Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
Can you see how arrogant it is to say, "hey, I know that 99% of you people want this and I while I could either wait outside or show up afterwards instead YOU should accomodate ME, the 1%!"
|
That's the exact same thing you used in the 'Gay Marriage' debate. "You're free to follow my rules. Why do you have a problem with that?" We're not talking about church services in church, we're talking about officially sanctioned prayer at government functions. There is a huge difference, and you keep trying to skate around it.
Quote:
|
Steve, it's called "freedom". People have freedom to do things. Other people may not like that such things are being done, but that's why we Constitutionally limit our government.
|
Quote:
|
There is a Constitutional Amendment specifically protecting the free exercise of religion. There is NOT a Constitutional Amendment that requires it to be behind closed doors or away from those who simply wish it didn't occur.
|
So in spite of that protection you still think it's okay for folks who believe in a very specific form of worship to force that worship on those who don't believe that way? We are talking about government functions here, not private worship.
Quote:
|
Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.
|
But that's exactly what you do argue. The crowd wins, and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it. This is why I used the word "arrogant" in the first place.
Quote:
|
Oh, and I hardly think that anything we're discussing here would or could be construed as "mob rule". The minority can just as easily respect the wishes of the majority in this case.
|
And you do it again. The "Protection" clauses in the Constitution are there to protect the minority from abuse by the majority. You want to use government buildings and government functions to push your religion on the rest, and if the rest is a minority, too bad.