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.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Atheists Lose...Again.

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

To all too many, non Catholic/Christian may as well be atheists. This ruling leaves me a bit uncomfortable, it seems to be all too ideologically driven for my tastes.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




Do you consider attempts and lawsuits designed to restrict an individuals freedom to pray as ideologically driven?




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickynews
That is what this case and ruling is all about


There's really no use in trying to discuss this with you. There's NO WAY anyone can stop you from praying. That is NOT what the case is about. You clearly haven't done any research or looking into it... Useless...

On the subject, the first amendment is about freedom of religion. If Christianity is going to be represented at a state gathering, other religions should be, as well.

a reply to: seagull

The ruling doesn't bother me too much, aside from an uncomfortable feeling. Religion IS just a tradition and if they want to go through their rituals, it's not a big deal. I wouldn't participate, of course.

I do understand the women's complaint. This country is going to hell in a handbasket, in the name of "religion and freedom". People who claim to be religious are usually the farthest thing from it.


edit on 5/5/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickynews
Do you consider attempts and lawsuits designed to restrict an individuals freedom to pray as ideologically driven?


No one is trying to restrict your freedom to pray. You can pray 24/7 if you want and there's not a thing anyone can do about it. This is not about an INDIVIDUAL'S freedom to pray.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: beezzer
I see the same thing, Beez. And I am afraid.

Of the three branches of US government, currently we have the Executive ruling by fiat with Executive Orders and imposed regulation.

Next we have a Supreme Court sharply divided and ruling by fiat as every decision is made precisely along ideological lines.

Finally we have the Legislative Branch which has been rendered irrelevant due to being so completely divided that it is nearly inactive (certainly it is ineffectual).

The only "governing" that is happening is that which the people have no say (and very little influence) in.

This is very, very NOT GOOD!


Agreed. And as a religious person, I should be thrilled with the decision.

But I'm worried now.

Because there will come a day where ideologically, the court will be different.

And as of right now, I can't trust them to do their jobs appropriately.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492

My tone in the Op is admittedly on the aggressive side, with the only intention of facilitating discussion from all points of view.

It was JFK who actually inspired me when he said the purpose of the media is to "inform, arouse, reflect and even sometimes anger" public opinion. I guess I took him at his word on that one.



edit on 5-5-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)


+9 more 
posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What this ruling means is that you are forced to participate in a religious ceremony, even though it's a PUBLIC meeting that has nothing to do with religion.

This is very bad, in my opinion.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What this ruling means is that you are forced to participate in a religious ceremony, even though it's a PUBLIC meeting that has nothing to do with religion.

This is very bad, in my opinion.


You don't have to participate, you simply have to wait while others participate.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This is an outrageous ruling and they are saying Christian tongue in cheek, its a preparation for when shariah is brought out in our face and we have to stop it all.

Schools and Government need to be secular.

In other words its not a lawful decision its rogue and criminal, theocracy.
edit on 5-5-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Nowhere in the ruling does it require Anybody to pray ...or otherwise participate ...in anything they do not want to participate in, whatsoever.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: rickynews

Two women brought this suit. One was atheist but the other was Jewish. Their complaint was not that there was a prayer, but that it was always a Christian prayer.

Nowhere in either story do they talk about atheists... You've got your story all screwed up.


But nice attempt at a slam on atheists.


Yes, but it seems inclusivity wasn't enough for them...


The town government counters that after concerns from the two women and others, it sought diverse voices, including a Wiccan priestess, to offer invocations. Officials say they do not review the content of the remarks, nor censor any language.
"The faith of the prayer giver does not matter at all," said John Auberger, Greece's board supervisor, who began the practice shortly after taking office. "We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings."



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I disagree.

Let's be honest here. The courts have ruled that Christian prayer is part of what America is and therefore it's ok to open public meeting with a prayer.

The government is respecting Christianity over all other. That is muy malo!



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

That is a great point. These militant Christian types would be upset if the same thing that happened in Europe happened here. Imagine how mad they'd be if that prayer was based in a religion that wasn't their own.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: rickynews

It's not about participation. It's about the US government respecting one religion over another by considering it a tradition or ceremonial.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickynews
a reply to: jimmyx

That's all good, except when atheists try to Restrict my, and others Freedom to pray, or Freedom to practice my and others Religion of choice. That is what this case and ruling is all about -Thanks be to God.



"this case"...is about prayers before government council meetings....government for, and by all the people. the court said, that it respects heritage and traditions.....so did slavery before the 1860's



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: jessejamesxx
a reply to: Unity_99

That is a great point. These militant Christian types would be upset if the same thing that happened in Europe happened here. Imagine how mad they'd be if that prayer was based in a religion that wasn't their own.


News Flash: America is not Europe, nor even like Europe. Never has been, and never will be. Of this, we all can be thankful.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The fact that this is even an issue, one that went to the SCOTUS, proves that Theists and Atheists are equally childish and can't mind their own business.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: beezzer

I disagree.

Let's be honest here. The courts have ruled that Christian prayer is part of what America is and therefore it's ok to open public meeting with a prayer.

The government is respecting Christianity over all other. That is muy malo!


And the president takes the oath of office with his hand placed on a bible.
We have "In God we trust" on our currency.

I'd be more worried if they took it all away, but that is a personal opinion and you'll have to wait until they load the court with progressives before any of that happens.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: rickynews
a reply to: jimmyx

That's all good, except when atheists try to Restrict my, and others Freedom to pray, or Freedom to practice my and others Religion of choice. That is what this case and ruling is all about -Thanks be to God.



"this case"...is about prayers before government council meetings....government for, and by all the people. the court said, that it respects heritage and traditions.....so did slavery before the 1860's


Attempting to somehow.., or even remotely..., equate prayers before town council meetings with slavery is simply ridiculous.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Edit: read benrl's comment above about inclusive. Not going to edit the rest of my post out, but yes if it's an all comers say what you like prayer fest then it's not so bad ... though I still think it can and will impact people's decisions and opinions. Meh.

Pleased to see this was an unbiased decision:


similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of 'God save the United States and this honorable Court' at the opening of this Court's sessions." - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Bolded the sarcastic part for reference. I suppose I should read all the hearing notes before judging but ...

There are a lot of things that are heritage and tradition that shouldn't necessarily occur, we've banned piles of them in many countries in history. I think there are other potential legitimate defenses, but I'm not sure that's one of them.

They could easily have some minutes silence to contemplate or pray. Please remember, as a Christian you can choose to pray silently. As an atheist, I can't take part in a prayer without compromising my personal principals and values.

I don't like having to say things I don't mean, and I don't like being judged by people for not saying them. During government events I want to be judged on my logic not my faith. Christians judge Atheists negatively on a daily basis ...

How many times are there threads about how atheists can't be moral? How many people are already back slapping themselves in this very thread and preconfirming atheist opinion based on Richard Dawkins or the American atheist society?

I'm not 100% convinced that some of the people posting in this thread would treat an atheist at a council meeting as an equal frankly. Even if you can do this, can your colleagues?

Yes, there are a lot of atheists who assume instant stupidity if you start praying (not close to all), but I'd have the same opinion if they wanted to have a prayer to scientism, Karl Marx, or Michael Jordan before their meetings.

And frankly yes there are atheists who want to stop all prayer, but there are also people who think the world is flat and the Garden of Eden is a place in Missouri.
edit on 5-5-2014 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Taking an oath on the bible is a personal choice. There is no law that says he has to use a Christian bible. And our money does say "in god we trust", but it doesnt say who's god. If it did, then we would have a problem.

But this ruling by the SC is paying favor to one religion over another. So I think there's a big difference.




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join