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.

 

Prayer Currently Deemed Illegal in BOE Meetings

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Re Mamabeth:

You wrote:

["Right now it is a felony to pray at a board meeting.
Soon,you won't be allowed to pray anywhere,unless
you point to mecca!Then you would be allowed to pray."]

I've met my share of professing muslims, and they have been very discreet and un-demonstrative about their praying, not in any way being missionary about it, even when the social context made it possible.

You also wrote:

["I only read part of your post...
I don't know what country you are from.
In the U.S., we have separation of church
and state.We also have a nasty group
called the ACLU which loves filing law suits
against religion in public places.
I will look for the links against christian prayer."]

I'm european, and we have a similar secularism here. Actually I believe it's 'worse' seen from your perspective, but I have yet to hear local christian complaints about 'persecution' (though they are eager to claim for privileges).




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Do you ever read my posts?


Actually that would be why I am responding to them. I am starting to wonder if you read your posts.


I answered this several times already.


When?

Where?

I do not see the answer to that question offered up once. Do you not understand what I am actually asking? Did you read my question?


1 second should not be spent on prayer at the meeting, nor should hours.

My suggestion would be one minute or two minutes or so for everyone there to either pray or contemplate on the upcoming meeting. Not one minute per each religion..lol


Are you suggesting a 2 minute period of silence or people leading the meeting in prayer as per the subject of the article and OP?


You obviosuly have no experience running meetings or you would surely know the benefits of extremely focused thought.


What kind of thing is that to say? It really makes no sense. I have never run a meeting about anything and thought to myself "We would be extremely focused if you all took time to talk to your god before we got onto non-religious business."

I would really like to know how differnt people praying to different gods at a school board meeting helps focus on school board issues.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The whole problem seems to center around a specific group's right to introduce elements completely irrelevant into the business at hand. And I find the 'justifications' for it rather peculiar.

It's like if I insisted on playing mouth-organ before I undertake any activity, because it relaxes me so wonderfully. That I'm the worst mouth-organ player in Europe, and that the musically sensitive would suffer immensely is besides the point. Some people want religion, I want my mouth-organ, others may want, nay require, a tea-ceremony, group-hug or whatever.

It has already been suggested several times, but.......: "Prayer for interested 19:55. BOE meeting 20:00"

Everybody's happy, nobody's time wasted (according to taste), and no accusations of revival-meeting agendas.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Here's just one time I responed earlier in this thread - you actually have to re-read a few posts to find the other ones:

"I do not agree that there really is such a thing as a secular meeting as you are implying.

But I'll save that discussin for another time.

Here's my answer: It is not important to lead a prayer at any meeting.

However, everyone and anyone should have say a second or more to pray or not pray, fair enough?

For fairness sake, I don't think a minute or two would be out of the question either.

For those who want to pray, they can pray to Whatever God they like. And for those who have non-belief beliefs, they can meditate on nothingness or the upcoming meeting or whatever atheists do.

Fair enough? "


Do you see where it is written in plain English that I state that believers and believers in nothingness- ie - athiests - can each take a minute or two before the meeting to pray or focus on the upcoming meeting?

So please quit saying that I'm only suggesting prayer be done.

If you have to ask why you would want to take a moment to focus on the upcoming meeting than maybe you can take a few business courses to find out why.

Your tone is extremely negative and confrontational. And yet you accused others of being this way.

Relax. Smile. Enjoy this free exchange of ideas.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
If you have to ask why you would want to take a moment to focus on the upcoming meeting than maybe you can take a few business courses to find out why.

Your tone is extremely negative and confrontational. And yet you accused others of being this way.

Relax. Smile. Enjoy this free exchange of ideas.


I think that is the problem right there. You keep responding to me with things I have not ever said. That tends to make me a little irritated. Add the rudeness factor and your attempt to hijack the conversation from the OP and then change the premise, it all comes off as less than nice.

I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU SUGGEST ABOVE. It is the suggestion that I need to take a class to learn why I would feel something not in line with what I actually said. I said it made no sense to spend time focusing on your god before a meeting unless your meeting is about your god. I do not know why you are having such trouble reading my posts but it is not helping your end of the discussion. If you want to pray, pray before the meeting. Fair?
edit on 16-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by suigeneris
 


Misrepresentation.

You can go and pray as much as you want. The BOE is just not allowed to perform a prayer as an initiation to the meeting.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


You do have a good point about the bible saying to basically pray in secret. Perhaps though at this meeting it offended some that didn't understand those that were praying's intentions. Perception is key here, I feel and I'd like to think that meaningful prayer should not be a felony charge, or any kind of charge at all based on people's beliefs. I remember going out to dinner with the pastor and his family and we would join hands and pray and thank the Lord for the food we were about to recieve and it was sort of embarrasing to be sure but nobody acted offended over this. I wouldn't be offended over a prayer at a meeting of any sort. Thank you for this thread and for shedding light on what is happening.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I think it should be a crime for religion to not be allowed everywhere.

Let us take a look at the ORIGINAL source of the LAW shall we?

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.

I think that "free exercise thereof" is pretty straight forward.
Now, I know all the arguments. Separation of Church and State. Well than, let us separate the STATE from anything having to do with private matters.

See, here is the deal, the STATE slithers into everything. That is what totalitarian STATES do. Schools should have NOTHING to do with the Federal government. NOTHING. If people would like, I could post components from different Republic Constitutions that show that Religion in school is FINE and LAWFUL. But of course the STATE always has to stick their noses in where it does NOT belong.

Just my viewpoint on all the blathering going on in regards to off topic discussion.

On topic, like my initial point, I think those pushing the elimination of Religion in everyday life, like schools and other Republic affairs, ought to be arrested and charged with infringing on the rights of others, specifically the first amendment.

That was the main reason the founders of this nation, flipped the bird to King George III. How do you folks like being compared to Georgie III? He was a cheeky fella just like you peeps.
edit on 16-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: fix quotation location



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by suigeneris
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Why would an atheist, who believes in nothing, but dirt and rot after we are dead, care if I pray to my invisible, unreal, God? Please tell me the problem atheists have with God? Why would you tell your side of the story, yet never let anyone else tell their side?


Probably because it has nothing to do with the 'Board of Education', education in general, and doesn't add to anything being discussed about the well-being of the students knowledge and education. Why do people need to pray at these meetings? What's the point? There is no point, faith has nothing to do with education. It is the mark of ignorance. Pray at church, pray somewhere else. If there is ever a time to be professional, it would be during the welfare of a children's education.

Though, it shouldn't be illegal, let alone a felony. But why did it have to get to this point in the first place? Because "faithers" do not tolerate other people, and do not lend any consideration to others when it comes to their "religion".

Tell me, what does prayer do for the education of our young generations?


edit on 16-1-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I kind of agree with what you say but I should point out that many people don’t follow a religion or they don’t follow your religion, so forcing people to participate in a prayer session they have no interest in is also a vary intrusive form of oppression.

To illustrate:
If before a Board of Education meeting you where forced to wait 5 minutes while some people made a big show of rubbing their lucky rabbits foot, you might start to wonder:
Why these people could not have given their lucky rabbits foot a good rub before the meeting
Or
Why they could not sit quietly rubbing their lucky rabbits foot and there by not bother anybody else with the activity
Or
Why the lucky rabbits foot rubbing fraternity feel like they have to include everybody in their activity
Or
You might wonder why the lucky rabbits foot rubbing people think their activities are more important than your time



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Hey, I can use the same reasoning an earlier posters used. They do not have to go if they do not like it.

Of course I am kidding.


What I find ridiculous, sessions of Congress are opened with a prayer. So what, are they above the "supposed" LAW or is their two types of LAW?

I have gone over this argument many times. The more that government encroaches on things, the more they force these things, that are not supposed to happen in government. Except of course corruption, cronyism and things like that are encouraged.


What one member brought up earlier about Muslims, they pray five times a day mandatory or something. Are you going to force them to leave where ever they are at?

Anyway, I have nothing against atheists, but boy do they push their religion.

edit on 16-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




I think it should be a crime for religion to not be allowed everywhere.


So you don't have any respect for the Constitution then?



I think that "free exercise thereof" is pretty straight forward.


So is the non-establishment clause, but you don't seem to understand it. No government body can make any rule establishing an official religious practice. Period. End of story.

Where did the idea come from that this article describes banned prayer as a felony crime?



(This is directed at readers in general, I am not trying to imply that Salty came up with the idea.)

I have read that article half a dozen times (and for those who are having trouble reading it, sinnthia's version includes a scroll bar on the bottom of the image, try using that) and can't find any reference to felony, misdemeanor or anything else. The closest I can come to is an implication that there is a law suit pending and in the mean time "official opening prayers" are not allowed. It doesn't say anything about it being a felony, a misdemeanor, advisory, joke, red herring, satire, false alarm, or trial balloon. One person claims Official Opening Prayers are not allowed, and describes no punishment for violation of the ban.

This is all much ballyhoo about nothing at all.


Now back to Salty's remarks...



On topic, like my initial point, I think those pushing the elimination of Religion in everyday life, like schools and other Republic affairs, ought to be arrested and charged with infringing on the rights of others, specifically the first amendment.


Again, you have no respect for the Constitution do you?



That was the main reason the founders of this nation, flipped the bird to King George III.


You think the founders put the anti-Establishment clause into the Constitution because they really wanted exactly the opposite of what the anti-Establishment clause says? And that King George III wanted to eliminate the established church and remove that church's influence from everyday lives of the American Colonies? Really?

You have really got yourself so tied up into knots that you don't know whether you are coming or going. Incredible.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Where in the Constitution does it give the right for the STATE to take over the schools?

Answer that one and then get back to me.

edit to add-You and the STATE have created a strawman argument. You created this strawman by placing the STATE where it never belonged in the first place. Like all STATE thought, it has to be involved in everything. This way it has it's tentacles everywhere. With this component of the first amendment, "Your separation clause" then infers that no religion can exist because the STATE is there.

A created strawman to push the elimination of religion.

Kinda devious huh? Fine, you do not want religion in STATE schools, than allow the private schools to get the SAME FUNDS as the STATE schools.

See, the STATE cannot and will not do this because within one school year, those STATE schools would be half empty. Within 5 years they would be empty.

Go play your strawman with someone else. Like I said, I have been down this debate a hundred times. The opposition cannot debate this component.
edit on 16-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 




I think what the OP is trying to get at is that whether you are atheist or theist, you should be able to pray at a BOE meeting. If one should pray though, they are to be arrested for violating a law. This is not seperation of church and state, but the persecution of anyone deciding to pray before a meeting.


The quoted article describes NO SUCH THING. There is no mention of criminal offense let alone felony. It just isn't there. I can't even say you are reading something into it that isn't there, because it is obvious that the article has not been read at all.

The quoted article is not discussing personal private prayer, it is discussing OFFICIAL OPENING PRAYERS at official government business meetings. Discussion whether you can have a silent prayer for a minute, or a couple of seconds, or what-ever doesn't matter; that isn't what the article is discussing.

The quoted article is describing one person's statement that there is a ban on such prayers while a challenging law suit is settled. There is no mention of sanctions for violation of the ban, there is not even any evidence that such a ban is in place other than that one person's statement.

There is no date on the article, it could be 10 years old. There is no indication what paper it came from in order to research further context. There is no indication which Board of Education was experiencing the claimed hardship to research further solutions to their problem.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




Where in the Constitution does it give the right for the STATE to take over the schools? Answer that one and then get back to me.


How does the State "take over" something that it established? If I build a grocery store to serve the community are you going to question my "take over" of my own grocery store when I decide that my employees should not drink alcohol on the job?

Your question makes no sense at all.

Edit to add: I'm building a strawman? Don't be ridiculous, your "State takeover of Schools" is the strawman here and I cannot figure out for the life of me what it has to do with this thread, your previous posts, or my remarks.


edit on 16/1/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Wow, when did the Department of Education begin? Any idea? When I say STATE, I am referring to the federal government. When I say Republic, I am referring to the 50 Individual Republics.

I notice you and a couple others really have this holier than thou attitude, an almost elitist mentality where you speak down to people with disdain. Let me tell you, I do not look down on you, but I do feel disdain.

The STATE took over the direction of the school curriculum and direction back about the 70's. Before than it was always controlled by the individual Republics. These schools were ran by the Republics and their individual Constitutions were the laws of the day.

If you did not know, the US Constitution mandates that all individual states have to be set up as Republics. They can have individual Constitutions that can vary as the individual Republics see fit, as long as no tenets are broken of the US Constitution.

So what do we have, the STATE mandating things to the Republics, where it has NO AUTHORITY. See the Republics were supposed to be independent of the STATE. This way all kinds of varying ideas and thought could be explored. But the STATE does not like this so they begin to mandate that everyone is to be the same. Kinda like our schools. Tell me, how is that working out for our children? What, we are the last in almost all categories compared to the top countries.

Do you see any relevance there? You know, the STATE mandating all these blanket things to all the REPUBLICS.

Anyway, since you are one of them type, I am not going to discuss things with you any longer. You have this weird way of just irking me. Sometimes you are rational, but sometimes..................

If you could not understand what I was saying about public control of the schools and the separation clause you brought up, I guess that attitude of yours, should change. It was obvious to everyone else I have brought this argument forth to. So run along and jump into an echo chamber.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by suigeneris
 


You really need to ask?

It is because the world is full of hate.. and alot of that hate stems from religion

they are passing laws because they are scared one religous nut is going to take offence to another religious nut and do something nutty

keep youre prayers to yourself at home / church and everyone lives
edit on 16-1-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Calm down prayer warrior, we can talk this out...


Prayer is a universal concept, not Christan. Thus, when you pray in an open diverse group, please do not have it a purely Christan prayer.

Why? Because were all trying to push out Christan prayers. Not just kidding. But an example of how you may be thinking.

When the bible refers to the discrimination of Christians, its not really a thing thats constantly in peoples minds while it happens. More of a thing we look back and see once it's surpassed. What you purpose as evidence of this time, is yet a small fragment of millions of other examples in the past....oh 10 000 years.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Are you familiar with this?

Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful
Seneca

You might ponder on this in regards to your
“sessions of Congress are opened with a prayer”

Many people see religion as a form of tyranny; I’m not talking about spirituality or searching for some kind of truth

When people are forced to participate in some kind of religious activity they have no interest in then what else is it but tyranny?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join