I'd love a law where elected officials can't say 'pray', 'bless', or 'God'

[mtnsnake]

in public.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[hwmnbn]

1. Or at least give satan equal time.....

That's the only fair thing to do. :evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

17. haha, can you imagine

after the last debate for their ending lines, Kerry getting up...and instead of mimicking Bush's best version of God Bless America...standing up and saying, "and may the devil Bless America!"

It would've been good for a laugh or two anyway.

:evilgrin:

[Lexingtonian]

2. I want mandatory 5 minute penalties in an iron barred cage

for each instance of Sanctimony For Political Gain. Spectators and witnesses to the infraction get to hurl objects at the cage.

[mtnsnake]

12. Almost all of them would be in jail for life

God bless this God bless that. America will pray for you. LOL!

[Lexingtonian]

29. I'm having some trouble

considering that a horrible problem :D

[really annoyed]

3. It won't happen

It would violate their First Amendment rights, I believe.

[donheld]

4. Haven't we as a nation

got much bigger problems than that?

[mtnsnake]

5. No

Think about it.

[donheld]

40. Ok, I thought about it

Yea, I was right. We do have FAR more important things to worry about.

[QC]

7. Well, it's been *hours* since we had a pointless religion flamewar,

so it's about time for someone to start one up.

[Chovexani]

37. Ya know QC

I'm beginning to suspect you and I are sharing a brain tonight.

What little faith I have left in DU is pretty much shattered at this point. Serves my ass right for leaving the Lounge.

[BeTheChange]

8. Didnt you know...

Christians are the reason for every evil thing currently effecting the earth.. GWB, global warming.. everything.

Heaven.. oophs.. earth forbid anyone have faith in something greater then the humanity Ive been seeing around here lately. :rolleyes:

[mitchum]

35. But the polite acceptance of the illogic and ambiguities of religion...

enable so many of those problems

[kansasblue]

6. you're just a little off on the extreme side, aren't you?

[mtnsnake]

14. Just fantasizing, maybe in an extreme kind of way

:evilgrin:

[niyad]

9. would certainly be peaceful and quiet for a while

[eallen]

10. I like the 1st amendment too much to wish its repeal.

Keep in mind that elected officials also have, as individuals, a right to free expression and worship. When their devotion goes beyond that and starts to affect how they conduct their duty, then we need to put a stop to it, as the federal courts did to Judge Moore. But we need to be cautious in drawing that line, to not take away the rights of those who serve in government. Forbidding public expression of religious sentiment is way, way beyond what any judicious reading of the 1st amendment would allow.

[tocqueville]

20. not if you have separation of Church and State

I don't buy that 1st amendment story, it's translated beyond it's primary intention.

the State officials statements of prayers etc... are in BREACH with the 1st amendment, since they IMPOSE religious statements. Therefore they offend me and offend people of different religions...

I'd love to hear a US Governor saying : "We'll overcome that Hurricane, Allah will"

In France such statements would be illegal. But PRIVATELY state officials can go to Church and pray whatever God they believe in. Not in the EXERCISE of their functions.

the State must be NEUTRAL. Or else you have that grey zone that the fundies are the first to use, with very good results so far...

[eallen]

26. You have shifted from "in public" to "in the exercise of their functions."

Not everything a civil servant does in public is part of exercising their official function. In the case of elected representatives, very little is.

While I suspect we aren't going to agree where the proper first amendment line is, I think you've gotten much closer to it with this shift.

:hippie:

[tocqueville]

31. I mean "in the exercise of..." sorry for the confusion

Chirac goes to Church privately and people cheer when he come out, it's OK

Chirac attend masses or other services if he is invited or because it's part of a ceremony, it's OK.

Chirac names "God" (not as a philosophical reference) in a speech :
he is impeached within 3 days.

That's the whole difference between the French and the US constitution.

[CAG]

28. Which amendment "stories" do you buy?? Do you pick and choose??

Just because an official says something that refers to their faith, I think its a stretch to say that that somehow IMPOSES their religious statements upon anyone. Its interesting that right after you write this, you then say you would just love a governor referring to Allah. Is it just me or is there a double standard there?

The first amendment is there so people have the right to offend others with their statements without being thrown in jail by a Josef Stalin or a Benito Mussolini. Anything any official says about anything could offend SOMEONE, so we would have a lot of people going to jail, I suppose, without first amendment protection.

A lot of things official say offend me, but hey, thats democracy, I just go on living....

[tocqueville]

30. some explanations

the reference to Allah is a sarcasm, not a double standard. I could have chosen Satan but the line was already taken.

Freedom of speech is not the right to offend, but the right to disagree, sorry. Hate speech is forbidden in most European countries, but not in the US. Several of your preachers would be behind bars in Europe. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression to say that niggers, gays and muslims should be assassinated, not to mention individuals.

By constantly stating their religious belonging, US officials IMPOSE their religious views on other citizens. They set a standard.

Could someone stating "I am an atheist" be elected President of the US ? I guess not. Gay maybe, but not atheist. The standard is set, which means that a PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEF sets democracy out of game.

Officials are elected to make the sandbags arrive to the places where a flood occurs, not to admonish people to pray. Priests are for the latest. The same applies to pledges in school, 10 commandments monuments etc... Then you can always complain that the US is turned into a a theocracy.

Democracy DEMANDS total separation of Church and State, but obviously that isn't understood.

[iamjoy]

11. Oh, I Don't Know

I am not religious, but some people are and it may be of comfort to them.

I'll never forget in 2002, a candidate in the Democratic gubernatorial primary asked people to pray for him, but "if you aren't the praying kind, your good wishes" are appreciated. I thougth it kind of cute to acknowledge the secular people.

What does make me uncomfortable about this prayer business is when it is used in a zero sum game. For example, sports teams? I mean, aside from the fact that it is kind of trivial to pray to win a sporting event(do you not think God has other things to worry about), does God like certain teams more than others?

But what about for catastrophes? The hurricane. Pray for the hurricane to turn. What, and hit some where else? Does that mean those people didn't pray hard enough? OK, pray for it to weaken, drift harmlessly out to sea. If our prayers really could do any good, be persuasive, what sort of monstrous God would allow it to be so vicious and wicked in the first place?

Bet you didn't mean to have a whole philosophical discussion.

[tjdee]

13. I don't think God picks sides.

That's the thing that really freaks me out, and I'm a Christian, LOL.
One can pray for the hurricane to turn, and it may, or may not. So I guess you're supposed to be praying that you will deal with whatever happens and you trust that God will use all things for good.

:shrug:

[iamjoy]

45. Well, That Makes Sense

I mean, I am not spiritual or religious, but I know people who are find great comfort in it. So, I think to pray for strength is OK and appropriate, I believe it will help. But to pray for God to pick sides may be immoral and to pray for the laws of physics and nature to be altered in a specific incident is a little foolish.

[hippiepunk]

15. That's unconstitutional

:eyes:

[tjdee]

16. Eventually this will happen.

:tinfoilhat:
I'm of the pessimistic sort that feels that Pat Robertson and assorted other religious nuts will inflame hatred so badly that one day religion is outlawed because it causes so much trouble.

And we'll see how well that goes.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. That would be horrible. America would have yet another black eye

As much religious freedom as in Taliban Afghanistan.

[loudsue]

42. Sounds good to me! We could take the cue from OLDER

countries, who have already seen what devastation religion-backed government can have on a country...or the world. France is a good example...The Inquisition comes to mind.

That is just about where we're headed about now.

:kick:

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Yes, legislate words and create thought crimes - screw the constitution

because it makes you uncomfortable....... GREAT idea.:sarcasm:

[mtnsnake]

19. Aw c'mon, I was only dreaming. How about an "unwritten" rule then?

Would ya go along with that? O8)

[tocqueville]

21. Laicity is the solution

In France and some other French-speaking countries, laïcité (pronounced /la.i.si.te/) is a prevailing conception of the separation of church and state and the absence of religious interference into government affairs (and vice versa). The concept is related to secularism, but does not imply hostility towards religious beliefs.

The term "laïcité", in its current sense, implies free exercise of religion, but no special status for religion: religious activities should submit to about the same set of laws as other activities and are not considered above the law. The government refrains from taking positions on religious doctrine and only considers religious subjects from their practical consequences on the inhabitants' lives.

The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion (except for legacy statutes like those of military chaplains and Alsace-Moselle). Instead, it merely recognizes religious organizations, according to formal legal criteria that do not address religious doctrine:

whether the sole purpose of the organization is to organize religious activities;
whether the organization does not disrupt public order.
Today, laïcité is accepted by all of France's mainstream religions. Exception includes far-right or monarchist reactionaries who wish the return to a situation where Catholicism was a state religion with a political role, as well as with some Islamist leaders that do not recognize the superiority of civil law over religious law.

Laïcité does not imply, by itself, any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is essentially a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant both to protect the government from religious organizations pushing their agenda on the public, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies. Of course, once religious organizations or religiously-motivated individuals take a political or social position motivated by religious feelings, they expose themselves to criticism, as with any ideologically motivated position.

French political leaders, though not prohibited from making religious remarks, generally refrain from demonstrating openly that their policies are directly inspired by religious considerations. Christine Boutin, who openly argued on religious grounds against a legal domestic partnership available regardless of the sex of the partners, including homosexual couples (see PACS), was quickly marginalized. Religious disputation is generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate — note the difference with the United States. Of course, political leaders may openly practice their religion (for instance, president Jacques Chirac is a Catholic), but they are expected to refrain from mixing their private religious life with their public functions.

When it comes to individuals, the French consider religion a private matter whose ostentatious display is generally out-of-place. Civil servants are supposed to be neutral with respect to politics and religion and to keep a certain reserve; ostentatious displays of religious affiliation may be banned. Recently, more and more countries are considering legislation towards more strictly neutral public services.

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

and don't tell me we don't have any "freedom of expression"...

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Actually I'd rather have the ones who think they're "directed" by God

Proclaiming so loudly and repeatedly than hiding it behind closed doors. That way we know what we're getting.

[Telly Savalas]

22. I'd rather have a single payer universal health care system

a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and a truly progressive income tax system. And if an elected official were to work towards implementing such policies, I don't give a flying fuck what words they use in public.

[Lecky]

23. Uh...I guess

but to be honest it really doesn't bother me that much. I consider myself to be agnostic BTW...

[mtnsnake]

27. It only bothers me because, if a politician DOESN'T say it, then

he probably won't stand a chance in today's scheme of things. That's sad.

[tocqueville]

32. not only sad, dangerous

because the very statement contradicts the first amendment. Freedom of religion is ALSO the right NOt to exercise any. If you reach a level where NOT mentioning religion cuts you from your right of exercising politics, I'm sorry, you don't live in a democracy, but in a theocracy.

[TimeChaser]

24. Nah... but I would love it if saying things like that

wasn't expected of them. It's like, a politician *must* throw in religious reference or two.

[mtnsnake]

25. Now THAT is what I'd REALLY like!

It's only because it's "expected of them" that it becomes a game of who can out-religious who to win a vote.

[onenote]

33. so no readings of the dec. of independence, emanc. proclamation or

the Constitution in public? No public display of them? Where is your line?

Each of those documents has multiple references to Lord (as in the "Year of our LOrd"). THe Declaraiton of Independence invokes "Nature's God" and the "Supreme Judge of the World". And the Emancipation Proclamation called on the "considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

Burn em. Burn em all....

sheesh.

onenote

[mtnsnake]

43. Oh geez, not that. What I'm talking about is Separation of Church & State

Can't that be respected, too?

LOL, I wouldn't be surprised if half the politicians who overuse religious expressions in their speeches or interviews are probably atheists in private. I imagine a number of them are religious only in public in order to garner the support of their sheep.

[onenote]

44. undoubtedly you are right

about many politicians only being religious in public (something that could probably said about most people who claim to be religious but whose actions aren't necessarily ethical). We absolutely need to respect and protect separation of church and state. But my question is how do you draw the line? Presidents and other politcal figures have been invoking God in speeches since the founding of the nation and advocating a ban on such statements isn't going to win much support.

onenote

[mitchum]

34. Or at least allow public officials to throw salt over their shoulder

[More Than A Feeling]

36. They could still say "Praise Jesus!"

in this hypothetical situation where we don't have freedom of speech.

[WillyT]

38. If They Could Just Pronounce 'Nuclear' I'd Be Impressed !!!

:shrug:

[leftchick]

46. and TV announcers

matt lauer just said our prayers are with you to haley barbour.

[theboss]

47. No, it would be against the First Amendment

So...yea.

[pepperbear]

48. the danger isn't the prayer,

but rather the MANDATE of the prayer. THAT, my fellow liberals, is what we need to fight!