And people would be up in arms if someone in congress of the M faith did the same thing and posted it on u-tube. Isn't there something in there regarding freedom of religion and separation of church and state?

__________________
Jim

There are 2 sides of that issue and Progressives regularly omit one of them.
1) We are guaranteed the right to the free exercise of our religion.
2) The State may NOT establish a formal religion.

It is a matter of discussion whether crosses, or Biblical quotes on buildings amounts to establishing a religion. The Founders wanted to prevent what had happened in England, where membership in the Church of England was sort of a requirement for political office.

There is no Right to be free from religion. Someone offering a prayer at a HS graduation service will NOT do irreparable harm to a non-religious person in the audience.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I generally do not like slippery slope arguments, but the HS graduation scenario might be a good place to apply that principle. If we are going to allow someone to pray to Jesus at a government-sponsored event, then don't we have to give equal time to voodoo priests, atheists, and everything else anyone can think of?

In many communities a prayer to Jesus would be just the right thing at that sort of event, but I don't think the government can sponsor it.

And we're also guaranteed the right to judge her bat **** crazy when she starts blathering about her imaginary friends. Religious people are not fit for public office.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

You have the right to make any judgments you wish--provided those judgements do not cause harm to any politically protected groups.
Sad, isn't it.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I don't follow that. How could his judgments harm a politically protected group?

isn't she the one with the gay husband?

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

In this specific case, I do not see it.
I was making a general comment, apart from this specific case.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

By the way...

It was about 50 years ago that I attended an Evang church. It was weird to hear her speaking like that as it was the exact same way payers were said like that back then.

And if the Tea Party thinks they are on to something new.... Nope. The Evang churches shared the same views the Tea Party has today. If anything they were even more focused on the problem and not the political party. Back then the Party did not matter one little bit. If you were doing something they thought was wrong you were called out for it.

Today the Tea Party will let anything Republican slide without question, but that may be the reason they hang around longer this time than they did before. This time there are people willing to throw money at them if just keep bashing the Dems. The day the Tea Party and the Evangs start bashing Republicans will be the beginning of their end because it will be the end of their funding.

Do some research on a group from the 70's called 'The Liberty Lobby' for further details. One thing you will find is that they did not promote one group over another for in their eyes everyone political group was guilty of something.

Got it. Thank you for the reply.

Really? And just what right is there for someone to make religious pronouncements in public, such as at an HS gradutation for example?

That's true but by the same token they have no "right" to do so if anyone else objects to it. any more than the person objecting has the right to that objection.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

"irreparable harm" isn't the test for violation or intrussion on rights, that's more the standard or test for injunctive relief..

So you want to be ruled by the most sensitive to being insulted in society?
Society by the moral weakest?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I want to be free of strawman arguments.
To bad that wasn't included in 1st amendment.

Matthew 6, 5-6
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "

What I think I am hearing is that the rights of a minority do not matter in a nation of laws. Are you implying that those who protest to preserve their rights are morally weaker than others? or are you suggesting that those that wish to claim their rights under the law, and in a lawful manner, are amoral or immoral? Explain please.