Atheist prayers can be barred by House chaplain, appeals court says

Well when it comes to government there is the matter or equal treatment and government not respecting one religious establishment over another and it fact not at all. But if they are going to Christian ceremony and Christian views being espoused then certainly other views should receive the same treatment.

 

Yes it is that rule that is being challenged and rightfully so.

 

History is full of examples of what pushing any religion ends up with. Lots of dead folks and eventual religious elimination.

America knew this and tried to prevent it....Christians are trying to fight against it and will hopefully fail.

 

But atheism is not a religion. Religion involved belief and worship in some capacity, neither of which is at all inherent to atheism, which is an pre-Christian Greek theist term to describe those who did not believe in or worship the gods.

 

The House chaplain is not a religious establishment. Choosing who is going to give the opening invocation (the only thing the House chaplain really does) is not respecting one religious establishment or another. It does not require giving equal time to atheists, Satanists, or anyone else to have someone open a Congressional session with a prayer.

 

GOD is less about how one behaves as to the conclusion the universe was created by GOD.

As to behavior, Muslims forgive/endorse murder. Christians not so much.

 

He is part of one. So which is it, those who support Christianity and government intermingling also contend and even start threads claiming atheism IS a religion so why not an atheist invocation?

 

Atheists pull off an interesting stunt. They refute GOD yet speak of gods.

Were i an atheist, the last thing that would be on my mind would be religion.

Our constitution as a poster spoke of guarantees the Feds in congress will not establish religion. But they may of course recognize it. As our founders did.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/924/public-buildings-and-religious-use

By John R. Vile

 

Goodness

There is no such thing as an atheist prayer.

Helpful Definitions

Atheist: Lack of belief in a super natural being
Prayer: A thanks or request to a super natural being
Religion: the belief in and worship of a super natural being, especially a personal God or gods.

You can't make a request or give thanks to a super natural being if you have no belief that it exists.
You can't claim "lack of belief in a super natural being," is synonymous with "belief in and worship of a super natural being."

Atheist religion not a thing.

 

Seems to me he isn't making up definitions so much as he applies them as it suits him, and not as it suits consistent use of the English language. In particular, he seems to switch definitions on the fly, creating equivocations.

 

Or promoting falsehoods of his own choosing.

 

1) I think a lot of the "atheists outnumber Catholics" polling you are talking about confuses "non-religious" people for automatically being atheists, which is nonsense
2) I've heard some beautiful, inspiring "prayers" from atheists who are spiritual naturalists, humanist celebrants, etc. I've written several religiously neutral meditation/reflections for friends' weddings that appealed to both atheists and theists. I don't really care if they are permitted by the House chaplain, but they are out there.

 

Not this scrambling sophistry again.

 

Not what we're talking about. We're talking about prayer.

Impossible in the present context, assuming sanity is of any value.

Which is why neither you nor any professing atheist in Congress has anything intelligent to say about the principles enunciated in the DoI.

 

Notice it was a court?

Atheist prayers can be barred by House chaplain, appeals court says

 

And which one would that be, specifically? The House chaplain is employed by the House of Representatives. Is the House a religious establishment now?

 

While I agree with most of this, atheism is not "lack of belief", it is an active disbelief in a supernatural being. (That's one word, by the way, you can run it together.) And while I agree that atheism is not a religion, there are indeed several atheist religions out there, like some forms of Buddhism, Taoism, and secular humanism.

 

The Yeshua character said to do your damn praying in private.

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Freedom OF Religion WITHOUT Freedom FROM Religion.

Freedom FROM Religion is PROTECTED by the Constitution which is why the Law of the Land gives Atheism the EXACT SAME LEGAL STATUS as it does to all other religions even though Atheism is NOT a religion.

 

Wrong!

The House Rules DEMAND that the invocation MUST be of a RELIGIOUS nature.

An INVOCATION is calling upon a RELIGIOUS deity or a spirit!

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invocation

Satanists and Wiccans should have the exact same rights to INVOKE their own religious deities and spirits as Christians, Jews and Muslims under the CURRENT discriminatory House rules.

 

It is amazing what Liars for Jesus will do to antagonise other religions, prayers now being used for flaimbait.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...er-before-muslim-members-swearing/3285915002/
The clip of her prayer was used on a BBC comedy show last night, this Liar for Jesus has managed to make a mockery of her religion around the world!

 

So what? That still doesn't make the House or the House chaplain a religious institution or an establishment of religion. It doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. It falls into the same category as the motto, "In God We Trust" on our currency. It's an expression of religious sentiment, but it does not endorse or establish any particular religion.

They do. They just can't do it as a House chaplain.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the government cannot discriminate. That's not true. It does and it does so legally. The government routinely rejects people for military service who do not meet the intelligence requirement. That's discrimination. The government routinely rejects people for jobs who are a security risk (regardless of actual intent). That's discrimination. The government routinely rejects people for high security jobs based on national origin, something private employers cannot do. The government routinely chooses people for certain jobs based on national origin, spies, diplomats, and translators especially. That's discrimination. And they are all legal. So don't get caught up in the idea that just because something is discriminatory that it is necessarily illegal.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if what you've said is the correct reasoning, but how does it square with
"the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals"
https://constitutionallawreporter.c...2014/08/McCreary-County-Ky.-v.-ACLU-of-Ky.pdf

What counts as endorsing, favouring, and expressing religion?

 

Flailing response duly noted as off topic and therefore irrelevant.

 

Dear @xwsmithx and @Swensson
1. "In God We Trust" can be argued as establishing a bias toward theism, since "God" is not universal or neutral to all religious beliefs.
A. it's not that it ISN'T religiously biased, but it's because the public generally CONSENTED to this expression
instead of suing to strike it down as has happened later with a rise in public objections
B. There could also be an establishing "understanding" that "trust in God" refers to "faith in the greater GOOD for humanity"
as a UNIVERSAL principle. If we all agreed on THAT interpretation, then the slogan "In God We Trust" could still be
agreed on as acceptable and representing the greater public interest (instead of interpreting it as being religiously exclusive in its language)

2. As for Govt not favoring one religion over another, or religion or irreligion:
What do you think about applying this principle to Political Beliefs, Creeds, or Religions?

If we compare:
Constitutionalists who believe in limited govt, and passing Constitutional Amendments before expanding the duties
of Federal Govt to regulate health care
to
Liberals who believe that Govt owes a duty to provide for general welfare and public health and security,
including health care which by their beliefs is an inherent RIGHT

Is it Constitutional for Govt to establish or prohibit one for the other?
Or to force taxpayers of the opposite belief to fund and follow the policies of the other creed
that the opponents argue is VIOLATING their beliefs?
Is it really ethical to push one creed or belief system through Govt
to force that on other taxpayers of the opposite creed?

Why aren't we treating political religions such as Constitutionalism and Socialism
the same as we would other religious organizations or creeds, and keep Govt from either
establishing or prohibiting the free choice or exercise of these creeds?

How can we justify compelling taxpayers to fund or follow laws biased by these beliefs
which don't represent them but which violate their own beliefs?