Supreme Court asked to review North Carolina county prayer ruling

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

A North Carolina county will ask the Supreme Court to review a ruling barring it from opening its meetings with Christian prayers.

My view is simple:

Prayer is an individual choice unless one is in a venue devoted explicitly to religious themes. Any mixing of religion and civil administration is forbidden by the Constitution. If one wishes to silently pray prior to a meeting, pray in silence or outside of the meeting.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/10/13/county-will-ask-supreme-court-to-review-prayer-ruling/

[Cartoonist]

1. I don't see how the SC could rule the ban unconstitutional

It practically cuts and pastes the First Amendment.

[guillaumeb]

12. Nor do I, but the SCOTUS is a political institution. eom

[yallerdawg]

2. Don't the US House and Senate open with Christian prayer everyday they are in session?

I see campaign rallies open with prayer, County Commission meetings, Board of Education meetings, City Council meetings, public school football games!

There is a whole lot of unconstitutional activity going on in America right under our noses!

Friend, either you're closing your eyes
To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
By the presence of a pool table in your community.
Well, ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City.

[trotsky]

3. I guess as long it's a prayer for your religion, you're OK.

Religious privilege is an awesome thing.

[yallerdawg]

4. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Just as you are free to practice your faith - or lack thereof - we have to be tolerant of what others practice.

If we express intolerance for any expression of faith, we are making our Big Tent smaller.

I think we need to stop pissing people off and make it a Bigger Tent.

[trotsky]

6. "I think we need to stop pissing people off and make it a Bigger Tent."

So if they're not Christians like you, then they can just shut up, right?

That's what you are saying.

[yallerdawg]

7. That is not at all what I am saying.

I am saying, this is a ridiculous matter to drive as a wedge between people.

Public profession of faith is de rigueur.

Christians don't hide it, Jews don't hide it, Muslims don't hide it, Hindus don't hide it, Buddhists don't hide it.

But you get to impose your "lack of faith" unconditionally?

That's what you are saying.

[trotsky]

8. I agree, the prayer drives a wedge between Christians and other people.

Why is a prayer necessary?

How is simply not having a public prayer "imposing" a "lack of faith"? Isn't it just called secularism at that point? You know, having a government that is accessible to people of all faiths, as well as those with none? Separation of church and state and all that?

[yallerdawg]

9. You want to impose your will on their faith.

The reason church bells ring and mosques echo the Call to Prayer is a matter of faith. Public faith.

Telling people they cannot practice their faith in public is religious intolerance.

That is not what we should be about.

[trotsky]

14. No, Christians like you are the ones imposing your faith on the minority.

Is that OK?

[Mariana]

10. Prayers and "public professions of faith" are not the same thing.

This thread is about a ruling on prayer specifically. It has nothing to do with generic "public professions of faith".

[yallerdawg]

11. If a prayer opening up a meeting...

isn't a public profession of faith, I don't know what is!

The point is, most religions inherently require proselytizing - Christianity to be sure.

If you silence them in public, you are silencing a religion.

Most people - obviously - have no problem with expressions of faith through prayer preceding public meetings since it is so from our highest bodies down to our most local political functions as custom.

Rabid religious intolerance is equally as offensive as the so-called "religious privilege" so vilified.

[trotsky]

15. "So-called" religious privilege?

You did not seriously just say that, did you?

Wow.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. "...so-called 'religious privilege'..."

[AtheistCrusader]

5. For now...

[Angry Dragon]

13. I can agree with your view