Quantcast
Opinion

My view: How should we listen when the Supreme Court speaks?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    May 17, 2014 2:40 a.m.

    The supreme court is dysfunctional and useless. They are voting on political lines and therefore not a court at all.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 16, 2014 11:21 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger

    "are we going to be included in the public discourse and public meetings."

    You have been included and in many cases included at the exclusion of all others, hence the many lawsuits.

    "It is crazy that there are those who think that the majority should be silenced."

    What's even crazier is that there are still those who wish to continue silencing the minority.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    May 16, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    Badgerbadger
    Murray, UT
    "This is a question of being inclusive. Are Christians going to be banned from expression in favor of all things atheist, or are we going to be included in the public discourse and public meetings.
    Since no group is excluded from signing up to give the invocation, the current practice is inclusive. Those seeking to exclude religious people from giving the opening petition are the ones that are discriminatory and exclusive."

    --- No, not really, if you think about it!

    People are entitled not to believe in prayer, and thus not to believe in an invocation, so they naturally would not be among those who sign up to give it.

    A prayer that speaks only of God is pushing things a bit, since atheists are citizens, too,
    but a prayer in a government setting which goes on and on that Jesus is in charge is rude and oppressive to those who do not believe in Him.

    Christianity can and should be expressed tastefully, not with a tone of retaliation, nor one of superiority, toward those who believe differently.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    May 16, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Mildly curious -- what would an opening prayer given by an atheist sound like ?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 15, 2014 5:03 p.m.

    Matthew 6:5-6 might be instructive here.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 15, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    Here's an idea: have public meetings opened with a prayer personally offered from among the participants. They are the ones supplicating deity for assistance in the work they are engaged in. Why enlist a "professional prayer-giver?"

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 15, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Conservatives will continue to react the same way they always have.

    Whether it be end long slavery, desegregation, or gay marriage. They will rant and rage about how the Constitution is being attacked by liberal socialists, how society is becoming corrupt, and will resist until the President sends the national guard to but down the insurrections.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Listening...

    5 unelected lawyers voted to prescribe ceremonial prayer as the only acceptable form of prayer at a government venue.

    Some decided this State approved authorization was a victory for their cause.

    Prescribed Ceremonial Prayer (for example: Rameumptom) is seen as a victory?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    May 15, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    Using town hall meetings as a forum for people of various religious faiths to showcase their piety inherently favors some religions more than others. Pharisees would love the opportunity to pray in town hall meetings. People who follow Christ’s supplication to pray in the closet would not. So why should Christians who believe that their prayers should be a private matter be subjected to the prayers of Pharisees at town hall meetings?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 15, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    @John Charity Spring wrote: "The left would rather see parents put out of work and have their children go hungry than to allow dissenting voices to be heard."

    That assertion (and overheated rhetoric) is simply not credible.

    "I issue my strongest possible condemnation of those leftists who are seeking to destroy the Constitution."

    The plaintiffs in this case were arguing that the prayers were unconstitutional based on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. So they're trying to destroy the constitution using... the constitution? That makes no sense.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    The real test of this isn't going to be when religion gets to open the meeting. It's going to be when inclusion wants to open the meeting.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    The left-wing will stop at nothing in its efforts to silence those who oppose its views. This includes attempts to silence all religious speech.

    The left would rather see parents put out of work and have their children go hungry than to allow dissenting voices to be heard. In the vision of the left, only one viewpoint has the right to be expressed. 

    This case is simply one more step in this leftist agenda. I issue my strongest possible condemnation of those leftists who are seeking to destroy the Constitution.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    Do I understand Ms Dubinski correctly. Is she saying that the town of Greece should go up to the city of Rochester and find other faiths to say prayers at the town council? Because she seemed to be. Maybe she just didn't express it clearly. However, I think the inclusion should be what the majority of people are in said town or city. If for instance it was a prayer in Beverly Hills California, there would be an abundance of Jewish and Muslim prayers expressed. And, if Salt Lake City Utah, obviously an abundance of Christian prayers expressed. I don't think a town or city needs to worry about trying to represent the nation as a whole, as it seems Ms Dubinski does.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 15, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    This is a question of being inclusive. Are Christians going to be banned from expression in favor of all things atheist, or are we going to be included in the public discourse and public meetings.

    Since no group is excluded from signing up to give the invocation, the current practice is inclusive. Those seeking to exclude religious people from giving the opening petition are the ones that are discriminatory and exclusive.

    It is crazy that there are those who think that the majority should be silenced.