SC upholds Evil Christian Prayer at Rochester Town Hall meetings

[Chef Jim]

Much like religious texts, the Constitution, and other governing documents, will always be open to individual interpretation.

 

Personally, I think religion should be set aside when governing, especially in a country as diverse as ours. I think it matches up with the intentions of our founding fathers, I think it's best for ensuring fair treatment of our citizens. I think allowing religion within the confines of governing leads to slippery slopes.

 

That all being said, I'm not so offended about the prayers in the OP, that I'd make a big stink about it. I would likely vote for a measure to remove such prayers if it came up, though.

 

Everyone is arguing the Constitution here. I'll argue against the point in bold above. In these cases religion is set aside when governing. The prayer happens BEFORE the meeting correct?

[Deranged Rhino]

What's the difference between "interpretation" and "judicial activism"? And who makes that distinction?

Fox News.

[Azalin]

If instead the prayers were some bizarre, in-tongue incantation that involved dancing, screaming and an appeal to some monster-god (perhaps pasta in nature), then yeah, I could see alienation being an issue. But I don't think a quick, 20 second Christian prayer, in the spirit of tradition (as Kennedy argued) will throw too many people that far off their game.

 

I would even go so far as to say that pretty much any kind of prayer in a similar setting, Christain, Jewish, Muslim, a moment of silence, etc is perfectly fine with me, and I'm really not much of a religious person at all. it's not a threat, it's not an attempt at indoctrination, and my rights aren't being violated, so I couldn't care less.

 

to me, it's not so much a religious issue as it is a freedom of expression issue.

[Tiberius]

1) I'm not making it about that, the Constitution, it's historical context, and all associated bodies of work written by the founders do.

Further, that fact that all state governments did away with official religions far prior to the adoption of the 14th speaks to the absurdity of your position.

 

 

Yum, they set up a Republic that stated "We the People" It was pretty clear it wasn't going to be a government of Divine Right. Where the hell are you getting that nonsense from? The First Amendment was set up to protect us from the religious crazies that feel everyone needs to adhere to THEIR religion. it was protection from religion itself. And the part about protecting religion was also protection from religion because the religious people went after other religious people.

 

And no, my point is you can have state sanctioned religion and not Divine Right government. So that they got rid of it does not un-prove my point

[Rob's House]

What's the difference between "interpretation" and "judicial activism"? And who makes that distinction?

All 3 branches are expected to make that determination to the best of their ability, and it usually isn't that hard to distinguish. Unfortunately we let 9 unaccountable judges determine (a power the judiciary granted itself, I might add.) what we acknowledge as constitutional regardless of whether it's true.

 

If a clear reading of the constitution doesn't provide the answer, then one must interpret from the framework how best the constitution would apply. For example, one must interpret what is meant by "probable cause" or "unreasonable search and seizure" whereas "must originate in the house" requires no interpretation.

[Tiberius]

I don't understand how anyone can not see the Constitution as a living document. The fact that there are amendments tells me that it wasn't set in stone/perfect when written. But ignoring that, judges have and do interpret the text differently all the time. Why? Because much of the text is very general, possibly written to keep it flexible for changing times.

 

Any society that doesn't have some sort of flexibility in law will crumble quite fast, imo.

 

couldn't have written this any better myself

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't understand how anyone can not see the Constitution as a living document. The fact that there are amendments tells me that it wasn't set in stone/perfect when written. But ignoring that, judges have and do interpret the text differently all the time. Why? Because much of the text is very general, possibly written to keep it flexible for changing times.

Living Document Theory assumes the the document is meant to be changed via interpretation, rather than exclusively through the Amendment process.

 

The text is not written in "general language" as you have noted, but rather is worded very carefully and specifically, written in exact language. The Document, as written, was intended as a cage placed on the Federal Government, very specifically outlining what it was allowed to do, each branch's powers, as enumerated, pertaining only to it's execution of it's narrowly outlined duties.

 

Marbury v Madison was the Great American Tragedy, in which the Court initiated a power-grab, assigning itself more power than intended, coming to heads with the Document's own author.

 

Yum, they set up a Republic that stated "We the People" It was pretty clear it wasn't going to be a government of Divine Right. Where the hell are you getting that nonsense from? The First Amendment was set up to protect us from the religious crazies that feel everyone needs to adhere to THEIR religion. it was protection from religion itself. And the part about protecting religion was also protection from religion because the religious people went after other religious people.

 

And no, my point is you can have state sanctioned religion and not Divine Right government. So that they got rid of it does not un-prove my point

Then why does the Document, in quite litteral terms, say exactly what I say it says, but does not say what you say it says?

 

Why was the coining of the phrase "seperation of church and state" used in reference to a Foriegn King who was the head of his own church?

[Tiberius]

Living Document Theory assumes the the document is meant to be changed via interpretation, rather than exclusively through the Amendment process.

The text is not written in "general language" as you have noted, but rather is worded very carefully and specifically, written in exact language. The Document, as written, was intended as a cage placed on the Federal Government, very specifically outlining what it was allowed to do, each branch's powers, as enumerated, pertaining only to it's execution of it's narrowly outlined duties.

Marbury v Madison was the Great American Tragedy, in which the Court initiated a power-grab, assigning itself more power than intended, coming to heads with the Document's own author.Then why does the Document, in quite litteral terms, say exactly what I say it says, but does not say what you say it says?Why was the coining of the phrase "seperation of church and state" used in reference to a Foriegn King who was the head of his own church?

doesn't Matt how exact it was or was not written, the world of 1789 was gone with the wind soon. We had to adapt. It had to be organic or the nation could not have grown.

 

If you think the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was a power grab, what check should it have to balance out the other two branches? And who would interpret laws if the courts didn't? The executive who has to enforce them?

 

As to Divine Right, if Republican Forms of government had established churches, that proves you wrong. And isn't the Church of England still the Church of England? Yet no Divine Right to rule there anymore

[birdog1960]

I would even go so far as to say that pretty much any kind of prayer in a similar setting, Christain, Jewish, Muslim, a moment of silence, etc is perfectly fine with me, and I'm really not much of a religious person at all. it's not a threat, it's not an attempt at indoctrination, and my rights aren't being violated, so I couldn't care less.

 

to me, it's not so much a religious issue as it is a freedom of expression issue.

how would you feel about druid chants, hari krishna singing, pagan sexual rites or rasta pot smoking to begin a govt meeting? they don't belong as part official gov't activities and neither do more mainstream religious rituals.

[Azalin]

how would you feel about druid chants, hari krishna singing, pagan sexual rites or rasta pot smoking to begin a govt meeting? they don't belong as part official gov't activities and neither do more mainstream religious rituals.

 

well, druids do annoy me, mainly because they're like hippies to the 2nd power, so I likely wouldn't live for very long in a town that had enough of them where the pre-meeting prayers would be druidic chants. hari krishnas make me laugh...I thought it was brilliant in 'Up In Smoke' when sgt Stedenko and the boys tried posing as hari krishnas in order to bust Cheech & Chong. sexual rites would violate public decency laws, and weed is still illegal in most places. but...if I was to take your question seriously, I would reply by saying that if the opening ceremonies bothered me, I'd get up and leave. I'm not so pathetic as to sit around in a cloud of indignity and cry about my rights being violated while other people are exercising theirs.

 

can't you come up with a more realistic scenario?

[DC Tom]

can't you come up with a more realistic scenario?

 

Suggesting opening with a Muslim prayer was just too outlandish...

[3rdnlng]

Suggesting opening with a Muslim prayer was just too outlandish...

 

I'm all for it if you can point to the direction of East.

[TH3]

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!

Edited May 9, 2014 by baskin

[TakeYouToTasker]

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 don't see the harm, but he's certainly being a dickhead, going out of his way to be offensive.

 

I hope he's ready to be a social pariah.

[Azalin]

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!

 

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?

[Tiberius]

I don't see the harm, but he's certainly being a dickhead, going out of his way to be offensive.

 

I hope he's ready to be a social pariah.

Oh please, and how is that any different from what the people who opened this cans of worms did to begin with?

[3rdnlng]

Oh please, and how is that any different from what the people who opened this cans of worms did to begin with?

 

I presume you mean the NOW person and her buddy?

[birdog1960]

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?

i replaced "satanists"" with "rastas" because i didn't want to offend you. but let's just watch and see how compliant the good people of deerfield beach are to this request. Edited May 9, 2014 by birdog1960

[TH3]

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

[Azalin]

i replaced "satanists"" with "rastas" because i didn't want to offend you. but let's just watch and see how compliant the good people of deerfield beach are to this request.

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.