymity of the internet, you can be that tough guy and tell everyone what you think.
OK? Nowhere have I argued that we HAVE TO pray publicly. But if the strong majority in an area wish to, what kind of a tyrant tells them that they will be the ONE guy in a community that can't live and let live, but instead wishes to silence them?
It isn't "silencing people from prayer" for the love of be reasonable! It's very respectfully asking, expecting, everyone at the PUBLIC meeting to stick to the agenda of the meeting.
I'm at the meeting because the purpose of the meeting interests me, involves me. Affects me. Why should I move on because someone wants to talk about anything else? ANYTHING else?
Don't like the fact that you want to do something having nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting? Again with all due respect, you're the one who should move on. If we're agreed on the purpose of the meeting and that this is a secular society, you move on and get a secular clue already!
This "tough guy" nonsense of yours is truly rich. I really don't think the members of the Supreme Court are thinking about being tough guys when they rule exactly as they do about such things.
Note: no one is arguing about anyone who "HAVE TO pray publicly." If you can't even get the basics right, there is no hope of gaining any better understanding here, so for you too I think it best to please...
It's become very commonplace for states to declare their state, or for cities, or counties to declare themselves as "Sanctuaries" for various things. You have not yet made the case for why it's not a violation of federal law for them to do that while you believe that Cletus and Jim Bob praying at a public meeting in Podunk, TN is.
But you do have a point. Expensive litigation. To this point, that seems to be the strategy for the vocal minority to attack the rights of others.
No one here knows anything about the personal life of others. Those of us who bother to engage with you are responding to what you write in this forum. Grow up already.
What part of "live and let live" says it is okay for any person to impose on others with whatever they want to do having NOTHING to do with the meeting we're all there to attend?
Nothing keeps you from praying in your own place, on your own time, just like nothing keeps me from doing my thing in my own place, on my own time -- without imposing on others -- whether they be one person, the minority or the majority.
It isn't "silencing people from prayer" for the love of be reasonable! It's very respectfully asking, expecting, everyone at the PUBLIC meeting to stick to the agenda of the meeting.
I'm at the meeting because the purpose of the meeting interests me, involves me. Affects me. Why should I move on because someone wants to talk about anything else? ANYTHING else?
Don't like the fact that you want to do something having nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting? Again with all due respect, you're the one who should move on. If we're agreed on the purpose of the meeting and that this is a secular society, you move on and get a secular clue already!
This "tough guy" nonsense of yours is truly rich. I really don't think the members of the Supreme Court are thinking about being tough guys when they rule exactly as they do about such things.
Note: no one is arguing about anyone who "HAVE TO pray publicly." If you can't even get the basics right, there is no hope of gaining any better understanding here, so for you too I think it best to please...
Never mind!
I'm not the one pushing for things to be added. I'm saying that if a local board WANTS to have a prayer on the agenda, and they decide that it's part of the purpose of being there, then they can. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. If you're a member of a local community where it takes place and that gets you in a twist, perhaps you should voice your opinion to the board members.
I'm not the one pushing for things to be added. I'm saying that if a local board WANTS to have a prayer on the agenda, and they decide that it's part of the purpose of being there, then they can. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. If you're a member of a local community where it takes place and that gets you in a twist, perhaps you should voice your opinion to the board members.
Seems to be live and let live as long as I get to do whatever the hell I want to do...
Yes...here's the philosophy being stated by BF and cb: We wanna do what we wanna do, when we wanna do it, and where we wanna do it, and to heck with the rest of you.
They're not gonna like this, but I think it's an intellectual issue.
Here's why I say that (and yes, I've told this story before): In Bangkok, talking with a Buddhist monk, and I was lamenting about how difficult it was to find Thai Buddhist temples in America. Somewhat paraphrased (because it's been a long time), the monk responded, "See this temple? The incense, the candles, the lotus flowers, even the Buddha statue? All this has nothing to do with real Buddhism. All you need for real Buddhism is this", and he tapped the top of my head.
BF is the type of parent that might be difficult to deal with in the school setting. If I had him in there for a conference with the principal, I wouldn't start the conference by saying, "Let's all pause and start with a Buddhist chant". I can just imagine what the reaction would be. But before that meeting, I would probably have spent five minutes alone with my office door shut doing some Buddhist focusing "exercises" (sort of 'meditation light', and even during the conference itself, I might have been using some of those same techniques to remain focused and calm. He wouldn't even know it...because I don't have to SHOW OFF my religious practices in public. While it was no secret, the vast majority of students and parents in my school didn't know I was Buddhist. There was no need for them to know that, but if asked, I would answer honestly...if need be.
But, especially for christians, it comes down to this way of thinking: "Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before. ... Forward into battle, See his banners go! ... Brothers, lift your voices, Loud your anthems raise..." Show it off. Show it off. Show it off.
Or, in your case, live and let live as long as other don't get to do what you don't want them to do. It really does go both ways.
It absolutely does not! Why can't you get this?!?
There is certain protocol, considerations, rules and regulations, guidelines that always establish what is okay to do and what is not. People are very often asked to respectfully abide by these rules -- even when they mean you can't do whatever you want to do. This does not mean ANYONE keeps anyone from doing what others want to do. It means we're all respectfully abiding by the rules. What's appropriate given the circumstances. The purpose of the gathering. The law...
No different from anything else that might draw attention away from why we are gathered. No different from someone who is kept from having their cell phone on during a meeting, or talking and making noise in church during a sermon, or playing music that others don't want to hear...
You want to suggest all these examples are examples of me believing in "live and let live" as long as others don't get to do what I don't want them to do? Please be reasonable...
If this is what you mean by going both ways, then okay, but really? It's about going the right way. The appropriate, considerate and respectful of others way.
I'm not the one pushing for things to be added. I'm saying that if a local board WANTS to have a prayer on the agenda, and they decide that it's part of the purpose of being there, then they can. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. If you're a member of a local community where it takes place and that gets you in a twist, perhaps you should voice your opinion to the board members.
But why would the SCTUS say otherwise?
I'm not for adding or subtracting anything either. Other than as deemed appropriate for the purpose of the meeting. If the board wants to have everyone show pictures of their cats at the next meeting, they have a right to do that too, and I'm not sure I'd get in a "twist" about that either. Nothing in the Constitution prevents many a thing a board might decide to do having nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting.
True. Sure, but I don't know that the people who don't have cats or care about cats don't have a good reason to object, and I'm not sure those board members belong on the board. I'm not going to two of those meetings if that sort of imposition is to be expected in any case. Of course opinions should be directed to the board members about such things, and rightfully so if the board members are not respectful of those who are not into whatever they might be into!
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.
