Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote: Yeah. Even worse are the people who attempt to make that prayer a requirement, and who then pretend their inability to force that prayer on others is oppression.

I couldn't agree more. That crap really gets old.

Good thing you don't see it.

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

Nah, just every other day on Fox.

biccat wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:The clergyman didn't get thrown out. The imbeciles interrupting Congress were. The problem isn't that someone expressed their religious beliefs, it's the fact that they interrupted the person with the floor to shout insults.

I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?

Maybe he was watching this video, instead?

hotsauceman1 wrote:I want to rent a class, get some like minded friends to make a video where pray is allowed in class.

Prayer is allowed in class; organized or institutional prayer in a public school is where things become problematic. If you as an individual want to pray in school you are not barred from doing so.

As the bible said "Make a public spectacle of thyself when praying, lest people not think ye pious enough or lacking in faith, and on the day of a test or big game, double thy proclamations". It is the passage that inspired Tebow.

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

Well, outside of national television ads from primary candidate Rick Perry, or media releases from Christian lobby groups...

I don't believe religion has any part in politics.

Religion and Politics don't mix.

I can agree with religious equality and free exercise so long as it does not go against laws of the country

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

Nah, just every other day on Fox.

Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."

Frazzled wrote:Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."

This is the Frazzled approach to politics and political thought. If you see a thing you don't like, just ignore it. Some might argue this is a bit like a kid closing his eyes because if he can't see you, you can't see him, but I'd never be that cruel.

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

Nah, just every other day on Fox.

Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."

I don't. MSNBC/CNN just loops Fox's talking heads and their "analysts" bitching about it.
Not to mention the same "analysts" rotate the talk circuit.

Ahtman wrote:
As the bible said "Make a public spectacle of thyself when praying, lest people not think ye pious enough or lacking in faith, and on the day of a test or big game, double thy proclamations". It is the passage that inspired Tebow.

biccat wrote:The title of this thread clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." That isn't a limitation on the activities of private citizens, it's a limitation on the government. The private citizens (the "imbeciles") were exercising their right to freely exercise their religion, and were thrown out of the Senate chamber for it.

Sounds like the Senate violated their Free Exercise right.

No law was made.

Frazzled wrote:Too late.

Sorry, I missed this comment earlier.

Yeah, I agree, it is too late, the cat is out of the bag and it seems a not insignificant number of non-religious folk now feel they can act just as objectionably towards religious folk as they presume religious folk might act towards them.

But more than that... I mean, he spelt bigot wrong. I mean, for Christ's sake, if you're going to make us look like bigots, at least give the impression we're educated bigots.

alarmingrick wrote:I don't. MSNBC/CNN just loops Fox's talking heads and their "analysts" bitching about it.
Not to mention the same "analysts" rotate the talk circuit.

Maybe you should stop watching MSNBC and CNN.

RustyKnight wrote:

biccat wrote: I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?

As soon as the video starts, you can clearly hear a man call the clergyman a "wicked" and an "abomination". They may be quotes, but they're also insults. Similar to how quoting something published by the Klan at a black person would be an insult. This initial outburst is followed at least one other male and a female.

Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.

The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?

dogma wrote:No law was made.

Congress can't ignore Constitutional restrictions simply by not passing a law. Any action by the government is subject to Constitutional scrutiny, even enforcement by the Executive.

But really, this happened in 2007. Does Dakka OT really need to reach back that far to get its 2-minute hate on Christians?

The problem isn't religion, but people using it in an ignorant fashion.
I know a few conservative Christians, and none of them have ever made any kind of deal (big or small) about my lack of belief in any kind of deity. This is because they are good people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.

The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?

An insult is an insult, whether it's someone's religious views or not. Referring to a "Deity supreme" is not an insult, incidentally, but calling people who do not believe in that deity "wicked" or whatever clearly is.

Johnny-Crass wrote:

Joey wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers

As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.

As opposed to folks assuming those who make blanket statement about antireligion are atheists? I am in no way a atheist as in my mind they are just playing the same game every other religion plays except they play it with "We are too cool to be in any of your clubs as clubs suck, hey this is something we all agree on maybe we should make a club about it".

My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity. But guess how many bible thumpers have told me that.. Enough that it really gets old and my nations sickly hatred of those of non-christian faith is truly appalling. I do not have any doubts that those are indeed senators heckling that man.


Also do you know what a bear looks like?

So all atheists are judgemental? Lol.
Either you beleive in God or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers

As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.

Why does your signature for "codex bears" have a link to a picture of a badger?

Because I can't be arsed to fix it.

Johnny-Crass wrote:My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity.

*looks at Israel*
Yeaaah, extremists are never pleasant for normal people to be around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

No, but high school students do.

biccat wrote:

The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?

As insulting as 'Thy Will Be Done, Thy Kingdom Come', which is clearly insulting everyone else's Gods and their Wills and Kingdoms... I am currently unaware of any of the religions of the world who recognize that their guy isn't the Anumber1primo deity and start their prayers off with 'dear god, we know you're not as hardcore as the other guys, but we're still big fans of your work'...

If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?

Are the Hindus heckling the Christian prayer or praying to advance their religious view over the Christian? If they're praying, then they have just as much of a right to practice their religion as the Christians. So the answer to your question would be a qualified yes.

In neither case would it be anything close to a violation of the Christian's 1st amendment right to free exercise. Although if the Senate chose to throw the Hindus out for praying in the Chamber it would be a closer call.

Would the Hindu's in this story be considered "douches" under your standard?

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.

That is insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.

Please don't try to force people into your definitions.

Grakmar wrote:

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.

That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.

Please don't try to force people into your definitions.

Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

biccat wrote:Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here to propagate your stance (which frankly is sort of what the O-tizzle is all about, so I get that), but the issue was more about how they chose to express their religious views, not that they expressed them at all. Or do you truly believe that there is utterly no restriction on sharing your religious beliefs with others? That unlike fire-in-a-crowded-theater free speech, religious expression is unhampered? You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?

It's not about what they were shouting, so much as they were shouting at all, and the venue chosen for the shouting.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?

Are the Hindus heckling the Christian prayer or praying to advance their religious view over the Christian? If they're praying, then they have just as much of a right to practice their religion as the Christians. So the answer to your question would be a qualified yes.

In neither case would it be anything close to a violation of the Christian's 1st amendment right to free exercise. Although if the Senate chose to throw the Hindus out for praying in the Chamber it would be a closer call.

Would the Hindu's in this story be considered "douches" under your standard?

Let's be clear here, do you condone the heckling, by protesting Christians, of the Hindu prayer? Because prayer can be done in silence and they had every right to pray silently to their God and no right to shout and jeer from the popcorn gallery whilst a member of another faith spoke a holy prayer. Last time I checked, Christ taught us the lessons of respect, patience, tolerance and openness.

As to your question, we are considering matters of balance, the congress in the OP usually held Christian prayer before startup and instead, chose on that particular occasion, to lead in with a Hindu prayer, the anger from myself and others stems from the lack of equality afforded that prayer by Christians living in a multi-theocratic democracy. In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.

Ouze wrote:I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse

"Son, you're forgetting yourself."*

Ouze wrote:Or do you truly believe that there is utterly no restriction on sharing your religious beliefs with others? That unlike fire-in-a-crowded-theater free speech, religious expression is unhampered?

Do you know why there is a fire-in-a-crowded-theater 'exception' to free speech? It's not because people don't want to hear that message, or because we're afraid of people drowning out the movie's speech.

Ouze wrote:You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?

There's a substantial difference here: in your example the Muslim is running into private property. I would have no problem with Muslims standing on the sidewalk outside and trying to drown out the message themselves.

Ouze wrote:It's not about what they were shouting, so much as they were shouting at all, and the venue chosen for the shouting.

I think you're closing in on the issue: in a public venue everyone should have an equal opportunity to express their message without fear of government reprisal.

* I can't help but think of the Shawshank Redemption every time I hear the word "obtuse." No offense intended

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Let's be clear here, do you condone the heckling, by protesting Christians, of the Hindu prayer?

Condone it (and by "it" I mean publicly praying, I do not consider their actions 'heckling')? No, I think it was disrespectful. But that doesn't mean I think they should have been forcibly removed from the building.

When I don't like something, I speak out against it, I don't advocate for banning it. But this happened 4+ years ago. I find it hard to get excited about it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Last time I checked, Christ taught us the lessons of respect, patience, tolerance and openness.

The Bible also teaches Christians to bring the Word to the uninformed and preach against false prophets.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As to your question, we are considering matters of balance, the congress in the OP usually held Christian prayer before startup and instead, chose on that particular occasion, to lead in with a Hindu prayer, the anger from myself and others stems from the lack of equality afforded that prayer by Christians living in a multi-theocratic democracy.

While I agree that the Christians in the gallery should have deferred out of respect, I don't see their actions as unlawful or deseriving of their removal from the chamber.

The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.

So do you, or do you not, think that the Hindu protestors in this case were being "douches" (using your word) for trying to interrupt a public prayer?

Joey wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.

That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.

Please don't try to force people into your definitions.

Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.

An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.

Joey wrote:I despise all religions (though not the religious), but if you're going to allow praying in the Senate then allow it from all faiths.
Those people are *incredibly* rude and presumably were thrown out.

I agree in every way possible.

Joey wrote:Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

THe concept of god is in itself beyond the realm of science. It can neither be proved or disproved because the concept is inherently mystical and unknowable. It cannot be quantified because there is no observable phenom that can lend weight either way.

It's hardly an absurd idea that one can hold the position:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."

This is the Frazzled approach to politics and political thought. If you see a thing you don't like, just ignore it. Some might argue this is a bit like a kid closing his eyes because if he can't see you, you can't see him, but I'd never be that cruel.

others call it freedom of speech and accepting the fact not everyone agrees with the Great Wienie. But I am sure you spend all your day browbeating people, or have no friends,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity.

*looks at Israel*
Yeaaah, extremists are never pleasant for normal people to be around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.

No, but high school students do.

Who cares? They are high school students. They are too busy oogly the other gender to notice anything else.

Shrike325 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.

That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.

Please don't try to force people into your definitions.

Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.

An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.

I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.

LordofHats wrote:

Joey wrote:Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

THe concept of god is in itself beyond the realm of science. It can neither be proved or disproved because the concept is inherently mystical and unknowable. It cannot be quantified because there is no observable phenom that can lend weight either way.

It's hardly an absurd idea that one can hold the position:

If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.

Joey wrote:
If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.

I forget what its called. Someone's gambit? It's the idea that if god exists and you choose to disregard him you're screwed and if he doesn't exist it won't matter anyway. Its logically fallicious but it does explain I think an aspect of the human mindset. Just because you can't verify something's existence or even describe it doesn't mean you can (or in some cases should) disregard it. Likewise, while you could probably call Agnostics fence sitters in a way, they're position isn't illogical or absurd from a social stand point (all religion is absurd from a position of hard logic).

Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.

People thought that disease was caused by evil spirits until the germ theory was (ineffectively mind you) proven. Germs exist whether we could prove their existence or not. Having no evidence of something is not evidence it doesn't exist and something can exist while there is no evidence of it.

Joey wrote:I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.

Interesting...

Caution: possible religious material and specious reasoning ahead:

Joey wrote:If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.

So your answer to Schrödinger's cat is to disregard its existence?

LordofHats wrote:I forget what its called. Someone's gambit?

Pascal's Wager.