The 99

gospelriders

Seasoned Expediter
i cannot get into that link,it keeps coming up error. is this is another one of those where some atheist gets offended? i don't understand how some one can be offended by something they think doesn't exist:confused: shouldn't they just be amused and entertained?
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
i cannot get into that link,it keeps coming up error. is this is another one of those where some atheist gets offended? i don't understand how some one can be offended by something they think doesn't exist:confused: shouldn't they just be amused and entertained?

I can't get into it either.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
i cannot get into that link,it keeps coming up error. is this is another one of those where some atheist gets offended? i don't understand how some one can be offended by something they think doesn't exist:confused: shouldn't they just be amused and entertained?

The 'offense' isn't about what "they think doesn't exist", it's about what we know does: the separation between church & state. If you see no problem with violating that constitutional requirement, try considering how you would feel if the religion in question wasn't the one you subscribe to. Would a Muslim or Hindu or Jewish or radical fringe splinter group 'prayer' be acceptable?
The forcing of religious beliefs on citizens by government is precisely what the separation between church and state was designed to prevent - because your beliefs may be the majority, but things change ......
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sorry Cheri but that's not correct. There is no "separation of church and state". There is a prohibition against the establishment of a religion. There is no, none, zero, nada prohibition against the observation of religion even in government meetings and locations. They did not want a "church of America", a single specified established religion, in the manner of the church of England. There is no Constitutional violation in having a short prayer to open any meeting or event.

As to form, whatever the majority subscribes to should be chosen. By default, that will be a general Christian prayer at almost all functions in this country, the exception being things like events at a Jewish school etc.. Common sense easily covers it, the problem only being when those with no common sense like the ACLU and their type being allowed to participate.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Sorry Cheri but that's not correct. There is no "separation of church and state". There is a prohibition against the establishment of a religion. There is no, none, zero, nada prohibition against the observation of religion even in government meetings and locations. They did not want a "church of America", a single specified established religion, in the manner of the church of England. There is no Constitutional violation in having a short prayer to open any meeting or event.

As to form, whatever the majority subscribes to should be chosen. By default, that will be a general Christian prayer at almost all functions in this country, the exception being things like events at a Jewish school etc.. Common sense easily covers it, the problem only being when those with no common sense like the ACLU and their type being allowed to participate.

Funny, isn't it, how those who quote the extra-constitutional "wall of separation" line and the anti-establishment clause forget about the "free exercise thereof" part? They then object to that exercise.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The Supreme Court has ruled, and affirmed many times, the separation of church and state. There is no exception for what the "majority" wants, since the Constitution is designed specifically to protect the minority, or the individual. Supreme Court rulings become the law of the land, as per the Constitution, and as such becomes Constitutional, part of the Constitution. The "free exercise thereof" applies to the individual, not to the government. When the government exercises a freedom of religion, it's not an exercising thereof, it's an establishment thereof.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Would a Muslim or Hindu or Jewish or radical fringe splinter group 'prayer' be acceptable?
Notice how he dodged the question ?

Your question requires only a simple "yes" or "no" answer ....

Here - we'll try again ..... Leo:

If there is a Muslim - who is a resident of Franklin, VT .... or not - who wished to regularly offer a benediction or blessing, invoking the name of Allah, would this be a problem ?

Would you be willing to accommodate his expression of faith in the public square - regardless of what a majority might or might not want ?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Asked and answered as they say but for those of you who are challenged or playing dumb just to instigate the form of the brief benediction should be that of the majority. At a fully or primarily Jewish event it shouldn't be a Christian or Muslim prayer. At a primarily Muslim event it shouldn't be a Jewish prayer. At a Greek event one would expect the Greek Orthodox Church to be designated. One short benediction geared toward the primary group. Common sense.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Asked and answered as they say but for those of you who are challenged or playing dumb just to instigate the form of the brief benediction should be that of the majority.
So .... is it your position then, that before any governmental or public function of the State, someone (assumedly a person holding a position of authority in government) should poll the assembled attendees of the gathering, as to their particular faith ..... in order to determine what flavor of benediction might be appropriate .... thereby inserting nose of government into personal matters of conscience ?

Is that the bit of genius you are proposing ?

Let us say for the sake of argument, the majority are Christians - should we then poll further to determine what form the blessing or devotion should be, according to majority rule, Trinitarian ..... or Non-trinitarian ?

At a fully or primarily Jewish event it shouldn't be a Christian or Muslim prayer. At a primarily Muslim event it shouldn't be a Jewish prayer. At a Greek event one would expect the Greek Orthodox Church to be designated. One short benediction geared toward the primary group. Common sense.
Well, apparently common sense is truly lacking ...... since you see, the subject of discussion is not "Jewish", "Christian", "Muslim", or "Greek Orthodox" events .... these are governmental or state events ....

You know what the real irony is here ?

It was the New Light evangelicals - people like such as Isaac_Backus and John Leland (both Baptists) - who joined forces with Deists and skeptics - such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state.


Issac Backus was considered a leading orator of the "pulpit of the American Revolution" .... who published a sermon called "An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, Against the Oppressions of the Present Day" in 1773 that articulated his desire for religious liberty and a separation of church and state .... in it Backus stated:

"Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?"


Leland in his "A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia" stated:

"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever ... Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."


They got it .... those who followed (much) later, clearly not so much ....
 
Last edited:

usafk9

Veteran Expediter
for those of you ............. just to instigate

You mean, like the person that started the thread in the first place?

Is it "common sense" only when it agrees with you?


For someone who purports to vigorously defend the constitution, I find it odd to attack an organization whose sole function is to do just that.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That may be their sole charter but it is anything but their sole function. They function directly opposite quite often.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I believe in, and fully support everyones right to give thanks or seek guidance thru prayer.

At home or at church, or anywhere else that people go when they want to show devotion to their God. My honest opinion is that most that want to 'perform' a prayer at a town meeting are just mouthing the words anyway. It's for show not substance, and has no place in Government meetings.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
As far as I'm concerned, these people are not hurting anyone, and are practicing their 1st Amendment rights. They are not demanding that Christianity become state sponsored.

It's bad enough that fundamentalist atheists succeeded in taking the nativity scene off of the city hall lawn; now they want to dictate when people can and can't pray (except for Muslims, who can do it whenever and wherever they please).
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I agree with you to a point, Hawk. But while they aren't demanding that Christianity be state sponsored, they are sponsoring it and giving it preference nonetheless. I do believe that if an individual judge wants to display the Ten Commandments in his own courtroom, that it's a case of the judge exercising his free speech. He can also have Wandering Jew on his desk if he wants.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Yes, they, as individuals, are giving it voice. There is no law written. Just a group of people, who happen to be Christian, and happen to be government officials, feel like praying. Why can't people stop being offended over something so harmless?
 
Top