It wasn't referred to as a prayer. It was referred to as an "invocation" and was used to open the meeting as announced by an official.
From merriam-webster
"invocation: the act or process of petitioning for help or support; specifically often capitalized : a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship)."
and
"a calling upon for authority or justification" (justification for what exactly?)
and also (my favorite)
"a formula for conjuring"
That's a lot different than someone getting up to speak and saying they happen to believe in god. If someone got up to speak like Stanhope did and said "I think (insert thing) because I'm a (religious affiliation)" Then fine. They get to do that. I think it's stupid, but I wouldn't prevent them from doing so even I had the power.
I think you're stretching the term tolerance to it's breaking point. I don't care if certain Christians would be upset if they aren't allowed to have their city council meeting open with an invocation to their deity. We need to stop treating the religious in this country like children. Just because they whine doesn't mean they get their way. It is not being unfair to Christians to not allow the invocation, but it's being extremely, blatantly, unapologetically, and disgustingly preferential to Christians to allow it. Doing so implies that everyone there is Christian, as I said in the last post. Do you disagree?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
dvdbwn Wrote:just because you forbid christians from praying in a civil venue isn't going to stop them from being motivated by their beliefs.
Also, I wouldn't forbid anyone from praying anywhere. If someone wants to bow their head and think thoughts, then fine. But I would forbid a city council from authorizing and allowing a religious clergyman to speak for the whole goddamn place and lead everyone else in a group prayer. There's a difference.
•
i think you reading too much into this.
the pastor was invited and probably starts all his prayers that way (invocation and prayer are synonyms). you keep attributing all this malicious intent on he pastor that just isn't there. if anyone is at fault it is the mayor for issuing the invite.
i'd rather err on the side of tolerance than bigotry.
big·ot·ry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
i fully agree that we should never assume anything of anybody... like everyone is christian. however, doesn't denying that the majority of the people in the us subscribes to some sort of religion seem folly? i don't hear you arguing for equality or tolerance, i hear you pushing atheism onto everyone else. the lumping of all christians together, deeming them illogical, and devaluing my words as soon as you realized i was christian.
•
It is perfectly acceptable for a christian, jew, muslim, pastafarian, etc, to speak as a citizen and offer a prayer. To have an exclusive 'right' to an invocation, however, is simply wrong.
The pastor offered this pathetic wisdom, "the heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure..." Anyone who preaches that our hearts are beyond cure, or that their beliefs hold the only path to salvation, has lost any hope of my respect. That sentiment has no place in an invocation to a public meeting in a society whose founding fathers and mothers fought dearly for separation of church and state.
•
i really don't think it should be imposed on people either. at my church's hot meal i advocated for not praying for the meal because it's a meal for all the poor in the community and they're under no obligation to church just because the eat with us. and my church went for it because they're super liberal.
•
dvdbwn Wrote:i think you reading too much into this.
the pastor was invited and probably starts all his prayers that way (invocation and prayer are synonyms). you keep attributing all this malicious intent on he pastor that just isn't there. if anyone is at fault it is the mayor for issuing the invite.
The pastor can take responsibility for his actions. If someone invites me to punch another man in the face, that doesn't make it right (a somewhat weak analogy, I'd concede).
dvdbwn Wrote:doesn't denying that the majority of the people in the us subscribes to some sort of religion seem folly?
No.
dvdbwn Wrote:i don't hear you arguing for equality or tolerance, i hear you pushing atheism onto everyone else. the lumping of all christians together, deeming them illogical, and devaluing my words as soon as you realized i was christian.
I most certainly am not pushing atheism onto everyone else. I am advocating leaving all mention of religion by public officials at the door. Please try to see the irony of accusing me of pushing atheism onto everyone else as you're arguing for a city council meeting to be allowed to be opened with an authorized invocation of a deity by a pastor (that can't be repeated enough).
I know you're a good person and smart guy. I'm not trying to vilify you or anything like that. You're heart is obviously in the right place. But to a non-christian, you have to see how wrong this is. Government may not, MAY NOT, give preferential treatment to any religion. The solution is therefore to not promote any religion, period. And as for the whole "you're not making christians feel welcome" thing. Christians are very much the majority in this country. It's impossible for me to make them feel not welcome. They're not the victims (even though victim status is a very enviable position, I understand).
I'm sorry if I'm being a dick. But I think this is a very important issue. I'm not asking anyone to not believe in something. I'm asking for fairness. And that's funny, because I know we're both looking for that, but we seem to view the idea of fairness and equality very differently.
•
Are we done? What the hell am I supposed to do now, sleep?
No hard feelings dvdbwn. I do understand where you're coming from. We just disagree.
•
"Government may not, MAY NOT, give preferential treatment to any religion. The solution is therefore to not promote any religion, period." where are you getting this? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not equate to no religion expression in civil proceedings. was that a book by richard dawkins that george washington was sworn in on?
"I most certainly am not pushing atheism onto everyone else. I am advocating leaving all mention of religion by public officials at the door." this is promoting atheism over religion and would be misrepresentation of the population.
•
we actually don't disagree as much as you think. your just kind of hammer in your beliefs... very passionate. and i had a little fun poking the bear.
•
I, dont, respect a persons, religion, i, respect, a, person, but, religion, is, all, that, it, entails, do, those, views, in, religion, respect, me, lets, face it, some, blokes, reasonably, clever, one, wrote, some, books, thousands, of, years, ago,
religion, and, god, are, different, things, in, my, opinion, my, god, is, within, me, and, always, been, there, yours, is, out, of, a, book,
•
|
