Supreme Court rules prayers ok at town council meetings - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Supreme Court rules prayers ok at town council meetings

  1. #21
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Is this supposed to be directed at me? I said nothing about the Supreme Court. I was responding to the logic used in Gloria's argument.
    They seemed pretty clear on a well-regulated militia, states' rights, due process, collecting taxes, etc. yet they have made decisions that aren't aligned with what is written nor what the people want.
    Jessica80 likes this.

  2. #22
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Is this supposed to be directed at me? I said nothing about the Supreme Court. I was responding to the logic used in Gloria's argument.
    The OP was about the Supreme Court ruling that prayer at City Counsel meetings, and Gloria was talking about the Constitution, so that is what I though we were talking about.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #23
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Yeah well the founding fathers also felt it was constitutional that women not vote so....

    not sure how sound your logic is.
    It seems pretty sound to me. If it had been constitutional for women to vote we wouldn't have needed an amendment. Clearly the right of women to vote wasn't addressed in the constitution so an amendment was passed to address it. Maybe there should be an amendment about religious rights.... oops there already is. The existing amendment clearly expresses what the founding fathers meant because these same men who passed it held prayers in the legislature. So the choice is either abide by what it says as the Supreme Court has affirmed, or amend it to say something else.
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #24
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    The OP was about the Supreme Court ruling that prayer at City Counsel meetings, and Gloria was talking about the Constitution, so that is what I though we were talking about.
    Her point was that since our founding fathers believed something was constitutional then it MUST be constitutional...and that was what my rebuttal was about...so i don't see how your response to my rebuttal makes sense.

    And if thats not her point, she should clarify, which maybe she did because i see she has posted after you and i haven't read it yet...

  5. #25
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It seems pretty sound to me. If it had been constitutional for women to vote we wouldn't have needed an amendment.
    Remember that at one point there wasn't an amendment. Your point seemed to be that our founding fathers were somehow infallible, my point is that there is nothing infallible about them. And really there isn't anythign infallible about our Supreme Court either, we have to go along with what they rule, but I'd like to see one individual in this country who thinks the Supreme Court has gotten every ruling right.

    Clearly the right of women to vote wasn't addressed in the constitution so an amendment was passed to address it. Maybe there should be an amendment about religious rights.... oops there already is. The existing amendment clearly expresses what the founding fathers meant because these same men who passed it held prayers in the legislature. So the choice is either abide by what it says as the Supreme Court has affirmed, or amend it to say something else.
    I guess I don't really understand your point. I can't predict the future, I don't know what will or won't happen with the constitution, all I know is "Well this is what the founding fathers thought" doesn't really stand up well on its own.

  6. #26
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Remember that at one point there wasn't an amendment. Your point seemed to be that our founding fathers were somehow infallible, my point is that there is nothing infallible about them. And really there isn't anythign infallible about our Supreme Court either, we have to go along with what they rule, but I'd like to see one individual in this country who thinks the Supreme Court has gotten every ruling right. I guess I don't really understand your point. I can't predict the future, I don't know what will or won't happen with the constitution, all I know is "Well this is what the founding fathers thought" doesn't really stand up well on its own.
    I agree completely. It's not really a rock solid argument. Are we debating whether it's legal, or whether it's right?
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #27
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Her point was that since our founding fathers believed something was constitutional then it MUST be constitutional...and that was what my rebuttal was about...so i don't see how your response to my rebuttal makes sense.

    And if thats not her point, she should clarify, which maybe she did because i see she has posted after you and i haven't read it yet...
    I understood her to say (I could be wrong), You can't say that the Constitution says you can not pray at a City Counsel meeting when the people writing the Constitution regularly prayed at Government meetings. It was obviously not their intent to ban any form of religious expression in any public place.

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    Are we debating whether it's legal, or whether it's right?
    I was debating weather it is legal or Constitutional. Not weather it is right. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, it would have come down as Constitutionally illegal to publicly pray at City Counsel meetings. That has HUGE ramifications and as Gloria pointed out, not at all Constitutional. It is not the Supreme Courts job (the ones who made this decision) to say what they think the law should be or what they think the Constitution should mean. It is their job to uphold the Constitution. If you disagree with the Constitution, then work to change it. Not bend it to mean something that it obviously does not.

    ~Bonita~

  8. #28
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I understood her to say (I could be wrong), You can't say that the Constitution says you can not pray at a City Counsel meeting when the people writing the Constitution regularly prayed at Government meetings. It was obviously not their intent to ban any form of religious expression in any public place.



    I was debating weather it is legal or Constitutional. Not weather it is right. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, it would have come down as Constitutionally illegal to publicly pray at City Counsel meetings. That has HUGE ramifications and as Gloria pointed out, not at all Constitutional. It is not the Supreme Courts job (the ones who made this decision) to say what they think the law should be or what they think the Constitution should mean. It is their job to uphold the Constitution. If you disagree with the Constitution, then work to change it. Not bend it to mean something that it obviously does not.
    You keep saying obvious...if it were so obvious it would not have gone to the Supreme Court. I don't think its so obvious. Oh AND we are not debating a ban on religious expression in any public place. where did that come from??? We are talking about a town council meeting, a government related gathering.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 05-07-2014 at 08:53 AM.

  9. #29
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    You keep saying obvious...if it were so obvious it would not have gone to the Supreme Court. I don't think its so obvious. Oh AND we are not debating a ban on religious expression in any public place. where did that come from??? We are talking about a town council meeting, a government related gathering.
    Would you write a law to ban smoking while you were currently smoking? The writing of the Constitution was done in a government related gathering. We know historically that there was prayer at such government related gatherings when the Constitution was written. Claiming that the writers intention was to ban prayer at government related gatherings is an obvious twisting of the truth.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #30
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Would you write a law to ban smoking while you were currently smoking? The writing of the Constitution was done in a government related gathering. We know historically that there was prayer at such government related gatherings when the Constitution was written. Claiming that the writers intention was to ban prayer at government related gatherings is an obvious twisting of the truth.
    No its not. Maybe its obvious to you but no one would have been arguing it and it wouldn't have made it to the supreme court if it was actually obvious. Saying over and over again that its obvious doesn't make it so...the evidence says otherwise.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions