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.
This is a truth arrived at as well after such an inquiry. But Truth is not the topic. Fighting Prayer as a misguided effort is.
What is right or wrong, truth or not, will always be a debate, in particular with those who are wrong and/or not truthful. Using the right words to foster better understanding is an important part of that effort if any progress or success is to be had.
For example, is it "fighting prayer" that we're talking about here? I really don't think so.
As some might prefer to say, "there is a time and place for everything." Not sure people like me are "fighting prayer" in any case. I don't think it's too hard to understand or recognize what is everyone's right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home or church as opposed to public places, meetings. Not for most people anyway, including the justices of the Supreme Court. I mean why would the SCTUS in a "Christian country" rule in such a way?
If you can't answer that question correctly, then you simply can't understand or don't want to understand. Perhaps both. Hard to tell.
No sane person could say that the Mormon church was progressive in terms of its attitude towards gay folks. So you're right...cb's post was bizarre. And further, considering how she has demanded "we" stay exactly on topic of prayer in public institutions...her post was WAY off topic.
I know plenty of "sane people" who can and will do exactly this...
It is not a case of insanity but confirmation bias. Dark clouds over judgement to the point of blocking out all objective rays of light. Truth.
For example, is it "fighting prayer" that we're talking about here? I really don't think so.
As some might prefer to say, "there is a time and place for everything." Not sure people like me are "fighting prayer" in any case. I don't think it's too hard to understand or recognize what is everyone's right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home or church as opposed to public places, meetings. Not for most people anyway, including the justices of the Supreme Court. I mean why would SCTUS in a "Christian country" rule in such a way?
If you can't answer that question correctly, then you simply can't understand or don't want to understand. Perhaps both. Hard to tell.
What do you think we are talking about, or trying to, here in that case?
The topic grew from a discussion about civil cases that Fffrf Is "fighting" regarding prayer in city council meetings and in schools.
The fact is states are allowed to set their own laws regarding the second clause in the 1st amendment.
Quote:
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two clauses — the "establishment" clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official church, and the "free exercise" clause that allows people to worship as they please.
This is a balancing act between the two and it should remain so because this is a human issue. There can be no absolutes. The need for prayer is a human need. It is as natural as the need for safety, community, literature and arts, whatever. And we are not talking about prayer meeting in public places as some posts have attempted to paint the issue, to derail the thread. It is a brief act to invoke the powers be to bless the event and bring success to the endeavor. There really is nothing to build a case on it, that it is an "imposition" for the few atheist who may or may not even be attending such a meeting to be exposed to a prayer. Quelle horreur !!!
If they decide to take it to the courts they may win, but it is such a petty thing to do so when such effort can be expended for more urgent and oppressive causes of social justice and criminal reforms. But no, that is not their cause. Prayer is.
What do you think we are talking about, or trying to, here in that case?
The topic grew from a discussion about civil cases that Fffrf Is "fighting" regarding prayer in city council meetings and in schools.
The fact is states are allowed to set their own laws regarding the second clause in the 1st amendment.
This is a balancing act between the two and it should remain so because this is a human issue. There can be no absolutes. The need for prayer is a human need. It is as natural as the need for safety, community, literature and arts, whatever. And we are not talking about prayer meeting in public places as some posts have attempted to paint the issue, to derail the thread. It is a brief act to invoke the powers be to bless the event and bring success to the endeavor. There really is nothing to build a case on it, that it is an "imposition" for the few atheist who may or may not even be attending such a meeting to be exposed to a prayer. Quelle horreur !!!
If they decide to take it to the courts they may win, but it is such a petty thing to do so when such effort can be expended for more urgent and oppressive causes of social justice and criminal reforms. But no, that is not their cause. Prayer is.
You give me a break.
You said it better than I seem able to convey, CB! The pettiness is legion in the "offense-taking" PC crowd.
I was listening to a podcast today about how the Mormon Church in Utah stepped in to support LGBT rights and these laws are now among the most progressive among the rest of the country, never mind Red States. This is what freedom of religion is about. It is about leaning in towards humanity.
I thought freedom of religion was about freedom of religion.
What do you think we are talking about, or trying to, here in that case?
The topic grew from a discussion about civil cases that Fffrf Is "fighting" regarding prayer in city council meetings and in schools.
The fact is states are allowed to set their own laws regarding the second clause in the 1st amendment.
This is a balancing act between the two and it should remain so because this is a human issue. There can be no absolutes. The need for prayer is a human need. It is as natural as the need for safety, community, literature and arts, whatever. And we are not talking about prayer meeting in public places as some posts have attempted to paint the issue, to derail the thread. It is a brief act to invoke the powers be to bless the event and bring success to the endeavor. There really is nothing to build a case on it, that it is an "imposition" for the few atheist who may or may not even be attending such a meeting to be exposed to a prayer. Quelle horreur !!!
If they decide to take it to the courts they may win, but it is such a petty thing to do so when such effort can be expended for more urgent and oppressive causes of social justice and criminal reforms. But no, that is not their cause. Prayer is.
You give me a break.
All true. Of course, but allowing prayer in public institutions, or not, is a question that has been answered in the absolute. Whether that be at a federal or state level. Also of course, state law cannot contradict federal law. This too is an absolute. So although "balance is key," as always, ultimately we are forced to deliberate and decide. What is right. What is wrong. What will be allowed. What will not. AKA the law.
Regardless ... you can ask anyone in any minority christian country what a Christmas tree is and they will tell you it is about Jesus's birthday. That and fruitcake.
You want to defend the Mormon church, religion, people's right to say prayer in public institutions, regardless the particulars, circumstances or truth, that's your right. Also of course, but it's not me that gives you a break. Here too the law gives you the break to do your own thing in your own space. Not to impose on others.
That's not pettiness or even really taking offense. It's common courtesy and if we're lucky, the law as well!
You want to defend the Mormon church, religion, people's right to say prayer in public institutions, regardless the particulars, circumstances or truth, that's your right. Also of course, but it's not me that gives you a break. Here too the law gives you the break to do your own thing in your own space. Not to impose on others.
That's not pettiness or even really taking offense. It's common courtesy and if we're lucky, the law as well!
You are purposefully or improperly attributing sentiments to me that I do not posses. I am not defending the Mormon church or any other church or any organized religion for that matter. That is NOT what this thread is about. The core of the issue is about being human. The law too bends towards humanity when it does the right thing. It also executes the innocent man, even a child. Nothing in this world works perfectly, especially man made laws. That is the only truth.
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.
You said it better than I seem able to convey, CB! The pettiness is legion in the "offense-taking" PC crowd.