So Taxes passed, now what is next??

A prayer is non-secular, and an exercise or practice, in this case, of Christianity. As such, it does not belong in a Cabinet Meeting of a secular government.

Prayer (from the Latin precari "to ask earnestly, beg, entreat")[1] is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication.

Religious behaviours are behaviours motivated by religious beliefs. Religious actions are also called 'ritual' and religious avoidances are called taboos or ritual prohibitions. The two best known religious actions are prayer and sacrifice

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years[2]) is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.

Secular states with secular governments that follow civil laws—as distinct from religious authorities like the Islamic Sharia, Catholic Canon law, or Jewish Halakha—do not favor or disfavor any particular religion.

A regular speech, a visit to a mosque, or community outreach are not in and of themselves religious practices, exercises or rituals. They are secular acts, as long as they remain secular.

I can assure you, as an atheist, I take great offense at prayers being offered in official public events like graduations. I do not take offense at a priest coming and giving a speech. But if he starts blessing or praying, that's another thing. Get it?

Of course, you didn't watch the whole event in the White House, so you don't know exactly how it unfolded and what was said, particularly to the reporters who were there. And I'm not going to do the work for you.


Tell me then, with regard to government function, what is the difference?

How does having a prayer meeting break down separation of church and state in ways that speeches and outreach do not.

By definition (see above), they already are.

They are not getting into government.
 
Bigger deficits are certainly coming. The rich will get richer.

I doubt there will be a trickle down effect, but there may be enough of one to get Trump reelected in 2020.
 
A prayer is non-secular, and an exercise or practice, in this case, of Christianity.As such, it does not belong in a Cabinet Meeting of a secular government.

So what? According to who?? :confused:

I can assure you, as an atheist, I take great offense at prayers being offered in official public events like graduations.

So?? That's your problem. LOL

I do not take offense at a priest coming and giving a speech. But if he starts blessing or praying, that's another thing. Get it?

Not at all. I'm not a Christian but I realize many around me are so if they want to do their deal, as long as I'm not required to participate fuckin' whatever man, live n' let live.

By definition (see above), they already are.

No...they aren't.
 
whether being subjected to religious practices bothers you or not was not the question.

The question was what is the difference between a regular old speech and a prayer.

A prayer is by definition a religious act or practice, specifically in this case of Christianity.

It may not "bother" you, but a.) Is your brain grasping the distinction? and b.) the next debate is whether such religious PRACTICE as we saw in the WH constitutes a violation of church and state.

Personally, I think it does, when:

a.) It's conducted in a government building for the public at the meeting of the President's cabinet (government employees)

b.) The prayer is delivered by a Cabinet member

c) the prayer is targeted specifically at the press.

d.) the prayer praises the President

e.) the prayer makes specific mention of government functions: passing legislation through Congress and a legal VOTE

THe reason it matters that I take offense is the contrast to a regular old speech. As an atheist, when I hear a speech, I am not being blessed or prayed over or forced to be a participant in a religious rite. I am just listening to a speech.

Prayer does not belong in places and institutions held in common by the public, period.


So what? According to who?? :confused:

So?? That's your problem. LOL

Not at all. I'm not a Christian but I realize many around me are so if they want to do their deal, as long as I'm not required to participate fuckin' whatever man, live n' let live.



No...they aren't.
 
whether being subjected to religious practices bothers you or not was not the question.

So why did you bring it up?

The question was what is the difference between a regular old speech and a prayer.

With regard to separation of church and state.

THe reason it matters that I take offense is the contrast to a regular old speech. As an atheist, when I hear a speech, I am not being blessed or prayed over or forced to be a participant in a religious rite. I am just listening to a speech.

And how does that make Trumps prayer meeting forcing you to be a participant in a religious rite or otherwise forcing their religious views upon you in any way shape form or fashion???:rolleyes:

Prayer does not belong in places and institutions held in common by the public, period.

According to who??:confused:

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.


Add that to the ever growing list of civil rights you seem to be totally against.....:cool:

Why do you hate freedom so much?
 
Last edited:
1. Let's scroll back.

You said there is nothing different about this, because everyone's always done it. When asked for an example, all you could come up with was Obama going to a mosque and making an outreach to the Muslim community.

I've shown that is NOT the same as holding a prayer meeting in the WH at an official Cabinet Meeting, because prayer is a religious PRACTICE while a speech is merely secular.

You have still failed to show a single example of any President doing the same thing.

2. You have failed to address all the things I enumerated about this meeting that makes it a violation of church and state.

3. Government is for government, not religion. Using it for religious practices violates the separation of Church and state. (Likewise, you CANNOT exort or preach politics from the pulpit)

Putting up the Ten Commandments inside or outside a courtroom has been ruled illegal again and again; it's not "creating a law," but it is violating the separation of Church/State. You can't hang big crosses or rosaries or pictures of the Buddha in courtrooms, in the Senate, in state houses. You can't fly a religious flag in the same places. None of these are "making laws," but they've all been struck down for the same reason.

I'm merely saying holding a pray-in and blessing reporters and telling them they should be praying (Trump) is the same thing. The only reason there hasn't been massive public outrage is because a.) it's Christian, and b.) prayer has long been forced upon us in public places.

The separation of Church/State, like free speech, is debated and argued all the time; far beyond the mere fact of legislating it.

Forcing me to listen to someone intoning a prayer in commonly held public ceremonies and places (like schools) is a violation of MY rights. PRACTICE your religion in your own space, not in publically occupied, publically representative places, like government.

The question is private/public. No one can abridge your "freedom" in your own home (or church). Am I saying that? But a White House Cabinet Meeting open to the press is NOT a private space.

So why did you bring it up?



With regard to separation of church and state.



And how does that make Trumps prayer meeting forcing you to be a participant in a religious rite or otherwise forcing their religious views upon you in any way shape form or fashion???:rolleyes:



According to who??:confused:

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.


Add that to the ever growing list of civil rights you seem to be totally against.....:cool:

Why do you hate freedom so much?
 
Here is another definition of moron: A moron is someone who takes a token amount of bonus giveaway by a major corporation in the short run as proof that 1.5 trillion dollar giveaway is a great idea for the nation as a whole in the long run.

Yes, I thought rather the same. And when your limited-time tax "cut" is swamped by your health insurance rise, both caused by the same bill, what brilliance makes you think you've won anything?

I suppose the Republican Congress will continue passing inane laws as long as the electorate is inanely clueless.
 
Who cares about your personal opinion of that meeting. Think what you want. I'm positive you didn't actually watch it or listen to what was said: you get all your "news" from us. WE are your insight into what's going on with politics, and you react accordingly. Which means we control you. But I digress.

Not only that but he has to take a contrary position, so we can tie him up in knots by playing with that one.
 
because prayer is a religious PRACTICE while a speech is merely secular.

That's irrelevant to anyone but the militantly anti-religious, like yourself.

3. Government is for government, not religion. Using it for religious practices violates the separation of Church and state. (Likewise, you CANNOT exort or preach politics from the pulpit)

They didn't use the state for religious practice nor did they violate separation of church and state.

You absolutely can preach politics from the pulpit. Religious leaders of all types do exactly that every single day all across the USA.

One of the PRIMARY reasons for giving England the middle finger and founding the country in the first place was so we could talk as much shit about Gawd n' country as we wanted.

Have you never read the 1st Amendment? :confused: Taken a middle school history class???

Forcing me to listen to someone intoning a prayer in commonly held public ceremonies and places (like schools) is a violation of MY rights. PRACTICE your religion in your own space, not in publically occupied, publically representative places, like government.

No one is forcing you or anyone to do anything....if others praying offends you, then you can leave.

You don't have a right not to hear other people, that's not how separation of church and state or free speech works.

They DO have an EXPLICIT right to free speech and exercise their religion....in public spaces.

The question is private/public.

Absolutely incorrect....I can go out into public and preach both religion and politics as loud as I want and so can any other citizen including POTUS. It's a Constitutionally protected right for every US citizen. Right there in the bill of rights, crystal clear, black and white, right on top of the list of shit the government can't fuck with.

The question, just like with so many other things, is force of law.

Is the government sticking a metaphorical/literal gun to peoples heads and forcing them to observe/participate in religious whatever under penalty of law?

If the answer is no, then it's constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion.


If the answer is yes, then it's violating separation of church and state in accordance with 1A and in all likelihood would be quickly shat upon by the supreme court.

Putting up the Ten Commandments inside or outside a courtroom has been ruled illegal again and again because it forces Christianity upon people under penalty of law. You can't opt out of going to court, a summons is the literal threat of violence against you by the state should you fail to show up at court, a clear 1A violation.
 
Last edited:
No it is not. It's the difference between secular and non-secular.

That's irrelevant to anyone but the militantly anti-religious, like yourself.

Yes they did, and yes they did. Prayer, as I explained above, is a "religious practice." The White House is the state.

They didn't use the state for religious practice nor did they violate separation of church and state.

Uh, no you can't. You can preach abstractly about politics in general, but you cannot discuss specific candidates or races or parties or encourage people to vote for specific candidates. It's against the law.

You absolutely can preach politics from the pulpit. Religious leaders of all types do exactly that every single day all across the USA.

Right. Another PRIMARY reason we gave Europe the middle finger was to get religion and religious influence OUT of politics, and vice versa. You cannot exort congregations to vote a particular way. It's against the law (see above).

One of the PRIMARY reasons for giving England the middle finger and founding the country in the first place was so we could talk as much shit about Gawd n' country as we wanted.

Then why is prayer not allowed in public schools? (It's against the law.)

No one is forcing you or anyone to do anything....if others praying offends you, then you can leave.

Yes, I do. I have a right not to hear sermons and prayers coming from the Senate floor.

You don't have a right not to hear other people, that's not how separation of church and state or free speech works.

Public spaces like street corners, but not public spaces like schools and courtrooms and government buildings, dumb shit.

They DO have an EXPLICIT right to free speech and exercise their religion....in public spaces.

No, ya can't. (See above.) A preacher CANNOT get up there and say any thing he wants about politics; the President can yak from the South Lawn of the White House, but he cannot stand in the Senate Chamber and read from the Bible in lieu of a State of the Union Address. He can't do it, because: separation of c/s


Absolutely incorrect....I can go out into public and preach both religion and politics as loud as I want and so can any other citizen including POTUS. It's a Constitutionally protected right for every US citizen. Right there in the bill of rights, crystal clear, black and white, right on top of the list of shit the government can't fuck with.

Then why is it illegal to have forced prayer in public schools?

Because the rules governing "free speech" run up against rules about religion in government institutions.

Is the government sticking a metaphorical/literal gun to peoples heads and forcing them to observe/participate in religious whatever under penalty of law?

If the answer is no, then it's constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion.

If the answer is yes, then it's violating separation of church and state in accordance with 1A and in all likelihood would be quickly shat upon by the supreme court.
 
Last edited:
I'm not anti-religious. I am churched in a mainstream Protestant denomination. And I most certainly don't want my religion messing around in the state to the disadvantage of other religions (or lack of religion) or politics intruding into my religion. I want my religion to be private and separate from the secular state. I don't see the Pat Robertson types as practicing their own religion let alone mine, and to see a sleazy con artist like Trump and the nut Pence being accepted and idolized by evangelicals curdles my stomach. I have lived in countries where the church controls the state and I don't want to have any part of that.
 
No it is not. It's the difference between secular and non-secular.

Yes it is....doesn't secular/non-secular doesn't matter....government force does.

Then why is prayer not allowed in public schools? (It's against the law.)

It's not against the law, you can go to any public school and pray all you want.

Then why is it illegal to have forced prayer in public schools?

I already explained this, our separation of church and state is about power of force/authority. Not about keeping our pols from praying with each other.

Is the government sticking a metaphorical/literal gun to peoples heads and forcing them to observe/participate in religious whatever under penalty of law?

If the answer is yes, then it's violating separation of church and state in accordance with 1A.

If the answer is no then it's all good...it's voluntary.

Government force one way or the other = illegal, against 1A.

Voluntary religious observations/practices/speech? Protected under 1A.

Uh, no you can't. You can preach abstractly about politics in general, but you cannot discuss specific candidates or races or parties or encourage people to vote for specific candidates. It's against the law.

That's the only part that's true, and even then it's a bit of a stretch, more like they aren't allow to directly distribute campaign materials for, send "church" money to or solicit funds for political candidates.

Discussions are 100% legal.....they can run their mouths all day long about the issues, pols, candidates, races, scandals, investigation and alllllll the other kinds of fabulous drama surrounding them. What they can't do is engage directly in campaigning activities for anyone to the extent there are any material/monetary exchanges, threats or coercion.

Yes, I do. I have a right not to hear

NOTHING!!!!! That right doesn't exist.

the President can yak from the South Lawn of the White House, but he cannot stand in the Senate Chamber and read from the Bible in lieu of a State of the Union Address. He can't do it, because: separation of c/s

He can't give anything in lieu of a State of the Union Address because the SotUA is his legal obligation. Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution requires it of him.

Otherwise POTUS can yak about G-bus pretty much all he wants from wherever he wants, as long as he's not forcing anyone to listen.

No matter how offensive you find it.
 
Last edited:
Some forget that the establishment clause of the First Amendment protects religion from gov't as well as vice-versa.

As we've seen, gov't can be intrusive. Do y'all want a Dept of Religion to authorize and regulate private religious practice? (Public practice is already regulated. You don't get to burn your cross on civic property.) Imagine an agency with all the warmth and efficiency of your Dept. of Motor Vehicles, an agency issuing preaching and worship licenses, collections-tax receipts, etc. Believe what you want but pay your fees. Oh, your religion isn't on the Class I list? The penalties will be severe.

You think a federal bureaucracy can't encroach that far? I'll bet a packed SCOTUS can rule that such 'regulation' doesn't count as 'establishment' of religion. We're seeing the slippery slope already: Express the right beliefs and you may attend POTUS, otherwise you're out in the muck. Aren't y'all glad Tromp isn't a Scientologist?
 
The evangelicals want this, yes--because they have all the answers and their God is a jealous God who promised them dominion over all.
 
Back
Top