Prayer Allowed....

[Luddly Neddite]

So....when I show you to be wrong....can I expect an apology?




"VA Forbids Mention of God at Funerals for Veterans and Requires Families to Submit Prayer for Approval to the Government:

For 30 years, the VFW District 4 burial team, at the request of the family of the deceased, has honored veterans by performing the VFW burial ritual during private burial services at the Houston National Cemetery. For 20 years, The American Legion Post 586 has honored our veterans by performing its burial ritual for fallen veterans. On at least four separate occasions, government officials told the burial teams that prayer and religious speech could no longer be included in the burial ritual unless the family submits a specific prayer or message in writing to Director Ocasio for her approval. Government official Jose Henriquez also told the VFW Honor Guard Commander, Junior Vice Commander and Chaplain that the word "God" is forbidden.

VA instructs the VFW and a Private Funeral Home that they may not present the option of prayer to families:
VA Tells Volunteers to Remove "God Bless" from Condolence Cards to Grieving Families:
VA Closes Cemetery Chapel; Uses it for Storage:
Stay up to date on this case at Religious Liberty | First Amendment Protections - Liberty Institute.
http://news.yahoo.com/veterans-affairs-bans-mention-god-funerals-vets-232205629.html

No one was forbidden from praying.

Correct again.

First Amendment restrictions apply only to the state, not private individuals or organizations.

As usual, there are some who just cannot grasp the meaning of the first five words of the First Amendment.

And even if they do, they don't seem to understand that no one anywhere has ever been forbidden to pray. There are some who continue to confuse praying with forcing others to pray.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one was forbidden from praying.

Correct again.

First Amendment restrictions apply only to the state, not private individuals or organizations.

As usual, there are some who just cannot grasp the meaning of the first five words of the First Amendment.

And even if they do, they don't seem to understand that no one anywhere has ever been forbidden to pray. There are some who continue to confuse praying with forcing others to pray.

See what I mean?

 

[JimH52]

Anyone pointed out that the Obama administration supported the Court's decision? Naw, I didn't think so....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone pointed out that the Obama administration supported the Court's decision? Naw, I didn't think so....

1. What, specifically, is your claim for the Obama administration....that it favors religion?

a. The court is mulling over several suits directed against Obama's restrictions on religious freedom vis-a-vis ObamaCare.

b. Where did Obama's court appointees stand on this case?

Be serious.



2. Obama's appointees and the other Liberals on the board actually went so far as to endorse the government writing the prayers that could be used.

"....Alito and Scalia to point out that to require nonsectarian prayer would not only run headlong into “a long history of contrary congressional practice” but would pose real danger. “Must a town screen and, if necessary, edit” — or, we’d add, write — “prayers before they’re given?”
A ‘Generic God’ - The New York Sun


Do you believe that the Liberal members of the court understand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct again.

First Amendment restrictions apply only to the state, not private individuals or organizations.

1. Fourteenth Amendment extended equal protection of the laws to all persons within state jurisdiction.

2. Civil Rights Act extended protection from discrimination to all public institutions.

The INTERPRETATION of all of these is still left to Courts in case of dispute.
That is where unequal access and defense/protection in Courts
violates all three levels of equal protection, from federal to state to local.

People do not have equal access to Courts or legal defenses.
We all know this, and even lawyers who profit from it acknowledge that justice isn't equal.
Even if they both get to Court, if one side wins the other loses their rights and equal protection of their beliefs.

So where disputes are not resolved to protect all people equally,
then where these end up in Court, somebody loses their equal rights and protection by law.

If you consent to give up your rights this way, that is your choice; but I do NOT agree for me, or to pay for other people to waste public resources fighting because they lose their rights.
(Millions if not Billions of dollars are wasted on legal, political, and legislative conflicts, that I believe in resolving cost-effectively by consensus solutions, so resources can be invested directly in
historic and environmental preservation of our country's legacies, and education and job training in both immediate services needed and longterm development of sustainable programs.)

This is why I support conflict resolution and equal inclusion by consensus decisions:
In order to uphold equal Constitutional standards, ethics and protections for all views,
not just the side that wins by majority rule, court ruling or political dominance.
That to me is not equal protection of the laws and is allowing govt to be abused
unconstitutionally.

Sorry, but this meaningless nonsense.

 

[Moonglow]

Does not mean I have to bow and pray, only the ones that want to....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does not mean I have to bow and pray, only the ones that want to....

I see your avi.....you bow already.