Separation of Church and State?????

reply to post by Hefficide


In saltheart foamfollower's defense, the article he quoted did say that there wasn't usually a prayer before the meetings when I first read it. It appears to have been corrected this afternoon to include the Facebook comment from the council member.

In light of that comment, this is clearly not an issue.

And sorry to disappoint those who believe the ACLU lives for nothing more than to jump on any Christian who utters the word "God" outside of a church, apparently they have better things to do with their resources.

reply to post by americandingbat


Thank you for that information! The article, as it stands now, gives no indication that it changed in substance so dramatically.

Saltheart Foamfollower: In light of new information I withdraw my previous statement with full apologies to you. I had no way of knowing that the article had been altered by the news service carrying it.

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by Hefficide

 

In saltheart foamfollower's defense, the article he quoted did say that there wasn't usually a prayer before the meetings when I first read it. It appears to have been corrected this afternoon to include the Facebook comment from the council member.

In light of that comment, this is clearly not an issue.

Assuming that is true and the author of the article corrected themselves...why doesn't "saltheart" do the same and correct his OP? "Deny Ignorance"?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Wait a minute, the city council was having Christian prayers all along?

I highly doubt it. The ACLU would have been on them like stink on........

Here is a snippet from the ACLU itself about prayers in city council meetings:

Due to a pivotal United States Supreme Court case in 1983, the constitutionality of legislative prayers, at least for the federal Constitution, has been firmly established. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Court held that a state legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer performed by a state-selected and paid chaplain did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Source

reply to post by Hefficide


There really is no way you could have known about the correction; it would have been nice for the news site to include a note about what they changed when it was such a major, substantive correction.

And I think it would be nice for the OP to edit in a retraction of that claim, but that's up to him.

Also would be nice to change the "ACLU always attacks Christianity" bit, given the fact that the ACLU has often defended Christian speech as well as other speech, for example:

ACLU of Virginia Defends Christian Students' Right to Protest Against ACLU at Public School

Free speech is free speech, whether you like it or not

More here

reply to post by Hefficide


Thank you for retracting your statement.

I do not put in quotes things that are not directly from the article.

SO they changed the original article to what?

I guess for now on I should take a print screen image from the article? This kinda....... happens all the time.

When I change something, I include it at the bottom of the comment, I guess the newspapers out there just change it without any clarification.

Anyway, I would not take anything out on someone here. The majority of folk realize the MSM and their papers modify stuff all the time to match the prevailing information. They usually do not admit mistakes, they usually bury them 50 pages back in retractions several weeks later.

Edit to add-

Notice that I have not edited the original OP and that the disputed component was in an EXTERNAL quotation!

Alright, everyone is giving me the benefit of the doubt that it was the original authors words.

Now, thanks to hefficide, I have another question.

If a legislature is allowed to invoke a prayer since hefficide included the court precedent.

I have a major question. What is the difference between a legislature and say a teacher, principle, supervisor, etc etc etc invoking a prayer?

I am going to say this again, I do not believe that the 1st amendment actually creates the separation of church and state. It disallows ANY legislation to either foment a religion or prevent a religion. That is my opinion of course.

It does follow the language of the first amendment by the way.

reply to post by americandingbat


I can no longer edit the original OP. Unless the mods would allow it.

If they do, I will not retract the original OP, I will state that the author of the original article has changed their article.

I am wondering why they have changed the article? To correct a mistake or to what?

Most of the controversy that is going on between "said" religious groups and special interest groups such as the ACLU are just psyops to incite hate. TPTB want to provoke hate to push their agenda because once people finally snap they can impose emergency powers of the US and its people. The way things are going; there may not even BE a 2012 election. The US will be a dictatorship under to the artificially produced emergency and its results.

Latest news is that the Hartford city council listened to its constituents and decided that there will be NO prayers during its two September meetings. The prayers will be replaced by "moments of silence".

Of course, now the muslims are pissed off.

source

"It’s basically just disrespecting the whole Muslim community by lumping us together with 12 people out of 1.5 billion people around the world," Imam Kashif said, speaking of some of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks.

The reality is that polls taken of muslims world-wide show that there could be over 100 million muslims that agree with the jihadists.

Guess the fatwas will be issued soon, followed by death threats against the city council members. Ah, the religion of peace and tolerance ...

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


You are correct in that separation of Church and State is a myth. It is not now, nor has it ever been a part of the Constitution as you pointed out.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Such a simple statement and so abused by intolerant people.

The courts have been breaking the law for many decades now. The whole idea of separation of Church and State comes from the the courts legislating from the bench which is forbidden in our Constitution.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The entire argument is an extension of bigotry and hate. For instance, does anyone actually beleive that just walking by a plaque with the Ten Commandments on the wall harms them? How exactly? Does any person in their right minds think a Nativity Scene in a town square harms them? How exactly does it hurt them? It does not. Does anyone of a clear mind think that allowing different religions to give a Prayer before a meeting hurts anyone? Only a person not of reasonable sensitivities would think that.

We live in a world of adolescents in adult bodies who have the emotional maturity of a child.

reply to post by centurion1211


Your statement and the Imam's statement are much the same. You exaggerate to justify a negative view of all Muslims, while the Imam downplays the truth to embellish his point of view. Pot meet Kettle.

The "KKK" is a Christian group. I'm a Christian. It would be just as wrong of you to lump me in with the "KKK" as it would be for anyone to view all Muslims as being out to get us, due to the actions of a small percentage of them who are fundamental extremists.

It all goes to show just how far from being an advanced society we still are.

We all know that the Muslim extremists are a very large group, but truthfully factored against the whole, they are but a small minority.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Your statement and the Imam's statement are much the same. You exaggerate to justify a negative view of all Muslims, while the Imam downplays the truth to embellish his point of view. Pot meet Kettle.

Show me where I have "exaggerated".

The "KKK" is a Christian group. I'm a Christian. It would be just as wrong of you to lump me in with the "KKK" as it would be for anyone to view all Muslims as being out to get us, due to the actions of a small percentage of them who are fundamental extremists.

And show me where I said all muslims. I specifically mentioned jihadists. Really lame how many people try to make it sound like all muslims are being criticized, when any are criticized.

It all goes to show just how far from being an advanced society we still are.

No, it just goes to show how much stereotyping and putting words in people's mouths YOU are doing.

We all know that the Muslim extremists are a very large group, but truthfully factored against the whole, they are but a small minority.

Even if jihadists (not all muslims - get it?) are only 1% of the world's 1.5 billion muslims (and polls say the number is far higher), that means there is an "army" of 15 million jihadists in the world who would love to see us dead. Far larger than the armed forces of China, Russia and the U.S. put together.

Appeasers and apologists - who needs 'em ...

I would like to open the comment on this article with the following old saying: What the eyes do not see, the heart can not grieve about. The simple reason why the ACLU did not get involved in stopping the opening prayer at the city council meetings is that no one objected. In most cases, if you look at those that the ACLU persues, is that some one sees something that they object to, do a bit of research, find legal basis about such and then get the ACLU to represent them in court, if it agrees that they are correct. In this aspect this is correct and how most cases where religion is forbidden comes to light.
If they have had prayers going on for the past three years, then there is a good chance that no one has spoken or said that they object to it, thus it was therefore a moot point on the minds of the city council.
While the Freedom of Religion is in the first Admentment of the US Constitution, the seperation of church and state is not. That comes from when Thomas Jefferson was in office as President of the United States of America, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, based out of Ct. In their letter they were asking about the finer points of the law, when it comes to the religious freedom, and Jefferson replied that there had to be a wall of seperation between church and state. Meaning that it was not the role of the United States government to dictate or become the head of a church as was the policy was over in Europe, and the persecutions that were happening over there at that time frame. Jefferson had paid attention during the French Revolution, where during that bloody event, the state tried to erradicate the church through out France, during the Reign of Terror, and where in the history of the world up to that time, it was viewed with the reformation of the church, where many people were killed for believing in the wrong thing, or failing to follow the dictates of the ruler of the country. As happened during the reign of King Henry the VIII, and after that his daughter Mary Tudor, where the people were often put to death for either being Catholic or Protestant, and even during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, where the Roman Catholics were put to death. It was the belief of the founding fathers that such should never happen in the new country and that the State (Government) should never have a hand in the policy of what happens in the Church.
Now that leads up to the event where there is the question of this article. The question should be, did this offend someone who was there, and who may have leaked it to the press? Was this some kind of message to be sent out? The fact that they are halting all prayers, for a few weeks tells me that someone really did complain and such was dismissed. And in order to prevent an expensive law suit, they are not going to hold prayers for a bit. And if it resumes or does not resume after November, then it could be an actual council member or someone associated with the city council member.

Another thread thats trying to create tension between Christians and Muslims.
This is rare and exciting.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Another thread thats trying to create tension between Christians and Muslims.
This is rare and exciting.

And another irrelevant Rodney King style "Why can't we all just get along" thread response that contributes nothing to the discussion.

Many would say that muslims are doing plenty on their own to create tensions with their juvenile mentality hair-trigger violent responses and threats of violence to the slightest "provocations" - both real and imagined.

Again, appeasers and apologists - who needs 'em.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

They dont have to do the same for Islam. They have to do the same for everyone. If the muslims cant pray, the christians cant pray..

However, the question raised by the OP is exactly the reverse of what you just said.

So, if Christians can't pray at a council meeting, neither can muslims.

They can and do. If anyone bothered to read the article they would see that they start all meetings with a prayer. "We start every single council meeting with a prayer. 99% of the prayers are Christian based, and in three years I recall one Rabbi coming through."

Originally posted by centurion1211

The reality is that polls taken of muslims world-wide show that there could be over 100 million muslims that agree with the jihadists.

Guess the fatwas will be issued soon, followed by death threats against the city council members. Ah, the religion of peace and tolerance ...

Please provide a link to your statistic.....Or cease with the bigoted fear mongering.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Again, appeasers and apologists - who needs 'em.

I prefer them to bigots and fear mongerers like yourself. You've earned those labels on this page cent.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state.
Please show me in the Constitution where it states this.

Seperation of church and state is a Liberal/Progressive opinion of what they want and NOT what the Constitution actually says.

The great thing about the Constitution is that it's written so everyday people can understand the meaning. If you actually read it, it states that the Federal Government cannot promote a specific religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state, nothing about not being allowed to pray in schools or in public places and other such nonesense.