Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[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.