Prayer case divides Supreme Court

[quade 4]

Channman

***Dangerous precedents are being set by the Supreme Court. I would like to think they know what they’re doing, but it seems to me they’re forgoing the Constitution in favor of short term politics. I do not think this is wise.

Quote

The Supreme Court's decision Monday to allow Christian prayers at city council and other public meetings divided justices not only ideologically, but along religious lines as well.

The five justices in majority are Catholics, and they agreed that an opening prayer at a public government meeting, delivered by a Christian pastor, brings the town together.

Source and more;
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505,0,5918654.story

As long as each prayer was ended in "Jesus Name" and a Amen by all....I'm fine with it.

And that, is exactly the problem. See, it's not about what you're fine with today. It's about the precedent that opens up the possibility of any one of a number of things you will NOT be okay with in the future. Yet, because you've chosen to only worry about your own point of view today, you've given permission to other people who will do things you probably won't be okay with later.

This is what is wrong with the typical person and business in America today. People look after their own immediate and short term self interests rather than looking at the ramifications further down the line.

By saying you're "fine" with this today, you have essentially said you're also "fine" with a system of government that parallels Saudi Arabia. You might want to look into what that's like.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

mirage62

Quote

I see . . . that's obviously an unbiased opinion.

Hell Quade YOUR opinion are entirely biase and you post them..........

Again, the difference is, you can actually get a response from me here. Try getting a response here from the guy who wrote the article. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Copying and pasting is not a conversation. It's a data point. It's a reference. But nothing more.

Imagine we go the other way 'round on it. Imagine for every post you make I simply find some blogger who agrees with my position and post a link to it. Are we having a conversation or simply a battle of who can google the most blogs?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Channman 2]

quade

******Dangerous precedents are being set by the Supreme Court. I would like to think they know what they’re doing, but it seems to me they’re forgoing the Constitution in favor of short term politics. I do not think this is wise.

Quote

The Supreme Court's decision Monday to allow Christian prayers at city council and other public meetings divided justices not only ideologically, but along religious lines as well.

The five justices in majority are Catholics, and they agreed that an opening prayer at a public government meeting, delivered by a Christian pastor, brings the town together.

Source and more;
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505,0,5918654.story

As long as each prayer was ended in "Jesus Name" and a Amen by all....I'm fine with it.

And that, is exactly the problem. See, it's not about what you're fine with today. It's about the precedent that opens up the possibility of any one of a number of things you will NOT be okay with in the future. Yet, because you've chosen to only worry about your own point of view today, you've given permission to other people who will do things you probably won't be okay with later.

This is what is wrong with the typical person and business in America today. People look after their own immediate and short term self interests rather than looking at the ramifications further down the line.

By saying you're "fine" with this today, you have essentially said you're also "fine" with a system of government that parallels Saudi Arabia. You might want to look into what that's like.

Excellent reply, if it is OK with you I would like to forward this to the White House. Maybe someone there can see the wisdom expressed herein.

[Amazon 7]

Here are some great "Christians" representing for religious freedom... in "Murica"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XiizB9Lkqk&feature=youtu.be

[billvon 3,118]

>Which certainly seems as if there is an intentional bias in either the asking or
>selection of who can say what.

Or the people who like to lead prayers are all Christian. It's that way in a lot of places.

[quade 4]

Channman

Excellent reply, if it is OK with you I would like to forward this to the White House. Maybe someone there can see the wisdom expressed herein.

Go for it. Send it to every politician and corporate head you can.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Coreece 190]

quade

See, it's not about what you're fine with today. It's about the precedent that opens up the possibility of any one of a number of things you will NOT be okay with in the future. Yet, because you've chosen to only worry about your own point of view today, you've given permission to other people who will do things you probably won't be okay with later.

This is what is wrong with the typical person and business in America today. People look after their own immediate and short term self interests rather than looking at the ramifications further down the line.

I've shared that same sentiment in the past on this forum.

I expressed how I don't want the Church to be in bed with the government for the same reason I don't want the mob doing me any "favors" - It's only a matter of time before they need you to return the favor even if it compromises your beliefs.

Specifically, I addressed how I'm big on the separation of Church and State. I expressed how I don't want religion in the public schools because I don't want some liberal atheist teaching Christianity and injecting his/her own personal/ignorant bias.

I've addressed how taxing Churches could result in more religious political clout, and likewise cause more pressure from government officials to impose it's needs on the church. (bad for both religious antagonist and protagonists alike)

In more lighthearted debates, (or should I say discussions) I expressed that people should be careful about wanting to ban Christmas celebrations in public schools because it could ultimately spoil the fun for kids wanting to dress up for Halloween given the religious implications of the "Holiday"

Now, I think all these arguments (including yours) have elements of validity, but they also have elements of being informally fallacious in that they appeal to the future.

Now we're of course just trying to prove a point, but would you accept "the unintended ramifications" argument if it were used against AGW, AHC, and gun control mandates? (which is the point I think you missed with regard to Channman's reply about sending your post to the white house.)

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...