We have a broad range of beliefs, moral views, political views, etc.

So, have at it. What do you think? Is the Office a Violation of the Separation? Do you think the County could use the words of the Chaplain and get away with it?

Has anyone seen the Chaplain Office challenged in court? I'm still searching.

office of sanctimonious bullshit is now in session...

Who was here first, you or me? If I was, and I've been doing this thing for all that time, what's the bitch? It is grandfathered (Settled Law, as is ROWE VS WADE).

If you don't like it then we'll revert to 30 seconds of silence for each of us to do our own thing!

No one is forcing anyone else to abide by MY rules! Do something worth while with your time! Seems to me we were founded on Christian Principles and the Constitution states we can have any and all religions, just NO NATIONAL RELIGION, such as Muslim nation's have.

Nothing in the Constitution says it can't be there, it only states it can't be FORCED on others! PRAY TO YOURSELVES, or NOT! But, by all means get on with it!

What is to stop them from praying anyway. Screw the courts. Take your control of your own destiny.
The courts are an filled with Harvard Law grads want to control you ans steal your money so they can sip wine with Obama

you guys are real idiots.

except for Shawn.

Shawn is a self-hating Jew

I live just outside Winston in Clemmons and know several of those in the story. There is a remaining sentiment to appeal this judgement. Of course, that can run $$$ for the county, so that's another issue in play.

Harvard Law grads want to control you ans steal your money

I thought that was Harvard MBAs but maybe they're content with bankrupting everything they touch.

Duh, was this really even a question or debate?

BRI-
I loosely followed this story. It's been in and out of the news for what seems like a year or two. The crux of the defense was that the council meetings had an open invitation to area preachers to provide a prayer. The council didn't mandate any particular prayer, nor did they prevent "other" religions from having their preacher say the prayer.

Now one could argue the great majority of people and preachers in the Bible Belt would pray a Christian prayer (naming Jesus). Does that necessarily mean anything, from a legal standpoint?

Still, the council wasn't specifically dictating any particular deity be named. Nor was a council member actually conducting the prayer.

Shawn is a self-hating Jew

------------

go fuck yourself timbicile.

no one gives a shit.

I've been to municipal council meetings where they rotate which religion gives the prayer-even bahai and Unitarian. That's usually the best time to figure out which pol had the most to drink before the meeting.

Does that necessarily mean anything, from a legal standpoint?

yeah, it means that almost all the time they were advancing a particular religion.

have you all noticed, the further this country moves away from Christianity the worst this country gets?

"Now one could argue the great majority of people and preachers in the Bible Belt would pray a Christian prayer (naming Jesus). Does that necessarily mean anything, from a legal standpoint?"

yes.

like i said: you're an idiot.

at #16:
of course. but not>jus christianity.

short thread, take note talibaptist.

Shawn is a self-hating Jew

------------

go fuck yourself timbicile.

no one gives a shit.

#13 | Posted by Shawn

Why do you hate yourself so much. Were you abused?

BRI-
I loosely followed this story. It's been in and out of the news for what seems like a year or two. The crux of the defense was that the council meetings had an open invitation to area preachers to provide a prayer. The council didn't mandate any particular prayer, nor did they prevent "other" religions from having their preacher say the prayer.
Now one could argue the great majority of people and preachers in the Bible Belt would pray a Christian prayer (naming Jesus). Does that necessarily mean anything, from a legal standpoint?
Still, the council wasn't specifically dictating any particular deity be named. Nor was a council member actually conducting the prayer.
#12 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-01-29 08:56 PM

Any religious performance should be kept strictly to religious institutions, not included before, during or after government operations.

Where would these drama queens stand on a Michigan town council deciding to hold Muslim prayers before their meetings if most of the council members were Muslim?

How about a Catholic prayer? Or, God forbid, some satanic MORMON mumbo-jumbo out in Utah?

I'm sure the 'christian' pants-pissers would be filling their Depends if any of these were declared unconstitutional.

"What is to stop them from praying anyway"

Nothing. Which is kind of the point, really. People are free to pray as they wish. Always have been, always will be.

The issue is that the government was endorsing, or "sponsoring" the prayer, which is a pretty clear violation.

I'm sure the 'christian' pants-pissers would be filling their Depends if any of these were declared unconstitutional.

I don't know what Christians are like where you are from but I haven't run into any "Pants Pissers" in central illinois. My neighbor is even a minister and he hasn't once mentioned attending his service.

Nothing. Which is kind of the point, really. People are free to pray as they wish. Always have been, always will be.

The issue is that the government was endorsing, or "sponsoring" the prayer, which is a pretty clear violation.

True. People can pray before and after the meeting, or even zone out and pray during the meeting. I don't see what the big deal is.

Good. No Christian Bullshit in Public places.

YES!!!

lets see some goddamn democrat propose NOW to now say a prayer before congress starts up

AND lets also do away with chaplains in the armed forces.....seems to me thats as much of a violation as anything..

lets see what dems comes up with that...wont need anymore proof of the approaching aremegeddon next november for goddamn democrats.

NOW TO NOT..
TO NOT

damnit ...slow down

Speaking on behalf of the Almighty, He has told me He doesn't want prayers before meetings of Congress or cabinet meetings either. He doesn't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with anything that is going on in Washington.

Speaking on behalf of the Almighty, He has told me He doesn't want prayers before meetings of Congress or cabinet meetings either. He doesn't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with anything that is going on in Washington.

#29 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: FUCKING IDIOT.

Good. No Christian Bullshit in Public places.

#26 | Posted by jackass

The issue is that the government was endorsing, or "sponsoring" the prayer, which is a pretty clear violation.

#23 | Posted by ken_schwartz

Any religious performance should be kept strictly to religious institutions, not included before, during or after government operations.

#21 | Posted by redlightrobot

So why should the Chaplain of the House of Representatives still be around?

Look at these three posts. Explain why the House is allowed to violate the Constitution.

I still think the Council should quote the Chaplain at every council meeting. How can quoting an Officer of the House be a violation? If his words endorse a religion, then the Office of the Chaplain has to be Unconstitutional - particularly considering what that Office represents.

I can't believe the Chaplain Office hasn't been raised in court.

Madison was dead set against the chaplain. It didn't take long for the camel's nose to get under the tent.

#29 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: FUCKING IDIOT.

#30 | Posted by jerrytarkanian
* * *

What? Did He tell you something different? Or do you think it's okay to shut down prayers in Podunk, NC, but not in Washington DC?

Come on libtard. Surprise me with your intellect.

So why should the Chaplain of the House of Representatives still be around?

Why is my appendix still around? The useless flap of flesh hasn't caused any problems so far, and as a result it hasn't been worth the trouble of removing. In addition to being useless, the office of the chaplain is also unconstitutional. Rest assured, it will be dealt with in time.

Explain why the House is allowed to violate the Constitution.

It isn't.

How can quoting an Officer of the House be a violation?

Would doing so violate the establishment clause? If so, then it is unconstitutional. This is painfully simple, yet you're trying to make an issue out of it. Why?

I can't believe the Chaplain Office hasn't been raised in court.

You need to close that sentence with a big "yet". The take home point is that there are generally bigger fish for secularists to fry - sectarianism in backwater hovels, rightwing fantasies of theocracy, textbook battles with retarded Texans, etc..

The House is violating the Constitution. The Office of the Chaplain flies in the face of every court decision regarding the Separate of Church and State.

When you place a position in the Legislative Branch that is called "CHAPLAIN", there are no smokescreens. It is very transparent.

The website of the Chaplain starts off right away with "The House can choose their officers".

What a farce! Like that statement in the Constitution waives the rest of the Document.

I started this story off and I repeat it: During prohibition, the House could not have an Officer of the Alcohol that provides alcohol and remain Constitutional.

The House has a Chaplain. If he did nothing religious, then he'd be fine. But, you know as well as I do that the position of Chaplain is clearly a religious position WITHOUT the government.

The Chaplain's office should be raised in Court every time someone complains about the Separation. If the Chaplain's Office doesn't violate the Constitution, then there is absolutely no way that the prayer before a meeting of the Legislative body of the county is violating the Constitution.

This Chaplain is PAID by the Fed.

"WITHOUT the government" oops

WITHIN the government

"Good. No Christian Bullshit in Public places.
#26 | Posted by jackass"

"The issue is that the government was endorsing, or "sponsoring" the prayer, which is a pretty clear violation.
#23 | Posted by ken_schwartz"

"Any religious performance should be kept strictly to religious institutions, not included before, during or after government operations.
#21 | Posted by redlightrobot"

So why should the Chaplain of the House of Representatives still be around?
Look at these three posts. Explain why the House is allowed to violate the Constitution.
I still think the Council should quote the Chaplain at every council meeting. How can quoting an Officer of the House be a violation? If his words endorse a religion, then the Office of the Chaplain has to be Unconstitutional - particularly considering what that Office represents.
I can't believe the Chaplain Office hasn't been raised in court.
#31 | Posted by Petrous at 2010-01-30 03:18 PM

Christians represent a segment of the population that are under the "control" (loosely put) of an authority they recognize. To give that up is difficult for interests that have ritually abuse that power, let alone any semblance of honest government.

Scalia is likely to throw out anything related to this topic.

So why should the Chaplain of the House of Representatives still be around?

Who says it should be?

AND lets also do away with chaplains in the armed forces.....seems to me thats as much of a violation as anything

That's a different animal. Military chaplains exist to help PRESERVE a serviceman/servicewoman's right to free expression of religion, not to proselytize to non-interested participants.