Is Freedom Of Religion Making Sense Fundamentally?

What relevant-to-government aspect are we changing?

WHAT IS THE POINT OF PRAYER IN GOVERNMENT?

I'm trimming excessive wasting of time.

I thought you were all about cutting excess.

The relevance is that this country is made up of many different peoples with many different views and principles. The prayer is not part of the meeting but a preface to it. People pray before a meal but religion is not part of the meal. It's not affecting the government's ability to impartially do their job. It's inclusive of the community and those that would wish to offer a respectful message before it begins.

It doesn't really seem like you're out for the best for everyone but more for what you think the best path is.

You can't get your mind off prayer being anywhere near this to open your eyes long enough and see that it isn't a terrible thing.

If I were in a Government meeting, I'd be praying I could stay awake.

It depends. If there is a basis in the laws we have set up then yes. It should never have been there in the first place. Same goes for the other side.

It can't be used to protect one person and then not the other no matter if it's the minority or the majority.

At some point in this thread we crossed over from practice to theory, so I've adjusted accordingly.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not going to raise a stink in a real-world setting about a prayer before a meeting. It's too much hassle for something that ultimately isn't worth the fight. I will quietly roll my eyes and let them do their little song and dance. Just get on with the meeting and get something done.

But I fail to see the point.

More of this in the future to come.

Oh this video has a little better coverage of it:



edit: Hinduism is apparently a lie from the pit of hell, heard it here folks!

edit2: video wasn't working, I think it did by time, think it's working now.

That is so sad. I almost feel sorry for those freaks, almost.

I feel sorry for the poor indoctrinated brat they raised, that's about it.

Even in theory. As long as this doesn't exclude anyone it doesn't cross any boundaries... Would you be so upset if they required you to sing the star spangled banner or salute the flag when you walked in? Traditions are mostly what this would seem to be about and personal faith. Some hold it as close as their patriotism.

Who knows maybe they should start it 15 minutes before the meeting for those that wish to join in and say their piece...

The point is that you say you want elected officials to fight whats best for the people in general and then turn around and ***on that sentiment because of religion.

If it was exclusionary or dictated the results of the meeting then yes it is a problem. But that's not what it is.

I'm always annoyed with the SSB, but that's mostly because it's a terrible song and I see no point in holding up sporting events just to listen to someone (normally a high school girl trying to draw it out for attention) murder a song that's difficult to sing and no good in the first place.

But even then, saluting the flag or singing the national anthem...

...to quote the late George Carlin, "they're symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded."

So basically you see things the way you see em and that's the only way?

Separation of Church and State exists for a reason. That reason is that inevitably someone gets screwed when the government tries to appeal to everyones religious sensibilities. Hence, do it on your own time. Yes, I can stand there twiddling my thumbs while someone reads about God and doesn't proselytize (its still passive proselytizing) but why should I? Time and place. God doesn't need you in a courthouse singing his praises if you believe.

Also, patriotic things like saluting the flag and singing the star spangled banner are nationalist exercises divorced of any religious symbolism unless you consider bombs bursting in air and our flag still being there being some allegory for Jesus. It's a song about defending a fort from the British. It's meant to inspire that America was forged by resistance against a tyrannical monarchy. Something everyone can get behind.

This isn't a Christian nation no matter how hard the people try to smash that square peg into a round hole. The founders acknowledged people can be idiots and thus set up provisions against tyranny of the masses. What these shortsighted people are doing is setting up a future where every religious order under the sun wants to be "respected" in courthouses and other neutral, secular buildings.

So when can I open court with:

The problem in my experience is that the truly religious, truly patriotic, etc. will brook no dissent. If you are not with them, you're against them. And they will do their best to make you feel unwelcome and/or side against you whenever they can.

Try sitting through the Star Spangled Banner some time, or not taking your hat off. You get many scowls and dirty looks, at best.

Do you really think that if there's some form of prayer and out of 50 people, 5 don't participate, the other 45 aren't going to notice and have an immediate bias against them?

I "get" the nationalistic stuff in government and there's really no doing away with that. Some people need it for whatever reason, so we keep it. But the concept of prayer is -- in my opinion -- not compatable with our government and any time it's brought into the fold, I must approach any subsequent discussion with the proper skepticism. If religion is ever part of a basis for a decision, that decision must be questioned.

Again. My opinion. You don't have to like it or me. But ideally, to me, religion has zero place in politics. Pray at home. Pray at church. Pray outside if you have to.

But at least have some semblance of neutrality during actual procedure.

What does prayer cost again?

If a law was made to single out a person or a group of people, I agree with you.

But there isn't....

Quite a bit, as you yourself have admitted, since if nothing else we can't tax the Catholic church properly due to international tax nonsense with the Vatican.

Laws against gay marriage are not based in religion in what way, again?

Bringing up the SSB and saluting the flag was to point out it was solely about religion and not about anything practical like wasting time.

They shouldn't be respected in any of those places?

So you're idea is to take away from people because of the crazy ones out there?

I have before and I'm still sitting here and many others are too without a mark otherwise.

I think that you might have an immediate bias of the guy next to you because he's too fat or that lady that's skirt is too short or the bald guy trying too hard to cover it up with a combover. You seem to already have an immediate bias against anyone who thinks a prayer here is acceptable. So is it because you think you're in the minority in this case that it's wrong? What if only 5 of the 50 participated? Would it be ok for those other 45 to be biased against them now because they agree with you?

Here's the issue and like I said before... having a prayer before the meeting won't affect the decision making. Even if you state that you can no longer pray before the meeting do you really think it's going to change who those people are fundamentally? This has nothing to do with making a decision based on faith. Not only that... any decision made needs to be questioned and examined not only ones you may think are effected because someone said a prayer.

Like I said... prayer has no effect on this and whether they say it or not before the proceeding it will not affect who they are while making a decision.

And again I say this is why, in a real life context, I wouldn't say anything and let it go.

I just would see it gone, ideally.

Then again, I feel that way about religion in general. So whatever.

Um...

That's not the reason why we aren't taxing the church. Either Catholic or otherwise.

International tax treaties have nothing to do with social or religious tax regulations...and even then, the Vatican doesn't have a tax treaty with USA.

Perhaps I previously misinterpreted what you said in another thread, then. I was under the impression that the Vatican received some sort of special dispensation from Italy or w/e, and subsequently their holdings here were somehow not taxed due to their tie to the Vatican. I appologize if I'm wrong on that particular facet.

I do, however, still think the churches should more or less be taxed for every penny and property holding.

This is my biggest problem with people that preach equality and politicians for the betterment of all people.

It never truly seems like you're out for the actual betterment of society so much as what you think that might be. Religion gets brought up and immediately becomes a shitfest because well RELIGION!

The state does not endorse any one religion but when you have largely Christian prayers being said on government time whilst isolating other prayers from other religions you're effectively endorsing Christianity. I use Altana and FFXI because it's so obvious that no one would give me the time of day to speak about crystals, banishing darkness or tears wept for us all because it's a bunch of nonsense.

Supreme Court saying tradition and "well, no one is proselytizing" is simply opening the doors for that to happen. When Muslims ask for prayer time will these government buildings work out a schedule to satisfy everyone? Will pastafarians get their time to speak? Satanists? Pagans?

If this is about worshiping and respect then pray in your car, on the can, before you wake up or any time of day. All this is are a bunch of people wanting a public spectacle.

This will quickly become the government getting involved in religious squabbles when it could easily say "on your own *** time people" and be done with it. Separation of Church and State.

It's simple. You put up a time limit everyone gets their own slot that legitimately wants one and you go on with it.

What particular question do you want me to answer or what admission are you looking for me to make? I'm confused.

What's so hard about giving NO ONE a time slot and letting them do it on time that isn't ticking minutes off of a government meeting?

Why is it so hard to give them s time slot?

Because you don't want it there? lol... That's what it boils down to. YOU don't want it there so you feel the need to deprive others of it because YOU feel it's nonsense. Take a minute to examine how others might view it.

this has nothing to do with wasting time in a government meeting and you've alreeady admitted that you also know that it won't affect any decision making. Yet here we are with you still pushing for it to be banned because you don't want it to be there.

Could you imagine if we just started banning things because you didn't want them to be there?

This is just me making a statement and calling you what you are in this situation... A hypocrite. There was no question asked, no hidden agenda.