• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Atheists: Texas prayer day harmful

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
If it's in the constitution that a government official isn't allowed to promote anything religious, then I guess they have the law on their side. However, in my opinion, I don't see how they are harmed. The event is sponsored by non political sources. All this Perry guy did was talk about it and say that he was going and help them out a bit. The people running it are citizens as well, and he's there to serve EVERYONE. I see this support as a way to garner the vote of the christian population. These guys doing the suing are basing it on the fact that some advertising company wouldn't let them put up billboards protesting it? How is this Perry's fault?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
If it's in the constitution that a government official isn't allowed to promote anything religious, then I guess they have the law on their side. However, in my opinion, I don't see how they are harmed. The event is sponsored by non political sources. All this Perry guy did was talk about it and say that he was going and help them out a bit. The people running it are citizens as well, and he's there to serve EVERYONE. I see this support as a way to garner the vote of the christian population. These guys doing the suing are basing it on the fact that some advertising company wouldn't let them put up billboards protesting it? How is this Perry's fault?
The problem is that isn't in the Constitution. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone here and I'm willing to discuss/debate this with anyone, but how the Establishment Clause has been interpreted, and is being used in this case, is just stupid. The doctrine of "a wall of separation of church and state" is based on revisionist history and it's becoming apparent those that adhere to how that doctrine is used either cannot read or they are pushing their own selfish agenda.

What is being forgotten here is the latter part of that clause, the first part begins "Congress shall pass no law..." and later we have the free exercise clause which states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A Governor of a state proposing or endorsing a day of prayer does not establish any religion (no one is forced to participate) but more importantly he has the right to freely exercise his religion. Since this free exercise does not infringe on anyone else's rights to practice, believe, worship, not worship, or whatever, this action is in no way unconstitutional. It's become very clear this group of atheists are very ignorant on the history of the Establishment Clause, and the Constitution in general, or is becoming more pathetic in pushing their agenda. It's not difficult and doesn't require an advanced degree in nuclear science, if you don't want to participate, don't. If you do, then do.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
That's right. If his PERSONAL belief is consistent with that of doing something in his neighborhood, or nationwide, he should be able to express it. Just like I will tell a Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, "God bless you" when they sneeze. My belief is that MY GOD will bless them, because that is what MY GOD does and I like that MY GOD loves them, even though they think MY GOD is bogus.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
The problem is that isn't in the Constitution. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone here and I'm willing to discuss/debate this with anyone, but how the Establishment Clause has been interpreted, and is being used in this case, is just stupid. The doctrine of "a wall of separation of church and state" is based on revisionist history and it's becoming apparent those that adhere to how that doctrine is used either cannot read or they are pushing their own selfish agenda.

What is being forgotten here is the latter part of that clause, the first part begins "Congress shall pass no law..." and later we have the free exercise clause which states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A Governor of a state proposing or endorsing a day of prayer does not establish any religion (no one is forced to participate) but more importantly he has the right to freely exercise his religion. Since this free exercise does not infringe on anyone else's rights to practice, believe, worship, not worship, or whatever, this action is in no way unconstitutional. It's become very clear this group of atheists are very ignorant on the history of the Establishment Clause, and the Constitution in general, or is becoming more pathetic in pushing their agenda. It's not difficult and doesn't require an advanced degree in nuclear science, if you don't want to participate, don't. If you do, then do.
Interestingly enough, it parallels what religious groups themselves do with their respective religious texts. This group is taking parts of the constitution and interpreting it in such a way to suit their whims, just like lots of people in religion interpret different parts of their religious texts to mean whatever suits their means.

Also yah, that was my thoughts also. If you don't like it, why sue? Just don't go.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Interestingly enough, it parallels what religious groups themselves do with their respective religious texts. This group is taking parts of the constitution and interpreting it in such a way to suit their whims, just like lots of people in religion interpret different parts of their religious texts to mean whatever suits their means.

Also yah, that was my thoughts also. If you don't like it, why sue? Just don't go.
Well, to be fair religious groups aren't forcing anyone to attend anything and they aren't asking that the state of Texas or the federal government establish a religion, or violate what Jon Locke termed one's "liberty of conscious." Rick Perry is an american citizen, he is afforded the same protections of the Constitution everyone else has. He has the freedom to freely exercise his religious beliefs, and he doesn't lose those protections simply because he's a representative of the state of Texas.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
The problem is if you side with the atheists, the idiots (AKA: the American majority) will think that you're doing it because you 'hate god/religion' which is not the point at all nor is it a rational conclusion. I mean, this country had a pissing fit over a Muslim community center being built a few blocks from Ground Zero, something that should have never been an issue (but our blind hatred of Islam made it an issue). On the one hand, we have plenty of religious holidays already and there are probably more important issues of religion and government wrongfully sucking each others' tits to be had, but the point remains that if you're going to recognize one religion you need to be ready to recognize others.

However, Texas has a rather shoddy history of religious tolerance and this is probably why it bothers people to hear things like this being supported.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
The problem is if you side with the atheists, the idiots (AKA: the American majority) will think that you're doing it because you 'hate god/religion' which is not the point at all nor is it a rational conclusion. I mean, this country had a pissing fit over a Muslim community center being built a few blocks from Ground Zero, something that should have never been an issue (but our blind hatred of Islam made it an issue). On the one hand, we have plenty of religious holidays already and there are probably more important issues of religion and government wrongfully sucking each others' tits to be had, but the point remains that if you're going to recognize one religion you need to be ready to recognize others.

However, Texas has a rather shoddy history of religious tolerance and this is probably why it bothers people to hear things like this being supported.
The issue here is a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of 1) Rick Perry attending this day of prayer and 2) Rick Perry advocating for this day of prayer. There was no lawsuit questiong the constitutionality regarding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. The two couldn't be any more different.

What isn't a rational conclusion is a conclusion that the majority of the American people think that if you "side" with the atheists you hate God and/or religion. That isn't even the issue here. The question here is does Rick Perry have the Constitutionally protected right to exercise his religion freely? The only logical answer is yes.

Here is what I don't understand about your post. One one hand you say idiots will think if you side with the atheists you hate God/religion and claim it's not a logical conclusion. On the other hand you say those that were against the mosque did so because of hate...by the standard you placed on the first part, isn't the second part an illogical conclusion?
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
The issue here is a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of 1) Rick Perry attending this day of prayer and 2) Rick Perry advocating for this day of prayer. There was no lawsuit questiong the constitutionality regarding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. The two couldn't be any more different.
Problem is, you're seeing this only through a lawyer's point of view. I never attempted to compare anything from a legal standpoint. This is strictly about how Americans perceive and handle different religions. So my post was really more about tolerance, kind of like the atheist group in the story. In the end, they're simply going on what they believe and that's that the government and religion have no business being together.

And if taxpayer money is at stake, well then this is going to turn into a whole different discussion.

What isn't a rational conclusion is a conclusion that the majority of the American people think that if you "side" with the atheists you hate God and/or religion. That isn't even the issue here. The question here is does Rick Perry have the Constitutionally protected right to exercise his religion freely? The only logical answer is yes.
You really think a bit too deep into things sometimes.

You keep talking about Rick Perry as if this is something he is planning with his family in their house, which is clearly not the case. Would you defend him if he wanted a Muslim day of prayer? What about a Jewish day of prayer and worship? I've already stated that this is kind of 'small potatoes' when it comes to being an important issue for people to be worrying about as no one is being forced to participate. Like I said previously, I'm just worried if this would have ramifications for the American tax payer because I know I'm sure as hell not going to let my tax dollars go to any faith because they don't belong there.

Here is what I don't understand about your post. One one hand you say idiots will think if you side with the atheists you hate God/religion and claim it's not a logical conclusion. On the other hand you say those that were against the mosque did so because of hate...by the standard you placed on the first part, isn't the second part an illogical conclusion?
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Didn't you just try to argue that the two aren't even remotely connected? Why are you trying to connect them now?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Problem is, you're seeing this only through a lawyer's point of view. I never attempted to compare anything from a legal standpoint. This is strictly about how Americans perceive and handle different religions. So my post was really more about tolerance, kind of like the atheist group in the story. In the end, they're simply going on what they believe and that's that the government and religion have no business being together.

And if taxpayer money is at stake, well then this is going to turn into a whole different discussion.
I'm looking at it from a legal point of view because it's a lawsuit filed claiming him participating in this is unconstitutional, it's a legal issue, that's why I'm looking at it from a legal viewpoint.

As far as taxpayer money at stake, that's my point about revisionist history.


You really think a bit too deep into things sometimes.

You keep talking about Rick Perry as if this is something he is planning with his family in their house, which is clearly not the case. Would you defend him if he wanted a Muslim day of prayer? What about a Jewish day of prayer and worship? I've already stated that this is kind of 'small potatoes' when it comes to being an important issue for people to be worrying about as no one is being forced to participate. Like I said previously, I'm just worried if this would have ramifications for the American tax payer because I know I'm sure as hell not going to let my tax dollars go to any faith because they don't belong there.
When did I say anything about him planning this at his house? What I said was he is an American citizen, and as an American citizen his right to freely exercise his religion is protected. Would it be protected if he wanted a Muslim day of prayer? Absolutely. Would it be protected if it was a Jewish day of prayer? Absolutely. This is an event Rick Perry as a citizen has the freedom to participate in. I don't know of any statute, clause, law, ordinance, amendment, that states a government official loses his Constitutional rights once he takes office.


I'm not sure what you're driving at. Didn't you just try to argue that the two aren't even remotely connected? Why are you trying to connect them now?
I'm not connecting them, I'm commenting on you connecting them. The problem I have is you claimed if someone sided with the atheists the majority of Americans would view that as a hatred against God and that is an illogical conclusion, because after all there could be other reasons why they side with the atheists, right?. Then you say if someone sides against the building of the WTC mosque it's based on hate. Why can't there be other reasons to oppose it and why isn't that an illogical conclusion? I mean, am I the only one that sees the inconsistency?
 
Last edited:
Top