AZ Repulicans freak out when atheist gets to speak opening prayer

originally posted by: Metallicus

I find it offensive when a man believes HE is greater than God. I don't want to be around or involve myself with that kind of egotistical, arrogance.

God who?

I am not comparing myself to anyone.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

That 'separation' works like this as per the first amendment.

Amendment I 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

www.law.cornell.edu...

, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It that part religious BIGOTS seem to have a problem with aka 'atheist's'

This isn't a first amendment issue.

The issue here is clear, and is a founding principle of our nation. That the United States is not a theocracy and shall not legislate according to religious beliefs.

No one has a problem with religion at all, Neo. You're jumping the gun. What most do not want, is for the Bible to be brought up within legislative halls. Worship is for personal growth, while representatives are elected to represent a wide range of people, which also include a wide range of beliefs.

Would you be ok with legislators quoting the Quran and legislating according to Sharia law?
Its no different.

i fully agree he should have been able to say a prayer. It seems like what he was interested in was taking a jab at faith in general though. Huge wasted opportunity meant to cause strife and division.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
i fully agree he should have been able to say a prayer. It seems like what he was interested in was taking a jab at faith in general though. Huge wasted opportunity meant to cause strife and division.

He gave a non-religious invocation. There should not be prayer at all.

But, apparently its OK for the religious to attack Mendez.

Quintana said that response from Mendez's fellow lawmakers suggests the whole thing may have been a "bit of a setup."

"Montenegro had his minister standing by to provide an invocation within his criteria," he said. "Then he systematically had several of Mendez's fellow legislators effectively criticize him on the floor for speaking his truth."

What happened to all that right-wing stuff about "just looking for things to be offended by?"

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
What happened to all that right-wing stuff about "just looking for things to be offended by?"

Being atheist, I know this kind of thing happens all the time.

Even when an atheist does finally get a turn - - - there's a "stand-by-believer" who jumps in at the end to make sure the God part gets covered.

originally posted by: Annee
He gave a non-religious invocation.

No actually he used it as an opportunity to attack people.

For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth.

That is a direct attack saying the religious people are doing nothing, and only atheists like him actually help people. It's a pretty blatant and disgusting attack, and he completely ruined an opportunity while proving his critics right.

Not to mention it's a proven fact religious people do more than non-religious people to help others. They do not sit around with their hands in the air while atheists run around helping people.

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.
philanthropy.com...

As I said in the beginning I don't care whether his prayer was devoted to God, I criticize him on the content of his message only. Intentionally divisive.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee
He gave a non-religious invocation.

No actually he used it as an opportunity to attack people.

For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth.

That is a direct attack saying the religious people are doing nothing, and only atheists like him actually help people. It's a pretty blatant and disgusting attack, and he completely ruined an opportunity while proving his critics right.

Not to mention it's a proven fact religious people do more than non-religious people to help others. They do not sit around with their hands in the air while atheists run around helping people.

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.
philanthropy.com...

As I said in the beginning I don't care whether his prayer was devoted to God, I criticize him on the content of his message only. Intentionally divisive.

That is your interpretation as a believer.

I don't see it that way at all.

I was raised Christian. I am very aware of their persecution complex. Say ANYTHING and they are offended.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee
He gave a non-religious invocation.

No actually he used it as an opportunity to attack people.

For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth.

That is a direct attack saying the religious people are doing nothing, and only atheists like him actually help people. It's a pretty blatant and disgusting attack, and he completely ruined an opportunity while proving his critics right.

Not to mention it's a proven fact religious people do more than non-religious people to help others. They do not sit around with their hands in the air while atheists run around helping people.

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.
philanthropy.com...

As I said in the beginning I don't care whether his prayer was devoted to God, I criticize him on the content of his message only. Intentionally divisive.

That is your interpretation as a believer.

I don't see it that way at all.

I was raised Christian. I am very aware of their persecution complex. Say ANYTHING and they are offended.

I quoted him. Please give me your interpretation of what he meant by ...

For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Please give me your interpretation of what he meant by ...

Can I? He was saying that a "higher power" has not really done much of anything. Prayers don't do anything, but people do. It matters not whether they are believers. It's actions which count.

While your argument that atheists contribute nothing of import may be specious, it is not really relevant to what he said.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Please give me your interpretation of what he meant by ...

Can I? He was saying that a "higher power" has not really done much of anything. Prayers don't do anything, but people do. It matters not whether they are believers. It's actions which count.

While your argument that atheists contribute nothing of import may be specious, it is not really relevant to what he said.

He said nothing about God, he said while PEOPLE have their hands in the air, there are other people actually doing something. It's quite clear what is being represented. Now assuming what you claim is true, it is STILL an ignorant argument because Christians (nor others with faith) do not wait for God, and they do more to help than atheists do, it's a fact.

Even assuming what you say is true, it's STILL divisive, and it's STILL false. He chose to NOT use an inclusive message, such as saying "no matter what your faith is, or if you have none, let us all work together ...". He chose to be divisive, it was a huge lost opportunity, and it validated exactly what people said he would do if he got the chance.

ETA: And yes, I also expect anyone giving a Christian prayer in this forum to be inclusive, and not talk about how only people with their beliefs have worth. If they got up there and said God let them see only we are the ones helping people I would lambaste them too, they should say God let us all work together.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I know he said nothing about God. Nor did he disparage those who believe. Did he say that believers do nothing? Nope.

Now assuming what you claim is true, it is STILL an ignorant argument because Christians (nor others with faith) do not wait for God, and they do more to help than atheists do, it's a fact.

All Christians? Even the money grubbing televangelists? The lying "healers?" Or are you just going to fall back on the the claim that "they are not true Christians." You know, just because someone does not proclaim themselves an atheist does not mean they aren't. Just because there actually may be more Christians than atheists does not mean that atheists are contribute less.

He chose to be divisive, it was a huge lost opportunity, and it validated exactly what people said he would do if he got the chance.

Tell me, how inclusive of atheists is your run of the mill Christian? Who was it who said that an atheist should never be President?

Somebody posted what the "prayer'' was and to me it reads like an invocation to the Mother Earth "hands to the Earth'' and then at the end of it, ''so shall it be''.
Is this guy an atheist or a witch?/pagan or whatnot... isn't Arizona known for being really New Age?
As far as including God into politics, I'm pretty sure there is a passage in the Bible that tells us to obey the lawmakers. I'll have to look into it.
Thank you for the thought provoking OP!

originally posted by: Phage

I know he said nothing about God. Nor did he disparage those who believe. Did he say that believers do nothing? Nope.

No, they do something, they sit there with their hands in the air while atheists do the actual work he said. It's not doing nothing, he just said what they do is pointless, and it's disparaging.

All Christians? Even the money grubbing, televangelists? Or are you just going to fall back on the the claim that "they are not true Christians." You know, just because someone does not proclaim themselves an atheist does not mean they are. Just because there actually may be more Christians than atheists does not mean that atheists are contribute less. What about Buddhists? Jews? They are not Christians, do they not contribute?

Money grubbing televangelists are included, and as a group, including those I consider fake Christians, they do far more on average than atheists. I don't know why you brought up other faiths when I specifically stated Christians AND other faiths. I would think Jews and Buddhists are included in that right?

Tell me, how inclusive of atheists is your run of the mill Christian?

Guess what, I will criticize them too. What I won't do is say "I am christian and so are they so I will support it no matter what". Atheists should be pissed that an atheist was finally free to get up and shine, and instead he took a huge dump and proved the critics right by being divisive and insulting. There are plenty of proclaimed Christians who say things that make me want to rip my hair out, I won't accept this crap from anyone, no matter what their faith (or lack of faith) is.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, they do something, they sit there with their hands in the air while atheists do the actual work he said.

Please provide a quote in context to support your claim, because I do not see it.

skepticexaminer.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, they do something, they sit there with their hands in the air while atheists do the actual work he said.

Please provide a quote in context to support your claim, because I do not see it.

I have numerous times.

For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth.

While Christians look to God to do the work and have their hands in the air, atheists assist directly. He is quite clearly saying Christians go an indirect route by asking God and then waiting for God to work, and atheists take direct action.

It's very clear, it's his quote. It doesn't require any gymnastics, it's what he said. It's divisive, and it's WRONG since people with faith (including Christians) are much MORE likely to give DIRECT help with their "hands to the earth".

Your own source agrees with me.

Rep. Medez made a very clear distinction between the values of a Humansist and those of many of his religions counterparts

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He is quite clearly saying Christians go an indirect route by asking God and then waiting for God to work, and atheists take direct action.

No. He said that some do nothing but pray, while others actually do something. He said that the latter is preferable.


You may want to look into that persecution complex, even though you are not in a minority it is not becoming.

originally posted by: peppycat
Arizona known for being really New Age?

There are a couple areas of Arizona that are New Age or Liberal.

It is mostly conservative.

originally posted by: Phage
No. He said that some do nothing but pray, while others actually do something. He said that the latter is preferable.

Yes, and it's clear who does something, non religious people. Otherwise whether you lift your hands to God or do not is of no matter. You can lift your hands to God and then put them to work, or not lift them and not put them to work. His words make no sense unless he meant what I said he meant, and guess what, YOUR SOURCE said I am right.

You may want to look into that persecution complex, even though you are not in a minority it is not becoming.

Just because you want one to exist doesn't make it so. Sentences have meaning, your desire for him to have said something other than what he said is unbecoming.

From YOUR source ...

Rep. Medez made a very clear distinction between the values of a Humansist and those of many of his religions counterparts

Humanist = hands to Earth doing work, assisting directly.
Religious = hands in the air doing nothing of value, assisting indirectly.

His words are divisive and false. I already gave an example of an inclusive speech I would have been fine with. Him being an atheist has nothing to do with it.

How is this even OK? ". . . house rules requiring that prayers invoke a higher power."

How is this even allowed in our government?