Is Freedom Of Religion Making Sense Fundamentally?

The supreme court has ruled that prayers during a local government meeting are perfectly valid as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts according to the recent decision.

Source

Source

Source

Source

The main questions here involve the act of praying and whether or not prayer should be considered apart of nation's fabric? Even if it was a common thing many years ago, should it still be or shall we as a nation start tackling contradictory notions such as this?

Another factor to consider is why only the audience of a prayer was used as the main argument and not the act of praying itself? Does not a prayer derived from any religion infer that said religion has been chosen publicly chosen over others?

inb4 religion haters.

the audience matters because if the prayer is being said to an audience, it's a sermon.

In before someone praying offends someone.

Praying shows commitment.

That of itself is offensive to some.

How dare you express your first amendment right. I want you to believe what I believe damn it.

Don't worry.

If Hillary is elected, she promises to take care of you by getting rid of pesky "rights" that stop you from doing what you want. Who needs freedom anymore? They are just a buzzkill for what we all really want: government dependence...

Waiting patiently on Satanic prayers for the lulz.

I'm really not a fan of religion, would prefer no prayer or reference to any god or gods be involved in government function or form.

That said, if they do it quick and get around to actually doing something helpful for their consituents, I don't give a tinker's cuss if they light a candle and ritualistically spill some of their own blood in dedication to Levi the God of Underpayed Janitors.

Stop bickering over petty ***and do what you were elected to do.

for all the public rants about solutions, what they really want is their team to win. there have been some interesting studies showing very similar brain activity to professional sports fanship.

the politicians bicker overpartisan bs because that's what their constituency wants.

So who the hell am I supposed to vote for to actually do something?

I'd run myself but I don't think the public wants an antheist-leaning agnostic with journalism/history degrees, a foul mouth, and mixed bag of liberal and conservative views.

Seems to have worked for Rob Ford.

Then again, you may be exactly what the country needs. And we all know, that the country doesn't want what it needs.

I don't think many do want what the country needs. That's why we (supposedly) elect officials that will work in the best interests of everyone to get what we need but not necassarily what we might want as the two can differ greatly.

Many of those elected officials are too worried about giving people just enough of what they want and as little of what they don't want (but might need) though to get re elected and then continue on like it has been.

I decided this morning we're a bunch of *** in america for not letting Rob Ford come over.

what a bunch of ***.

I fail to see where I included "crack-smoking crackpot" in my self-description.

Ford should probably be imprisoned for life based solely on his hockey opinions expressed alongside his brother, let alone the substance stuff.

How is it he hasn't been removed from office? You Canadians are far too nice.

Edit: Also, don't forget he's partially just the Canadian Marion Barry.

Only reason I can even think of that he wasn't removed from office, and slapped with fines, defamation lawsuits, and prison time, was because of the (at the time 65% voter support, which is now at 20% and dropping) his larger than life humble beginnings. People were far too eager to forgive his transgressions because of the things he did in the past, which got him elected in the first place. That, and no one really wanted to step into the quagmire that is currently Toronto politics.

Also, I don't see it as being "nice" so much as it is being stupid. I'd use the word "HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE" in the proper context, but I wouldn't want to offend someone who would only be offended on someone else's behalf, by thinking I meant "medically mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE". Because I'm a nice Canadian.

I was merely playing off of the "polite" Canadian stereotype, yes. ^^

It is important that they didn't discuss what type of prayer. It can be a win for religion or it can be a win for just one religion. It does not make sense to allow prayer in the name of Freedom of Speech if it only covers catholic prayer and not prayer to another god. If people are allowed to pray, but not obviously, than it is a win for Christians since Muslim prayer involves getting on the ground, prostrating yourself, and pointing a particular direction. Christians can pray by closing their eyes and leaning their heads forward and can commune through meditation that way.

It is important that government decisions are made secularly. Also, the fabric of America and all free nations is Self-Determination, not communion with god, regardless of what the money says, or anybody.

So can we discuss that prayer is basically a puerile attempt to engage in business negotiations with thunderclaps and tidal waves? How about, instead of jumping on the tired, old argument about where religion may and may not be appropriately demonstrated, we instead point out that having a nice chat with a clearly impotent and possibly imaginary deity is completely counter-productive to efficient operations of day-to-day reality?

Or, hell, since this is just a gimmick to allow Christians to be obnoxious in town council meetings (and thereby waste yet more time when some atheist starts rattling his saber again), let's ask Jesus's opinion... oh, right, he's the one who said that God and the state are separate. And that public prayer is what hypocrites and non-believers do.

So does this mean I get to open local government business with a prayer to Altana or Baal? Or this purely Christian because if some Muslims showed up everyone would get all asshurt?

This has nothing to do with what is efficient and has everything to do with what is constitutionally legal. Your interpretation of God as being impotent and prayer being a waste of time has no relevance to the ruling. That being said, if the persons holding the prayer are doing it because they actually seek divine guidance, that does not make them hypocrites and isn't what Jesus was referring to. If they're doing it to be seen as religious for the sake of their reputation, then yes, they're hypocrites. Still, I would rather see a short time (1-2 minutes probably) allotted for personal prayer before a government meeting instead of a public, single-denomination one. There'd be less risk of discrimination, and atheists can take the time to play on their smartphones or whatever. It's not like 1-2 minutes of prayer time would be the biggest waste of time in a government meeting anyway.

This is the Supreme Court; this is more or less exactly what they're appointed to do.

This is basically a license to passively proselytize. Why exactly does one need to pray before government business out of a whole day? If this was about actually communing with *insert divine entity here* this could be done outside of valuable public service time at the leisure of an individual.

An appeal to tradition is the best we get.

But it contributes nothing. I refer to the addressed deities as impotent because there is literally no evidence that even the tiniest hint of guidance has ever been involved.

But if you really want a minute or two of quiet time to set the mood, why not use a secular invocation? Something along the lines of "We gather here in this basement room of city hall to discuss the future of our municipality in hopes of improving the lives of our citizens and ourselves by determining how much money to allocate to repainting the traffic lines on the major thoroughfares downtown."

...actually, no, that sounds every bit as blindingly HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as pleading with lightning bolts. "Order, please, the meeting is about to begin." That's the level of reverence necessary for governance.

Matthhew 6:6, by the way, for referencing the place of public prayer. Prayer in the sense of what Christ meant is a private and brief conversation with God. An intimate group, like a family or a handful of apostles, could pray together, but a public governmental meeting is emphatically not the place.

God please help me refrain from defenestrating the people I'm going to argue with today.

You must have attended far more interesting city council meetings than I have. Not even Congress really gets properly shouty. Certainly nothing like how UK's Parliament or certain similar bodies in southeast Asia have a reputation for being.

It contributes nothing? Maybe, but you can't prove that. Inb4 burden of proof lies on the yadda yadda yadda. Not my point. If it puts people in a better mood and mindset for the meeting, I don't care what they do and it's potentially worth the time. Get Jojo the tap-dancing clown in there instead if it helps. Matthew 6:6 in context I won't argue further, because even if I disagree with your interpretation, I still agree that public prayer isn't necessarily the best course of action here.

Edit: Again, whether or not it's worth the "waste of time" has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it, which is pretty much what the Supreme Court is there to decide.

Except there are a lot of people like me (and do recall that I actually have a religion, but it isn't Christianity) who get more annoyed whenever our lives are interrupted for someone to yammer at some imaginary beard-in-the-sky instead of getting on with the business at hand. By contrast, much though Christians might like it, inappropriate as it may be, they aren't going to notice its lack. The better course of action is to skip any such frippery.

Your scathing comentary on government aside; no. It isn't.

They are appointed to interpret the Constitution and how it applies (or doesn't) to current issues.

Even at my most cynnical I wouldn't refer to the constitution as "petty ***".

Nobody is throwing shoes. =(