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
I can't imagine a less important issue for SCOTUS to waste their time
deciding. So, meaningless pro-forma prayers can begin public meetings. So what?
The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the
establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the
U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the
"separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second
approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation"
interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from
preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the
government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to
achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
God bless anyone who understands that prayers which dwell on Jesus belong in
churches.He would have been the first to say "Do not make the
non-believers feel unwelcome"
@Jack:"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"So which
side of the 2nd amendment are you? The side of guns to those in well formed
militias or the side of guns for all?The intent was for only those
in militias and military to have the right to keep and bare arms. It
wasn't to have everyone in the country with a stockpile of guns, because
they can.So, if you are for intent, you are for a restricted 2nd
amendment. No one can be for the Founders' intent on one subject but
ignore or go against it on other subjects.
"t'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"I respectfully disagree. This nation was founded on the
expressed intent to protect religious freedom. There is a big difference
between free expression of religious beliefs and compelling one to believe in a
certain way. Ones profession of their beliefs through prayer in no way compels
anyone to believe anything they don't want to. Now if a law were created
that either compels or restricts ones own beliefs.. that would be wrong.The idea that one must become sectarian in beliefs or actions because
they hold public office is absurd... and wrong.
The problem this creates for secularists is huge! Thou shalt have no other God
but the government!
Don't gloat. The problem comes when the content of prayers will be
scrutinized, which is basically what the decision says. This could actually be
a step backwards for religious freedom.
If the officials want to have a prayer, make it non-denominational and have it
before the start of the meeting and before people start to arrive. Anyone who
is interested in participating can arrive at the earlier time; those who do not
want to participate can arrive at the stated time for the meeting. Problem
solved for everyone.
Perhaps I was too harsh or not clear enough in my earlier post. I did not mean
that we shouldn't study the founders intent (although sadly for most
Americans they only study their intent when it agrees with them - you would be
very surprised at what many of the founders wanted for America). My point, and
the point of many a founder as well, was that we should not place them and their
writings in such a deified realm that it makes us unable to adapt our country as
we may need to. The amendment process was put into the constitution for a
reason, a reason many of the founders felt was vitally important. They knew the
future would present challenges they couldn't foresee and they hoped that
in the future smart men and women would be able to adapt as needed. Too often
today people only care about the founders intent when what they should be asking
is: How do we solve this problem as Americans? What do we need to do right now
to both maintain our liberties but also solve our problems - even if it means
amending the Constitution?
One poster remarks "No one has EVER been hurt by listening to a prayer."
To whom I respond that he probably did not grow up in a household with an Uncle
who insisted on marathon prayers and every meal and bedtime. What I really
couldn't understand was why it was necessary to bless every relative every
day. And there was those times in my early Navy career when to save
money we would opt for the free coffee and donuts at the YMCA. That was my
first encounter with the 20 minute prayer to bless the food. So
beyond my sore knees, I never was harmed by public or private prayers.
" So, meaningless pro-forma prayers can begin public meetings. So
what?"Aint that the truth. Try and pay attention to the bland
nonsense offered up as petitions to God and you'd have to believe if there
were a God they would spend most of their time going ya, ya, ya heard that one.
If it were not for the commercial aspect of religion, I would not have any
objection. For the non-believer religion seems to be no different than any other
commercial enterprise. And the special status and favors are unjustified.
Allowing public prayer should also allow other commercial advertising in the
meeting. Perhaps we could allow McDonalds or Walmart to run their commercial as
an periodic alternative.
Presumably this will embolden the Evangelicals in Texas who in a pre-football
game prayer asked God to help the Catholic and Mormon families, that they might
come to know the real Jesus.In that case the ACLU was called in, it
was deemed the prevailing religion went too far in their prayer, and the Mormon
and Catholic families felt just a bit more protected.Adios, feeling
of equality - let the conversion of the Mormons, Catholics and whomever else
doesn't meet the criteria begin! If the Supremes ruled public
prayers are OK, why shouldn't the limits be tested?
This just seems like such a no-brainer to me for a "free society".In a free society you are free to do what you think is best, even pray,
whenever, where ever you feel you want to or need to. When the
government controls your life... it's NOT a "free society".
It's a controlled society.When the government tells you WHEN,
and WHERE you can pray... you live in a "Controlled Society"... not a
"Free Society". We live in a FREE Society.WE decide IF we
pray, and WHEN we pray... NOT the Government...===="Religious Freedom" does not mean nobody around you can have religion,
or that you will never have to see anybody doing something religious. It means
EVERYBODY is free... to worship how, when, and where they may... no
restrictions.And that goes for ALL religions... not just mine...
to The Wraith,I agree with you, the amendment process was put in to change
the constitution, not the Supreme Court. As the constitution now stands,
prayers are fine. If people don't like this, rather than doing an end run
around our governmental procedures, propose an amendment to change things.
however, our liberal brethren either do not or they realize they cannot be
successful doing this, so they appeal the Supreme Court to change things for
them, something that is not supposed to be done. A judge like Scalia is exactly
what we need because he is one of the few judges who does not exceed the true
scope of his powers but would leave many things to the states. If you want
straight hard facts on specific instances where rather than using the amendment
process liberals have used the courts, see abortion, women's rights (the
14th amendment was never meant to extend to any category but race, an amendment
should be required to extend it further), gay marriage and on and on. These
groups know they could not pass an amendment, could not get the required number
of states, so they go the court.
@10CC,Re: "Evangelicals in Texas who in a pre-football game prayer
asked God to help the Catholic and Mormon families, that they might come to know
the real Jesus"...I've heard Baptist friends and some I
didn't know, pray for me... it doesn't offend me. You assume it
would, but it doesn't. It just shows they care (IMO).====We should not be restricting ANYBODY's right to pray, whenever,
wherever they want too...THAT... is the concept of "religious
freedom". Try it... you may like it!==="Religious Freedom" does NOT mean everybody you don't like
can't observe their religion... or that you will never have to see anybody
pray (even a person of another faith).It means ALL religions are
respected... and ALL people are free to worship... why is that so hard for you
and others on the Left to understand???
West Valley City and a number of other Utah cities begin their city council
meetings by allowing a councilmember to choose what to do. This opening exercise
may consist of poetry, a prayer, a quotable quote, the Pledge, etc. It's an
exercise of free speech. When government makes prayer an official part of the
agenda, that's a promotion of religion and it's coercive. The view that "if you don't like prayer, just leave the room" is
a divisive and shameful position for a Christian to take.If
government entities followed the example of West Valley, we could put this
contentious issue behind us while still having public prayers. Unfortunately,
many religious and political leaders prefer contention and grandstanding.
to Mike R yesterday afternoon...Maybe, the 4 dissenting justices
have read Matthew 6?to Cats also yesterday afternoon...I
don't about you but I've heard some real self-absorbed people blather
on trying to show others (But mainly convince themselves) how pious they are.
Can anyone look at the last four years of the Republicans in Congress and
honestly think that the daily opening prayer has resulted in peaceful dialogue
and cooperation? It wasn't the Democrats who labeled them "The party
10CC. You make a great point. Sometimes "prayers" are abused and become
unscheduled sermons! I have even heard a few in LDS meetings. Not often, but I
have nonetheless. In those cases, those abusing the privilege were never invited
to pray in meetings again at the digression of the presiding authority.
re: Hank Pym,I agree with you. Maybe those four justices should
read Matthew 6 where Christ publicly prayed (the Lord's prayer). Maybe
they (and we) should carefully read it and study how Christ gave honor and glory
and thanks to our Father in Heaven, where Christ prayed that the Father's
will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Thank you, Hank, for
reminding us to read the Lord's prayer and to do as the Lord did, thanking
God for everything, and reminding us that until we do things on earth as they
are done in heaven, that we have room for improvement.The five
justices who handed down the majority opinion understand something of prayer.
Maybe someday the entire Court will understand that they are not nearly wise
enough to act on their own when exercising judgemental authority over the laws
of the United States and that invoking God's aid would give them the wisdom
to Mike RichardsI wondered if this would come back to bit me &
it has. Let me be more specific and refer all to Verses 6 & 7 in particular.
Pops wrote:"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."Of course, not all Mormons are conscious and deliberate theocrats. But
theocracy is a doctrinal aspiration in Mormonism. Indeed, the seriously
theocratic component of Mormonism may be a minority - but we also know that a
minority can have influence far beyond its numbers, especially when that
minority is in power in the organization and has scriptural mandate for
"Dominionism". The LDS Bible Dictionary explains: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on
the earth, but is at the present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During
the millennial era, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical
(see Dan. 7:18, 22, 27; Rev. 11:15; JST Rev. 12:13, 7; D&C 65), and will
have worldwide jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made a full
end of all nations (D&C 87:6)."
re: Hank Pym,It's good to see that you have a sense of humor.
Did you read verse 5? To whom was the Lord speaking? Was He speaking about
those who were asked or assigned to pray for a group or was He speaking about
those who prayed publicly whose intention was to be noticed, not to honor
God?Do you think that Christ would tell us to NOT have prayers
before public meetings or was He serious when He pleaded that we should act on
earth as others act in heaven? Do you remember that He instructed us to
sanctify ourselves to the point that we would be able (and worthy) to be
inspired by the Holy Ghost?The Court was wise in allowing prayer.
Whether those justices believe in God or not, they recognised that people all
across America are anxious to invoke God's blessings when public meetings
are held where the public's business is discussed.
@BYU9293You had me until you started to in on the Supreme Court.
Like it or not (and there are times I like court rulings and times I don't)
the Supreme Court is a part of our government. They serve a vitally important
purpose by interpreting the laws of the country. People who appeal to the
Supreme Court on any topic aren't trying to make an "end run"
around the Constitution. They are simply exercising their constitutional right
to petition the government. I get frustrated with people saying judges are
"activists" when all they are doing is their job. Just because you
don't agree with the ruling doesn't mean the judges are activists or
evil. For example, I don't agree with this prayer ruling but I don't
think the court was being activist - they were simply doing their job. So, please everyone, stop ripping on the court simply because you don't
like a ruling. The Supreme Court is incredibly important in keeping our country
free and protecting our liberties. Learn to respect their role even if you
don't always agree with them.
Rameumptom...5 unelected voices on the SCOTUS decided Americans can
say a prayer as long as it fits within the SCOTUS definition of a ceremonial
prayer.Wonderful.And if some enterprising soul decides
to film/record the utterances (think Mitt's 47%, Donald's comments to
his girl friend, or Cliven's theories etc.)...verifying the ceremonial
prayer did not conform to the approved SCOTUS definition of a ceremonial
prayer...What then?Back to the courts to get a
ruling...eventually appealed through the courts back to the SCOTUS? And this decision is seen as a victory?A victory for lawyers and
judges looking for something to do?Exactly.
Why do left-leaning people care so much... that we NOT be allowed to pray???===Reading these comments it's obvious these people
care... and they really really really want us NOT to pray... why is that??If I did not believe in your God... I would not be pulling out all the
political stops and trying to use the courts... to keep you from praying. Why
dot they care if people pray or not? I would think they wouldn't care...
but obviously they do... a LOT.
People get up in public, in public meetings, and worship their god, such as the
federal government, or someone else's money, or Obama, all the time. Those of us who worship Him who never abuses his power should have the
right to speak of and to our God as well.
It amazes me that there are those who actually take offense to others offering
up thanks for those things we have little control over, and to bless those that
are in need. How these things could be offensive... I do not know.This is not about organized religion... or any particular faith what so ever.
To construe so misinterprets the intent completely.
@canyonprophet69,I personally don't care if they have a prayer in the
meeting or not... what I DO care is... if they are PROHIBITED... by Government
force to NOT pray.Does that make sense?
@2 bitsHow about if one senator's perception of prayer was
given more weight than another's? It's already happened, and
it's the exact reason this SC ruling is concerning."Republican Rep. Steve Smith on Wednesday said the prayer offered by
Democratic Rep. Juan Mendez of Tempe at the beginning of the previous day's
floor session wasn't a prayer at all. So he asked other members to join him
in a second daily prayer in "repentance,""Who gets to
decide which religion is good enough to be invoked in legislative meetings?It's interesting the people who are all for this decision are also
Great, a legalized Rameumptom.
I right about now, on the exact opposite side of the planet, Americans are
fighting and Dying to take prayer OUT of the Government and Public sector...
CatsSomewhere in Time, UTNo one has EVER been hurt by listening to a
prayer.4:14 p.m. May 5, 2014======= That's funny, because I thought the had the cockpit voice
recordings of the terrorists praying to Allah as they flew those planes into the
Twin Towers and Pentegon on 9/11...
2 bits:I genuinely appreciate your question and your acknowledgement
about liberals being well meaning.I can't speak for others, but
from my experience there have been just too many examples of religious thinking
being way, waaaaay off course for me to be comfortable with religious ceremony
being part of our government processes, especially in a multi-cultural society
like we have.It's easy to see how generally peaceable
majorities would see no harm in it. But in the history of human beings,
religion has been a tinderbox that has very quickly and too easily resulted in a
lot of damage, of well meaning but misguided thinking. In my own experience, in
this state, there were toxic views on race, based on religion.In
some societies there have been animal sacrifices, even human sacrifices - all
very well intended. In Polynesian cultures it was customary to sacrifice a
slave and put them in the foundation of a new building, no big deal. In our own country we're only 150 years away from that being entirely
legal. Slavery itself was sanctioned by religion here.In Kansas
they outlawed Sharia law, but Christian prayer is OK?
Great news! Now I can attend a public meeting and pray to Satan!
This is the same Judges that affirmed the ACA.
Pretty sure The Lord instructed us in Matthew to pray out in public and flaunt
your prayers. Right?The right has no clue what the bible is about.
@Makid, sorry but no. The Founder's intent with the 2nd, as well as the
rest was to limit government. It's quite simple. The citizenry form the
militia, and still do. For the militia to be well regulated, or trained, they
needed arms to be effective. They intended the 2nd Amendment to ensure that the
citizenry had the right to keep and bear arms, especially after the Revolution
where the British would confiscate arms at whim, just because they could and the
subjects had no such rights. US citizens have that right, as the Founders
intended.Simple Civics, did you miss that class?
I don't really have any problem with prayers in public places. I've
been around prayer all of my life. But if the person offering the prayer, prays
for something I disagree with, might I express an objection at the conclusion of
the prayer, without being dismissed? For example, during the last presidential
election many here about offered prayers on behalf of Mitt Romney, though I
wasn't actually present on those occasions. Had I and had I objected,
would my objection have been cordially noted, or would I have been slugged?
Jack from Aurora:It may or may not be debatable exactly what the
Founders intent was on the 2nd Amendment, but it has morphed into many million
"militias of one", with firepower that didn't exist at the time of
our Revolution.If the intent really is to have commons be able to
slug it out toe-to-toe with the mainline military, how could that possible be
accomplished? The mismatch in technology and the requirements to operationalize
that technology go far beyond breaking into the local armory.Based
on how things happened with Cliven Bundy, do those on the right truly believe
the right-wing fantasy of turning the public's support toward them in a
full scale civil war to put down an uprising of not-quite-so-bright fanatics
with crazy views on a lot of things? When it's all said and
done, Cliven Bundy may be the catalyst for the Tea Party losing some steam.
Due to the complexity of religions -- the number of religions to which the
people of a community adhere and the fact that there are non-believers in
addition to believers in the community -- a way should be found so that all of
their concerns are addressed and only the people who wish to be included in any
religious observance are included. If the jurisdiction's
officials want to have a devotional prior to a meeting they, of course, have
every right to do so pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling. Members of
the public can also attend if it is an open devotional and they want to attend.
The devotional, however, should be held prior to the beginning of the
jurisdiction's actual meeting. That way the business of the jurisdiction
is handled in a secular manner but those who also wish a religious observance
can have it. Everyone's concerns are handled that way.
Mike Richards, I doubt if the four justices are opposed to god. They are
opposed to the idea that everyone has a different God and no one deserves to
have it shoved down their throats. They are not bigots by any sense of the
word. People just want religion left out of politics. I don't want your
religion to tell me what to do. Nor do I want my religion to force others to
believe as I do. And as we know even in the State's predominant
religion there is no consensus on politics. So let's keep it that way.
@10CC,My original post was about the intent of the Founders, and the
response was about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I believe that the intent
of the Bill of Rights is to limit government and this case is a clear case of
such limitations being needed. The Supremes ruled correctly that the government
cannot limit the right to pray.Now, for Mr Bundy....he lost me at
"I don't recognize the Federal government"...Then, the
confrontation with the folks who brought guns into it...bad move. That resulted
in a sort of Cuban Missile Crisis situation, and the BLM blinked. It's not
over, and it should never have gone that far. That said, I do believe that had
those folks not resisted the BLM force would have rolled right over them in a
case of government overreach. Both sides escalated needlessly. Had it been me,
I would have herded Bundy's cattle onto his land and off the BLM land,
then let him deal with the overcrowding. Round up no, herd off the BLM land,