Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you have the same attitude towards freedom of speech? That the Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom to impose your political opinions (or any other opinion) on others?The Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom to impose your religion on others.
A prayer in public does not impose any rule on anyone.Meaning, it is not incumbent upon me to recognize or be ruled by religion.
.Bill of Rights says Freedom of Religion. That includes Islam.We are a free nation and thus I have freedom from religion, It's not a majority rules issue as it is in many Islamic theocracies. My suspicion is that prayers before public meetings such as described in this thread would end pretty quickly if prayers to Allah followed by chants of 'Allahu akbar' were requested at public meetings.
.Bill of Rights says Freedom of Religion. That includes Islam.
Not a valid analogy. In the context of the public meetings discussed in this thread, these are business matters being discussed. Christian prayers are not relevant matters of business.Do you have the same attitude towards freedom of speech? That the Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom to impose your political opinions (or any other opinion) on others?The Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom to impose your religion on others.
It's not a matter of imposing a rule. It's a matter of religion being imposed in matters of business. There us no reasonable assumption that prayers will have any relevance toward business matters.A prayer in public does not impose any rule on anyone.Meaning, it is not incumbent upon me to recognize or be ruled by religion.
Not to you. No..So let me see if I have this straight. You persecute Christians today because 1900 years ago Christians persecuted those that truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century?.^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians.
Blues Man
^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians..Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?
the persecutors were those that became christians, persecuting those who truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century.
you have yet to address the uninterrupted history of christian terrorism against the innocent - to this day ... or you are one of those in particular and enjoy the notoriety.
.
View attachment 498346
.
tell all, what her crime was, christian.
Does that sound about right to you, Blues Man ?
So let me see if I have this straight. You persecute Christians today because 1900 years ago Christians persecuted those that truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century?
.tell all, what her crime was, christian.
do you ever respond to what is written in a post ... and yes, that is how your bible came about. to persecute the innocent.
.
.
the Christian church gave a very pushy introduction of itself to the indigenous peoples of Latin America.
“Who can doubt that gunpowder shot off against the heathen is incense for the Lord?”-Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes.
.
.
there has not been an interruption in history the desert religions, christianity have not been at the forefront of prosecution and victimization of the innocent.
where is your evidence otherwise, why do you pretend the demise of christianity is not warranted by their failure to show remorse and to rewrite the forgeries and fallacies in the christian bible that makes theirs a terrorist organization as the same for the writings for the other desert religions.
Sure why not? So long as Adam Smith enthusiasts and fascists get equal time. Perhaps a spot of tea and wee rugby match just to help wake all properly?Don't you see the need to begin church services with a reading of the Communist Manifesto?
So stand up and tell the people you don't think people should be free to pray before a government meeting--that you believe there should be limits on freedom.I don't care if the town officials huddle up and pray before they enter the meeting hall but once they do enter it should be all business.
No unlike you I can actually think for myself.Did you get the belief that someone else's virtues may be someone else's vice from stoicismThe Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings. Being intolerant of things one should not be intolerant of is not virtuous. It is the exact opposite of virtue. The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved. To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature.
Stoicism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your virtues may be vices to someone else. And if what a person says is really not important then what do you care so much if a person has a negative opinion of your religion that you cannot tolerate it?
The Stoics also say that the only thing a person can control is his reactions to the events in the world. So maybe you want to try to do that.
The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is subdivided into good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness. Justice is subdivided into piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing.
Hardly.You are rationalizing your incongruity.When it comes to defining tolerance it most certainly is an apples to apples comparison. You don't like the comparison because it reveals that not everything should be tolerated. So getting back to the point of the conversation should religious intolerance be tolerated. I say no.A crime against a person is not the same as an opinion regarding a religion or the thoughts another may have on a given subject.Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?Sure. Some religious people can be intolerant.That's a convenient excuse. No one is telling you to tell others what to think. I am telling you that your silence of intolerance is your endorsement of intolerance.Unlike you I believe it's not my place to tell other people what to think.
Be that as it may, I'll continue linking you to intolerant posts so you can't say you never saw any as you have repeatedly claimed.
In my experience religious people can also be pretty intolerant.
And really if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance doesn't one also have to tolerate the intolerance of others?
I disagree that if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance that one has to tolerate the intolerance of others.
You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time.
I'm guessing that's a no. So apparently one can.
Another person's opinion does you no physical harm whatsoever.
So you might want to try an apples to apples comparison rather than an apples to orangutans comparison.
There is a vast and irreconcilable difference between a person's opinion and actual bodily harm committed during a crime.
Another person voicing his opinion about your chosen religion is not a crime and does you no bodily harm and in no way in any situation real or imagined equates to rape.
No not at all.So you want to impose your will upon them.I don't make pleas to some god and I would not subject people attending a public forum to my meditations and expect them to think that my daily meditations are relevant or meaningful to them.Is meditation meaningless? No. Neither is prayer. If done properly it alters the fabric of ones existence just as meditation does. I find you to be intolerant of anything that you don't endorse.You have a choice in how neat you want your yard
You have a choice of attending services.
People attending a public event are not given a choice if they want to hear a Biblical passage.Your biggest complaint is prayer at a public meeting?I saw no need for it and I considered a waste of my time and money. And since most town meetings were held in the evenings I didn't want to spend one second longer in attendance than I absolutely had to.
And, there may not have a choice on whether someone must drive by my yard. My point is, it would be a petty complaint. Complaining about a short prayer that is meaningful to many is also petty.
All those "short " prayers add up to a lot of wasted time and money over 30 years. And a town meeting has absolutely no relationship to what you do in your yard.
And i don't think prayers are all that meaningful.
The only thing I am objecting to is public officials leading people in prayers during public meetings. What they do before or after the actual meeting is their own business.
The issue is public officials leading a prayer during a public meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the citizens to address the town leaders regarding legal matters.A prayer in public does not impose any rule on anyone.Meaning, it is not incumbent upon me to recognize or be ruled by religion.
So stand up and tell the people you don't think people should be free to pray before a government meeting--that you believe there should be limits on freedom.I don't care if the town officials huddle up and pray before they enter the meeting hall but once they do enter it should be all business.
I lodged my complaints over the years.
I don't ask anyone to spend their money just so I can pray in a meeting.
And like I said no one cares if public officials pray BEFORE the meeting or AFTER the meeting so they are completely free to pray on their own time just not on the public's dime.
Unless your meetings are quite different from the ones I have covered, prayer begins a meeting, it is short--in fact I cannot recall a time it was over a minute. If it bugs you that much, enter the meeting a minute late.The issue is public officials leading a prayer during a public meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the citizens to address the town leaders regarding legal matters.
No one cares if you want to pray in public areas on your own time and on your own dime.
Being late is disrespectful of other peoples' time.Unless your meetings are quite different from the ones I have covered, prayer begins a meeting, it is short--in fact I cannot recall a time it was over a minute. If it bugs you that much, enter the meeting a minute late.The issue is public officials leading a prayer during a public meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the citizens to address the town leaders regarding legal matters.
No one cares if you want to pray in public areas on your own time and on your own dime.
In case it has not yet come through, I am arguing for our Founding freedoms, something I greatly appreciated when I was covering government meetings for the press. Ripped one meeting for being closed to the public when it should have been open. It was a small matter, but even so!
What I see you arguing is a reason to chip away at a Founding freedom for others because a certain one annoys you. I am particularly sensitive to such things because of the willingness shown by so many over the past fifteen months to lay aside freedoms of others on the off chance it might make them safer.
That's why I asked your earlier....what personal freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for forcing others to give up one of theirs? First and foremost on every citizen's mind should be keeping all freedoms intact for future generations--that freedom is our foundation. Chip away at that foundation and watch the entire structure crumble.
I hope all of you never live the day where you are thinking, "I should have let the people pray" (or speak out, etc.) as you remember the freedoms you and this nation once had. Or who knows, maybe people will be nodding and saying, "So much more convenient when people have less freedom. I think I may have saved one or two minutes today."
I raised it as an example of Christians pushing their faith on others.Being late is disrespectful of other peoples' time.Unless your meetings are quite different from the ones I have covered, prayer begins a meeting, it is short--in fact I cannot recall a time it was over a minute. If it bugs you that much, enter the meeting a minute late.The issue is public officials leading a prayer during a public meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the citizens to address the town leaders regarding legal matters.
No one cares if you want to pray in public areas on your own time and on your own dime.
In case it has not yet come through, I am arguing for our Founding freedoms, something I greatly appreciated when I was covering government meetings for the press. Ripped one meeting for being closed to the public when it should have been open. It was a small matter, but even so!
What I see you arguing is a reason to chip away at a Founding freedom for others because a certain one annoys you. I am particularly sensitive to such things because of the willingness shown by so many over the past fifteen months to lay aside freedoms of others on the off chance it might make them safer.
That's why I asked your earlier....what personal freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for forcing others to give up one of theirs? First and foremost on every citizen's mind should be keeping all freedoms intact for future generations--that freedom is our foundation. Chip away at that foundation and watch the entire structure crumble.
I hope all of you never live the day where you are thinking, "I should have let the people pray" (or speak out, etc.) as you remember the freedoms you and this nation once had. Or who knows, maybe people will be nodding and saying, "So much more convenient when people have less freedom. I think I may have saved one or two minutes today."
And I don't see it as giving up a personal freedom because these public officials can pray before the meeting or after the meeting when they are not taking up the time of everyone else in that meeting. I don't have the freedom to stand up in the middle of a town meeting, walk to the dais assume the Lotus position and meditate during the meeting and make people wait until I am done. if I did that I would be bodily removed and most likely barred from attending town meetings in the future.
But I don't call that a restriction of my freedoms and I don't consider it a restriction of other peoples freedoms.
It can certainly be interpreted as such.I raised it as an example of Christians pushing their faith on others.Being late is disrespectful of other peoples' time.Unless your meetings are quite different from the ones I have covered, prayer begins a meeting, it is short--in fact I cannot recall a time it was over a minute. If it bugs you that much, enter the meeting a minute late.The issue is public officials leading a prayer during a public meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the citizens to address the town leaders regarding legal matters.
No one cares if you want to pray in public areas on your own time and on your own dime.
In case it has not yet come through, I am arguing for our Founding freedoms, something I greatly appreciated when I was covering government meetings for the press. Ripped one meeting for being closed to the public when it should have been open. It was a small matter, but even so!
What I see you arguing is a reason to chip away at a Founding freedom for others because a certain one annoys you. I am particularly sensitive to such things because of the willingness shown by so many over the past fifteen months to lay aside freedoms of others on the off chance it might make them safer.
That's why I asked your earlier....what personal freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for forcing others to give up one of theirs? First and foremost on every citizen's mind should be keeping all freedoms intact for future generations--that freedom is our foundation. Chip away at that foundation and watch the entire structure crumble.
I hope all of you never live the day where you are thinking, "I should have let the people pray" (or speak out, etc.) as you remember the freedoms you and this nation once had. Or who knows, maybe people will be nodding and saying, "So much more convenient when people have less freedom. I think I may have saved one or two minutes today."
And I don't see it as giving up a personal freedom because these public officials can pray before the meeting or after the meeting when they are not taking up the time of everyone else in that meeting. I don't have the freedom to stand up in the middle of a town meeting, walk to the dais assume the Lotus position and meditate during the meeting and make people wait until I am done. if I did that I would be bodily removed and most likely barred from attending town meetings in the future.
But I don't call that a restriction of my freedoms and I don't consider it a restriction of other peoples freedoms.
My main objection is I find those Invocations to be condescending to the public. That our officials feel like we need some enlightenment
We don’t
Even the Jesus of the New Testament condemned public prayer: “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret” (Matt. 6:5-13).
Observing a strict separation of church and state will offend no one and include all citizens.
Even the Jesus of the New Testament condemned public prayer: “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret” (Matt. 6:5-13)
