It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The last time I checked, separation of church and state was for equal protection from the undue influence of the other. What many of you are touting is freedom of religion so you obviously do not want this to be a Christian nation, right? So, do you want your Christianity Republican, Democrat, or Fake Doctor Rand Paul flavored?
Why would anyone want to make praying on government property a priority anyway? You are still free to pray. You even have buildings dedicated to just that? The only good to come from trying to jam religion into politics is the Bristol Palin Abstinence Only Teaching Czar.
I guess I just do not understand the concept here.
I see no one being prevented from praying anywhere. What I see are people getting upset and using prayer to fight for some right that dedication to the deity in said prayers actually precludes them from exercising. I guess I am still missing something.
Are you all sure this is not just an excuse to angrily protest anything seen by this government as an excuse to angrily protest or is there a need to gather and pray in the SC building?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are now the second member to claim you have checked on this separation of church and state assertion. Why don't you show me where in the Constitution a separation of church and state has been mandated. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing one religion over another, it did not in any way grant the government authority to diminish the right to worship.
Ok, so you missed my point entirely.
You have to say no to everyone, no matter if they are praying quietly, or if they are screaming, if you allow even one group to worship on government property and exclude just one other group, you are saying the government endorses a particular sect.
It's just being fair to everyone.
Don't mix politics and religion.
Yes freedom of religion is a great thing, but when the government endorses one religion over others, it's a dangerous mix.
There are thousands of places to pray, hell, you can pray in a public park, you can pray just about everywhere, but when you start praying on the property of the SC and they don't do anything about it, then it's unfair to the next group that tries to pray there, or scream foul garbage, or sacrifice a goat.
You can not sacrifice a goat in a public park anymore than you could sacrifice a goat on the steps of The Supreme Court. The sacrificing of a goat is a health issue, and injury to such an act in public places is demonstrable. Saying a prayer is not injurious, or at the very least, not demonstrably so.
You are telling me that you understand Jesus wanted usto pray in private or at least not make it a show. So, you want to defy Jesus to make the point that you have the legal right to defy Jesus?
Please, I have enough bibles I have little need for esoteric poetry from a crazy book. Thanks just the same but since I can not respond to the bible, I get tired of having it used in place of original thoughts here.
You cannot use Jesus to say he commanded people pray when they prayed as an excuse while discounting the fact that he never detailed they must stop moving or gather in a group to do so.
Were these people charged with a crime or asked to move along? I ask because public places have fire codes and I have looked. There is no provision that states prayer supersedes fire codes. I hope you can see where I might be going with that.
Show me where anyone was charged with the crime of prayer, please.
Handling venomous snakes is also a health issue but that is allowed in certain religious ceremonies. So should these snake handling evangelists be allowed to bring them to the SC building?
To be fair to everyone, you just have to say no to religious practices on government grounds. Otherwise it shows an unfair bias to other religions.
...the supreme court building is NOT public property... its federal government property... like the white house, pentagon, military bases, etc - you can NOT visit just any ol' time the mood hits you - and - there has always been rules of conduct that apply to visitors... those rules have been added to and are more strictly enforced since 09.11.01...
Originally posted by prionace glauca
That cop needs to walk to the National Archives and read the US Constitution. And after he has read the Constitution, he should then fired for failing to uphold the Constitution.
But that is the basis of your argument JPZ, you are saying that one group can practice their religious rights on government grounds, but not another.
You are showing that you want to limit freedoms from some religious groups and give others free license.
Maybe I missed something... does this bar other sects from doing the same?
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You can not sacrifice a goat in a public park anymore than you could sacrifice a goat on the steps of The Supreme Court. The sacrificing of a goat is a health issue, and injury to such an act in public places is demonstrable. Saying a prayer is not injurious, or at the very least, not demonstrably so.
Handling venomous snakes is also a health issue but that is allowed in certain religious ceremonies. So should these snake handling evangelists be allowed to bring them to the SC building?
To be fair to everyone, you just have to say no to religious practices on government grounds. Otherwise it shows an unfair bias to other religions.
Originally posted by LiquidMirage
Originally posted by prionace glauca
That cop needs to walk to the National Archives and read the US Constitution. And after he has read the Constitution, he should then fired for failing to uphold the Constitution.
Why should he be fired for "failing to uphold the Constitution?" He fits in quite well in the District of Corruption.
I think the confusion is that you attest that group prayer somehow does no harm to anyone. Even if there is no evidence of a physical wound, harm can be done.
What if they were praying for the death of all people of a certain race? While no physical wound exists, an emotional wound could be present in an idle passer by of that race.
While it's certainly the right of a person to worship as they see fit, there is a time and a place for everything, and having a prayer rally at the SC in my opinion is inappropriate. Just as it's inappropriate to hold court in a church.