Theocracy

[CID1990]

The Founding Fathers, the writers of the Constitution, are relieved that their practice of opening meetings with a prayer is in agreement with the very Constitution that they wrote.

You speak words that you do not understand parrot...
Read the prayer and report back your finding parrot



The Left and Right fringes have stolen our founding Fathers

how about you two share with the rest of the class and post the damn thing

[Chizzang]

You speak words that you do not understand parrot...
Read the prayer and report back your finding parrot



The Left and Right fringes have stolen our founding Fathers

how about you two share with the rest of the class and post the damn thing

First the Fringes will need to understand the difference between the word GOD and the words Jesus and Muhammad...

Right..?

[Ibanez]

Then there is Clarence "stupidest Justice of all time" Thomas, who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to the states...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -the-clock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



GHWB should be waterboarded for appointing him in the first place.

How loving and tolerant of you.

[Ibanez]

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

If not, then I would be able to get married in any state.

The issue is that they are excluding all other religions. They are only allowing Christians to lead the prayers. This happens in many, many towns across the country. The ignorant masses, both in the country and on the Supreme Court are for freedom of religion, as long as it is their version of Christianity.

Y

[Ivytalk]

Then there is Clarence "stupidest Justice of all time" Thomas, who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to the states...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -the-clock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



GHWB should be waterboarded for appointing him in the first place.

Racist.

If that's the standard, Obama should be publicly drawn and quartered for putting the insufferable, I-see-racism-everywhere "wise Latina" on the SCOTUS for life.

Eisenhower, at least, had the intellectual honesty to admit that putting Earl Warren on the High Court was the worst mistake he ever made. Obama is devoid of any kind of honesty, intellectual or otherwise.

[Chizzang]

Racist.

If that's the standard, Obama should be publicly drawn and quartered for putting the insufferable, I-see-racism-everywhere "wise Latina" on the SCOTUS for life.

Eisenhower, at least, had the intellectual honesty to admit that putting Earl Warren on the High Court was the worst mistake he ever made. Obama is devoid of any kind of honesty, intellectual or otherwise.

Good ol' Ike,
He made some glaring mistakes but also flashed some brilliance
He was the true "Cassandra" of legend - having a true understanding of how Nations worked his global foresight was nothing less than mystical (and accurate)

[HI54UNI]

Just think of how much money was wasted on lawyers to argue over this and the good that could have been done with that money.

[CID1990]

In a world where people are killed for not showing the proper deference to religion (or showing deference to the wrong religion)

where over 200 school girls can be kidnapped and sold into slavery because of religion

where homosexuality is against the law because of religion

where whole histories and priceless antiquities can be erased by fiat- because of religion

I think that we can be up in arms about a SCOTUS decision that is basically a revisit of 30 year old case law-

one that deals with whether or not prayer before a government meeting is appropriate

I think we are in pretty good shape people

[kalm]

Just think of how much money was wasted on lawyers to argue over this and the good that could have been done with that money.

Exactly. They could have simply done away with prayer and probably still been in god's behavior.

[CitadelGrad]

Then there is Clarence "stupidest Justice of all time" Thomas, who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to the states...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -the-clock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



GHWB should be waterboarded for appointing him in the first place.

Racist.

If that's the standard, Obama should be publicly drawn and quartered for putting the insufferable, I-see-racism-everywhere "wise Latina" on the SCOTUS for life.

Eisenhower, at least, had the intellectual honesty to admit that putting Earl Warren on the High Court was the worst mistake he ever made. Obama is devoid of any kind of honesty, intellectual or otherwise.

Obama doesn't believe he made a mistake by nominating her. He knew exactly what he was going to get from the Wise Latina Woman. At this point she has met all of his expectations.

[CitadelGrad]

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

If not, then I would be able to get married in any state.

The issue is that they are excluding all other religions. They are only allowing Christians to lead the prayers. This happens in many, many towns across the country. The ignorant masses, both in the country and on the Supreme Court are for freedom of religion, as long as it is their version of Christianity.

You can't get married in all states because nobody likes fudgepackers.

[houndawg]

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

If not, then I would be able to get married in any state.

The issue is that they are excluding all other religions. They are only allowing Christians to lead the prayers. This happens in many, many towns across the country. The ignorant masses, both in the country and on the Supreme Court are for freedom of religion, as long as it is their version of Christianity.

This. Let a muslim cleric offer a prayer and watch the fun. The Treaty with Tripoli could not be any more clear about the US not being a christian nation. The problem is that christians think "christian" and "religion" are the same thing.

Now if you want to open a meeting with a prayer that's fine, but if I want to break wind during that prayer that's fine too. The universe is 99.9999% hydrogen so if I want to offer up some hydrogen to the universe during this prayer, well that's just my way of "worship".

[HI54UNI]

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

If not, then I would be able to get married in any state.

The issue is that they are excluding all other religions. They are only allowing Christians to lead the prayers. This happens in many, many towns across the country. The ignorant masses, both in the country and on the Supreme Court are for freedom of religion, as long as it is their version of Christianity.

When are you going to call out the chosen one in the White House. His administration supported the town in the case.

[CAA Flagship]

My kids are playing in a Catholic baseball league now. Prior to their first game, the two teams lined up along the baselines (similar to a MLB playoff or WS game) and instead of the national anthem being played, they said a prayer.
As a spectator, I wasn't sure what to do. Stand? Remove hat? Hat or hand over heart? Bow head? Say the prayer along with the players?

[Chizzang]

My kids are playing in a Catholic baseball league now. Prior to their first game, the two teams lined up along the baselines (similar to a MLB playoff or WS game) and instead of the national anthem being played, they said a prayer.
As a spectator, I wasn't sure what to do. Stand? Remove hat? Hat or hand over heart? Bow head? Say the prayer along with the players?

A hearty "PRAISE ALLAH!" is probably your best bet in that situation...

[houndawg]

My kids are playing in a Catholic baseball league now. Prior to their first game, the two teams lined up along the baselines (similar to a MLB playoff or WS game) and instead of the national anthem being played, they said a prayer.
As a spectator, I wasn't sure what to do. Stand? Remove hat? Hat or hand over heart? Bow head? Say the prayer along with the players?

Break wind loudly.

[YoUDeeMan]

My kids are playing in a Catholic baseball league now. Prior to their first game, the two teams lined up along the baselines (similar to a MLB playoff or WS game) and instead of the national anthem being played, they said a prayer.
As a spectator, I wasn't sure what to do. Stand? Remove hat? Hat or hand over heart? Bow head? Say the prayer along with the players?

Chizzy needed to add, "Allah, kill the opposing infidels if my son's team doesn't win. And deliver me my 72 virgins early, please."

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know why you're complaining. We're still in a situation where the first Amendment Establishment Clause has been grossly distorted to prohibit all kinds of thing that neither the language of it nor the obvious original intent of it prohibit.

Again: It's just a clause prohibiting the Congress of the United States from making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. It does not, linguistically, prohibit school prayer, prayer at football games, prayer by public bodies before meetings or anything like that. It prohibits stuff like Congress making a law saying that Catholicism is the official Church of the United States. That's all.

Also again: The Congress of the United States appropriated money to hire a chaplain and start holding Christian church services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. It is OBVIOUS that it was not understood to prohibit association between government and religion. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the letter from which the "wall of separation" language has been so often taken out of context has been taken, was fine with holding Christian Church services in the House Chamber with a Chaplain paid by funds appropriated by the Congress because nobody was forced to attend.

You've got most of the country hoodwinked into thinking stuff like bans on school prayer is how it's supposed to be and it's not how it's supposed to be. If you went back in time and showed the people who crafted and ratified the First Amendment how it's been "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to do things like tell tell local school principals they can't read prayers over the intercom they'd be horrified. They'd ask what the HELL happened. It does not say government officials can't be seen as favoring one religion over the other. It does not say government officials can't openly refer to religion during their official actions. It does not say there can be no association between government and religion. It doesn't say there can't be crosses on public property or that if there are crosses there have to be other things. And it clearly was not UNDERSTOOD to say that at the time when it was ratified.

It's just there because they didn't want the Congress of the United States to establish an official national Church. That's it.

So you should feel like you've won an awful lot by virtue of having it construed the way it's being construed.

[Skjellyfetti]

There's more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights, John.

In every Constitutional argument... you look simply at the first 10 amendments and ignore any of the other ones. The other amendments carry the same weight as the first 10.

The Fourteenth Amendment extended the First Amendment to the states.

[houndawg]

I don't know why you're complaining. We're still in a situation where the first Amendment Establishment Clause has been grossly distorted to prohibit all kinds of thing that neither the language of it nor the obvious original intent of it prohibit.

Again: It's just a clause prohibiting the Congress of the United States from making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. It does not, linguistically, prohibit school prayer, prayer at football games, prayer by public bodies before meetings or anything like that. It prohibits stuff like Congress making a law saying that Catholicism is the official Church of the United States. That's all.

Also again: The Congress of the United States appropriated money to hire a chaplain and start holding Christian church services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. It is OBVIOUS that it was not understood to prohibit association between government and religion. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the letter from which the "wall of separation" language has been so often taken out of context has been taken, was fine with holding Christian Church services in the House Chamber with a Chaplain paid by funds appropriated by the Congress because nobody was forced to attend.

You've got most of the country hoodwinked into thinking stuff like bans on school prayer is how it's supposed to be and it's not how it's supposed to be. If you went back in time and showed the people who crafted and ratified the First Amendment how it's been "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to do things like tell tell local school principals they can't read prayers over the intercom they'd be horrified. They'd ask what the HELL happened. It does not say government officials can't be seen as favoring one religion over the other. It does not say government officials can't openly refer to religion during their official actions. It does not say there can be no association between government and religion. It doesn't say there can't be crosses on public property or that if there are crosses there have to be other things. And it clearly was not UNDERSTOOD to say that at the time when it was ratified.

It's just there because they didn't want the Congress of the United States to establish an official national Church. That's it.

So you should feel like you've won an awful lot by virtue of having it construed the way it's being construed.

As usual you blow hard and miss the point entirely.

What is being complained about is a certain type of christians that insist on injecting their superstitious nonsense into the lives of people who don't want anything to do with it. The same type that would expire from the vapors if some other religion's representative were wanting christians to swallow their superstitious nonsense. These are the same clowns that keep trying to insist that the country is a "christian nation" in spite of the law saying that we are no such thing. Jesus, John, your poor family...

[kalm]

I don't know why you're complaining. We're still in a situation where the first Amendment Establishment Clause has been grossly distorted to prohibit all kinds of thing that neither the language of it nor the obvious original intent of it prohibit.

Again: It's just a clause prohibiting the Congress of the United States from making a law with respect to the establishment of religion. It does not, linguistically, prohibit school prayer, prayer at football games, prayer by public bodies before meetings or anything like that. It prohibits stuff like Congress making a law saying that Catholicism is the official Church of the United States. That's all.

Also again: The Congress of the United States appropriated money to hire a chaplain and start holding Christian church services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. It is OBVIOUS that it was not understood to prohibit association between government and religion. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the letter from which the "wall of separation" language has been so often taken out of context has been taken, was fine with holding Christian Church services in the House Chamber with a Chaplain paid by funds appropriated by the Congress because nobody was forced to attend.

You've got most of the country hoodwinked into thinking stuff like bans on school prayer is how it's supposed to be and it's not how it's supposed to be. If you went back in time and showed the people who crafted and ratified the First Amendment how it's been "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to do things like tell tell local school principals they can't read prayers over the intercom they'd be horrified. They'd ask what the HELL happened. It does not say government officials can't be seen as favoring one religion over the other. It does not say government officials can't openly refer to religion during their official actions. It does not say there can be no association between government and religion. It doesn't say there can't be crosses on public property or that if there are crosses there have to be other things. And it clearly was not UNDERSTOOD to say that at the time when it was ratified.

It's just there because they didn't want the Congress of the United States to establish an official national Church. That's it.

So you should feel like you've won an awful lot by virtue of having it construed the way it's being construed.

As usual you blow hard and miss the point entirely.

What is being complained about is a certain type of christians that insist on injecting their superstitious nonsense into the lives of people who don't want anything to do with it. The same type that would expire from the vapors if some other religion's representative were wanting christians to swallow their superstitious nonsense. These are the same clowns that keep trying to insist that the country is a "christian nation" in spite of the law saying that we are no such thing. Jesus, John, your poor family...

Ironically, the establishment clause was pushed for by Virginia Baptists concerned with the freedoms of religious minorities.

Sure this isn't the end of the world, but as I pointed out earlier, it's completely unnecessary and not a part of government's role. For CID, and the rest of you dismissing it, I suppose you feel a few more minor gun restrictions are OK too as we will still have more gun rights than most other nations?

[Baldy]

As usual you blow hard and miss the point entirely.

What is being complained about is a certain type of christians that insist on injecting their superstitious nonsense into the lives of people who don't want anything to do with it. The same type that would expire from the vapors if some other religion's representative were wanting christians to swallow their superstitious nonsense. These are the same clowns that keep trying to insist that the country is a "christian nation" in spite of the law saying that we are no such thing. Jesus, John, your poor family...

Ironically, the establishment clause was pushed for by Virginia Baptists concerned with the freedoms of religious minorities.

Sure this isn't the end of the world, but as I pointed out earlier, it's completely unnecessary and not a part of government's role. For CID, and the rest of you dismissing it, I suppose you feel a few more minor gun restrictions are OK too as we will still have more gun rights than most other nations?

I guess you would be really upset if Congress said a prayer before each session....

[houndawg]

Ironically, the establishment clause was pushed for by Virginia Baptists concerned with the freedoms of religious minorities.

Sure this isn't the end of the world, but as I pointed out earlier, it's completely unnecessary and not a part of government's role. For CID, and the rest of you dismissing it, I suppose you feel a few more minor gun restrictions are OK too as we will still have more gun rights than most other nations?

I guess you would be really upset if Congress said a prayer before each session....

Not really, since its the only thing they do most sessions.

[CID1990]

Sure this isn't the end of the world, but as I pointed out earlier, it's completely unnecessary and not a part of government's role. For CID, and the rest of you dismissing it, I suppose you feel a few more minor gun restrictions are OK too as we will still have more gun rights than most other nations?

I dismiss your thread title. Not the thread itself. This decision does not = theocracy. Don't be Dbackjon.

Second, there are ALL KINDS of ways the national government gets involved (behind the weight of the high court) in things it should stay away from. Nebulous interpretations of the Commerce Clause, abortion, you name it. Welcome to the party, Rip van Winkle! We'll be handing out conservative cards in a couple hours.

[kalm]

Sure this isn't the end of the world, but as I pointed out earlier, it's completely unnecessary and not a part of government's role. For CID, and the rest of you dismissing it, I suppose you feel a few more minor gun restrictions are OK too as we will still have more gun rights than most other nations?

I dismiss your thread title. Not the thread itself. This decision does not = theocracy. Don't be Dbackjon.

Second, there are ALL KINDS of ways the national government gets involved (behind the weight of the high court) in things it should stay away from. Nebulous interpretations of the Commerce Clause, abortion, you name it. Welcome to the party, Rip van Winkle! We'll be handing out conservative cards in a couple hours.