Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No I'm not, and now you're being completely disingenous to boot. I find it interesting how you always pretend to be on the side of freedom, but are always against the freedom of the majority.

I am on the side of freedom. Everyone is free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's freedom to do the same. On the other hand, you are campaigning for the freedom to force others to be subject to your desire to inflict your religion on everyone else at the taxpayers' expense. You haven't addressed that yet, and you continue to avoid it.

If you were actually interested in making an intellectually honest point, you would have asserted that my position on gay marriage doesn't jive with my position on religion, in that my belief in freedom is based upon the actual exercise of freedom through action. In other words I believe that all should be free in doing what they wish although it may cause others discomfort. However, those people can merely either avoid the situation or simply deal with it.

First, I'm not interested in showing that your positions may contradict each other. I'm not interested in playing intellectual internet games and calling them "honest".

Second, you haven't addressed my other accusation, which was that you believe in freedom for yourself, which is fine, but you deny the same to others and then accuse them of wanting to take away yours by simply asking for the same consideration.

I cannot intellectually reconcile both beliefs (actually, I think I probably could, but for the sake of argument I'll say no). One thing is clear however - you do not believe in actual freedom. Your definition of "force" is funny, because according to any dictionary I've ever read it's not the English definition of the term. And there's a BUNCH of different definitions to the word, and one would have to pervert them in order to find actual relevance to the discussion.

I love the way you pervert things to suit your special meanings.

Wrong.

If people don't like something, they have every right to avoid it. For some reason, you believe that people shouldn't have to avoid that which they don't like. Unfortunately for your argument, that means that no one would have any rights to do anything.

So having your prayers at a taxpayer-funded government function is exersizing your freedom, and those who don't agree are "free" to wait outside until you're done using my money to pay for your "free excersize". What you're doing is demanding special privilege and calling it "freedom", and then calling me "anti-freedom" for objecting.

In any case, there is nothing more arrogant than someone who believes they are so special that others shouldn't be ABLE to do something that DOES NOT ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM simply because they don't like/agree with it. In fact, it is SO arrogant that, in my opinion, it's an immoral display of pseudo-intellectual machination.

But I haven't done that. You are free to do whatever you want, and I not only support that, it's what I fought for. But what you insist on does indeed affect me, because you want to do it at my expense. If you want to pray on a street corner, I'm all for it, because I can indeed avoid it. If you want to use a room at the local school for Bible Study, I'm all for that too, as long as everyone is granted equal time. But you want a government institution to have taxpayer-funded organized prayer during a non-religious function, and anyone who doesn't want that is forced - excuse me, "free" - to either bear with it or leave. That's what I meant by arrogant, and again you're trying to insist on special privilege and call it "freedom".

I want to allow private citizens to be able to practice their religion whereever they please - who said anything about allowing them to "push" their religion?

If we're talking about organized prayer in a government function that's exactly what they're doing. You still haven't addressed that specific argument, and that's the only one I'm making. And opening a not-religious function with a prayer is indeed pushing your belief. Anyone who doesn't like it has to either sit through it or get up and leave, which is of course embarrassing.

In fact, I find it kind of sickening that your side ALWAYS sees any practice of religion as some sort of proselytization effort - and like I said, that's coming from an atheist. Steve, please, explain to me how, when someone says "let's bow our heads and pray" that actually is an imposition of religion.

"Let's not, and say we did." Of course if someone does that they get accused of being disruptive. How about waiting until the end of the prayer and then saying "Let's chant to Buddha." Oh wait, majority. Right. You're only free to do what the majority says.

Oh wait - you can't.

Oh, I most certainly can.

Because it's not. Why? Because no one has to do it. A suggestion doesn't "force" anything upon anyone. I do find it interesting however how your side ALWAYS seems to think that everyone is too stupid to realize that such things are actually suggestions rather than requirements.

My side? I have no side. I only oppose those who insist on "suggesting" doing things at places they don't belong and trying to call it "freedom".

Does it simply bother you that enough people WANT to do it that they actually go ahead and do so? Clearly it does.

Unfortunately, you being bothered is not a Constitutionally protected right. The free exercise of religion is.

So the freedom not to exercise religion in a place where it's not warranted has to be subjected to the tyranny of the masses again? You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, but you insist that anyone who is not religious listens to your prayers in school? If someone starts a pro-nazi chant before the public meeting, is that protected under free speech? How about if they make sure they outnumber everybody else so they are clearly the majority?

Again, I'm not denying anybody's right to pray in public (though Jesus himself calls them hypocrites). I'm disagreeing that they have a right to force their particular brand of worship on anyone else at a function that is clearly not religious. No dishonesty there at all.