Atheist prayers can be barred by House chaplain, appeals court says

So the way you figure it, if you can't prove something, you can't know it's true. Right?

 

What specifically do you disagree with?


""heed the counsel of the governed, to seek the wisdom of all citizens and to honor the enlightened wisdom and the profound courage" of the founders of American government..."
That is not opinion that is wise counsel else a preacher urging legislators to look to a god for guidance is just opinion too.

 

It is just a opinion

 

So when the preacher says "you should look to God for guidence" that is not a prayer but an opinion?
What is the distinction your are trying to make?

 

What would an Atheist prayer sound like?

I ask because I am Atheist and don't know any or even what they would be like. Is it hoping for something or daydreaming?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

It is an opinion if there us a god and it is an opinion if those gentlemen were wise and enlightened.

 

Sorry for late answer, I've been on vacation.

I don't know that I would say it is suppression of religion from society, just from the bits of society that are meant to represent all Americans, in this case, the state. As far as I know, the ten commandments are removed from things like City Halls and public schools. You are free to do what you will yourself, you're even free to proselytise (i.e. you don't have to keep it to yourself), you're just not allowed to use publicly funded material or land to do so, or present it in such a way that it indicates that public functions are in particular ways representing those who believe certain things differently than others.

If having the ten commandments on a City Hall is an example of free exercise, would it be different from having let's say some aspect of Sharia law presented in the same way (from a free exercise point of view)? Or some other religion.

All the points you mention here apply to me too, and I am still against having the ten commandments on City Hall. The establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with the things you mention, and thus I don't have any legal problems with it (nor do the Supreme Court to the best of my knowledge).

In my opinion, religion/Christianity is relatively easy to lose. Linking morality to religion is just tying it to a sinking ship. (I mean that on an individual level of course. I don't think religion/Christianity is going away in any complete sense, but certainly it goes away in individual people). In Sweden, we "teach" morality with respect to humanity. That doesn't go away when people invariably start questioning the Bible.

Several of your examples were outside of government, or parallel to it. Presidents are still religious, and the Supreme Court haven't suppressed or tried to suppress that. I disagree that school prayer wasn't a violation of the first amendment, but I'm willing to believe that they didn't notice that it was until irreligion and non-Abrahamic religions became more common.

 

Your point being what exactly? You don't believe that legislators should go by the wisdom and guidance the founding fathers wrote in our founding documents, as recorded in the debates and as written in the federalist papers? You think it just opinion to urge as such or something?

 

Congratulations on finally getting something right, if only by dumb luck.

 

Why does he say amen at the end then?

 

Yes, by all means.
It was written by folks two hundred years ago, who held slaves, bought humans like animals and thought nothing about it.
Those were your so called founding fathers.
Slavers
You take their wise council, enlightened?

I don't.

Th document, for its time is rather special, but it is rather outdated, today.

The term founding fathers, has a religious touch, don't you think so.

 

I have a solution the Temple of Satan (or some other name) was just deemed by the IRS a religion so they could come in and do a prayer with Atheistic elements and could make the demand as a minority religion who never had the chance to do the invocation yet and could go through the courts to make that happen. There you go.

 

So it's all about slavery?

 

Doesn't matter, obviously. The sentence you quoted is not a prayer.

 

No one is telling those or religious faith to keep it to themselves, they can talk all they want about it and put up signs about it and monuments to it on THEIR PROPERTY with THEIR DIME. I stand for their right to do so. What;s wrong with that? Securlism simply means government shall be indifferent to matters of religious faith and it will give no respect or sanction to establishments religion.

And I support and encourage you to do so in your homes and churches and if you are out at a restaurant or sitting in a park even. But they have no right to impose that at a public gathering and demand we shutup and give them time for their religious ceremony.

It's not the Bible that one should fear especially an atheist but what happens when the power of religious faith and the power of government are intertwined. We were founded in part by those fleeing countries where religious establishments had great influence on government and government officials because of the oppression that can bring.

I'm confused, you said you are an atheist, where do you believe your morals come from and do you think there is a difference between Christian morals and Atheist morals? If so what exactly?

The notion that atheist believe religion should be forbidden is a novel invention of this thread.

 

Well yeah if that is what he says before the congress and at the end he says amen why is that not a prayer?

 

no its exactly: 'neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of G/gods that makes one an agnostic.' and no other situation can 'legitimately' be said to be agnostic.

 

Because a religious prayer is a request to God, and that sentence doesn't request anything from anybody. You're welcome.

 

So it's not a prayer unless it is a specific request from God? Since when? And my examople was requesting the guidence of the founding fathers so by that standard it fulfils it.
Are you saying only innvocations that appeal to supernatural beings should be allowed?
What is your or Christian objections to

"Thank you for this opportunity to provide the invocation on behalf of the Central Florida Freethought Community.

Last Thursday was World Humanist Day. The American Humanist Association offers this description of humanism. It "affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity."

As it applies to the city of Sanford, the work you do tonight dovetails with this philosophy. Specifically, to add to the greater good of Sanford.

I have no doubt that is the reason each of you is here, to help improve the lives of the citizens. Indeed, it is the reason for many of the activities that occur in Sanford and the surrounding area.

This meeting and your deliberations will improve the community of Sanford; everything you do in your job as commissioner moves the city toward this goal.

And so, even with all the administrative necessities that come with your job, I encourage you to keep that goal of the greater good in mind, to put aside personal preferences, to evaluate real data, to consider deeply the effects your decisions will have, to judge issues rationally, to debate respectfully, and to decide fairly.

Thank you for your service."
https://www.cflfreethought.org/sanford-fl-2018-jun-25

 

There are Atheist "churches" now, or more accurately, Sunday morning Atheist brunch gatherings. You can go in your pajamas and slippers, just like you can go in pajamas and slippers to some Christian churches and get coffee and beignets. I can't see where either are breaking any laws.

 

Oh my...People of like mind getting coffee together? Whats next, dating or even fornicating?

It's a plot to overthrow religion people....be afraid.

 

Hey,, what a shocker! No different than any other RELIGION!

 

not just.

 

Hope it was a good one.

The problem as I see it is that government is no longer allowing the free exercise of religion, it is deliberately and intentionally favoring irreligion over religion. Children spend 7 hours a day or more in public schools. By excluding God from the public schools, we are inculcating a disbelief in God. Adults are influenced by their public officials and their government. By banishing God and religion from the public square, we are inculcating a disbelief in God. And now we have reached the point where secularism runs full on into the realm of the religious because people are now being forced to violate their beliefs in order to remain at work, or in business, when it comes to homosexuality and sexual sin. It's either abide by the religion of secular humanism or risk being sued, forced out of a job, forced to close the doors of your business, etc. This is not freedom of religion, this is state-sponsored, state-enforced religion.

Some religions are neutral or only moderately bad for society. (Confucianism, for instance, promotes the idea that women are inferior.) Islam is inherently bad for society, since it openly promotes race hatred and murder. Christianity, on the other hand, is good for society, because it promotes the idea of the brotherhood of man and righteous living. So yes, it is very much different from having any other religion being promoted.

Apparently the Supreme Court has a great deal of legal problem with it since it won't allow it to be done. This is what I mean by enforcing secularism at the expense of religion. I am not the least persuaded that having the Ten Commandments displayed in a public place is going to turn even one person from robbing a liquor store or what have you. At the same time, I am persuaded that having the Supreme Court ban the Ten Commandments from the public sphere is going to have a negative effect on public views on religion, God, and morality.

I'd be curious to read something about how you teach morality without God. Where's the motivation to do good? Where's the demotivation to do bad? And while I agree with you that Christianity is easily lost, morality is even easier lost, and without some kind of religious north pole to morality, I think you're trying to use a compass without a needle. Without religion, without God, morality becomes just ethics, or just whatever the local opinion of the day is about what is or is not acceptable. Without religion, without Christianity, it becomes impossible to condemn anything, up to and including genocide. According to Islam, the slaughter of the Christian Armenians was perfectly justified. Are you going to accept that? On what basis do you reject it? Your opinion? What good is your opinion against the opinion of millions of Turks? Do you see why I think (even as an atheist) that Christianity is necessary for morality? In Sweden, there's a resurgence of interest in Norse mythology because Christianity has given way to secularism, but the Muslims represent a threat that cannot be ignored, and secularism has no answer to Islam. It cannot answer Islam because secularism has no moral center. It is first and foremost relativistic. And so it must give way to any religious belief that is stronger than itself.

"People" don't invariably start questioning the Bible, that is reserved for the smart set, IQ>115 or perhaps even higher. The great mass of humanity accept what their elders and betters tell them, so if the top people say the Bible is real, the masses accept it, if the top people say the Bible is just folklore, the masses accept that, too.

Amazing how for 150+ years no one noticed that something that happened every day, across the country, was a violation of the 1st Amendment. What happened was the irreligionists came to power, not that school prayer was ever a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You know what was interesting about Con Law in law school? We never actually read the Constitution. Instead, we read what the Supreme Court's opinion about what the Constitution said was. And I have heard an anecdote that in at least one case, a lower court forbade the defense from reading a portion of the Constitution to the jury because it might "confuse" them. If the Court has become so disconnected from the Constitution in its judgments that people would get confused by the plain language of the document itself, it seriously needs a correction in its course.