• #4
    Quit fiddle-fartin' around and DO YOUR JOBS.

    There's NO EVIDENCE of any "higher power" being around to help you make decisions. Theist guesswork also doesn't cover the possibility of schmoozing the wrong "deity".
  • #16
    @SgtRock Always picked second (2nd) in dodgeball, dude. I got mad skillz!

    Nice to see you're unable to refute reality.
  • R Load more replies

  • #180
    @Yank no but the practice dose kids don't pray in public school and the government shouldn't pray before hearings not that I'm not religious because I am but there's no room in government for decision making based upon religious beliefs we won't get anything accomplished that way leaves the door open for political battery for other memebers of the house and congress to bicker and fight we have enough of that already
  • #181
    @Yank oh wait a hot sticky minute the law for.seperation that's a federal bill that was past a long time ago
  • #14
    Just more evidence of the war on Christianity in this country, and further proof that Christians are under attack. It's crazy when you think about how this country was founded as a Christian nation, now Christianity is considered the villain. More insane is it when you consider we were a better nation when we held closer to our Christian roots than we are now that we are being led by a Muslim president. I'm truly scared for my children. I hope they will be allowed to practice the Christian faith in the future and raise their children to do the same.
  • #19
    I have no problem with prayer, just do it silently and don't force others to participate. I also fear for the nation as a whole, I just don't force my belief system on others. I know the Jewish manner of prayer along with the muslim manner of prayer differ from the Christian manner of prayer and each should have the right to their own belief system. Exclude none and include all, atheist should not be required to suffer a prayer at all.
  • #58
    I bet when you were a kid and your mother said no the ice cream truck and a neighbor kid got a Popsicle you viewed that as an attack on Christianity huh?
  • #158
    You want to prey, prey. But don't be surprised if not everyone wants to or will. I have no problem with people preying, but if its forced, then fuck that.

    This is a free country. Your mentality is, is that everyone should follow what you do. Pretty much the same thing you say in every post about religion.
  • #7
    It can only be all are allowed, or none.

    Allowing all never happens, and causes too many problems.

    I advocate allowing none.

    If those who believe wish to have a prayer service on their own time to help them do the right thing, OK, but I don't pay them to pray.
  • #15
    I advocate allowing none for the simple reason if you allow one, constutionally, you have to allow all and these asshats in Washington will use the excuse of all owing all prayers from every religion to take up an entire session of congress thereby giving them one more way to do absolutely nothing. Can't you just see it now? The Baptists are pissed because the Methodists prayer didn't say you shouldn't dance so we have to have another prayer. Then the Lutherans get pissed because the Catholics made a reference that could be taken as offensive to breakaway religions so the Lutherans get their prayer. Then the Fly Spaghetti Monster religion gets all bent because there has been no reference in a positive manner to fringe religion so they hold a prayer filibuster. Not to mention the Scientologists bringing in drawings and renderings of the spaceship that is going to take them to Heaven while all the other praying are SOL. But the wiccan prayers should be amusing when you consider nobody has a damn clue what the Krishnas were chanting about.
  • #31
    this is a voluntary before the meeting dude no one is forced to participate. I don't get what the big deal is anyway.
  • #46
    @AndrewMC "It can only be all are allowed, or none."

    Unless you're an atheist...then what?
  • #47
    @Waynestew How do you know it is voluntary? How do we know what kind of pressure is put on people who don't want to participate?

    The prayer takes place on public property, evidently in the meeting room, immediately before the meeting begins.

    In such a situation, these people are not meeting as private citizens, with their own private beliefs. They are meeting as elected officials, whose job it is to represent their constituents, who certainly are not all Christians, and certainly are not all religious. But they want to do their praying in public, in the offices of government, with the public watching, surrounded by the trappings of public authority.

    That is not acceptable to me.

    I want my elected officials to do their jobs, the jobs they were elected to do. I don't elect any official to perform religious duties; those people are rarely elected, if ever.

    If these folks want to meet to pray, they can do it on their own time, not on the public dime.
  • #48
    @Waynestew It's a big deal because of what you see in the picture. All heads bowed. If You're an elected official and you don't bow your head the Christians will have your head in the media within minutes. I bow my head to NO God. NONE and that is my right as an American and I should not have to be chastised, ostracized or demonized because I don't. THAT is why it's a big deal.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    How about this, people stop getting offended over little things. Stoping prayer at government meetings won't sway officials who do or do not act according to a faith
  • #80
    Let those who wish do their praying before official meetings and functions, so that non-Christians in attendance won't be made to feel officially ostracized. After all, ostracism of non-Christians IS the goal of the participating group, whether they admit it or not.
  • #92
    @Denizen_Kate I think your believe that they can think that deeply. As an agnostic I personally don't feel ostracized I just view it as them doing there own thing. The reality of it is barely anyone is truly discriminated against for their religious or lack there of beliefs, save Muslims but hey Islam is in a dangerous part of its history in a few hundred years they will talk of it as they do the crusades now
  • #95
    @Hoosierdaddy - Christian fundamentalists in this country would like nothing better than to turn us into a theocracy. Court cases like this are the best way to fend that off. This is religious "dick waving" just like the couple of states who've decided that creationism should be taught as a science alongside evolution.
  • #166
    @Denizen_Kate I'm not certain I would go so far as to believe that they wish to ostracize non-Christians, though you may be right.

    I'm certain that many people who do this believe that it helps them do their jobs better. Whether it does or not is a separate question.

    But the problem IMO is that they have forgotten how it looks to the entire public when they perform such public and high profile acts while carrying out their jobs.

    They forget that much of politics is theater, and everything they do will be scrutinized.
  • #5
    The individual religious freedoms of the politicians are protected by their right to pray in their offices, their churches and their homes. It is not a "right" to force one religion's prayers on everyone else. NO to prayer in government.
  • #9
    @jessejaymes As I stated, if they all want to pray. It doesn't mention anything about freedom of religion only in private. You sacrifice one freedom and the bloodsucking politicians take them all.
  • #11
    @jessejaymes They are not forcing you to pray. their prayer before their meeting is just reaffirming their belief in wisdom bestowed upon them because of own faith. You have every right to stand there and not pray with them.
  • #18
    @jmiller94 see my post below. You have to let one you have to let all. Constitution says no one state sponsored religion.
  • #20
    @SgtRock or pray to whatever you choose to. The government needs to get out of the business of what individuals can't do. They need to focus on the document that outlines for the government the very few things they can do and drop everything else. The world is an imperfect place and the government can't fix that. People will be offended every day, and the government can't fix that. It offends me to see someone walking around in public with their pants hovering an inch above their knees and their hands on their penis, but the government can't fix that. That's life. People are different and believe in and value different things. Vote for someone that most closely mirrors your values and beliefs. Don't allow the government to abuse it's power by dictating individual rights.
  • R Load more replies

  • #163
    Freedom of relgion includes freedom from religion...if I was ignostic, would I feel warm and fuzzy that my representatives are opening meetings to discuss my rights in the community with prayer?
  • #121
    I would normally answer this yes if all religions get equal access, but I'm going no from now on because Christians in this country have proven time and time again they don't know how to play fair.
  • #115
    Christian Prayer in a public meeting is not an establishment of an official government religion. It just recognizes the Christian God and the influence of Christianity in America. Any other view is just plain wrong.
  • #89
    I really like the way the editor of these questions stacks the deck with the choices provided.
    It would not be possible to give "all religions equal time," since there are 100's of religions in the US and 1000's of branches.
    Having said all that, I believe that the lawsuit has absolutely NO merit. The first Amendment is very clear. By using the word "Congress" the First Amendment restricts the federal government from establishing a national religion and restricts the federal government for preventing the free exercise of religious activities. The restriction is solely upon Congress. Congress has not acted to require Christian prayer in Greece, NY; therefore, there is no violation of the First Amendment. Should they so choose, the City of Greece, NY could pass an ordinance requiring prayer at government meetings, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever. The First Amendment makes no restriction on State or Local governments. It's unfortunate that those two women were offended by the prayers. But being offended does not trump other people's right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
    The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the US Constitution. They do, however, appear in the constitution of the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.
  • #119
    All religions are not the same.

    Christianity stands above and beyond all others.

    I'm sorry these women are offended, but it's better these women are offended than offending God by not Praying.

    Keep Praying America for God's guidance and Blessings.
  • #77
    What is the issue. I pray when I get ready, and if I wanted to pray before speaking at a meeting i would.

    What are they gonna do, attack you for praying? Can they take the pressure because if I were praying and was interrupted by some fool telling me to stop, then one of us immediately receives an ass whipping.
  • #44
    WHen it is truly fair and all the religious viewpoints of the community get voiced, and the even give atheists equal time to speak their mind, then it would be ok

    On a practical level however it just seems like a useless waste of time...why bother...why not just get down to business and quit F'ing around wasting everybody's time?
  • #38
    Yes, it damn well is okay. Hasn't changed since this nation began. If the founders didn't have a problem with it, there is your first clue. Your only real clue.
  • #35
    I don't care if politicians want to pray before meetings - as long as they include the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the rotation. :-)
  • #61
    No and HELL NO. Those people from the flying spaghetti monster religion get in the rotation they will hold prayer filibusters since they figure they won't get a second chance after everyone hears the first pray. This is liking asking Donald Trump to be humble.
  • #33
    Who is wasting their money bringing a case like this to the Supreme Court. This is a Christian country, and even though I am not a Christian, I can keep my mouth shut for a few minutes while a prayer is said.
    Talk about intolerance!
  • #123
    I can too, when I go to visit friends or family. And when they come to visit me, they can do without prayer for that short time.

    But what we are talking about here isn't prayer in one's home over a meal, or at a church meeting. We are talking about an official meeting of elected government officials, in a government building, to do government business.

    That is not just some individual wanting to pray. That is government, wanting to pray.

    I think folks lose sight of the difference.
  • #177
    @AndrewMC Not really, what is 'Government' but a group of individuals, in this case , who want to start a meeting with a prayer. I think we have bigger problems to deal with. Bringing this case to a Supreme Court makes those doing it look like a bunch of self-serving, intolerant ninnies!
  • #179

    Well, it takes two sides to get a case to the Supreme Court. I suppose you feel both sides are being self-serving intolerant ninnies?
  • #183
    @puppybrownie Government is not a group of individuals. Government is a system of laws and processes put in place to administer the orderly activities of an organized society. Individuals play a role, but as dictated by the system of government.

    And in our system of government, only a very few positions have a religious element. People like chaplains in the military, for example.

    Therefore it is not necessary for any individual to use religion to do his job if he works within government. In fact, government is supposed to be secular, so if a public official intentionally injects religion into the job, it is improper.

    Hence the SC case.
  • #12
    This has been tradition since I was old enough to remember, now we have to change tradition to fit the needs of others. I'm not a proponent of any public prayers, and not one to down someone else for their exercise of prayer. Just allow all to pray in their own way silently or abstain from prayer if they so desire. Maintain freedom
  • #32
    Freedom is maintained if one wishes to announce that a moment will be taken for silent prayer. That denotes no specific religion and allows for those who think it appropriate to pray before a meeting to do so. But government has an obligation to portray a neutrality concerning religion within government. As a side note I might add that when I was with the Newspaper many years ago and had to attend about 30 meetings a week more than once I did silently pray that the VP would drop dead of a heart attack and we could all ooh and ahh and have a solid week of no meetings before his replacement came in and started blathering in his place.
  • #59
    It has existed since before we were a country and continued after by the likes of George Washington and John Adams (and many more).
  • #6
    ! the gay agenda, I don't really care anymore. The religious zealots are just as bad as the gay zealots (HMM....are they in "bed" together?)
    Both the religious and the gay zealots are like 3 year old children. No matter now many times you say "NO" to them, they just find another way to ask the very same question. Maybe corporate punishment needs to enacted on both groups......give 'em a spanking (both groups would love it) and send 'em to bed without supper!!
  • #10
    @jessejaymes that's what Pink Floyd meant. I always thought they meant something else.....bahahaha
  • #2
    If you listen to President Obama's news conference on the tragedies from the tornadoes in Oklahoma, you will hear him mention prayer a number of times, faith and prayers for rebuilding etc.... I think that should set a precedence for all!!!
  • #78
    Obama's news conferences are not official, formal government functions requiring mandatory attendance by all members of a given body.
  • #118
    Congress Declares Bible “The Word of God”

    Introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 165, with thirty-three co-sponsors, and as House Joint Resolution 487 with 219 co-sponsors, a request was delivered before Congress to honor the Bible as Holy Scripture. The resolution suffered no amendments, no exclusions, no demands that it be stricken of religious references. It became law.

    The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible". The bipartisan document known as Public Law 97-280 was signed on October 4, 1982 by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, President of the Senate - Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond, and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. It reads as follows:

    WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

    WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

    WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;

    WHEREAS many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the Rock on which our Republic rests";

    WHEREAS the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

    WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: NOW, THEREFORE, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

  • R Load more comments...