 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
DesertDweller
Posts:2562
 | | 12/03/2007 6:49 AM |
 Alert | | We're not because there isn't. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | Cactus Rob
Posts:1125
| | 12/03/2007 10:17 AM |
Alert | I'm a Christian, but that fact has nothing to do with my reasons for posting my feelings in this thread.
My only interest is that I want good government. I want governing bodies that make decisions that are, to the best of their ability, in the best interests of all the people they serve.
When I look at the legal battles that have been waged and taxpayer money wasted throughout our country, it's obvious to me that Christian prayers at government meetings are not in our best interests.
I'm just thankful that my City Council has been able to dodge the bullet up to now. I want to encourage the council members to carefully consider the future implications of continuing the practice.
Below is a URL relating to just one of many examples available on the Net that we can all use in making a decision whether we continue the practice. We must choose our battles carefully .... a lot is at stake.
http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/citycouncilprayers.html | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3886
| | 12/03/2007 7:54 PM |
Alert | | I really don't understand why most of you guys have a problem with it? Isn't someone's faith a strong factor why some people vote the way they do? | |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 12/04/2007 8:44 AM |
Alert | Here's why: In Sudan, a primary school teacher named a teddy bear that her class was using Mohammad after one of the students in the class. She was jailed for anti-religious behaviour. This is an example of religious law becoming the law of the state.
There needs to be a separation of church and state. If ALL people are going to have the right and opportunity to practice ALL religions, than no one religion can become the official religion of the government.
The most immediate security threat to the United States of America at the present moment is religious extremism, in the form of Islamic jihad. Do you think that religious extremism could never be sponsored by a Christian faith? Look at the Crusades. Check medieval England and see how the church dominated everything. Check with 16th and 17th century America, particularly the Salem witch trials, and for the answer to that question.
Anyone who wants to pray has a right to do so. They don't have a right to require everyone to participate in, or even observe, their religious ritual at a public meeting. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | missPolitick
Posts:645
| | 12/04/2007 10:23 AM |
Alert | In my SMALL east Texas hometown they still pray over the loud speaker before every high school football and baseball game. I think it's sweet, and promotes a feeling of a 'community family' there. (And no one complains; I'm sure they'de get run out of town!)(And I'm sure the ACLU hasn't caught wind of it yet.)
City Council meetings in Maricopa are different. We are obviously not a family and they probably are just doing it because it's on the agenda, not because they really WILL make the right choice that God prompts them to make. So, in that venue, it seems almost sacreligious. Somehow it DOESN'T feel that way at a football game. Not sure why. I don't care what they do. They actions of others don't offend me in that regard. | |
Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:513
| | 12/04/2007 4:29 PM |
Alert | Posted By missPolitick on 12/04/2007 10:23 AM
In my SMALL east Texas hometown they still pray over the loud speaker before every high school football and baseball game. I think it's sweet, and promotes a feeling of a 'community family' there. (And no one complains; I'm sure they'de get run out of town!)(And I'm sure the ACLU hasn't caught wind of it yet.)
I'm sure the ACLU is well aware of the prayers at high school sporting events in certain areas, but overwhelming community uniformity in favor of the prayers discourages their involvment. Your post reminded me of one of my professors for my coaching minor at BYU who was an assistant men's basketball coach and later head women's basketball coach. While on a recruiting trip to Texas, he attended a basketball game to scout out a particular player for BYU. At mid-court, right before tip-off, both teams and the referees gathered for a prayer. Impressed, he turned to his host after the prayer and asked if they were concerned about the ACLU. His host said, "We're Southern Baptists. We don't give a d--- about the ACLU!" I really liked that response and attitude.
I grew up in a rural farming community in southeastern Idaho, where there was only one non-Mormon in the entire K-6 school I attended. Although his father was an atheist, and not particulary fond of Mormons in general, he had no problem with his son being subjected to prayers in the classroom (which we had every morning). I think that people who agitate to remove every scrap of religious reference and symbolism from communities would be well served to follow his father's attitude and reaction. While he didn't believe in the efficacy of the prayers, he didn't throw hissy fits about their existence. What harm did they do to him and his son, anyway? Especially since he didn't believe in God as it was. | | | |
|
|  | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 12/04/2007 8:26 PM |
Alert | What the coach was actually saying was that as Southern Baptists they didn't give a d--- about civil liberties. Putting the ACLU sticker on the product makes it easy to hate. After all, the ACLU has come to the defense of criminals, minorities, and unpopular ideology. They have promoted the American way by defending the right of Communists in America. For those unfamiliar with the mission of the ACLU, one of the stated purposes is, "We must preserve the protections and the checks and balances in the Constitution against government abuses of power that violate our rights and values." Those on the extreme right have had the ACLU
in their gun sights since the McCarthy inquisition of the '50's and the civil rights movement in the '60's. There is probably no other organization in America for which there is more incorrect information circulating, except for maybe the Mormon church.
About the "atheist" in the Idaho town, well there's a difference in not believing in God and believing that there's no God.
So, if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear the crash, does it make a sound? This is the comparison here. In a town where everyone believes in the same religion, there's little room for controversy. Now, had the gentleman in question taken issue with his child being subjected to prayers, would the Mormon majority have reconsidered their practice?
Christians generally see themselves as having been persecuted by everyone else. Mormons have, throughout history, been persecuted by Christians. I would think that this would make them more sensitive to the minority viewpoint.
| |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | papa smurf
Posts:14
| | 12/04/2007 10:13 PM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 12/04/2007 8:26 PM
Mormons have, throughout history, been persecuted by Christians.
Please note that Mormon's are persecuted by non-mormons. We are Christian. We very much believe Jesus Christ to be our savior, redeemer and Lord.
| | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 12/04/2007 10:56 PM |
Alert | Posted By papa smurf on 12/04/2007 10:13 PM Posted By DesertDweller on 12/04/2007 8:26 PM
Mormons have, throughout history, been persecuted by Christians.
Please note that Mormon's are persecuted by non-mormons. We are Christian. We very much believe Jesus Christ to be our savior, redeemer and Lord.
Oops, sorry. What I meant to say was persecuted, in particular, by non-Mormon Christians. Thanks for the clarification. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:3313
| | 12/05/2007 8:03 AM |
Alert | Religious people have been persecuted by people of other religions throughout all of history.
Jews enslaved by the Egyptians.
Christians being fed to lions and executed by the Romans.
Atrocities commited by Christians and Muslims against each other in the Crusades.
Jews killed by Nazis.
Persecution is Persecution. Not right that people bash mormons but some mormons bash other religions also. I try not to base judgement on an entire religion based on a few individual experiences.
| |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | missPolitick
Posts:645
| | 12/05/2007 8:41 AM |
Alert | | I don't think I've ever heard someone defend the ACLU so vehemently! | |
Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage | |
|
| | LeonPotter
Posts:598
| | 12/05/2007 9:08 AM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 12/04/2007 8:44 AM
Anyone who wants to pray has a right to do so. They don't have a right to require everyone to participate in, or even observe, their religious ritual at a public meeting.
I agree with the first sentence. But, I disagree with the presumption of "requiring to participate.....in a public meeting."
The key part of this phrase is "public". The first amendmentment protects individual rights of religion without fear of persecution. This means publicly. I understand that one doesn't necessarily want to hear what others may say. But, by definition, it's a public place. This also falls in line with freedom of speech of the first amendment.
Also, you noted a "separation of church of state." Nowhere in the constitution do those words exist.
The first amendment has two statement regarding religion; The right for an individual to practice religion and the restriction of the government to form a national religion.
The two parts were designed to go hand in hand. They weren't designed to restrict individual. They were designed to restrict government.
One "practicing religion in a public place" is exactly how the two parts of the first amendment work together. Anyone and everyone can say something in regards to religion in public without fear of persecution. Also, the government can't make any religion standard by law.
I believe the very act of how "separation of church and state" is commonly referenced violates the first amendment of the constitution. Instead of restricting the government, it restricts individuals from being open in a public places like a school or city hall meeting.
| |
My answer WAS "NO" to Q#5 and Q#1.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender. | |
|
| | LeonPotter
Posts:598
| | 12/05/2007 9:29 AM |
Alert | The was an earlier post asking if one would be okay with a Muslim praying to Allah at a town Hall meeting. Personally, I would. I have two reasons why. Number one: the person is protected under the first amendment of our U.S. Constitution. That is the person's right to do so.
Reason #2: I happen to be Christian. I believe the Muslims are praying to the same God. If only by a different name. I believe most Muslims are loving and caring people. I believe the Quran teaches that. My faith says that I cannot judge others. If I believe God is in everyone then I must accept them for who they are.
Muslims do not recognize Jesus as Lord and savior, but they do respect Him as a Prophet. The Quran has many Biblical similarities in it. They believe they are decendents of Abraham. In fact, this is exactly what the Christians and Jews believe.
I find religion to be a fascinating topic. Unfortunately, it can take a turn for the worst sometimes.
Fortunately, I was at a speech given by a Mam.(I hope that is correct spelling. It's similar to a pastor, priest or rabbi.) I was taking a course on "World Religions" and he was invited to speak. It truly opened my eyes of how similar Islam is with Christianity. He made Quran references that one could find similar to Christian references in the Bible.
I understand Muslim or Islam is seen in a negative light given current and historical events.But, The same could be said about any religion. I don't believe it's the religion, but the people who use it to justify violent acts that serve own interests. | |
My answer WAS "NO" to Q#5 and Q#1.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender. | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 12/05/2007 9:44 AM |
Alert | missPolitik, I am a sustaining member. Have been for years.
Leon, I hear what you're saying. If an individual acting entirely on his own, or even a group of individuals were to pray at a city council meeting, provided it wasn't a delay or disruption to the business at hand, then I am okay with that. When it is an agenda item sponsored and promoted by the government agency, then I have an objection.
| |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | papa smurf
Posts:14
| | 12/05/2007 9:51 AM |
Alert | I am curious of those of you who are so offended by this, how many go to the meetings. I know! You don't have to go to have a voice or an opinion. This has been beated into the ground.
The prayer is before the meeting called.
There is no where that says that the prayer has to be by any certain faith.
I am sure that if anyone wanted to pray the council would let them.
I don't see how you think it is pompous of our leaders and just for show when they are not the one's praying.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just started going to the meetings but I bow my head and listen to the words. It is different verbage than my prayers but the hope for safety and wisdom for our city is the same sentement. I was told that at one time an athiest got an attorneyon the subject. I am guessing that since nothing came from that the council and city is not doing anything illegal. IMHO | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:406
| | 12/05/2007 1:37 PM |
Alert | Posted By LeonPotter on 12/05/2007 9:29 AM
The was an earlier post asking if one would be okay with a Muslim praying to Allah at a town Hall meeting. Personally, I would. I have two reasons why. Number one: the person is protected under the first amendment of our U.S. Constitution. That is the person's right to do so.
Reason #2: I happen to be Christian. I believe the Muslims are praying to the same God. If only by a different name. I believe most Muslims are loving and caring people. I believe the Quran teaches that. My faith says that I cannot judge others. If I believe God is in everyone then I must accept them for who they are.
Muslims do not recognize Jesus as Lord and savior, but they do respect Him as a Prophet. The Quran has many Biblical similarities in it. They believe they are decendents of Abraham. In fact, this is exactly what the Christians and Jews believe.
I find religion to be a fascinating topic. Unfortunately, it can take a turn for the worst sometimes.
Fortunately, I was at a speech given by a Mam.(I hope that is correct spelling. It's similar to a pastor, priest or rabbi.) I was taking a course on "World Religions" and he was invited to speak. It truly opened my eyes of how similar Islam is with Christianity. He made Quran references that one could find similar to Christian references in the Bible.
I understand Muslim or Islam is seen in a negative light given current and historical events.But, The same could be said about any religion. I don't believe it's the religion, but the people who use it to justify violent acts that serve own interests.
That posting with the Islamic example was from me. I (EMPHATICALLY) wasn't using it to intend anything negative against Islam (as I stated at the bottom of the post itself--I don't want to put down anyone's particular religion), just as an example--albeit maybe a poor one if there are really a lot of common beliefs between Islamic and Christian religions, as you're saying there are.
The general, broad question I was trying to put forth is: if during a city meeting to discuss city business, an elected official there to lead the discussion asked everyone in the room to stand and join in a prayer that was very specifically oriented towards a particular religion, and one that was not consistent with your own religious beliefs, would you be ok with doing that? I'm guessing you wouldn't, as one of the reasons you said you'd be ok with the Muslim prayer is because it's NOT contrary to your own religion--but maybe I'm putting words into your mouth.
Also, to clarify and bring up a very important distinction, one that I feel is being overlooked by you and others, is that there is just a world of difference between an individual simply saying his/her own prayer in public (in which I'm not asked to do anything at all but be ok with the fact that they're praying, which I am), and an elected public representative in the role of presiding over a public meeting instructing everyone at that meeting to join him in a prayer. That puts a person in the minority/other religion in a bit of an awkward situation (i.e., sticking out like a sore thumb by not joining everyone else, or conforming to the specifically stated expectation that I will stand and join the crowd in a prayer to that particular religion). To me, it's an apples and oranges comparison. In the first example, a person is excercising a right AS AN INDIVIDUAL to say his own prayer in public, and not imposing his own religious beliefs on me or infringing on my own freedom of religion in any way. This is simply an individual excercising his constitutional right to pray in public, which I wholly agree with. In the council meetings however, everyone, no matter what their religion, is being asked and expected to join the prayer. I can't think of anything in the constitution defending that. In fact it is imposing on MY OWN freedom of religion in that an elected public official acting in very much in that role during a public meeting is instructing everyone to rise and join in the denomination-specific prayer. Can't you see the difference? | | | |
|
| | egoettl
Posts:28
| | 12/05/2007 1:47 PM |
Alert | | Are we talking about "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion"? I believe my constitution protects my God given rights of the former. I also "claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may." | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:406
| | 12/05/2007 1:56 PM |
Alert | Posted By egoettl on 12/05/2007 1:47 PM
Are we talking about "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion"? I believe my constitution protects my God given rights of the former. I also "claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."
Yes, but not to instruct and expect others of all religions to stand and join in prayer for a particular religion while acting as a public official directing the actions as others in a public role. See my last e-mail just before yours (I think we were posting at the same time). If you simply want to say your own prayer in a public place (but not expect or demand me to join in that particular prayer of your denomination, which may be different from my own religion), I'm in complete agreement that you have the constitutional right to do so and it's nobody's business to prevent you from saying your prayer.
Just don't expect or demand me to join in a prayer that may be different from my own religion--that's the part I have a problem with. The mayor asks (and expects) everyone to stand and join along, and the prayer being said is specific to a particular denomination. That's the part I have a problem with. So to clarify, I'm not for taking away people's rights to pray, I just don't want anyone EXPECTING ME to join in a prayer of a different religion in a public meeting that is intended to represent the interests of everyone from all religions and/or non-religions who may live in the town. Pray, but don't require me to stand and join, as my religion may be different from the one you're very specifically referencing in your prayer.
Or, as Jason stated, have a minute of silence where everyone can pray for wisdom to whatever their religion is or not pray if they do not wish to. | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:3313
| | 12/05/2007 1:57 PM |
Alert | | By principle alone, ALL monotheist religions worship the same one God. | |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2562
| | 12/05/2007 2:16 PM |
Alert | Once it is allowed for government to allow the promotion of one particular religion over another, it paves the road for the establishment of an official state religion, which is unconstitutional. The practice of prayer at city council meetings has been explored by the Supreme Court in addition to state Superior Courts.
In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989) 492 U.S. 573, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled "Whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean..., it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions)."
In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) 465 U.S. 668, 687) the High Court ruled that the government "may not take a position on questions of religious belief or make adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community."
In Marsh v. Chambers, supra, 463 U.S. 783, the Supreme Court wrote that invocations "must not be exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." In Marsh, the court recognized that "not even the 'unique' history of legislative prayer can justify contemporary legislative prayers that have the effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief."
In Rubin v. City of Burbank, the Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court decision that the inclusion of "sectarian prayer" in city council meetings violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, and it enjoined the City from allowing sectarian prayer at city council meetings. The court also ordered the City to "advise anyone conducting a prayer as part of the City Council meeting that sectarian prayers are not permitted."
The court in Rubin v. Burbank determined: "The reference to "Jesus Christ" in the invocation violated the Establishment Clause. By directing the prayer to "Our Father in Heaven...in the name of Jesus Christ" the invocation conveyed the message that the City Council was a Christian body, and from this it could be inferred that the council was advancing a religious belief. … We interpret Marsh to mean that any legislative prayer that proselytizes or advances one religious belief or faith, or disparages any other, violates the Establishment Clause." | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|