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

a reply to: Daedalus

What I dont understand is why ATS lets this blatant trolling by a small handful of people continue....

Hopefully someone puts a stop to it soon.

a reply to: tadaman

no, it shows a desire to have the law followed AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as certain people WISH it was written...

this is off topic..

a reply to: captaintyinknots

after 26 bloody pages, you'd think SOMEONE with access to "the button" would have stumbled upon this thread....

i doubt anyone's really willing to report the thread, because they know if they do, a LOT of their posts are going to get zapped straight to hell...

and if i'm honest, even the people i disagree with in this thread, don't deserve to have their words erased...a lot of work, and thought went into our posts, and we've all made passionate arguments...i'd hate to see all that swept away..

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: captaintyinknots

after 26 bloody pages, you'd think SOMEONE with access to "the button" would have stumbled upon this thread....

i doubt anyone's really willing to report the thread, because they know if they do, a LOT of their posts are going to get zapped straight to hell...

and if i'm honest, even the people i disagree with in this thread, don't deserve to have their words erased...a lot of work, and thought went into our posts, and we've all made passionate arguments...i'd hate to see all that swept away..

Once more I find myself agreeing with you Daedalus. What's happening here?

a reply to: rickynews

i dunno man....you're a bit of an oddity here....

i absolutely HATE your "lefty-liberal" politics, but we seem to agree on certain issues of social justice, and we can have an intelligent conversation about religion without resorting to the usual "you're a godless heathen" crap, that so often happens...

it's somewhat rare that i can be actively fighting someone in another thread, and then agreeing with, and supporting them in another...

it just goes to show, more often than not, people are not absolutes...

a reply to: Daedalus

Considering how this was a supreme court ruling....and we are talking about the constitutionality of the ruling
.......its the first time in pages that we are on topic.

And as far as "as it is written "....you need to understand the schools of thought behind constitutional interpretation.

It's a simplistic and utterly foolish comment to say that the constitution is not open to interpretation.

You need to read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers, a whole slew of constitutional literature and most of US history...you are obviously just saying what you think it is or should be

Too much thought has gone into the subject from intelligent people for lazy pseudo scholars to imply its cut and dry



LOL

Can't say I didn't see this coming. Thoughts?

www.rawstory.com...

"Less than three days after the Supreme Court ruled in Town of Greece v. Galloway that prayers before town meetings did not violate the Constitution’s ban on endorsing religion, a self-styled Satanist in Deerfield Beach, Florida has asked city officials to let him open a meeting with a Satanic prayer."

Now of course this guy is just trying to prove a point, but it's a valid one. This is the type of thing we open ourselves up to with rulings like this. It'll be very interesting to see how people react to this...

a reply to: tadaman

you know, and i'm not too big to admit this, you're right about the topicality of the content of your post.

my apologies.

in any event, i don't think it's narrow-minded to be against interpretation of the constitution, as interpretation has allowed far too many trespasses upon the american people.

the federalist, and anti-federalist papers are good reading materials, and gives one a sense of where these people were coming from, but those papers are not the law of the land, the constitution is...

when you allow someone to look at the constitution, and say "well, i think what they were trying to say is [insert opinion here]", and then allow them to twist the law, based on their opinion, you undermine the integrity of the document, and indeed, the law, and the very CONCEPT of law, as a whole...

when the law becomes so maliable, that one can twist it at will for whatever reason, you no longer have law...you have tyranny.

a reply to: Vdogg

it'll be laughed off, and met with a firm "no" because..well because f**k common sense, that's why...

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews

i dunno man....you're a bit of an oddity here....

i absolutely HATE your "lefty-liberal" politics, but we seem to agree on certain issues of social justice, and we can have an intelligent conversation about religion without resorting to the usual "you're a godless heathen" crap, that so often happens...

it's somewhat rare that i can be actively fighting someone in another thread, and then agreeing with, and supporting them in another...

it just goes to show, more often than not, people are not absolutes...

Not all of us can be so conveniently "labeled", or "put a box" I suppose...The U.S. Supreme Court is setting a definite precedence here though, no?

a reply to: rickynews

indeed, it does set a precedent, and not a good one, in my opinion.

on the one hand, it IS unconstitutional, because the federal government isn't suppose to make any laws with respect to the practice, observance, or choice of religion..which is essentially what they've done...it opens the door for further protected commingling of religion and governmental function...first is prayer before sessions, next, laws, based upon religious preference...of course, the supreme court will most likely strike any such law down, as unconstitutional, as such laws would imply the adoption of an official religion, but then this will appear quite hypocritical, and double-standard-ish..

on the other hand, and i think this is the issue no one's touched upon yet, this is a local matter, and shouldn't have even been touched by the supreme court..

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews

indeed, it does set a precedent, and not a good one, in my opinion.

on the one hand, it IS unconstitutional, because the federal government isn't suppose to make any laws with regard to the practice, observance, or choice of religion..which is what they've done...it opens the door for further protected commingling of religion and governmental function...first is prayer before sessions, next, laws, based upon religious preference...of course, the supreme court will most likely strike any such law down, as unconstitutional, as such laws would imply the adoption of an official religion, but then this will appear quite hypocritical, and double-standard-ish..

on the other hand, and think this is the issue no one's touched upon yet, this is a local matter, and shouldn't have even been touched by the supreme court..

If American Christian elect other American Christians, and before doing the people's business, want to offer a prayer...what is really the objection? Seriously, what harm does it cause anybody?

a reply to: Daedalus

Well, I agree with you. You should know that. I am more of an originalist myself.

BUT we have to make room for all in a sense. Our constitutions own framers were divided on the issue. IMO that makes for healthy progress with little to no stagnation.

Besides societal decay, our legal system is going strong. That says something.

Its a good day when we dont all agree......

a reply to: rickynews

because religion should be a personal thing...it's supposed to be between you, and whatever god you believe in...

broadcasting your beliefs is just a good way to get all the other people in your "club" to side with you, because that's what happens..."oh, he's a good christian, lets support him"

the prayer just says "this is what i believe, and it influences all that i do"...kinda kills the trust a bit..at least for me..

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus

Well, I agree with you. You should know that. I am more of an originalist myself.

BUT we have to make room for all in a sense. Our constitutions own framers were divided on the issue. IMO that makes for healthy progress with little to no stagnation.

Besides societal decay, our legal system is going strong. That says something.

Its a good day when we dont all agree......

True...I don't have a problem if, say in a predominately Jewish town, a Jewish Rabbi wants to say a prayer prior to a town hall meeting. It would not bother me in the least, and I'm actually all for it. There is no reason to fear other people's faith and beliefs. Fear is conquered by Understanding, every time.

a reply to: tadaman

wow, i almost spit up my soda, lol...after our last exchange, i expected something more like "die, heathen!", lol

anyways, i'm not saying no room for all, i'm saying room for all....within the confines of the law. in my mind, the law is the law, it's not maybe the law, or the law if you look at it this way....it's just the law. it says what it says, and that's all that it says ....nothing more, nothing less...i like to keep things like that simple...

i mean, take slavery for example....the founders had a lot of opinion on the issue, and a lot of them believed it was a terrible, and morally reprehensible institution, and they wanted to be true to the spirit of the assertion that "all men are created equal", and they wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution....but had they done that, it would not have been ratified, so they had to compromise on that....as a result, slavery remained a legal institution...

that's an example of the law being the law, no matter how distasteful it is, or how much we'd like it to be something else..

sometimes it is what it is..

a reply to: rickynews

that's the thing though...it's not fear....it's a feeling of impropriety....kinda like wearing a speedo to a school board meeting....it's just not something that belongs in that setting...

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews

that's the thing though...it's not fear....it's a feeling of impropriety....kinda like wearing a speedo to a school board meeting....it's just not something that belongs in that setting...

Come on now, wearing a Speedo to a town board meeting and saying a prayer is a bit over the top in comparison...
even though my Speedo still looks good on me.

a reply to: rickynews

it's not JUST a prayer...it's a representation of religion, and all it stands for...it's a declaration of adherence to religious teachings...it should be nowhere near government functions...pray in church, and in your homes, but not at government functions..

maybe the speedo was a bit much, but it was really the only thing i could think of at the time, that would give the desired representation of "clash"....

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews

it's not JUST a prayer...it's a representation of religion, and all it stands for...it's a declaration of adherence to religious teachings...it should be nowhere near government functions...pray in church, and in your homes, but not at government functions..

maybe the speedo was a bit much, but it was really the only thing i could think of at the time, that would give the desired representation of "clash"....

Yet, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Americans have the freedom to pray in the public square, and are not restricted to homes, or churches. If some misguided Americans have the right to burn an American flag in the public square, then other Americans certainly have the right to pray there.