Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No one is forced? If I want to attend your church service I can, and if I don't want to I don't have to. If I want to attend the council meeting, or the congressional session I shouldn't have to also be a part of your worship. What? I can wait outside while you conduct your service? If I don't like it I don't have to come?

Can you really not see how arrogant that is? Using public time and money for your worship service is very much forcing your beliefs on everyone else, and is exactly what people like Madison, Adams and Jefferson were trying to prevent.

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%!"

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.

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.

[razark]

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%!"

By that logic, if 99% of people want to enslave the other 1%, it is right to allow it?

After all, if the majority want it, why should we stop them?

[tater]

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%!"

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.

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.

Freedom for the minority is the whole point. "99% of us are C of E, you Puritans can just sit outside and like it!"

In the 2d part, you once again demonstrate that you entirely miss the point. At a government function—a public school graduation—it becomes endorsement by the State.

[mookiemookie]

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%!"

Democracy is not mob rule without regard to the minority.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Castout

The funny aspect about many of people who declared themselves atheist is that they are in all objectivity are not just an atheist but they are anti-religion whether specific one or all.
.

Yes, in some way your right, I am anti-religion if it knocks on my door.
Keep your religion to yourself.
And then, I promise not to knock on your door to promote atheism.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Democracy is not mob rule without regard to the minority.

Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Never argued otherwise. I was specifically referring to the "arrogance" argument Steve used.

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.

Or the majority could just as easily not drag religion into a non-religious event.

[tater]

UP the thread I posted Jefferson's letter that contains "wall of separation" (which is where "separation of church and state" comes from).

The letter was to the Danbury Baptist association. It was regarding their row with the... atheists? Agnostics? Nope, the Congregationalists. The baptists saw their religious freedom as granted by the state due to the way they were treated (government controlled by Congregationalists), and wanted clarification.

Separation is shown even in its very beginning as protecting religious freedom, not endangering it.

So it is today.

Originally Posted by August

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

The answer is very simple.
It doesn't.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Aramike]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not to go all "mookie" on you, but it seems as though the appelate court agrees with me on this.

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.

And that's coming from an atheist.

And you do it again. The "Protection" clauses in the Constitution are there to protect the minority from abuse by the majority.

And I disagree with this ... how?

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.

No I don't. Are you even making an attempt at intellectual honesty?

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?

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.

Oh wait - you can't. 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.

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Or the majority could just as easily not drag religion into a non-religious event.

But why should they avoid what they WANT to do?

Okay, let's take your argument here at face value. If they could "just as easily", that means "all things being equal". So why are you on the side of the minority when, all things being equal, it wouldn't matter if the majority were able to engage in an event the way they chose to do so?

Unless, of course, you believe the minority should be able to rule, which in my opinion is far worse than any mob rule.

[joegrundman]

OMG!

Are you even making an attempt at intellectual honesty?

lulz!

a blogman award for aramike!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Fish

\ I promise not to knock on your door to promote atheism.

Strange, I have never had any one knock on my door asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one accost me at an airport asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one interrupt my shopping in a mall asking me to become an atheist.

I have never had any one put unwanted literature on my car when it was parked asking me to become an atheist.

(the list can continue)

But I do get theists doing this.

[Skybird]

On a sidenote, in Germany the Protestant "Kirchentag" has ended a week ago or so. Speakers of the Protestant said they were proud that they managed to run the whole public show and discussions program without explicitly basing and refering to Christian belief and content, so that no members of certain foreign cultures and beliefs must feel offended or challenged and not being tolerated.

It's already bad enough that the churches of all confessions have distorted the teaching of Jesuus and abused it for poltical own interests. That now the Protestants are even proud in explicitly not witnessing and basing and referring to Christan teaches altogether, imo opinion is at least as laughable and hilarious. At least it is - slimy, somehow. unstraight, cowardish, weak.

If I were somebody putting importance on confessing to Christian religion, I would have made that modern Protestant policy and comment a reason to convert to Catholicism... I dislike the Catholic church very much. Point is I dislike the Protestants as much, if not even more. And when I hear "Margot Kässmann" (Germans here no who she is), I just want to vomit.