Atheism's big LIE

[Meriweather]

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.

Should an opening greeting or welcoming of those present also be frowned upon?

 

[Blues Man]

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)

Context. Even Jesus led public prayer in public. Prayer, where one went out on the street corner so that they might be seen conducting their own personal prayers publicly he spoke against.

Therefore, someone conducting a public prayer before the start of the meeting would be in line with what Jesus did. Blues Man assuming the Lotus position for his own personal prayer during a meeting would be what Jesus criticized.

Once again there is a difference between praying in public as on public grounds such as a street corner or a park and political officials leading people in prayer during an official government meeting.

 

[Meriweather]

Once again there is a difference between praying in public as on public grounds such as a street corner or a park and political officials leading people in prayer during an official government meeting.

Enter the meeting after the opening prayer. Problem solved.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Should an opening greeting or welcoming of those present also be frowned upon?

Not even remotely the same thing.
I don't understand your attempt to apply the topic to ALL speech during a government meeting.

A town official saying. " Good evening and thank you for coming." is not equivalent to saying, "Please stand and join me in reciting the Lord's Prayer"

People who will address the room should be introduced not only as a matter of decorum but also for record keeping.

 

[Blues Man]

Once again there is a difference between praying in public as on public grounds such as a street corner or a park and political officials leading people in prayer during an official government meeting.

Enter the meeting after the opening prayer. Problem solved.

Being late is disrespectful.

And the problem is solved by the public officials praying before they enter the meeting hall

 

[Meriweather]

"Please stand and join me in reciting the Lord's Prayer"

And you are free to remain seated and not say a word. For the entire 25 seconds it takes to complete the prayer. Or, don't enter until after people begin seating themselves after the prayer. You are free to do either of these things. Allow others the freedom of opening with a prayer.

 

[Meriweather]

Being late is disrespectful.

Ironic. Taking away the freedom to open with a prayer is hardly the epitome of respect to the nation or its Founders. Twenty.five.seconds.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

W

"Please stand and join me in reciting the Lord's Prayer"

And you are free to remain seated and not say a word. For the entire 25 seconds it takes to complete the prayer. Or, don't enter until after people begin seating themselves after the prayer. You are free to do either of these things. Allow others the freedom of opening with a prayer.

Wow, you guys really have convinced yourselves that prayer belongs in these meetings. Just the RIGHT kind of prayer, though. Naturally.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Even Jesus led public prayer in public.

I'm sure you could jamb another "public" or three in there if you tried. "Context." So, you agree. Even Jesus "condemned public prayer" ..publicly. Good for you!

 

[ding]

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.

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.

Your biggest complaint is prayer at a public meeting?

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you want to impose your will upon them.

No not at all.

I want them to do what they are being paid for and they are not being paid to have a prayer circle at a public meeting

I think you want to subordinate religion.

 

[ding]

Unlike you I believe it's not my place to tell other people what to think.

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.

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?

Sure. Some religious people can be intolerant.

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.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

I'm guessing that's a no. So apparently one can.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are rationalizing your incongruity.

Hardly.


There is no analogy where a person's poor opinion of your religion and rape can ever be compared.

If you think that a person criticizing your religion does equal rape then maybe you actually need to be raped so you can realize how utterly stupid you are being.

I think you like to pick and choose when it comes to tolerance. Indiscriminate indiscriminateness is not tolerance, but even then you don't really adhere to that. You are selective in your discrimination.

 

[ding]

The 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.

Did you get the belief that someone else's virtues may be someone else's vice from stoicism

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.​

​

Stoic Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

No unlike you I can actually think for myself.

I do not adhere 100% to any philosophy but instead I use what I find relevant to me.

You are no stoic that much is for certain.

 

[BreezeWood]

W

"Please stand and join me in reciting the Lord's Prayer"

And you are free to remain seated and not say a word. For the entire 25 seconds it takes to complete the prayer. Or, don't enter until after people begin seating themselves after the prayer. You are free to do either of these things. Allow others the freedom of opening with a prayer.

Wow, you guys really have convinced yourselves that prayer belongs in these meetings. Just the RIGHT kind of prayer, though. Naturally.

.

Wow, you guys really have convinced yourselves that prayer belongs in these meetings. Just the RIGHT kind of prayer, though. Naturally.

they have the votes to allow their intrusion they depend on to ignore the establishment clause prohibition for the same amendment they use to sway the votes in their favor.

their dishonesty to imply a right they know does not exist has become their mantra.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

they have the votes to allow their intrusion they depend on to ignore the establishment clause prohibition for the same amendment they use to sway the votes in their favor.

Yup

 

[Blues Man]

"Please stand and join me in reciting the Lord's Prayer"

And you are free to remain seated and not say a word. For the entire 25 seconds it takes to complete the prayer. Or, don't enter until after people begin seating themselves after the prayer. You are free to do either of these things. Allow others the freedom of opening with a prayer.

We should not be paying our public officials to lead prayer groups. We pay them to do their jobs.

 

[Blues Man]

Being late is disrespectful.

Ironic. Taking away the freedom to open with a prayer is hardly the epitome of respect to the nation or its Founders. Twenty.five.seconds.

No one is taking anyone's freedom away.

Public officials are free to pray BEFORE they enter the meeting hall.

Tell me do you think that not allowing every person in the hall during a public meeting to lead a prayer or a mantra or a rain dance while everyone else is waiting for the meeting to actually begin is somehow taking away freedom from all those people?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

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.

Your biggest complaint is prayer at a public meeting?

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you want to impose your will upon them.

No not at all.

I want them to do what they are being paid for and they are not being paid to have a prayer circle at a public meeting

I think you want to subordinate religion.

To what?

Public officials are not paid to perform religious acts.

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I believe it's not my place to tell other people what to think.

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.

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?

Sure. Some religious people can be intolerant.

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.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

I'm guessing that's a no. So apparently one can.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are rationalizing your incongruity.

Hardly.


There is no analogy where a person's poor opinion of your religion and rape can ever be compared.

If you think that a person criticizing your religion does equal rape then maybe you actually need to be raped so you can realize how utterly stupid you are being.

I think you like to pick and choose when it comes to tolerance. Indiscriminate indiscriminateness is not tolerance, but even then you don't really adhere to that. You are selective in your discrimination.

Everyone is selective in their discrimination. But hey if you think being tolerant of a differing opinion means that you also have to tolerate people committing acts of rape then you go ahead and be the most intolerant and idiotic asshole on the planet

 

[Blues Man]

The 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.

Did you get the belief that someone else's virtues may be someone else's vice from stoicism

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.​

​

Stoic Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

No unlike you I can actually think for myself.

I do not adhere 100% to any philosophy but instead I use what I find relevant to me.

You are no stoic that much is for certain.

I never said I was.

I said my personal philosophy is a blend of Buddhism, Stoicism and portions of several other schools of thought

 

[Meriweather]

Tell me do you think that not allowing every person in the hall during a public meeting to lead a prayer or a mantra or a rain dance while everyone else is waiting for the meeting to actually begin taking away freedom from all those people?

I have been to tons of public meetings. Some open the meeting with a prayer. Some do not. Never--not once--have I seen or heard of someone interrupting the business part of the meeting once the agenda is introduced--immediately after the prayer. Had it been, someone would have noted that person was "out of order".

Guess what, the exact same procedure is followed in Bible Study or a Parish Meeting. It opens with a prayer, but never have I been present--or heard of--someone (not even the priest) suddenly go off agenda and start a prayer. Even at church meetings the prayer doesn't last longer than a minute.

When have you ever been delayed any longer than 25 seconds.

I am through with this. Keep knocking away at freedoms, You are not alone.