Prayer group to speaks in tongues at Arizona Capitol, by invitation of Republicans who want a state ban on abortion

submitted by YoMamma from coppercourier.com

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Titanic 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So illegal.

That said we really do need prayers as a country. Just not like this.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

While prayer is allowed in government buildings, it cannot be sponsored or endorsed by the government or its representatives. Kern’s involvement in the prayer itself, along with allowing the group to pray over the state seal, could be considered a violation of the First Amendment.

Remind me again. What is the first amendment?

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-1

The First Amendment ensures both that (1) the government does not show preference to a certain religion and that (2) the government does not take away an individual's ability to exercise religion. In other words, (1) the church should not rule over the state, and (2) the state cannot rule over the church.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

OH? So it prohibits things, and doesn't assure an inalienable right to things? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

Sad

[–]YoMamma[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

LOL

To put it another way: the nation and states cannot use religion in laws and cannot make laws that restrict religion.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think I'm this case it's well within the "allowed" territory of first amendment expression.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't think you can construe an argument that a representative is unable to invite a religious group to speak publicly at the capital anymore than they can invite any constituent to speak publicly at the capital. And prayer is simply a form of speech.

I also don't think first amendment really prohibits the use of "religion in laws" at least as far as religious reasoning is concerned. It would be a gross violation of the first amendment to pass a law making the Catholic church the authority on abortion, but a law that restricts abortion would not quality provided it neither establishes a particular religion or prohibits the free exercise of a religion. There are many laws that prohibit religious expression but they need to fall under very narrow conditions outside free exercise. Human sacrifice is a good example. It's an established religious practice with historical relevancy but isn't considered free exercise since it infringes on someones right to live.

I also think it's not really necessary to make 1st amendment insinuations against this sort of behavior. You merely need to go and say "the opposition is literally speaking gibberish, why should we take anything they say seriously?".

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it's allowed. I am not making "1st Amendment insinuations against anything." I note the first Amendment because it separates church and state, for gery good reason (as anyone in the 18th century knew, religious wars destroyed much of Europe, and thus it was important to have laws that excluded religious extremism, some of which had been popular in the US). Congresspeople often argue about gods and prayer &c, and in this case a group was allowed to speak in tongues in the Arizona capitol. I am not arguing that this is not allowed. I could argue that it's an ethics violation in some state capitols to abuse the chamber like this, but it's certainly not illegal at the federal level. It's a way of disrespecting the US Constitution, and the US, by promoting a theocracy where there is a specific, important constitutional law against it. The US has thrived as a secular country, by contrast with theocratic leadership elsewhwre. Republicans who want religious extremism in the US should be shot.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It says that if the government invites some weird "Christian" cult to talk gibberish in a circle on a government building, they cannot exclude other religions from doing the same.

Also free speech. But this is only speech in a schizophrenic's eye.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There is a black cube at the U.N. It's is to be worshiped as the black sun. The U.N assures no rights to the freedom of speech, as it has no constitution. Only a charter restricting rights. And here you are worried about something happening in plane sight. Because you want Mothers killing babies. Now that sounds rather psychotic to me.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is a black cube at the U.N.

What?

It's is to be worshiped as the black sun.

How is the black sun worshiped?

The U.N assures no rights to the freedom of speech, as it has no constitution.

Having a constitution isn't what assures rights of the freedom of speech.

The United Nations calls its foundational treaty its "Charter". It serves the purpose of a constitution.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wow. You rephrased a few key points I made, adding nothing. I mean sure. You can do that. Though I am uncertain why you have.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. What is the black cube that you claim is "at the UN"?
  2. How is the black sun worshipped, given that you claim the cube is worshipped in the same way?
  3. You're link between constitutions and free speech is poor reasoning. Lots of bodies have constitutions that don't assure rights of freedom of speech. For instance the Hart House Chess Club's constitution doesn't mention free speech.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Jesus, please us.

These are fucking adults. Kneeling in a circle blubbing gibberish.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

May your mother be anointed in strigil gloios.

💫

[–]TotalAnon1337 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Someday you'll have a personality too OP. Don't give up.