From the Library of Congress.
Records of the Continental Congress in the Constitutional Convention, July 27, 1787
Posted on 05/20/2013 6:11:46 PM PDT by Chaps
[[Now (Orthodox) I wouldn’t lunge for the microphone or anything, but I would prefer if at the outset, a prayer leader in a civic or military setting (school sports team, whatever...) would remain generically Monotheistic and not “Christian” (ie, in Jesus’ name.) I admit it’s a natural bedrock position for Jews.]]
And we would prefer if sercular peopel wouldn’t use the name of God in vain and using all manner of filthy and foul language- however, it is their RIGHT to do so IF they so choose- so we endure it because we wish to protecvt people’s rights- Why aren’t Christians allowed the same free speech rights as secualrists? If we’re goign to go sdown the road of ‘protectign people’s delicate senses of outrage’ by banning ‘In Jesus name Amen” simpyl because soemoen doesn’t ‘like to hear that’ then by golly let’s trampel EVERYONE’S RIGHT to free speech and make sure scular peopel NEVER AGAIN use foul language, use God’s name in Vain, or say ANYTHING that my ultrasensitive sense of outrage might ‘find objectionable’
[[Atheists argue that they have “their rights”, but they exercise those ‘rights’,]]
Yes, but they argue that their ‘rights’ entail being free from ever hearing anythign religious that they might find ‘objectionable’- thsoe are NOT rights- Free speech is a right- Freedom from beign offended is NOT a right- If that were the case, then we woudl have to demand that EVERYONE not say a damn thign again because it ‘might offend’ someone somewhere at soem point i ntime-
[[So it would be legal to pray to God (The Father)]]
Only for a little while after they outlaw prayign n Jesus name- then they will go after prayign to God too when htey think they can get away with it
Good points. I didn’t say ‘ban,’ for the record.
Someone replied with a pic of the congress observing the Protestant Sabbath, I guess to imply that there is Founders-like acceptance of prayer in Jesus’ name.
Someone else posted a local-level decision process (sounds good to me... convince your neighbors and self-segregate... all good.)
[[I didn’t say ‘ban,’ for the record.]]
I waqs speaking loosely in general of thsoe that are tryign to ban a Christian’s right to free speech
[[Someone else posted a local-level decision process]]
Why shoudl it be local level descisions? Free speech is an inalienable right- it’s higher than any court system- and it’s a right we at one time valued very highly- I think it woudl be a terrible idea to have the decision go local, let alone be decided nationally, it’s already been decided, People have an inalienable right to free speech (For htose arguing not all speech is protected- that only pertains to speech which is false and results in deadly actions, such as yelling fire in crowdede theater when there is no fire- A man oprayign in Jesus name is NOT a false speech, nor will it result in deadly consequences by causing stampedes)
At any rate- Our constitution specifically states that we shall enjoy the RIGHT to freely express our relgion and that it shall not be infringed upon- (Soem o nthel eft then argue that all religions shoudl be allowed their right to freely express themselves even if that means engagign in human sacrifices- Again, this does NOT comapre with hte Christian beleifs of prayign in Jesus name as it is NOT breaking laws agaisnt murder nor does it put anyoen at danger)
Bottom line is, it has already been decided=- in our constitution- there is no need to ‘decide’ it any further- Our consitution is abotu protecting our inalienable RIGHTS, not abotu protectign our delicate overly sensitive seneses or outrage-
Records of the Continental Congress in the Constitutional Convention, July 27, 1787
But if your a Muslim, you can curse a dead US soldier over his grave at his funeral... and then opt yourself out of Obamacare.... because it’s gambling.
Thank you DJ MacWOW for the historical context. It is in line with Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, where the government can most certainly support (from the proper level) a religious organization... there’s lots of things the government spends money on that can’t please each and every citizen. (here come the lawyers to say how that is akin to a state religion.... duck!)
What I meant by “local,” CottShop, was that a community is free to self-segregate. Example: a 99% orthodox Jewish community with all-Jewish local government board members decides to have a convocation before a session.... they may not want to open up the floor to a random pick of local religious leaders. Perhaps they choose from their own.... perhaps they don’t want to hear “In Jesus’ name...” They can stack their local deck as much as they want (I presume.... I’ve never been in a 99% orthodox Jewish town hall...) So on a national level...sure, free speech. And if congress itself begins sessions from a mixture of religios leaders and one prays in Jesus’ name... and the non-Christians await “their” turn for the next prayer leader... then wonderful. I don’t know if it actually works that way (ie, if a priest/etc can indeed invoke Jesus’ name...can they on the floor of congress?)
Anyone disagree with my local analogy? In Footloose they banned dancing.... And it’s a loaded question.... I would never invoke anyone other than G-d so I guess I’m not a threat... I wouldn’t want a Hindu invoking a pagan deity. Would you? Freedom and all? Though shall have no other gods... even on the floor of congress?
SCOTUS has no business regulating speech or prayer (which is also speech)
[[What I meant by “local,” CottShop, was that a community is free to self-segregate.]]
Except for when it comes to inalienable rights- These inalienable rights are above everything, even a majority consensus-
[[Perhaps they choose from their own.... perhaps they don’t want to hear “In Jesus’ name...”]]
First off this nation was foudned on Christian morals- plain and simple- secondly, once again- you are leavign the decision about hwo gets to express which inalienable rights where- this opens the door up to dangerousw tyranny- just liek we are seeign with our govenrment these days- and with this latest SCOTUS hearing- Once again, inalienable rights are not open for discussion- they are not up for ‘majority consensus- they are God Given rights-, and ANY law contrary to a God given right, an inalienable right, is a violation of our constitution
What's to decide?
Only post since sign up five years ago??
By the way..... that’s devoting land to a group who would pray/practice in their way. NOT codifying Jesus in our nations founding documents. So still one can make the case for an intended neutral, Monotheistic, G-d-centered national ethos, without specific reference to Jesus.
No one cared to answer....do we enshrine the right for a polytheist to pray to their god(s) as a means of opening a session of congress? (Free speech!) Who would want that (but the polytheist or an atheist/libertarian wishing to watch a monotheist squirm. And what I meant CottShop, about self-segregation, is not that there isn’t free speech....but that a board of like-minded citizens would prefer to conduct their business/meetings as they prefer. If the polytheists moved in in great numbers and got elected to the orthodox Jewish neighborhood board.... they can muscle in as much as their votes/voices allow, could they not?
The whole topic is fascinating and legally confusing. Jews push to have public menorah lightings on public property every Hanukah.... and the polytheists could push for the same I bet (well, unless our national G-d-centered ethos could be interpreted to contravene the will of the attention-seeking polytheist. See, fascinating and confusing. Eliminate all publicly-enabled religion? Support only ....Christian? Monotheist?
The whole controversy is about “rotten tomatoes”
Someone who is in love with the Original Intent of the Constitution (I for one am) would see no issue in praying in Jesus’ name if the large majority in my government (local or otherwise) were Christians. I would expect them to pray to their Christian deity in their own words. I feel no need to be threatened by this behavior unless their prayer was to injure another citizen because of their contrary religious beliefs/practices.
Ronald Reagan said that we can vote with our feet. Most states/counties/towns were created because people wanted to live their lives in peace and tranquility in their own customs.
I would have issues if someone prayed in Jesus’ name for the demise of another group of American citizens. But I don’t think we are talking about that sort of situation. I see this court case as just another way of walking away from the Original Intent of our founding fathers and the Constitution; nay, riding roughshod on the very document.
ADDENDUM: “rotten tomatoes” being those who have it in for Christianity.
Btw, your suppositions are specious. This country was not built on polytheism or any other belief. What you are suggesting is “diversity”, the very thing that is destroying our Republic. We are a Christian nation built on Christian principles. By trying to please everyone we announce our own demise.
**************************
"Footloose" was a movie. Was it based on a true story?
I don’t know, but....Everybody cut footloose!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.