TH3
-
Posts
3,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TH3
-
-
Municipalities, States and the federal government have all allowed prayers before convening for centuries. The two ladies were trying to get the prayers banned. The SCOTUS said no to the banning. How is this decision going to now cause problems?
Does anyone here actually READ and UNDERSTAND these decisions? Yes, prayer has been allowed in public government meetings. The content of these prayers - though - has been limited to general - and one could say - nondenominational language.
What the two women were saying as that what was happening in Greece went beyond this boundary. I can see their point. They are lesbian and the Christians have been against their being in many ways - and now they are opening a government meeting in a "Christian" manner.
You - and Scotus - have chosen not to see their point - or shrug it off as tough beans - but I do think they have a point.
As well - you - and Scotus - have chosen to view these prayers as not "proselytizing". That is your choice and Scotus has determined as such.
I disagree. When I am subject to these prayers - it comes across as "proselytizing" (yes I know wtf it means). Likewise - when I see these prayers or convocations in a government meeting - it does - to me - come across as government participation.
I know you and Scotus disagree.
What this decision has done has removed the "general" or "nondenominational" boundary to these prayers - and additionally - it has taken away any legislative ability to place a boundary on this language. So your local and state govt's don't get to decide what is appropriate for their constituents.
I don't go to too many govt meetings - but - as I predicted - this opened the door for more depth and flavor to these prayers - but it has also opened the door for highly motivated religious people like our Pabstbetarien to see this as a battleground and a contest to win.
Awesome - the local government meeting is now another place for religious viewpoints to be contested.
Pretty simple just to keep them separate - but as you and Scotus see it no harm no foul.
-
I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means.
I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means.
Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing?
-
it took me a minute to realize you were referring to your previous post while quoting me speaking to another one.
that's thoughtful of you to mitigate your choice of words in order to keep from offending me, and I appreciate that. I generally don't take offense at things like that, though. speaking strictly to my own personal preferences & sensibilities, I'm not a very religious person at all. what beliefs I have, I generally keep to myself and just try to get along.
with regard to the guy who converted from being a Pabstfestidian (I wonder....was he ever 'Pabstized'?) to being a satanist, he's obviously just trying to prove a point in the most annoying and/or offensive way possible. he's not hurting anyone though, and he is well within his right to do what he's doing. he's going to piss a lot of people off, but it makes him happy, then I see no problem with it. I do think he could make his point in a manner that was less offensive, and I think he's being a jerk about the whole thing, but like the old saying goes: if someone wants to make an ass of himself, get out of the way and let him do it.
That is kind of how I see anyone who feels the need to proselytize in a government meeting - whether it be Christians, Muslims, Satanists or Pabstists....and now thanks to SCOTUS....game on....and I mean game
-
Remember the guy that was just traded for, and his attitude problems, his partying, and his being stabbed... And he has never had a 1,000 yard season.
Led all rookie receivers in the NFL in yardage (964)...and had 996 in another year.....
-
The writing is on the wall for the Buffalo Bills. Everything links together: Goddell comments on RWS, the trade up for Watkins, the trade of SJ.
The franchise is broke.
They didn't want to pay SJ's salary. They know they're going to stink next year, so they don't want to pay a first-round pick next year. They're cutting expenses like crazy to either make the team more attractive to a buyer, or to move the team to LA. It's just obvious.
Are you serious?
-
you told about your belief that the supreme court was enabling the establishment of a state religion. I had to go back and read the thread again, but if you posted any warnings about various crazies demanding to express their religious beliefs at public events, then please forgive that I missed them.
and I'm curious....what exactly is it that makes you assume that any of us that support freedom of religious expression in public aren't satanists ourselves?
"Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling."
First page.....champ
-
Great guy who appreciated the fact the Bills gave him a shot and he represented Buffalo proudly.
Having said that, he just did not seem to fit well with Marrone. I do not dislike Stevie. I do however think Stevie was being asked to be something he was not, a number one, clutch receiver. Winners win. Meaning they make the catch against the Steelers and Jets. They do not fumble against the Falcons,they make crucial late 4th quarter 3rd down conversion catches against the Pats,. Did Stevie lose those games? No. But when he could have helped win them he did not step up.
-
The Bills regime ONCE AGAIN PROVE they cannot build a ROSTER. They are like a fat 7th grade kid playing madden.
Whaaa....we are in the second year of Whaley.......looks good to me
-
Greggo Marrone's thin skin just cost us our first round pick next year and $3.5M in cap space this year. Better draft well Whaley.....there will be no signing of vet guards or journeyman QB's.
I hope Sammy doesn't wear a funny t-shirt or something. It might be too much for Greggo Marrone's ego to handle.
Fixed the facts - logic still needs fixing
Fixed again
-
Would you ratherhave:
Watkins Perennial Pro Bowl Game Changer
Late 4th round pick in 2015
OR
Stevie Johnson Perennial let down artist
9th overall pick this year
Top 12 pick in 2015
Early 4th round pick in 2015
Name one GM in the NFL who would make this trade??? (other than Whaley obviously)
Fixed
-
Don't want to say I told you so but.....
"Chaz Stevens, who forced Florida Governor Rick Scott to allow him to display an eight-foot Festivus pole made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans next to Deerfield Beach’s nativity scene has written to the city asking that he be allowed to open a meeting with a prayer to his god.
Stevens has converted to Satanism just in time to take advantage of the ruling. Stevens says that his change of faith is just as legitimate as Christianity. “At Christmas, I was a Pabstfestidian. It’s legitimate — it’s based in as much reality as the Catholics. But unlike Catholic priests, we don’t rape little boys.”
However, he has converted to Satanism because, “Satan is a cool dude. Think of all the people he’s in charge of. Do you want to be stuck listening to harp music in the afterlife? Hell no. I want to drink beer and hang with hookers.”
In a letter written to Deerfield Beach, he formally made his request:
Dear City of Deerfield Beach;
With the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing “prayer before Commission meetings” and seeking the rights granted to others, I hereby am requesting I be allowed to open a Commission meeting praying for my God, my divine spirit, my Dude in Charge.
Be advised, I am a Satanist.
Let me know when this is good for you.
Besties
Chaz Stevens, Calling in from Ring 6 of Dante’s Inferno”
I told you so......let the circus begin!
-
I kind of like the view "At some point you have to start believing in yourself".
With this move - the Bills have done that - which might well be part of the package.......
-
Obama would say that's a good thing.
Comments like that say exactly what your agenda is....
Seriously....Polls? Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything?
-
If the Constitution is a living document, intended to be fluid in it's interpretation by the Court, then it's not "agree to disagree". The Court has spoken, and it says that "you're wrong". You've made it the final arbitor, and it has rendered judgement.
What are you talking about...."Living Document" - its a document that gets interpreted ALL the time - call it what you want.
In this particular case - Scotus has overturned about 60 years of what is an acceptable "prayer" or "invocation" content in a public government hearing...it was all settled and seemed to work quite well....now they have not only opened the door to a much more LIBERAL interpretation of what is acceptable....they have also removed all checks and balances to what is OK......
-
TTYT.
You are good at arguing...but not seeing others points of view.
What is so hard about understanding that if I - or anyone else goes to government meeting - and that meeting is opened with a very specific religious point of view - that I cannot feel that government is establishing that particular religion?
How can it not be taken any other way? If one had never been to this country and showed up and went to a government hearing that opened with - pick you religion - a very specific prayer - whelp - without anyone prejudicing your opinion - you would think "Whelp - I guess that - pick your religion - is part of this government"
I agree that every court is different. My view is that this current court is a very activist - not conservative - and has a very specific agenda.
-
Well TYTT,
I just don't agree with you or your bullet points or the Scotus decision. I think specific religious acts in a government setting goes past "freedom of speech" and goes into government sanctioning of a religion.
I think the decision - and if you read it - are - well bad policy. The Scotus decision bars anyone (gov't entities like state legislatures) from further deciding what is allowed and what is not in these "prayer moments". They took the governor off - I think that is going to lead to trouble.
As I said on the page before - The Roberts court is extremely aggressive in their decisions - overturning decades of previous policy that has worked well and as well legislation strongly approved in a bipartisan manner.
What is "allowed" in terms of prayer in public government settings has been clearly defined for the better part of a century - and people have seemed to live with it without Issue - now it is open game - all rules are out. Hugely popular - and bipartisan legislation regarding voting and minorities - overturned, Overwhelming bipartisan legislation regarding election funding - overturned.
Heck - I even think the basis for the ACA being upheld was suspect.
All of these decisions overturning decades of accepted policies, previous decisions, or bipartison and popular legilsation overturned 5-4.
I guess they know best.....
I will leave you with this: "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by others.....but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father in secret, and your father who sees you in secret shall reward you.
-
It's elected government people asking for it, not some outside group attempting to impose their will on people. The only ones attempting to impose their will on people were the two women brought in from NOW and some athiest group.
Whaa? It is now a government sanctioned religious opening
Which passage is that?
Matthew 28:19-20
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching themto observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
And that would be exactly - when placed in a government setting - exactly using the government setting to sanction their religious viewpoints....
Let me try another way....If I went to that meeting and felt that I was in the middle of a governmen being a proponent of a religion.....Isn't that enough? Don't we err on the side of caution? You know...be .....conservative in these areas?
-
I agree a case could be made. Indeed it has.
I simply don't see how that case could withstand Constitutional rigor, which is hasn't.
I'm interested in how you'd attempt to reconcile the negative application of "shall not establish", with positive intervention in municipal affairs, leading with: "shall not practice".
One man's positive influence is another's not.....I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable.....this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion
Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors....
Discretion is the better part of valor
-
Geez, I can't help but feel the Roberts court gets just about everything exactly wrong.....and more worrisome - looks like the operate with no rudder or logic in the 5 "conservative" majority.
Think of the ramifications of this ruling.....it is really a liberalization of specific religions expressing their specific views in a goverment setting. Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling.
Further to the liberal and activist rulings.....the overturning of the election funding laws. These laws were near unaminous in their bipartison support....but this court saw to be actvist, overturn them from the bench and actually liberalize how our elections are funded. Does anyone here feel more freedom in their speech lately. Or do you feel like legislation is even more easily purchased?
Maybe a victory for the religious right.....but for separating goverment condoned religon....how can it be?
Forgive typos ipad
-
If you understand anything about politics you should understand why it makes a difference who drafts a bill and who gets to vote yes or no on it. The fact that this bill was strategically originated in the body less accountable to the people and only made it through by the slimmest of margins and only on account of political bribery that would be punishable by imprisonment if done in the public sector is what demonstrates clearly that this is the type of maneuvering that provision was meant to prevent.
Plus, of all the schools of thought regarding constitutional interpretation, I've yet to hear of one that calls for the blatant disregard of express, unambiguous provisions on the grounds that it really doesn't seem that important.
OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose?
Any talks of major expansion of medicare/medicaid were rebuffed almost immediately, from what I remember.
Single payer = Government insurance
Universal healthcare = Government hospitals/doctors
At least as far as I understand.
Single payer only means that there is single source of payment - It would mean something like a VAT that the government collects but the options on how that gets spent could be numerous. It could be a voucher given to people for them to spend on how they see fit - or spend in a defined manner - or it could be spent by the govt on insurance.
Universal is more like Medicaire for everyone.
-
No.
Where do they sell those glasses?
-
Because being a victim is noble and heroic. Therefore, being a bigger victim is more noble and more heroic.
Therefore, it's better to respond with a Molotov cocktail, since it make you more heroic.
Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim?
-
Any of you regular posters black?
-
If a black player is caught on tape telling his daughter he doesn't want her posing on instagrams with white boys and bringing them to games I wonder how quickly he'll receive his lifetime ban.
If white guys had been in slavery for 250 years and the next 100 in government legislated racism and apartheid.......he might just get banned
That's the discussion isn't it? SCOTUS has recently decided that it is not in the government's realm to respond to racism - but clearly it pervades in society and other private entities have taken upon themselves to respond.
Maybe not so easy to move on from 350 years of government legislated racism....
SC upholds Evil Christian Prayer at Rochester Town Hall meetings
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Not sure why you feel the need to get personal and attempt to read into my psyche....I have attempted to lay out the facts of the case, the history involved, the Scotus decision, and what it means moving forward. Additionally, I am hardly the only one who forsaw hte coming of the Pabstbetariens.
Instead of responding to this structure you decide to try to assasinate my character.....