Saying Jesus Christ name is unconstitutional.

[Guest Sachi001]

An article came out today that caught my attention.

Federal appeals court: Saying “Jesus” during public prayer is unconstitutional

Federal appeals court: Saying “Jesus†during public prayer is unconstitutional | Ken Klukowski | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Well now I can't stand hypocrisy. It's okay for the Supreme court to have a Christian prayer, but no one else in government? I can not see why Federal Courts can not follow precedents when a superior court is okay with such.

In Hawaii you cannot say prayer in school, but yet they say prayer in government events, opening of the state capitol in front of legislators, in the state Supreme court, County Councils etc... it just drives me nuts with such hypocrisy. I understand that such other religious groups feel left out, but I have a solution to the putting one's religion over another.

At my step-sons graduation a while back. they were told they could not do a prayer. You know what. They got together in front of everyone during opening excesses and all joined hands in a circle and bowed their heads in a moment of silence. Then all those can worship who they want without offending any whiners.

What do you all think?

BTW I bet I could do a Christian prayer in Hawaiian in North Carloina in front of those two bozos. Bet they would have no idea Jesus was metioned and they would have not have given a second thought such as praying to Pele.

E ko mākou Makua i loko o ka lani

E hōano ‘ia kou inoa

E hiki mai kou aupuni

E mālama ‘ia kou makemake ma ka honua nei,

E like me ia i mālama ‘ia ma ka lani lā

E hā‘awi mai iā mākou i kēia lā

i ‘ai mākou no nēia lā

E kala mai ho‘i iā mākou i kā mākou lawehala ‘ana,

me mākou e kala nei i ka po‘e i lawehala i kā mākou

Mai ho‘oku‘u ‘oe iā mākou i ka ho‘owalewale ‘ia mai

E ho‘opakele nō na‘e iā mākou i ka ‘ino

No ka mea, nou ke aupuni

A me ka mana

A me ka ho‘onani ‘ia a mau loa aku

[Hawaiian Dictionary(Eng to Hwn)]

Iesū inoa ‘Āmene.

(Lord's prayer)

Edited August 2, 2011 by Sachi001

[mightynancy]

I think they ought to do away with prayers in government settings (schools, courts, city councils, etc). It's problematic and divisive. Nothing prevents government officials or other individuals from praying on their own, but including prayer in public ceremonies (governmental, not open-to-the-public events hosted by non-government groups/individuals) is hard to do without violating the Constitution.

[Just_A_Guy]

Link to the opinion, here.

[Blackmarch]

I think they ought to do away with prayers in government settings (schools, courts, city councils, etc). It's problematic and divisive. ...

So is about every other thing that people have issues with >.<

...Nothing prevents government officials or other individuals from praying on their own, but including prayer in public ceremonies (governmental, not open-to-the-public events hosted by non-government groups/individuals) is hard to do without violating the Constitution.

depends on how its intrepreted.

[HEthePrimate]

Goodness, I said 'Jesus' just this morning! When can I expect the police to knock on my door?

One of the great things about the United States is that we don't have a state-sponsored religion, and people are free to practice any religion they please, or none at all. Allowing people of all different faiths, including non-Christian ones, would be one approach they could take. However, that doesn't take into account the sensibilities of atheists, so really the only way they could be accommodated is by not praying at all at public events.

There is nothing to stop government officials from praying and seeking divine guidance in private, though, whether by themselves or in groups of like-minded associates.

Peace.

[RescueMom]

People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion, Elder Oaks Says

Dallin H. Oaks on religous freedoms.

If the State gets to dictate Religion...Then they can force what ever religion they want to on all of us...Not exactly following the Plan of Salvation, even if they pick Christianity.

[Gwen]

I can see the line they are drawing. You can pray, say god, but don't name a specific god.... that keeps it "fair" to all faiths. Many faiths pray, not all pray to the "same" god.

Maybe the conversations I've had recently with my son's muslum Dr are what have opened my mind to this. We talk about god all the time. We both say we believe in one god and thus we believe in the same god, we just define him differently and only one of us can be right. lol

I could probably say a very respectful, spiritual, and keeping with my personal style prayer without ever saying "jesus". A prayer that my son's muslum dr could probably very comfortably say "amen" to.

[HEthePrimate]

People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion, Elder Oaks Says

Dallin H. Oaks on religous freedoms.

If the State gets to dictate Religion...Then they can force what ever religion they want to on all of us...Not exactly following the Plan of Salvation, even if they pick Christianity.

I agree with what you say, Rescue Mom.

Two questions I have:

1. Is Elder Oaks' statement that "the guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem" in fact true? I know that (religious) people are always saying that, but where's the evidence? Examples?

2. If this weakening is actually happening, is it in fact "attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism"? It seems to me that moral relativism would allow for religious people to practice their own religions and morals, as long as they allowed them to do the same. Is not the rise of religious fundamentalism actually a greater threat to religious liberty? What I'm referring to is fundamentalist groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church or extreme Islamists trying to force their views on others. If we look at the history of the American colonies before the Revolution, we see a good amount of persecution being carried out by religious groups against people who believed differently, which is why separation of church and state was so important to the Founders, who wanted the persecutions to stop.

HEP

Edited August 3, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[mightynancy]

Exactly. When my LDS friends decry the "removal of God from schools" I ask them if they really want the government/school/teacher defining God for their children. Let the school teach math, and let me teach my children about God how I want to.

[mordorbund]

I read the opinion, and it sounds like the problem was that 4/5 of the prayers invoked the name of Jesus. The Board had a rotation set up so that no denomination prays more than twice in a year and those prayers couldn't be back to back. The ruling favors "nonsectarian" prayers (almost encouraging legislative prayers); it sounds like it would also be ok with a rotation that was fair in a senate kind of way - not a house of reps kind of way (bucketize religions into n groups and each group gets the same number of prayers - as opposed to everybody gets a chance, but the majority (bucket) religion gets the majority of prayers).

[HEthePrimate]

Maybe instead of having a spoken prayer, they could put up a string of prayer flags. Except rather than the whole string being Tibetan Buddhist, each different faith could have its own flag (a Mormon flag, a Catholic flag, a Buddhist flag, a Muslim flag, etc.). That way, everybody's prayers could fly on the wind together, rather than compete with each other!

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_flags

[Guest Sachi001]

Goodness, I said 'Jesus' just this morning! When can I expect the police to knock on my door?

One of the great things about the United States is that we don't have a state-sponsored religion, and people are free to practice any religion they please, or none at all. Allowing people of all different faiths, including non-Christian ones, would be one approach they could take. However, that doesn't take into account the sensibilities of atheists, so really the only way they could be accommodated is by not praying at all at public events.

There is nothing to stop government officials from praying and seeking divine guidance in private, though, whether by themselves or in groups of like-minded associates.Peace.

The way it's going it won't be long before they will be ordered to stop.

[Guest Sachi001]

Maybe instead of having a spoken prayer, they could put up a string of prayer flags. Except rather than the whole string being Tibetan Buddhist, each different faith could have its own flag (a Mormon flag, a Catholic flag, a Buddhist flag, a Muslim flag, etc.). That way, everybody's prayers could fly on the wind together, rather than compete with each other!

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_flags

Like the 10 Commandments. You cannot display religious flags or Icons.

[MarginOfError]

Like the 10 Commandments. You cannot display religious flags or Icons.

Quite the contrary. You can't display religious icons in preference over another. Thus, if you showed the religious icons of all religions that asked to be represented, you would be fine.

[Guest Sachi001]

Quite the contrary. You can't display religious icons in preference over another. Thus, if you showed the religious icons of all religions that asked to be represented, you would be fine.

In Alabama and Ohio Courtrooms I rest my case :)

Judge's Ten Commandments Display in Courtroom Ruled Unconstitutional

Ten Commandments judge removed from office - CNN

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sachi001

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with what you say, Rescue Mom.

Two questions I have:

1. Is Elder Oaks' statement that "the guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem" in fact true? I know that (religious) people are always saying that, but where's the evidence? Examples?

I think the website already linked, links to a transcript of Elder Oaks' full remarks. If I remember correctly, he points to the standard examples pointed out frequently by gay-marriage opponents, to wit:

• The South Carolina (?) case where a Methodist church was required to lease seaside property out for a gay wedding;
• The Canadian case where a pastor suffered legal repercussions for a newspaper ad that pretty much quoted parts of the Bible verbatim;
• The New Mexico case where a photographer or florist was legally compelled to service a gay commitment ceremony to which she objected on religious grounds.

2. If this weakening is actually happening, is it in fact "attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism"? It seems to me that moral relativism would allow for religious people to practice their own religions and morals, as long as they allowed them to do the same.

I think "moral relativism" often becomes a (perhaps not-quite-semantically-accurate) catch-all term for "people who don't subscribe to traditional moral values, including especially (but not necessarily limited to) views of human sexuality".

Is not the rise of religious fundamentalism actually a greater threat to religious liberty? What I'm referring to is fundamentalist groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church or extreme Islamists trying to force their views on others.

Westboro Baptist Church is obnoxious, but how are they "forcing" their views on others other than refusing to shut up?

And Islamic fundamentalism is over a thousand years old; what's new is its encroachment into western society. And one could argue that that encroachment is merely filling the void left by the decline of Judeo-Christian cultural hegemony in the west.

If we look at the history of the American colonies before the Revolution, we see a good amount of persecution being carried out by religious groups against people who believed differently, which is why separation of church and state was so important to the Founders, who wanted the persecutions to stop.

HEP

But here's an interesting thing--and it's important, whenever we're going to trot out the "constitutional" card:

That kind of persecution also continued well beyond the ratification of the Constitution.

We can argue that something is divisive, immoral, unethical, perverse, revolting, etc. We can even argue that it ought to be illegal on policy grounds.

But we should be very, very careful before we label anything as "unconstitutional". The fact that the constitution's own framers permitted the continuation of a particular practice under the Constitution, is prima facie evidence that it is constitutional at least under that document's plain meaning.

"Unconstitutional" is not merely a synonym for "bad".

Edited August 4, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I think the website already linked, links to a transcript of Elder Oaks' full remarks. If I remember correctly, he points to the standard examples pointed out frequently by gay-marriage opponents, to wit:

• The South Carolina (?) case where a Methodist church was required to lease seaside property out for a gay wedding;
• The Canadian case where a pastor suffered legal repercussions for a newspaper ad that pretty much quoted parts of the Bible verbatim;
• The New Mexico case where a photographer or florist was legally compelled to service a gay commitment ceremony to which she objected on religious grounds.

I think "moral relativism" often becomes a (perhaps not-quite-semantically-accurate) catch-all term for "people who don't subscribe to traditional moral values, including especially (but not necessarily limited to) views of human sexuality".

Westboro Baptist Church is obnoxious, but how are they "forcing" their views on others other than refusing to shut up?

And Islamic fundamentalism is over a thousand years old; what's new is its encroachment into western society. And one could argue that that encroachment is merely filling the void left by the decline of Judeo-Christian cultural hegemony in the west.

But here's an interesting thing--and it's important, whenever we're going to trot out the "constitutional" card:

That kind of persecution also continued well beyond the ratification of the Constitution.

We can argue that something is divisive, immoral, unethical, perverse, revolting, etc. We can even argue that it ought to be illegal on policy grounds.

But we should be very, very careful before we label anything as "unconstitutional". The fact that the constitution's own framers permitted the continuation of a particular practice under the Constitution, is prima facie evidence that it is constitutional at least under that document's plain meaning.

"Unconstitutional" is not merely a synonym for "bad".

Just a reminder that for the cases you provide

1) the seaside property got a tax break by the government because it was open use for all. The second they refused anyone it went against the agreement they reached on the tax break.

2) here's the letter the preacher wrote

June 17, 2002

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

--Rev Stephen Boissoin

Also remember the laws are different between Canada and the states and this letter was linked to the beating of a gay teen in Alberta. Also if you can show me how this letter is just a direct quote from the bible i would appreciate it?

3) We've discussed this one before and i agree. If they advertised Christian clients only then they should never have had any suit against them. If they advertised as open to the public they screwed themselves over by bait and switch. If they can prove they use a litmus test of only doing business with clients that hold and follow their same moral code then that might help as well, but have they turned down couples who were living together before marriage as well?

It's easy to cry foul for religious rights being trampled but the issue comes are they being trampled or are the people who claim the trampling setting themselves up for it. Also one could ask are the people crying foul doing anything similar to any other group of people out there.

[Just_A_Guy]

SS, I'm not necessarily saying there weren't decent arguments to the contrary. I'm just saying that I think ten or fifteen years ago, those arguments wouldn't have even been granted a hearing; the ability of religions (and religious individuals) to act on the street based on what they learn in the sanctuary would have been given a great deal more deference than it was in these particular recent cases. There is a fundamental sea change afoot in our society's ideas of what religions (and religious individuals) should and shouldn't be able to do; and I think that's what Elder Oaks was trying to address.

As for the Canadian incident: we may be thinking of different cases.

[Soulsearcher]

SS, I'm not necessarily saying there weren't decent arguments to the contrary. I'm just saying that I think ten or fifteen years ago, those arguments wouldn't have even been granted a hearing; the ability of religions (and religious individuals) to act on the street based on what they learn in the sanctuary would have been given a great deal more deference than it was in these particular recent cases. There is a fundamental sea change afoot in our society's ideas of what religions (and religious individuals) should and shouldn't be able to do; and I think that's what Elder Oaks was trying to address.

As for the Canadian incident: we may be thinking of different cases.

You are right, different cases. Though to be fair he was cleared in the above case. I admit i don't like the quote he used and a mormon in the states earlier this year killed an older disabled man for money and used that very line and justification. So while it might be a very real belief it can have a negative effect and people were offended and dealt with it through legal channels vs other retaliation. I agree there's a change going on, but i don't think it's the one people tend to see. I think we are seeing more people willing to stand up and disagree now that we are seeing that Organized faiths aren't the perfect bastions of holiness they have tried to portray themselves as for centuries. All of a sudden people are getting guts to stand up and say " i disagree". I'm not sure i see this as a bad thing, in fact i think it could lead to good things for the churches and work at keeping them more honest at all levels. We've already seen the LDS church change how it handles many different issues since it's inception and while some might laugh at the thought of any of it having to do with social climate i think the church has been smart enough to adapt and evolve in positive ways. One of the main reasons for the apathy and drop in faithful Catholic numbers is the inability of the church to change and evolve in a timely manner. without changing core doctrine a church can still evolve enough to retain and speak to youth and this might be a catalyst to those very changes.