Published: Tuesday, May 6 2014 12:30 a.m. MDT
I thnk we should have all the satanists show up to public meetings (anonymously,
of course) and start offering prayers.I bet you we'd see a
major shift in opinion once that starts happening.But of course the
hypocrisy of conservative Christians knows no bounds.
It's probably only a matter of time before somebody sacrifices a lamb at a
public meeting, you know, just a humble sacrifice based on Biblical tradition.
What concerns me, was that this was a 5-4 decision, with the predictable
dissents from the court's liberal wing. We are, therefore, only one vote
away from judicial tyranny. If there is no other reason to be a conservative,
then this is it. We must elect a conservative to the White House in 2016 who
can assure us an ongoing voice on the high court, or I fear for the republic.
There was a time when money, religion and politics wasn't talked about.
If you find the idea of a Muslim, Satanist, or Atheist offering up a prayer at
the start of a public meeting distasteful, you should find this ruling
Bigots will always find a reason to outlaw prayer. They're offended unless
they prescribe the prayer. One even said that satanists should sneak in and
pray. Are "satanists" so ashamed of what the "believe" that
they need to sneak around?Prayer shows that we are dependent on our
Creator ( God) to assist us to do the RIGHT thing. If we are sincere and
capable of feeling the promptings that come to guide us, we will be prompted to
do the right thing. On the other hand, if we worship satan and do as he
instructs, we will destroy everything good. The Court was wise in
allowing us to pray before holding public meetings. The only question we need to
ask is why four justices are opposed to God.
I would be interested to know if the SCOTUS has any principles it follows. I
doubt is does because so seldom is any vote different than 5-4; and with the
same predictable justices on the same side consistently. Of the fact that there
seems to be no governing principles, I am ashamed of the Supreme Court. And
this particular decision is temporary, I'm sure. Say what you will about
Christians, but their/our God predicted all this from the beginning.
No one has EVER been hurt by listening to a prayer.
A disappointing decision, which allows government to endorse religion, rather
than being neutral.The most interesting part of the decision,
however, is that it prayer is permitted because it isn't really taken
seriously. It is only permitted because it is "ceremonial" in nature.
Just like the "In God We Trust" motto - it is only permitted because it
isn't taken seriously as a religious statement, but only as a traditional
@AZKID 2:05 p.m. May 5, 2014Yes, we are one vote away from judicial
tyranny, and that's exactly what we will have if the far right gets to
appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. As it stands, we have two
far-left, two center-left, one center-right and four far-right justices. Get
one more far-right justice on the court, and the people of the United States can
pretty much kiss their civil rights goodbye. Thanks to those on the far right,
the Constitution is already hanging by a thread. I hate to think what will
happen to the country if someone like Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas get a
chance to break that thread.We need more centrists on the Court. I
hope the next President has the good sense to appoint a centrist. Somehow,
looking at the people who have thrown their hats into the ring on the far right
side, I don't see that happening. It's imperative that whoever is
nominated, of whatever party, be a rational moderate and not a far right fringe
dweller. John Huntsman -- please, pretty please, run again!
Will Christians support Muslim prayers? Or will they only support fellow
Christian prayers? The people who complain the most about religion
are Christians against Muslims.
To those satanist, muslim and other statements - those are just silly. If a
muslim were to offer a prayer, so what...... what do you all think really would
happen? I have attended events where prayers of all kinds of denominations were
offered up.... from meetings in Malaysia, Israel, Japan and even China. I was
not in the least offended... not sure why you should be offended by a Christian
payer. Seems intolerance has found a home.Mike Richards - I whole
heartily agree that this was a good decision. Conditional free speech serves no
one.On the other hand Mike R...I have no idea why you think people
who believe in a strict separation of state and religion are anti God.
Believing in God has nothing to do with it... You can believe in God... and
still feel there are certain venues where religious expression is not in the
best interest of either.
@Mike RI can't speak for all the satanists as I'm not one
(I don't believe in any make believe beings) but I'm guessing that
they would have to sneak into public meetings because they know full well that
people like you would do everything in their power to bar them from being a part
of the public process. You would strip them of citizenship, of the right to
vote, of the right of free speech, of the right to worship how, where, or what
they may. They have seen your kind before - people who would run the country as
a theocracy imprisoning or kicking out anyone that doesn't worship exactly
as you do (incidentally most Americans don't realize that this is exactly
how the Puritans operated). I really find it funny that most Mormons
desire an America run as a theocracy when in fact if it was, Mormons would be
driven from the country because most Christians view Mormons as little better
than a satanist cult.
@Wraith:I think you've misrepresented what most Mormons desire.
I don't know any who wish to run America as a theocracy. So I'm going
to throw the hyperbole flag on you, and tack on an additional 5 yard penalty for
demonizing those with whom you disagree. But we do agree on one thing, as
Mormons don't believe in imaginary beings, either.Separation of
church and state is not the same thing as banning religious expression from the
public square. The former allows and even encourages public religious expression
by private individuals, in the same way that Thomas Jefferson had no problem
offering various Christian sects a government building in which to hold their
worship services. Banning religious expression from the public square, on the
other hand, institutes atheism as the official state religion, which action is
expressly prohibited in both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Surely we can bring up the activist judges legislating from the bench cliche.
@PopsI deserve that penaltySecondly, you can't have
atheism as a state religion because atheism is not a religion, after all NOT
collecting stamps isn't a hobby. At least be grammatically correct and say
it could be a state policy.However, I want to point out one thing.
Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about this subject outside of historical
study? This is one of the most important things Americans have completely
forgotten. The founders did NOT agree on everything. They argued even. But one
thing they almost all agreed on was this: they did NOT want us to care about
their intent. They did NOT want us to come to worship them and their writings so
much that we became trapped by them. The wanted us to figure it out for
ourselves. If we decide that we are better off banning all religious expression
from the public square that's okay as long as we go about it
constitutionally.They would have begged us to stop worrying about
what they wanted and start focusing on what we feel is best for our country at
UtahBlueDevil, this isn't Malaysia, Israel, Japan or even China. This is
the US. It's not a matter of who is offended. Public
officials praying to a particular god at a public function is tacit promotion of
that god. It's wrong
@ Wraith,Lots of us do care what the intent of the Founders was, because
understanding the intent sheds light on the meaning. If you leave out the
intent, you are left with a meandering point of view, much the same as moral
relativism. Knowing the intent doesn't trap, it liberates from the
captivity of incorrectness. Just like in math, once you make a mistake you
can't keep going with the formula because everything thereafter is wrong
since it is based on bad calculations. If you miss the intent of the Founders,
you miss the point. That's why it is important to know the intent.
Just how many times a day must the Christians pray? Must they do it so often
that it becomes necessary toinpolitely impose upon everyone else while
they indulge themselves in their religious exhibitionism? Sincere prayer should
be a personal thing between ones self and their chosen diety, not a catalyst for
division within the community. You can pray your guts out all you want at home
and in church, but in the town square, it serves no constructive purpose......
Quite the opposite, actually.
Stamp collecting vs. not collecting stamps is not a fitting analogy of atheism
vs. theism. Both atheism and theism are belief systems, one of which
intentionally includes God and the other of which intentionally excludes God.
Neither can be objectively proven true or false, at least not in this life. Thus
it is highly inappropriate for government to force either belief system on
anyone. The correct course of action is to allow public expression of all belief
systems of the citizens. That doesn't mean that each publicly
offered prayer must invoke all belief systems simultaneously, as some have
suggested. Prayers to open legislative and council sessions should be
representative of the citizens within the jurisdiction. If 1% of the people are
atheists, it would be appropriate to skip the prayer 1% of the time if those
atheists should demand it. But what atheists are demanding is that 100% of the
prayers be skipped even though that is contrary to the composition of the
citizenry and contrary to the constitution, as correctly ruled by the Supreme
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments