Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 May '14 18:36
    I heard an interesting opinion today, that the SCOTUS decision on prayer in town meetings may serve to galvanize more united action including "testing" of the situation by humanists/Jews/Muslims/unaffiliated people in a way that Roe v Wade did for evangelicals, ultimately delivering both an issue and a voting bloc to one of the parties.

    It was also pointed out that the majority decision to allow it were based on consciously carving out an exception based on "tradition" which seems to acknowledge that the practice would be unconstitutional if it hadn't been going on for so long across the US.

    The decision itself relies on a theory that in practice, free expression of non-Christian prayers and/or freedom to excuse oneself from that part of the meeting without consequences, will be honored. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

    A final point I heard is that separation of church and state exists for the protection of church from state, as it does fro the protection of state from church.

    Thsi was on a KQED program called Forum.
  2. 06 May '14 19:09
    http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse
  3. 06 May '14 19:16
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse
    If the people of Oklahoma want the monument, then it should be built. If they don't, then it won't.
  4. 06 May '14 20:48
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If the people of Oklahoma want the monument, then it should be built. If they don't, then it won't.
    I suspect that the people of Oklahoma do not want the monument. However, the monument will still be built and displayed.
  5. 07 May '14 00:01
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    I suspect that the people of Oklahoma do not want the monument. However, the monument will still be built and displayed.
    Let's take a moment to thank God for the Law of Unintended Consequences.
  6. 07 May '14 00:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    I suspect that the people of Oklahoma do not want the monument. However, the monument will still be built and displayed.
    It may be displayed, but not an Oklahoma State government site.
  7. 07 May '14 01:13
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It may be displayed, but not an Oklahoma State government site.
    What about the Ten Commandments?
  8. 07 May '14 02:13
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    What about the Ten Commandments?
    What about the Ten Commandments. Most Oklahomans would like to have that historical monument displayed.
  9. 07 May '14 03:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    What about the Ten Commandments. Most Oklahomans would like to have that historical monument displayed.
    There is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. But Oklahoma cannot discriminate. So if Oklahoma wants to display the Ten Commandments, it must also allow other monuments to be displayed as well.
  10. 07 May '14 05:30
    I don't think the law should make any explicit reference to religion. In fact, doing so suggests that religious opinions are superior (or inferior) to non-religious ones, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination.

    Having said that, I don't see why this is more than a local matter for local politicians to determine. Let's say I start a religion which focuses around reading agenda points. Should it now be banned to read agenda points at town meetings because my religion is not "traditional"?
  11. 07 May '14 15:05
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    There is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. But Oklahoma cannot discriminate. So if Oklahoma wants to display the Ten Commandments, it must also allow other monuments to be displayed as well.
    People discriminate all the time. There simply isn't room on the grounds for each person to erect a monument, so you must discriminate.
  12. 07 May '14 15:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't think the law should make any explicit reference to religion. In fact, doing so suggests that religious opinions are superior (or inferior) to non-religious ones, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination.

    Having said that, I don't see why this is more than a local matter for local politicians to determine. Let's say I start a religio ...[text shortened]... t now be banned to read agenda points at town meetings because my religion is not "traditional"?
    The US Constitution does not uphold your beliefs. Of course the education system we have in place today will allow ignorant people to be told that is does and they will believe it because they do not know any better.
  13. 07 May '14 15:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The US Constitution does not uphold your beliefs. Of course the education system we have in place today will allow ignorant people to be told that is does and they will believe it because they do not know any better.
    Obviously the Founders were not as smart as I am.
  14. 07 May '14 16:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't think the law should make any explicit reference to religion. In fact, doing so suggests that religious opinions are superior (or inferior) to non-religious ones, and is a form of institutionalized discrimination.

    Having said that, I don't see why this is more than a local matter for local politicians to determine. Let's say I start a religio ...[text shortened]... t now be banned to read agenda points at town meetings because my religion is not "traditional"?
    Wow! I actually agree with KN on something.

    Makes me think of rules that don't allow a public school teacher to keep a Bible on his desk in fear that it might sort-of-kind-of establish a state religion. As if the same teacher keeping a hockey rule book on his desk would be tantamount to establishing hockey as the official state sport.

    Although one might argue this is a local matter, we may still elect to discuss it globally. Also, the assertion that this is or should be a local matter might also be discussed globally.
  15. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    07 May '14 16:32
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Obviously the Founders were not as smart as I am.
    Said without a trace of irony. Are you this insufferable in person?