Anything that upsets the liberals must be a good thing!
@ Chris B: So you think violating the Constitution is a good thing?
"Public" and "Prayer" should be separate for a reason. If they
were Islamic prayers, the Christians would complain. If they are Christian
prayers, the Buddhists may feel excluded. I am neither Christian, Muslim, nor
Buddhist, so then my side is not heard. If you want to pray, do so in private.
I've heard it works best that way anyway.
Chris B – “Anything that upsets the liberals must be a good
thing!”You’re half right Chris… any decision that
upsets (extreme) liberals and conservatives is a good thing.
OK Bubble, I will take the bait. How is this a violation of the Constitution.
Maybe you are talking about Amendment I of "The Bill of Rights" which
states:"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."I don't
see anywhere in there that says "freedom from religion", which is what
the liberals would like us to think it says.Now, your turn Bubble, go.....
@WRKhow exactly can we have freedom of religion if we are not free from
the government giving preferential treatment to one form of religion above all
others as it appears maybe the case in this situation. The only way to truly
have freedom of religion is for all of us to be free from the government
involvement which means religion and state must be kept separate.
@George,If a majority of the population in this area is Christian
then pure statistics say that a majority of the prayers would be Christian
prayers. No bias from the government appears presentThough I don't ever pray, I say keep up the good work with your
@Chris B "Anything that upsets the liberals must be a good
thing!"There is a display of the ten commandments in the
Supreme Court. I guess that must really ruffle the feather’s of
progressive lawyers arguing cases there but then what can they do about it. Sue
the Chief Justices that should do it.
@GeorgeThe founding father had public prayers.They even
had an official chaplain (a christian) in congress,congress publish
the koran and they published the bible including Jefferson's abridgment
for the Indians among other religious publishings, and they financed
missionaries to the Indians,there is religious writings and
sculptures in and on the federal buildings,the founding fathers
certainly had no problem with it, and they wrote the constitution.So
@ zoar63: The same display that contains Moses and the 10 Commandments also
contains Mohammad and the Koran.The artist who carved the panel that
many mistake for the 10 Commandments was very clear that his work depicted the
Bill of Rights.
@chris b from the article "From 1999 through 2007, and again from
January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a
@the truthso you mean to tell me you still cling to the notion that
"the founding fathers" still spoke with one voice? HOw many times have
we all gone back and forth on this. we can go back and forth all day and half
the nigh each quoting and misquoting our favorite "founding father" but
we always end at the simple truth they were no more in agreement then we are
Our city in Illinois had a fountain circle drive downtown and 6 miles off the
freeway. The fountain is covered in the winter and for decades had a Christmas
Nativity scene in November and December. However, a man from either Ohio or
Pennsylvania that happened to drive by that Nativity Scene and found it
offensive and the town through the courts lost the Nativity scene. Why would a
man pin point it? These people find religion offensive in any shape or form.
For a country that was populated with people who wanted religious freedom, this
country was a prime area due to it's massive land mass. People had the
opportunity to move on if persecuted for their religious beliefs. Some people
in this country were even given an extermination order for their deaths which
existed until the late 1970s. Our church in a Christian cooperative in
Washington state was set on fire because they didn't consider us Christian.
People are still motivated by religious persecution, whether Muslim, Christian
or other denomination. However, some use religion as a method to justify their
hatred for others, even though that hatred is not just for religious behavior.
This topic always brings up the philosophies of the world, men and women as the
scriptures are not used in a way that would support non-prayer. It seems like
the agnostics or atheists would want people to pray for them and anyone that
lives in this world, especially, when those men and women in Congress or the
Legislature are making decisions, long-lasting decisions in most cases, relating
to our life and the lives of our children and grandchildren. In God we trust
doesn't mean the same now as when the people came to this continent seeking
a better way of life. Our ancestors fought against tyrants from Europe for this
country's cause. These colonists were separated by a large area without
fast and furious communications. However, they were united in prayer but not
necessarily religion. They believed in God and since the Bible had only been
out for the commoner a few hundred years, people even in their home countries
didn't all read it the same due to their language, cultural and religious
differences. There is a God and prayers can be heard and answered. Listen to
the tornado victims on prayers. They should testify.
If in the courts eyes prayer should be allowed then is stands to reason that
equal time must be given in all public forums for prayers from all religions. My
perception of this issue is that the people so vocal for prayer in schools, town
meetings or any tax payer funded endeavor, would not be thrilled to give equal
time to prayers not of their faith. The should be very careful for what they
wish for. Personally I think it would be interesting to see them get what they
want. The ensuing fireworks would be very entertaining.
I don't understand the idea that people would get offended by prayers
offered by those not of their religion. City council meetings are full of people
with differing views, and we consider that a good thing. So why would someone
offering a prayer of a different view be offensive in a public meeting. If you
can't deal with differing view points, then you probably shouldn't be
attending government meetings in the first place. And if enlisting the help of a
supreme being, at the beginning of a public meeting, to help build a consensus
between competing these views is illegal in this nation. Then we obviously
believe our constitution not worth the parchment it was written on!
The people who complain about prying are just doing it to get their names in the
news. And to BubbleSLC, UT, prying is not against the constitution.