Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Country was built on Judeo-Christian values but there is no State religion official or unofficial. People are free to worship how they see fit.
Ahahahaha.....Yeah, as long as it's Christianity.
Even better than that, every student in every public school can pray. They can't have an assembly or group event to do it. But God hears all prayers, whether it is a silent one in a moment of quiet, or a loud boisterous attempt to display false piety. The problem is, some are not satisfied with silent prayers said by someone of faith. They want to make a big show of it.
you mean like the muslims who need special rooms to lay out their prayer rugs to bow to mecca....? or special foot baths to wash their feet....? or a special call to prayer 6X a day....?
I disagree with that too.
But, those requirements are detailed requirements of their individual faith. They can show in their religious texts that it is required.
Prayer before a football game is not a requirement of Christianity.
Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?
Is Obamacare a tax?
Not at all. I simply corrected whoever said the federal gov't forbids them from praying. It is the location or venue, not the prayer itself that is the issue.
That there are exceptions to this does not make what I posted a lie. It simply means there are exceptions.
Yes, you said that they only prohibit it in large groups and on land funded by taxpayers, you were wrong. Try admitting it, you might come across as intelligent. I doubt it, but you will at least be honest.
Try admitting that I was right. Because that is exactly the reason given by every legal action to stop organized prayer in schools, at public school football games ect ect.
The fact that there are exceptions does not change that.
So, nothing. I was answering a question. I am polite that way. Sarcastic, at times, but still polite.
And it affected you...HOW? Are you forever scarred in some form or fashion?
I get that you are angry because your religion no longer holds as much power.
I get that you are angry that the gov't is a secular power.
I get that you are angry that 67% of the population agrees with the SCOTUS.
I get that you are frustrated by your powerlessness.
I also get that anyone in this country can worship whatever faith they want.
I also get that anyone in this country can worship whatever faith they want where ever they want.
Fixed it for you.
No, you did not fix it. You changed it from accurate to wrong.
people own their houses or businesses.....but that sidewalk out front is a public space and people can pass out Christian flyers on the sidewalk.....(except around muslim areas)
Even better than that, every student in every public school can pray. They can't have an assembly or group event to do it. But God hears all prayers, whether it is a silent one in a moment of quiet, or a loud boisterous attempt to display false piety. The problem is, some are not satisfied with silent prayers said by someone of faith. They want to make a big show of it.
If it so wrong then why does God answer their prayers?
And it doesn't mean that SCOTUS got it correct either, does it? They have been wrong on many things starting with Maubury V Madison...
Take it from there. YOUR belief that 9 Tyrants in black robes have the final sayso is scary, and by the way? THEY are NOT the last say in ANY matter.
Got it?
I get that you are angry because your religion no longer holds as much power.
I get that you are angry that the gov't is a secular power.
I get that you are angry that 67% of the population agrees with the SCOTUS.
I get that you are frustrated by your powerlessness.
I also get that anyone in this country can worship whatever faith they want.
And anger and fear are very closely related, often the same thing.
Consequently we see the fear of change, diversity, and dissent common among many on the right manifest as anger.
Really? So you and he both maintain that people in this country are allowed to worship "...where ever they want"?
According to the First Amendment, yes.
Really? So if someone wanted to hold religious services on my 125 acres, the US Constitution gives them that right?
I think you are sadly mistaken, yet again. I could shoot them for trespassing, if I so chose.
Oh, and just as an FYI, a bit over 60% of the US is private property. So there are plenty of places you can be denied.
I am not ignorant at all. I see that the US Constitution stated something that needed clarification, so they went to the writings of the man who wrote the amendment. They did this to gain insight into his intent.
And thus the SCOTUS handed down a ruling that increased the freedoms of all religions.
And I don't stow anything in my sphincter or take directions from anyone like you. But the fact that you are thinking about my sphincter speaks volumes.
Words mean things:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What clarification?
On whether or not a single religion should be represented in gov't run operations, while all others are ignored.
He's another that reads into the Constitution things that aren't there. Perhaps English is his second language?Have you read the First Amendment? Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
And the fact that he believes 9 tyrants in black robes trump the Constitution leaving the people with no recourse is scary, Ernie...
So you believe, like Ernie, that you have a constitutional right to enter private property if you are going there to hold a worship service?
You believe that the owners of the private property cannot deny you access to their property, so long as you claim it is for worship??
Really?
And WHAT religion is that? Is it the fact that the Founders recognized religion in the first place?On whether or not a single religion should be represented in gov't run operations, while all others are ignored.
When I was in elementary school, there was a prayer said every morning. It certainly was not Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu.
Really? So if someone wanted to hold religious services on my 125 acres, the US Constitution gives them that right?
I think you are sadly mistaken, yet again. I could shoot them for trespassing, if I so chose.
Oh, and just as an FYI, a bit over 60% of the US is private property. So there are plenty of places you can be denied.
There are laws against trespassing that have nothing to do with prayer.
That strawman has been shredded already re sacrifice.
Not a strawman at all. You and he maintain that you have a constitutional right to worship "...where ever they want". I even asked if that is what you meant.
Obviously, they cannot worship where ever they want. Since the US is a bit over 60% privately owned property, you could potentially be denied access to over half of the country.
Even better than that, every student in every public school can pray. They can't have an assembly or group event to do it. But God hears all prayers, whether it is a silent one in a moment of quiet, or a loud boisterous attempt to display false piety. The problem is, some are not satisfied with silent prayers said by someone of faith. They want to make a big show of it.
It it's so wrong then why does God answer their prayers?
Does he?
Perhaps a reminder of scripture is in order?
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."
No It doesn't give me the right to sacrifice virgins or smoke dope either, for reasons that seem to escape you.
It did not escape me at all. I was the one who posted the correct information. You were the one who claimed you corrected me by adding "...where ever they want.". When, in fact, that is not true.
I said "where ever they want", in regards to public property. I'm a Conservative. I respect private property rights. The very idea that I would assume I have the right to pray on your front lawn is foreign to me.
Not a strawman at all. You and he maintain that you have a constitutional right to worship "...where ever they want". I even asked if that is what you meant.
Obviously, they cannot worship where ever they want. Since the US is a bit over 60% privately owned property, you could potentially be denied access to over half of the country.
The discussion was about football games, public buildings and land. Maybe red herring would be more appropriate.
Actually, the discussion shows that there are places where worship can be restricted. And since the SCOTUS has ruled that there IS a separation of church and state, there are restrictions concerning prayer at football games, public buildings and land.
He's another that reads into the Constitution things that aren't there. Perhaps English is his second language?Have you read the First Amendment? Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
And the fact that he believes 9 tyrants in black robes trump the Constitution leaving the people with no recourse is scary, Ernie...
So you believe, like Ernie, that you have a constitutional right to enter private property if you are going there to hold a worship service?
You believe that the owners of the private property cannot deny you access to their property, so long as you claim it is for worship??
Really?
The unofficial state religion has been a form of civil Christianity, which for a hundred and fifty years or more has been a compound of white mainstream protestant and evangelical values.
That has been failing the last two decades as a result of the increasingly secularism of society.
We won't, as a nation, go back to what was the unofficial state religion. The millennial and X and Y generations will not permit such a regressive cultural move.
Wanna bet? Young people are actually reconnecting with their Christianity.
That's a fact.
You lose. One in five Americans today has no religious affiliation, and for the first time there are as many who claim no religion as there are white evangelicals, according to a new Pew report. With evangelicals forming the GOPs backbone, the party may face a struggle to survive, says Michelle Goldberg..
A Pew poll reported in The Daily Beast Pew Report Finding More Americans Unaffiliated With Religion Is Bad News for GOP - The Daily Beast
I asked for verification, and they did so. 60% of the country is privately owned. That is not a tiny detail.
people own their houses or businesses.....but that sidewalk out front is a public space and people can pass out Christian flyers on the sidewalk.....(except around muslim areas)
Even better than that, every student in every public school can pray. They can't have an assembly or group event to do it. But God hears all prayers, whether it is a silent one in a moment of quiet, or a loud boisterous attempt to display false piety. The problem is, some are not satisfied with silent prayers said by someone of faith. They want to make a big show of it.
And it doesn't mean that SCOTUS got it correct either, does it? They have been wrong on many things starting with Maubury V Madison...You may dismiss as many posters here as you wish. It doesn't change the ruling made by the SCOTUS.
Take it from there. YOUR belief that 9 Tyrants in black robes have the final sayso is scary, and by the way? THEY are NOT the last say in ANY matter.
Got it?
The but the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong argument fails as it demonstrates the ignorance of many on the right concerning the process of judicial review.
In fact, that the Court has erred in the past is confirmation that the process works, where the Court is able to address its errors and make corrections accordingly.
In overturning Bowers, for example, the Lawrence Court explained the role played by stare decisis and established precedent:
The genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition, therefore, is to take into account and accommodate the fallibility inherent in all humans, and in all institutions that humans create.The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision ) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))).
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
For example, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was the law of the land until it was overturned by the Brown Court. As with Bowers, the holding in Plessy has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on [Plessy] of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. [Plessy] itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.
For the last 65 years McCollum v. Board of Education has been the law of the land, it has been subjected to exhaustive judicial review by the courts and by the people via the political process. And unlike Plessey and Bowers, McCollum recognizes a constitutional liberty interest, [where an] individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. [Casey] 505 U.S., at 855856; see also id., at 844 (Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt).
McCollum and its progeny remain the valid law of the land concerning the First Amendment and the meaning of the Establishment Clause, where the Framers mandated a separation of church and state, not because the Supreme Court says so, but because the holding has withstood decades of judicial review and analysis determining its conclusion an accurate review of the relevant documents and evidence, and where the holding is consistent with protecting a constitutional liberty interest.
