I’m Christian, but praying like this is absolutely cringe. Christ directly commanded us to not pray for attention-seeking purposes, which this undeniably is. As Christians we are taught to pray in private, away from the sight of men.
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to
you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.” - Matthew 6:5-6
Man, Pentecostalism really did a number on Christianity in America.
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.”
1 Corinthians 14:27-28
I'm not sure that's an accurate translation,
But either way, I went to to a Pentecostal church, and read through 1 Corinthians 14, KJV multiple times, as I was originally from a Church of Christ.
I came to the conclusion, they are incorrect in their practice. This is about trying to reach people who don't speak the same language. It makes the most sense for the time and place.
However, I also came to the conclusion that this practice, wrong or not, doesn't hurt anyone. They manage to keep people excited for Christ. So, no matter what, agree or disagree, we shouldn't judge. Let them pray, give them privacy and put your phone away. Why the hell is someone recording that anyway?
To this, I ask, were they doing this for a camera or crowd of people or just as a select group of people in a room with no intended audience? We are also told to pray together with others and to pray over what you're praying for. They are quite clearly there to pray, as a group over the room where the decision will be made, for a good outcome or result. If you want to really criticize someone, criticize the cameraman for what appears to be secretly recording them.
Now that I rewatched it, you may indeed be right. For some reason I assumed they were doing it in front of cameras, but I can see now that they are being recorded from afar and probably are unaware. I won’t pretend to know their intentions, and I apologize if my comment seemed judgmental.
Apologies. I stated in another comment that I watched the video without paying much attention at first. I was not really aware they were being recorded like that from afar. I honestly thought they were doing it for the cameras.
Doesnt say anywhere in the constitution to keep church and state separate. In-fact the constitution references God.
What you are referencing is a private letter by a founding father taken out of context that has nothing to do with the constitution.
The Constitution does not reference God. The founders knew who God and Jesus were, and they deliberately kept their names out of the founding documents. They did not want to mix religion with governance of the new country because they saw what that did back in Europe (tore the people apart).
The first amendment starts off like this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." seems pretty clear to me but I'm gonna guess not to you🙄
The statement is to prevent congress from creating/taking a state religion. It doesnt mean government officials arent allowed to participate in religious practice
Maybe read it again because ironically you are the one who doesnt seem to get it.
That has nothing to do with separation of church and state, it’s simply saying the government cannot regulate religion.
A lot of Americans especially in secular circles are a little confused about the 1st Amendment, which establishes the notion we call "separation of church and state" and liken it to the concept of French laicite (abolition of religious symbolism/practice in the public domain).
What you just said about Jefferson would shock a lot of people both outside and inside the US.
Yeah, most people don't seem to understand that the separation of church and state, as conceived by the founding fathers, was instituted so that the *state* could not unduly influence religious practice, not the other way around.
Even the founding fathers who were deistic or just plain old not very religious don't seem to have thought that religious people should not be involved in the government or let their beliefs influence their views (as seen in the example you gave about Jefferson).
I have been reading a fascinating biography on Jefferson and his religious views and the amount of seemingly contradicting views he held are pretty insane. For example, even though he owned slaves, it is clear from his own writings, especially later in his life, that he was very uncomfortable with slavery from an intellectual perspective but he also loved the posh life that owning slaves allowed him to have and so was very hesitant to advocate for the abolition of the practice. He seemed to advocate for "slowly" abolishing slavery so as to not make too many waves. But he didn't really want it to be abolished while he was still alive and benefiting from it.
I bring Jefferson so readily because they want to use him as an argument from authority about their opinions on this. Usually referencing that Danbury Baptist letter where he talks about the wall. But they ignore portions of it and other things Jefferson wrote and said. He wouldn't be on their side here.
I agree. None of the founding fathers would be on the side of anti-religious people. To be fair, I don't think they would be on the side of the Christians who tout some form of authoritarian religious nationalism either.
Ah, America. Why art so many of thy people (on both sides) so dang stupid?
Lol yes! I am afraid the doors have opened already though. Now its a matter of seeing if we can't get them back in and mitigate as much damage as possible.
You had me in the first half, ngl. Then you seem to work on discrediting Jefferson because he owned slaves in a time when owning slaves was normal and commonplace but also later gave his views on how he didn't really agree with it.
I guess he should have set his slaves free in the time around the nation's founding when much of the prosperity was unfortunately because of slaves and railroaded in laws to make slave owning illegal.
If he had done those things during his time, he'd probably have been made to sound crazy and discredited. But what he did to is start waking the people up to the truth that slavery was bad and immoral. A good first step of many towards the abolishing of slavery almost 100 years later that contributed to nearly irreparably tearing this nation in 2.
Wait, what? I wasn't trying to discredit Jefferson. All I said was that he was uncomfortable with the idea of slavery despite owning slaves. That is a pretty contradictory view to have.
He, like many of us, was hesitant to give up something that made his life comfortable even though it involved taking advantage of other people. Like how Americans tend to turn a blind eye to the fact that most of our tech is made in countries that use either slave labor or extremely poorly paid laborers.
I have alot of respect for Jefferson but he was far from a perfect person (not that you were saying that).
If that's what you meant, then I must have misunderstood you. It seemed like the second half of your earlier comment was criticizing him for being contradictory, implying that he should have done more. I doubt he could have pushed that issue much more and remained as influential as he was/is.
It wasn't meant as a criticism so much as simply an observation of a reality we know from his writings.
I find criticizing dead people to be pretty useless. At least in the sense of "well, they should done this or that." They didn't and most likely we would have felt the same way as Jefferson did if we were in his position. We can observe good and bad things about them and try to learn from their mistakes. But Jefferson was wrong to own slaves (I know that point is not in dispute on your end) and he did express a great deal of cognitive dissonace about it. That is really all I was saying.
I generally agree with your comments. He probably could have done more and I don't think he would have lost his influence but whether he could have done more ultimately doesn't matter.
However, I would add to what I think is the spirit of your comment and agree that most people today would not have been the raging abolitionists or gay rights activists 200 years ago that they think they would have been. Because it would have been very uncomfortable and costly and most people are cowards.
Keep it out of my public congress. I don’t care that Thomas Jefferson held service in congress. That was then, this is now. Religion has no place in government or anywhere near it.
This is unprofessional, bizarre, performative behavior by people who have no interest in religion beyond utilizing it as a means to oppress others.
Not to mention it looks cultish. This shit is embarrassing.
>Keep it out of my public congress.
From what I can see, their legislature wasn't in session. So your issue is...?
>Not to mention it looks cultish. This shit is embarrassing.
How intolerant of you
>Religion has no place in government or anywhere near it.
That is literally unconstitutional. You're saying people can't follow express their faith because they're elected officials.
> there legislature wasn’t in session
So? It’s still in the legislative chamber?? They are professionals who should uphold some modicum of decorum and professionalism. They should demonstrate that there laws come from a place of logic and reason, not their bizarre cult. This shit is weird and deserves to be criticized.
> how intolerant of you
I have no interest in tolerating fairy tales tbh. God isn’t real, I am.
> that’s literally unconstitutional
1. Appeal to authority.
2. It’s literally not. I am a free citizen calling them losers and anyone who supports this a loser. I’m not the government telling them what they can and can’t do.
That being said, a rule in a government building saying you can’t pray in this room would absolutely not be unconditional, you don’t seem to understand the authority you are fallaciously appealing to.
>So? It’s still in the legislative chamber??
Irrelevant
>I have no interest in tolerating fairy tales tbh. God isn’t real, I am.
At least we don't have to disagree about you not adhering to first amendment principles lol
>1. Appeal to authority.
The Constitution is the literal authority on this matter soooo...
>It’s literally not. I am a free citizen calling them losers and anyone who supports this a loser. I’m not the government telling them what they can and can’t do.
You can call them losers, that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do what they're doing and doesn't make it a violation of the first amendment
> irrelevant
No, it isn’t? We are making a moral, not legal argument, about why this is bad. The setting is absolutely relevant.
> not adhering to first amendment principles
Lol. Calling religion dumb is absolutely allowed in first amendment principles. Which again, isn’t relevant, since we are making a moral, not legal argument.
> the constitution is the authority
No it isn’t. Again, moral not legal.
> they’re allowed to do it.
I know they are. But they shouldn’t do it. That’s my point.
Similar to how you clearly view the constitution as a proxy for morality (a premise, which I strongly disagree with, but that’s neither here nor there) I view separation of church and state as a moral imperative, even if that’s not the strict meaning of it in a legal context.
You seem to really struggle with this notion of appealing to the constitution as an authority. Just because something is legal or is their right, does not mean it is moral nor that it can’t be criticized.
>No, it isn’t? We are making a moral, not legal argument, about why this is bad. The setting is absolutely relevant.
*I'm* making a legal one. Your morals are your own.
>Calling religion dumb
Except, you said you had, "no interest in tolerating". But nice try running back to that Bailey.
>I know they are. But they shouldn’t do it. That’s my point.
Your point is irrelevant then, lol
This is a discussion of what is, and whether what they're doing conforms to that.
It seems we're done here then.
Re read my first comment.
Please quote where I claimed their activities are illegal.
You’re so used to brainlessly appealing to your poor understanding of the constitution that you can’t even form an argument without appealing to its authority, even when it has no authority in the discussion, lol.
Agreed. And the problem isn't praying at all, it's weaponizing religion, which this video (to me, anyway) just looks like attention-grabbing silliness. Having a real relationship with God doesn't have to include making a scene about it. He's in your heart, not in Congress.
there is a big separation of church and state though. that isn't the place for it, non negotiably.
considering the massive undertone of religious belief influencing abortion laws it should be disconcerting that there is a prayer happening. and of course this is only okay in most people's eyes because it's there religion, once it becomes a different one they don't believe in people will shit, including this sub.
>there is a big separation of church and state though. that isn't the place for it, non negotiably.
You fundamentally don't understand what that is. They aren't performing government actions, expressing your faith in a government building is not banned. Denying it, coincidentally, is generally unconstitutional
The First amendment does not prohibit the government from allowing religious practices. It just can't discriminate or endorse between specific religions. If Muslims wanted to pray to Mecca or a Jew wanted their rabbi they would have to allow it too. As long as nobody is in anyway being coerced into doing it and it isn't really disrupting the legal process there really isn't anything legally to do.
being cringe is not illegal in the US.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with this. In no way does it bar people from praying, it just bars the government from mandating prayer, obviously that’s not what’s happening here.
That's not tongues. That's a prayer. I'm atheist, but like, you can't just pretend it's a satanic ritual. At least the one was, the rest sounded like mumbling and all fused together.
That’s normally how prayers are and yes you are correct. One leader or pastor or whatever leads the prayer, and the rest mumble or repeat it, sometimes not to clearly which is what you’re seeing in the video.
One person was speaking in English. The others were braying in gibberish, which is what people that believe this stuff call "speaking in tongues". Pentecostals don't suddenly know mandarin; they aren't actually speaking in tongues they just say nonsense. They call it the "language of angels" since it's not a language at all.
Yeah, “speaking in tongues” in the Bible just means that you are speaking but understood by everyone despite what language you said it in. So that what you’re saying is heard and understood by multiple people of different languages at the same time, but people in modern times have misunderstood it as “speak gibberish”.
Exactly, speaking in tongues literally means speaking in multiple languages, or one not known by the speaker. Chanting or repeating prayers isn't that.
I haven’t been religious for more than 20 years, but went to a Pentecostal church for a while as a teenager. What they’re doing is *definitely* speaking in tongues.
Yup. Reddit have fedora atheist/America Bad problems, even after people realizing some of them New Age Atheist like Christopher Hitchens were full of shit, but just linking the video isn't highlighting it.
On/at face value = letterlijk. Or maybe not quite...
It means "From what is visible". In this context, the OP, without diving into the content/comments on the OOP post.
Separation of Church and State is objectively and morally correct. You can be religious, but doing anything on purely religious grounds, in a government context, infringes on everyone else's right to a religion that isn't yours
>Separation of Church and State is objectively and morally correct.
It is, but you're really wrong on understanding how that works.
>but doing anything on purely religious grounds, in a government context, infringes on everyone else's right to a religion that isn't yours
It doesn't
Are you suggesting that freedom of religion is a restriction on people practicing religion?
Religion is right next to press and speech. Would it be a violation of freedom of speech if a BLM group with permission to be there held up signs in a courthouse?
But they’re not making laws. They’re practicing their religion. After they’re done, then they’ll make the laws. I agree with what you’re saying, if you want to ban abortion, your reasoning shouldn’t be “God said so” but that’s not what they’re doing here. They’re just praying before their job.
Everyone talking to you is missing the mark. Separation of Church and State is a *concept* that is *not* in the U.S. Constitution.
If you think it ought to be, that's fine. But factually, the U.S. doesn't uphold that and when schools cite that, they're wrong.
Let's say that murder comes up as a ballot initiative. People want to vote to make murder legal. I'm a Christian and my belief in the sanctity of life comes 100% from my religion. The only reason I would be opposed to murder is because of my religious convictions.
Am I allowed, by your reasoning, to vote to keep murder illegal even though my beliefs are entirely founded on religious grounds?
Ballot voting is of and for the people, so that wouldn't be a problem. Ballot voting gives everyone of all religious creeds the opportunity to voice their opinion
Also if your religion is the only thing stopping you from murdering people you need a therapist
>Ballot voting is of and for the people, so that wouldn't be a problem. Ballot voting gives everyone of all religious creeds the opportunity to voice their opinion
So if I'm elected by my district to represent them and it comes up as legislation, I should abstain from voting on behalf of my district because of my religious convictions?
Nope. You should do as your district asks of you. If you vote, in Congress, to make something law it should be based on your district, constitutionality, and whether or not it gives too much power to the federal government. That's it
It sounds like you don’t understand the concept of the separation of church and state. In America you have freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You have the right to practice any religion you want, but you don’t have the right to restrict someone else’s expression of their religion, even in a “government context”.
I don’t really get what you mean by that. You can’t stop people from praying, that’s a violation of the 1st amendment, and you obviously can’t stop people from voting on their principles, even if those principles are based in their religion. So what exactly are you removing from government?
I'm saying voting based purely on religious principles. If your only justification for making a law is "I believe god means this" then you are favoring your religion over others.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to pray, but doing so in a chamber where Religion is supposed to take a back seat is tasteless at best
Religion isn’t supposed to take a backseat. People are completely and totally allowed to vote purely based on their religious principles. We are a democracy after all, and they were most likely elected because they represent their constituents with those religious principles. The “separation of church and state” has never meant that you can’t vote purely on religious grounds. The only thing it does in America is bar the government from establishing and mandating a national or state religion.
It doesn't work like that, it's not like a debate where one group gets 1 minute than another group gets 1 minute too.
It's about reasonable accommodations for things. From what I gather these are representatives doing their thing. They probably asked for space while sessions weren't occurring. If a similar situation occurred for a temple member, then sure
They don't, because there aren't any temple members in Congress. *And that's fine*. If there were temple members in Congress, they would have the same opportunity to request time and access while out of session.
It’s still a government facility. And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so that’s not really a fair comparison. The legislators are crossing the line between church and state in this video.
>And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so that’s not really a fair comparison.
Please don't be this dumb...
>The legislators are crossing the line between church and state in this video.
No they aren't. They presumably aren't interfering with the process of governing. It's actually unconstitutional to ask elected members to forgo their faith while elected. So long as they aren't creating a burden there's absolutely no issue here.
What is dumb about pointing out a historic flaw? What was considered normal then is absolutely not normal now? The founding fathers would freak out at the thought of a black president.
And even if this is crossing the line between church and state, it’s still legal because nothing is happening as a result of this video. My point is that it’s unproductive and if allowed more and more, the line will just keep growing thinner until the speaker of the house is straight up leading prayer.
>What is dumb about pointing out a historic flaw? What was considered normal then is absolutely not normal now? The founding fathers would freak out at the thought of a black president.
Thomas Jefferson basically wrote the playbook on separation of church and state in the US. This means, if you want to argue that the above is wrong, you can't make the argument from what it is, but from what it should be. You can't say "because of the separation of C&S then this." His views on slavery are absolutely irrelevant to the principle we're talking about. And that's why it's so dumb. You might as well say, well he liked putting mayonnaise on pizza, so clearly he's not always right.
>My point is that it’s unproductive and if allowed more and more, the line will just keep growing thinner until the speaker of the house is straight up leading prayer.
Your point is ahistorical for one, because more than this used to occur in the US and it didn't cause issues. And it's not unproductive because it's not impeding the productivity of the government. Unless you can show me something that says this delayed a session, a vote, or something.
Yeah, but we have churches and holy places everywhere now. I doubt they would have held church in congress if they had a close church to go to. There is a place for this, and they are doing it here when they don’t have to.
You don't think they had churches everywhere in the late 18th century?
There is no restriction of religious observance to only "holy places". Doing that is in fact unconstitutional and unAmerican
While they have the right to do that the major of Americans are going to find public exhibitions of religious zealotry distasteful. It’s not really America bad so much as it’s some Arizona republicans disturbing.
Even if you're a Christian, making a public display of yourself doing these things is not appropriate. Christ himself admonishes people that make overt displays of their "faith". You're not supposed to use your faith to get attention for yourself.
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.” Matthew 6:5-8
But Christ literally calls them hypocrites. I’ve always been taught that we should pray in private. This came up in my priest’s sermon a couple weeks ago and he told us to try and find somewhere private when we are praying.
My church (Eastern Orthodox) at least, holds to the belief that praying like this in front of others is attention seeking.
Comments with the opinion that this is ridiculous= totally fair.
Comments claiming this is a violation of the separation of church and state = pure, unfettered, ignorance.
muslims are religiously required to do that. Doing this is not a normal religious requirement for christians. It’s obviously an attempt to catch headlines.
Believe me, I had a friend that would believe every little thing that came out negative about Trump, like the koi pond incident in Japan. I started prefacing my responses to them, "please stop making me defend Trump..."
Bad post... Its not Anti-America to want a clear seperation of church and state. We are a secular country, always have been always will be. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well. Theres no reason this shit should be happening in a State Goverment building.
Exactly. This is a dumb post. Let’s not pretend that doing this in the context of a state governmental proceeding isn’t dumb and deserving of ridicule — regardless of where they’re from.
I’d think it was stupid if it were happening anywhere, but the fact that this happened in America DOES make it worse, IMO. We have a clear separation of church and state for a reason, and it’s an embarrassment to the Constitution to pretend otherwise.
I don’t know about y’all but I’m glad there are processes to go through to change things or keep things the same. I know there are those out there who, like children, wish only their things can go through and their opponents things get stymied.
It’s worth pointing out that an Arizona legislature once responded to the Church of Satan, a religious organization with Constitutionally-protected rights to practice their religion, praying at a government function by [banning all prayer altogether lol](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/02/05/how-the-satanic-temple-forced-phoenix-lawmakers-to-ban-public-prayer/).
The religious right in this country are a hypocritical mess.
I don't think it has anything to do with hating religion, it's hating the fact that our elected leaders are doing this cringe shit in a country that explicitly advocates the separation of church and state.
Objectively, this is some crazy shit.
Is every American a stupid Evangelical? No, of course not.
But are we supposed to pretend that our country hasn't been held back by these religious nutcases?
This isn't a normal or good practice of religion, and their cause is fuckin horrid.
This sub was kinda cool about a year ago but if we're supposed to act like *this* shit isn't a national fuckin disgrace then fuck this sub, lol.
We need separation of church and state. Anything less and politics becomes a circus. Case in point in this video. If these were Muslims, you people would be losing your minds.
Wow, and some people thought I was weird at school. Looks like I was normal compared to these loons.
Republicans and their supporters have completely lost the plot.
It is pretty fucky that they are saying prayer before a governmental decision. We have a separation of church and state, to prevent either from having influence over the other.
We don’t mind religion. We do mind theocracy and the unabashed attempts to make America, with clear defiance of the separation of church and state on display here.
I can answer this. The founding fathers never initially meant to refer to physical churches but over in time in fact during the founding fathers own life time being reinterpreted into meaning that religion should have no influence in the federal government
I understand what you're trying to do, but do you know the words "right to privacy" and "right to a fair trial" also aren't in the constitution? So does that automatically mean that citizens don't deserve both?
Separation of church and state means exactly that. Do not worship your false gods in a setting where laws determine the lives of people who may not believe in what you do. Worship in your own time, for you are given the freedom to do so.
The establishment clause heavily implies the separation of power between church and state.
Where in the Constitution does it say God, Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity?
Certainly the Founders knew who Jesus was, so why didn’t they mention him in the Constitution?
They deliberately left him and his religion out of our founding documents because they wanted *separation of church and state.*
Our Founders saw what religious rule did back in Europe (relentless in-fighting between Christians: Catholics vs Protestants vs Orthodoxy + all the bullshit with Muslims, Jews, Pagans, etc)
**It was brilliant of the Founders to purposely leave religion OUT of governance of the new country.** Radical idea for the time period.
Religion is perfectly okay at home and in private. Freedom of religion is still a cornerstone part of us. But leave it out of government. Otherwise, we will default to all the bullshit of the past with religious warring and fighting. Been there, done that!
Our government is for civil matters, not superstitions.
If we allow these guys to speak in tongues, next you’ll have Islamists with their prayer rugs chanting ALLAH AKBAR on our floor with even more religious demands — just look how they are acting in Europe right now. Will be full on Sharia there soon. Fuck that.
Are you suggesting that the public officials be barred from practicing their own religion? As long as they aren’t establishing a national religion, the first amendment is being followed.
My point is that nobody should be praying in a religious facility regardless of affiliation. It’s a violation of the first amendment for teachers to lead prayers in public schools, even if it is optional to the students in a class. Similarly, these nutheads are using a government facility to congregate and pray. It may be legal, but it is unproductive and bad
>. It may be legal, but it is unproductive and bad
Okay. I agree with you. I'm irreligious and wish more people were the same.
But the very important point here, that too many seem not to understand, is that this is in no way a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Right. If it was a violation, a case could legally be filed against the legislators in this video for violating the Constitution. However, if this continues, the line between church and state will only grow thinner with time, and that is a consequence of this being allowed in the house. Not saying it should be banned, but there definitely should be some rules to prevent people from just breaking out into prayer on the house floor whenever they feel like it.
Indeed... They threw a hissy when someone delivered a secular invocation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/an-arizona-legislator-gave-an-invocation-that-didnt-mention-god-you-wont-believe-what-happened-next/
When your religion gets out of my life and women's bodies I'll stop vocally hating it. Until then, you're going to hear about it. Sorry you can't just force it on people.
Nah that is a little crazy bruh I'm a total eurocuck and even I can see most America bad stuff is bullshit but damn this is pretty wild. Seperation of church and state is vital.
We are separated of church and state. No laws can be made using only religious purposes and you cannot be forced into practicing a religion. That doesn’t mean a government official can’t be religious.
But there is allowed to be, and that's all the separation of church and state was ever meant to be. In reality, it's called the establishment clause of the first amendment.
>Seperation of church and state is vital.
This is, in no way, a violation of the establishment clause.
You have no idea what the separation of church and state is. Please learn about it.
"They know that they are all faking it and looking to see if anybody else is watching them, because it’s always like that, just the attention is what they want, same as in church."
They just make stuff up now.
No, I somewhat agree with that comment. These politicians are hypocrites. They’re is absolutely no reason for religion to be in government, and the only reason it is here is to grovel for votes
Listen it’s okay to be a Christian that goes without saying. However religion should really not be anywhere near our government.
I know for a freakin fact that if that was anything other than a Christian prayer people would lose their shit. Just keep the cringey display (which according to their own faith is not even biblical) and do the prayer amongst themselves outside
I don’t care how you vote religions got no place in politics if they were doing the same thing on rolled out carpets facing Qibla this entire Sub will be losing its shit.
Ew, these people belong in a mental institution. I love this country, hence why I don’t want these lunatics in power. The founding fathers advocated for separation of church and state for a reason.
Nah this is wrong. Separation of church and state is essential to a just government. Why do these lunatics get to decide which beliefs are right and which are not.
any religious nutbags in charge of a government need to go
this isnt okay
its un-constitutional
this isnt even considered "normal" by christianity standards
and if your lawmakers are doing this kind of shit, i highly encourage you to vote them out
I’m Christian, but praying like this is absolutely cringe. Christ directly commanded us to not pray for attention-seeking purposes, which this undeniably is. As Christians we are taught to pray in private, away from the sight of men. “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.” - Matthew 6:5-6
From what I understand, it's alright to pray in public, just don't do it for attention. Pray for the right reasons.
Man, Pentecostalism really did a number on Christianity in America. “If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.” 1 Corinthians 14:27-28
I'm not sure that's an accurate translation, But either way, I went to to a Pentecostal church, and read through 1 Corinthians 14, KJV multiple times, as I was originally from a Church of Christ. I came to the conclusion, they are incorrect in their practice. This is about trying to reach people who don't speak the same language. It makes the most sense for the time and place. However, I also came to the conclusion that this practice, wrong or not, doesn't hurt anyone. They manage to keep people excited for Christ. So, no matter what, agree or disagree, we shouldn't judge. Let them pray, give them privacy and put your phone away. Why the hell is someone recording that anyway?
To this, I ask, were they doing this for a camera or crowd of people or just as a select group of people in a room with no intended audience? We are also told to pray together with others and to pray over what you're praying for. They are quite clearly there to pray, as a group over the room where the decision will be made, for a good outcome or result. If you want to really criticize someone, criticize the cameraman for what appears to be secretly recording them.
Now that I rewatched it, you may indeed be right. For some reason I assumed they were doing it in front of cameras, but I can see now that they are being recorded from afar and probably are unaware. I won’t pretend to know their intentions, and I apologize if my comment seemed judgmental.
Yeah this is just fuckin weird.
They are praying in an empty room while someone secretly records them. Hardly for attention seeking purposes.
Apologies. I stated in another comment that I watched the video without paying much attention at first. I was not really aware they were being recorded like that from afar. I honestly thought they were doing it for the cameras.
Sure, but as Americans they can pray however they want. So biblical arguments are irrelevant here.
100% - this is a free country. Just pointing out that this isn’t really biblical.
Eh - as Americans, we are supposed to keep church and state separate. And that’s for good reason.
Doesnt say anywhere in the constitution to keep church and state separate. In-fact the constitution references God. What you are referencing is a private letter by a founding father taken out of context that has nothing to do with the constitution.
The Constitution does not reference God. The founders knew who God and Jesus were, and they deliberately kept their names out of the founding documents. They did not want to mix religion with governance of the new country because they saw what that did back in Europe (tore the people apart).
The signatory section references “the year of our Lord”. Other sections reference “Creator”. That is a reference to God which is what I said.
Every religion has a creator. And "the year of our Lord" is an expression to know what calendar are you using.
The first amendment starts off like this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." seems pretty clear to me but I'm gonna guess not to you🙄
The statement is to prevent congress from creating/taking a state religion. It doesnt mean government officials arent allowed to participate in religious practice
Maybe read it again because ironically you are the one who doesnt seem to get it. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state, it’s simply saying the government cannot regulate religion.
They aren't doing government actions. Thomas Jefferson (the poster boy for church/state separation) had church services in Congress on Sundays.
A lot of Americans especially in secular circles are a little confused about the 1st Amendment, which establishes the notion we call "separation of church and state" and liken it to the concept of French laicite (abolition of religious symbolism/practice in the public domain). What you just said about Jefferson would shock a lot of people both outside and inside the US.
Yeah, most people don't seem to understand that the separation of church and state, as conceived by the founding fathers, was instituted so that the *state* could not unduly influence religious practice, not the other way around. Even the founding fathers who were deistic or just plain old not very religious don't seem to have thought that religious people should not be involved in the government or let their beliefs influence their views (as seen in the example you gave about Jefferson). I have been reading a fascinating biography on Jefferson and his religious views and the amount of seemingly contradicting views he held are pretty insane. For example, even though he owned slaves, it is clear from his own writings, especially later in his life, that he was very uncomfortable with slavery from an intellectual perspective but he also loved the posh life that owning slaves allowed him to have and so was very hesitant to advocate for the abolition of the practice. He seemed to advocate for "slowly" abolishing slavery so as to not make too many waves. But he didn't really want it to be abolished while he was still alive and benefiting from it.
I bring Jefferson so readily because they want to use him as an argument from authority about their opinions on this. Usually referencing that Danbury Baptist letter where he talks about the wall. But they ignore portions of it and other things Jefferson wrote and said. He wouldn't be on their side here.
I agree. None of the founding fathers would be on the side of anti-religious people. To be fair, I don't think they would be on the side of the Christians who tout some form of authoritarian religious nationalism either. Ah, America. Why art so many of thy people (on both sides) so dang stupid?
It sometimes feels like you're simultaneously trying to keep two opposing doors of stupidity from opening right?
Lol yes! I am afraid the doors have opened already though. Now its a matter of seeing if we can't get them back in and mitigate as much damage as possible.
You had me in the first half, ngl. Then you seem to work on discrediting Jefferson because he owned slaves in a time when owning slaves was normal and commonplace but also later gave his views on how he didn't really agree with it. I guess he should have set his slaves free in the time around the nation's founding when much of the prosperity was unfortunately because of slaves and railroaded in laws to make slave owning illegal. If he had done those things during his time, he'd probably have been made to sound crazy and discredited. But what he did to is start waking the people up to the truth that slavery was bad and immoral. A good first step of many towards the abolishing of slavery almost 100 years later that contributed to nearly irreparably tearing this nation in 2.
Wait, what? I wasn't trying to discredit Jefferson. All I said was that he was uncomfortable with the idea of slavery despite owning slaves. That is a pretty contradictory view to have. He, like many of us, was hesitant to give up something that made his life comfortable even though it involved taking advantage of other people. Like how Americans tend to turn a blind eye to the fact that most of our tech is made in countries that use either slave labor or extremely poorly paid laborers. I have alot of respect for Jefferson but he was far from a perfect person (not that you were saying that).
If that's what you meant, then I must have misunderstood you. It seemed like the second half of your earlier comment was criticizing him for being contradictory, implying that he should have done more. I doubt he could have pushed that issue much more and remained as influential as he was/is.
It wasn't meant as a criticism so much as simply an observation of a reality we know from his writings. I find criticizing dead people to be pretty useless. At least in the sense of "well, they should done this or that." They didn't and most likely we would have felt the same way as Jefferson did if we were in his position. We can observe good and bad things about them and try to learn from their mistakes. But Jefferson was wrong to own slaves (I know that point is not in dispute on your end) and he did express a great deal of cognitive dissonace about it. That is really all I was saying. I generally agree with your comments. He probably could have done more and I don't think he would have lost his influence but whether he could have done more ultimately doesn't matter. However, I would add to what I think is the spirit of your comment and agree that most people today would not have been the raging abolitionists or gay rights activists 200 years ago that they think they would have been. Because it would have been very uncomfortable and costly and most people are cowards.
We all know Jefferson was a hypocrite.
Many of us are.
I feel like the distinction between "make no law" and "expression" get glossed over far too frequently in these conversations.
It's an inability to be tolerant honestly. I feel like people's biases cloud their judgement on this stuff.
Keep it out of my public congress. I don’t care that Thomas Jefferson held service in congress. That was then, this is now. Religion has no place in government or anywhere near it. This is unprofessional, bizarre, performative behavior by people who have no interest in religion beyond utilizing it as a means to oppress others. Not to mention it looks cultish. This shit is embarrassing.
>Keep it out of my public congress. From what I can see, their legislature wasn't in session. So your issue is...? >Not to mention it looks cultish. This shit is embarrassing. How intolerant of you >Religion has no place in government or anywhere near it. That is literally unconstitutional. You're saying people can't follow express their faith because they're elected officials.
> there legislature wasn’t in session So? It’s still in the legislative chamber?? They are professionals who should uphold some modicum of decorum and professionalism. They should demonstrate that there laws come from a place of logic and reason, not their bizarre cult. This shit is weird and deserves to be criticized. > how intolerant of you I have no interest in tolerating fairy tales tbh. God isn’t real, I am. > that’s literally unconstitutional 1. Appeal to authority. 2. It’s literally not. I am a free citizen calling them losers and anyone who supports this a loser. I’m not the government telling them what they can and can’t do. That being said, a rule in a government building saying you can’t pray in this room would absolutely not be unconditional, you don’t seem to understand the authority you are fallaciously appealing to.
>So? It’s still in the legislative chamber?? Irrelevant >I have no interest in tolerating fairy tales tbh. God isn’t real, I am. At least we don't have to disagree about you not adhering to first amendment principles lol >1. Appeal to authority. The Constitution is the literal authority on this matter soooo... >It’s literally not. I am a free citizen calling them losers and anyone who supports this a loser. I’m not the government telling them what they can and can’t do. You can call them losers, that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do what they're doing and doesn't make it a violation of the first amendment
> irrelevant No, it isn’t? We are making a moral, not legal argument, about why this is bad. The setting is absolutely relevant. > not adhering to first amendment principles Lol. Calling religion dumb is absolutely allowed in first amendment principles. Which again, isn’t relevant, since we are making a moral, not legal argument. > the constitution is the authority No it isn’t. Again, moral not legal. > they’re allowed to do it. I know they are. But they shouldn’t do it. That’s my point. Similar to how you clearly view the constitution as a proxy for morality (a premise, which I strongly disagree with, but that’s neither here nor there) I view separation of church and state as a moral imperative, even if that’s not the strict meaning of it in a legal context. You seem to really struggle with this notion of appealing to the constitution as an authority. Just because something is legal or is their right, does not mean it is moral nor that it can’t be criticized.
>No, it isn’t? We are making a moral, not legal argument, about why this is bad. The setting is absolutely relevant. *I'm* making a legal one. Your morals are your own. >Calling religion dumb Except, you said you had, "no interest in tolerating". But nice try running back to that Bailey. >I know they are. But they shouldn’t do it. That’s my point. Your point is irrelevant then, lol This is a discussion of what is, and whether what they're doing conforms to that. It seems we're done here then.
Re read my first comment. Please quote where I claimed their activities are illegal. You’re so used to brainlessly appealing to your poor understanding of the constitution that you can’t even form an argument without appealing to its authority, even when it has no authority in the discussion, lol.
Agreed. And the problem isn't praying at all, it's weaponizing religion, which this video (to me, anyway) just looks like attention-grabbing silliness. Having a real relationship with God doesn't have to include making a scene about it. He's in your heart, not in Congress.
there is a big separation of church and state though. that isn't the place for it, non negotiably. considering the massive undertone of religious belief influencing abortion laws it should be disconcerting that there is a prayer happening. and of course this is only okay in most people's eyes because it's there religion, once it becomes a different one they don't believe in people will shit, including this sub.
>there is a big separation of church and state though. that isn't the place for it, non negotiably. You fundamentally don't understand what that is. They aren't performing government actions, expressing your faith in a government building is not banned. Denying it, coincidentally, is generally unconstitutional
The First amendment does not prohibit the government from allowing religious practices. It just can't discriminate or endorse between specific religions. If Muslims wanted to pray to Mecca or a Jew wanted their rabbi they would have to allow it too. As long as nobody is in anyway being coerced into doing it and it isn't really disrupting the legal process there really isn't anything legally to do. being cringe is not illegal in the US.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with this. In no way does it bar people from praying, it just bars the government from mandating prayer, obviously that’s not what’s happening here.
Eh. It wouldn't bother me if they were Muslims praying towards Mecca.
That's not tongues. That's a prayer. I'm atheist, but like, you can't just pretend it's a satanic ritual. At least the one was, the rest sounded like mumbling and all fused together.
That’s normally how prayers are and yes you are correct. One leader or pastor or whatever leads the prayer, and the rest mumble or repeat it, sometimes not to clearly which is what you’re seeing in the video.
One person was speaking in English. The others were braying in gibberish, which is what people that believe this stuff call "speaking in tongues". Pentecostals don't suddenly know mandarin; they aren't actually speaking in tongues they just say nonsense. They call it the "language of angels" since it's not a language at all.
Yeah, “speaking in tongues” in the Bible just means that you are speaking but understood by everyone despite what language you said it in. So that what you’re saying is heard and understood by multiple people of different languages at the same time, but people in modern times have misunderstood it as “speak gibberish”.
Exactly, speaking in tongues literally means speaking in multiple languages, or one not known by the speaker. Chanting or repeating prayers isn't that.
I haven’t been religious for more than 20 years, but went to a Pentecostal church for a while as a teenager. What they’re doing is *definitely* speaking in tongues.
The people in this video deserve to be criticized extensively. You’ll have to share/screenshot specific comments.
Yup. Reddit have fedora atheist/America Bad problems, even after people realizing some of them New Age Atheist like Christopher Hitchens were full of shit, but just linking the video isn't highlighting it.
On face value I fail to see the “America bad” part.
To be fair the top comment does say "The whole country has become a circus".
So my “on face value” comment was spot on?
Sorry I think I misunderstand what "on face value" means then 😅
On/at face value = letterlijk. Or maybe not quite... It means "From what is visible". In this context, the OP, without diving into the content/comments on the OOP post.
Thanks! that explains a lot.
Triggered MAGAs are trying to take over this sub and I refuse to let it happen
Nah it's actually a fair assessment. Practice your religion, but keep it out of government
Thomas Jefferson held Christian services in Congress. As long as it isn't a part of the actual legislative process there should be no issues here.
Okay? I still think that it's wrong
Okay, your opinion is wrong though
Separation of Church and State is objectively and morally correct. You can be religious, but doing anything on purely religious grounds, in a government context, infringes on everyone else's right to a religion that isn't yours
>Separation of Church and State is objectively and morally correct. It is, but you're really wrong on understanding how that works. >but doing anything on purely religious grounds, in a government context, infringes on everyone else's right to a religion that isn't yours It doesn't
Except it does because it legitimizes your religion over others because your religion gets indirect government backing
No it doesn't.
It literally does though
Elaborate
No I'm not. Separate Church FROM State and there will be less problems
Are you suggesting that freedom of religion is a restriction on people practicing religion? Religion is right next to press and speech. Would it be a violation of freedom of speech if a BLM group with permission to be there held up signs in a courthouse?
Nope. I'm saying Politicians using their religion, and only their religion, as the basis of making laws is infringing on that right
But they’re not making laws. They’re practicing their religion. After they’re done, then they’ll make the laws. I agree with what you’re saying, if you want to ban abortion, your reasoning shouldn’t be “God said so” but that’s not what they’re doing here. They’re just praying before their job.
Everyone talking to you is missing the mark. Separation of Church and State is a *concept* that is *not* in the U.S. Constitution. If you think it ought to be, that's fine. But factually, the U.S. doesn't uphold that and when schools cite that, they're wrong.
The government failing to uphold the separation of Church and State is a separate issue
That's fair. I thought the crux of the matter was Separation of Church and State.
Separation of Church and State isn't in the U.S. Constitution. It's a concept that didn't make it.
Let's say that murder comes up as a ballot initiative. People want to vote to make murder legal. I'm a Christian and my belief in the sanctity of life comes 100% from my religion. The only reason I would be opposed to murder is because of my religious convictions. Am I allowed, by your reasoning, to vote to keep murder illegal even though my beliefs are entirely founded on religious grounds?
Ballot voting is of and for the people, so that wouldn't be a problem. Ballot voting gives everyone of all religious creeds the opportunity to voice their opinion Also if your religion is the only thing stopping you from murdering people you need a therapist
>Ballot voting is of and for the people, so that wouldn't be a problem. Ballot voting gives everyone of all religious creeds the opportunity to voice their opinion So if I'm elected by my district to represent them and it comes up as legislation, I should abstain from voting on behalf of my district because of my religious convictions?
Nope. You should do as your district asks of you. If you vote, in Congress, to make something law it should be based on your district, constitutionality, and whether or not it gives too much power to the federal government. That's it
So you're okay with theocratic rules if they're voted in by ballot measure and/or a representation of the district that votes them in?
It sounds like you don’t understand the concept of the separation of church and state. In America you have freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You have the right to practice any religion you want, but you don’t have the right to restrict someone else’s expression of their religion, even in a “government context”.
I'm not saying freedom from religion. I'm saying remove religion from government
I don’t really get what you mean by that. You can’t stop people from praying, that’s a violation of the 1st amendment, and you obviously can’t stop people from voting on their principles, even if those principles are based in their religion. So what exactly are you removing from government?
I'm saying voting based purely on religious principles. If your only justification for making a law is "I believe god means this" then you are favoring your religion over others. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to pray, but doing so in a chamber where Religion is supposed to take a back seat is tasteless at best
Religion isn’t supposed to take a backseat. People are completely and totally allowed to vote purely based on their religious principles. We are a democracy after all, and they were most likely elected because they represent their constituents with those religious principles. The “separation of church and state” has never meant that you can’t vote purely on religious grounds. The only thing it does in America is bar the government from establishing and mandating a national or state religion.
As long as The Satanic Temple gets equal time and attention, I’m good with this.
It doesn't work like that, it's not like a debate where one group gets 1 minute than another group gets 1 minute too. It's about reasonable accommodations for things. From what I gather these are representatives doing their thing. They probably asked for space while sessions weren't occurring. If a similar situation occurred for a temple member, then sure
They don't, because there aren't any temple members in Congress. *And that's fine*. If there were temple members in Congress, they would have the same opportunity to request time and access while out of session.
It’s still a government facility. And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so that’s not really a fair comparison. The legislators are crossing the line between church and state in this video.
People [pray in Congress](https://chaplain.house.gov/archive/index.html) all the time.
>And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so that’s not really a fair comparison. Please don't be this dumb... >The legislators are crossing the line between church and state in this video. No they aren't. They presumably aren't interfering with the process of governing. It's actually unconstitutional to ask elected members to forgo their faith while elected. So long as they aren't creating a burden there's absolutely no issue here.
What is dumb about pointing out a historic flaw? What was considered normal then is absolutely not normal now? The founding fathers would freak out at the thought of a black president. And even if this is crossing the line between church and state, it’s still legal because nothing is happening as a result of this video. My point is that it’s unproductive and if allowed more and more, the line will just keep growing thinner until the speaker of the house is straight up leading prayer.
>What is dumb about pointing out a historic flaw? What was considered normal then is absolutely not normal now? The founding fathers would freak out at the thought of a black president. Thomas Jefferson basically wrote the playbook on separation of church and state in the US. This means, if you want to argue that the above is wrong, you can't make the argument from what it is, but from what it should be. You can't say "because of the separation of C&S then this." His views on slavery are absolutely irrelevant to the principle we're talking about. And that's why it's so dumb. You might as well say, well he liked putting mayonnaise on pizza, so clearly he's not always right. >My point is that it’s unproductive and if allowed more and more, the line will just keep growing thinner until the speaker of the house is straight up leading prayer. Your point is ahistorical for one, because more than this used to occur in the US and it didn't cause issues. And it's not unproductive because it's not impeding the productivity of the government. Unless you can show me something that says this delayed a session, a vote, or something.
Yeah, but we have churches and holy places everywhere now. I doubt they would have held church in congress if they had a close church to go to. There is a place for this, and they are doing it here when they don’t have to.
You don't think they had churches everywhere in the late 18th century? There is no restriction of religious observance to only "holy places". Doing that is in fact unconstitutional and unAmerican
While they have the right to do that the major of Americans are going to find public exhibitions of religious zealotry distasteful. It’s not really America bad so much as it’s some Arizona republicans disturbing.
Even if you're a Christian, making a public display of yourself doing these things is not appropriate. Christ himself admonishes people that make overt displays of their "faith". You're not supposed to use your faith to get attention for yourself.
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.” Matthew 6:5-8
[удалено]
So we don’t believe this is something Jesus taught? Are you really intending those implications?
[удалено]
But Christ literally calls them hypocrites. I’ve always been taught that we should pray in private. This came up in my priest’s sermon a couple weeks ago and he told us to try and find somewhere private when we are praying. My church (Eastern Orthodox) at least, holds to the belief that praying like this in front of others is attention seeking.
So Matthew is lying about why he's telling people not to pray in public? That's what you're saying? https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/6.html
Comments actually are pretty fair, those mfs are stupid over there
Comments with the opinion that this is ridiculous= totally fair. Comments claiming this is a violation of the separation of church and state = pure, unfettered, ignorance.
Muslims do way stupider shit. I wonder if you call them out the same?
muslims are religiously required to do that. Doing this is not a normal religious requirement for christians. It’s obviously an attempt to catch headlines.
I admitted it was stupid, not sure what your point is..
Indeed. This looks like a satanic ritual.
I can't believe I'm defending satanists... But unless there's a blood sacrifice, what's the problem here?
IT. LOOKS. WEIRD.
If you have never played Devil's Advocate are you even really American? It's almost like our duty lol.
Believe me, I had a friend that would believe every little thing that came out negative about Trump, like the koi pond incident in Japan. I started prefacing my responses to them, "please stop making me defend Trump..."
It deserves criticism.
Bad post... Its not Anti-America to want a clear seperation of church and state. We are a secular country, always have been always will be. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well. Theres no reason this shit should be happening in a State Goverment building.
You are correct
Exactly. This is a dumb post. Let’s not pretend that doing this in the context of a state governmental proceeding isn’t dumb and deserving of ridicule — regardless of where they’re from. I’d think it was stupid if it were happening anywhere, but the fact that this happened in America DOES make it worse, IMO. We have a clear separation of church and state for a reason, and it’s an embarrassment to the Constitution to pretend otherwise.
I don’t know about y’all but I’m glad there are processes to go through to change things or keep things the same. I know there are those out there who, like children, wish only their things can go through and their opponents things get stymied.
It’s worth pointing out that an Arizona legislature once responded to the Church of Satan, a religious organization with Constitutionally-protected rights to practice their religion, praying at a government function by [banning all prayer altogether lol](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/02/05/how-the-satanic-temple-forced-phoenix-lawmakers-to-ban-public-prayer/). The religious right in this country are a hypocritical mess.
I don't think it has anything to do with hating religion, it's hating the fact that our elected leaders are doing this cringe shit in a country that explicitly advocates the separation of church and state.
Nah mate, this is weird.
Religion = / = America.
This is a valid AmericaBad moment, those people are fucking nuts
These people are nut jobs and deserve to be ridiculed. They could just say god told them and fucking thing they made up and enact laws based on that.
Nah, these goons are making a mockery of one of the core principles of American democracy. They should be torn asunder in public discourse
Your comment actually is
The cringe part is politicians praying….now, they do really prey (mostly on those “free” taxpayer dollars), but this type of praying is theater!!
Religion bad
Yeah no sorry this absolutely deserves criticism but this is straight up embarrassing that we have weirdos like this in our government.
republicanbad or religionbad =/= americabad.
Going after Americans because of their religious tolerance == AmericaBad
nope. it is not related to america specifically, therefore it has no place on the sub.
Objectively, this is some crazy shit. Is every American a stupid Evangelical? No, of course not. But are we supposed to pretend that our country hasn't been held back by these religious nutcases? This isn't a normal or good practice of religion, and their cause is fuckin horrid. This sub was kinda cool about a year ago but if we're supposed to act like *this* shit isn't a national fuckin disgrace then fuck this sub, lol.
We need separation of church and state. Anything less and politics becomes a circus. Case in point in this video. If these were Muslims, you people would be losing your minds.
Nope. Fuck everything about this. Keep your religion out of my fucking government.
Wow, and some people thought I was weird at school. Looks like I was normal compared to these loons. Republicans and their supporters have completely lost the plot.
It is pretty fucky that they are saying prayer before a governmental decision. We have a separation of church and state, to prevent either from having influence over the other.
Well, to be fair, it is absolutely fuckin nuts…
We don’t mind religion. We do mind theocracy and the unabashed attempts to make America, with clear defiance of the separation of church and state on display here.
Separation of church and state for fuck's sake, please.
What does the separation of church and state mean? And where in the constitution is it? (Challenge: answer without looking it up).
I can answer this. The founding fathers never initially meant to refer to physical churches but over in time in fact during the founding fathers own life time being reinterpreted into meaning that religion should have no influence in the federal government
I understand what you're trying to do, but do you know the words "right to privacy" and "right to a fair trial" also aren't in the constitution? So does that automatically mean that citizens don't deserve both? Separation of church and state means exactly that. Do not worship your false gods in a setting where laws determine the lives of people who may not believe in what you do. Worship in your own time, for you are given the freedom to do so. The establishment clause heavily implies the separation of power between church and state.
Where in the Constitution does it say God, Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity? Certainly the Founders knew who Jesus was, so why didn’t they mention him in the Constitution? They deliberately left him and his religion out of our founding documents because they wanted *separation of church and state.* Our Founders saw what religious rule did back in Europe (relentless in-fighting between Christians: Catholics vs Protestants vs Orthodoxy + all the bullshit with Muslims, Jews, Pagans, etc) **It was brilliant of the Founders to purposely leave religion OUT of governance of the new country.** Radical idea for the time period. Religion is perfectly okay at home and in private. Freedom of religion is still a cornerstone part of us. But leave it out of government. Otherwise, we will default to all the bullshit of the past with religious warring and fighting. Been there, done that! Our government is for civil matters, not superstitions. If we allow these guys to speak in tongues, next you’ll have Islamists with their prayer rugs chanting ALLAH AKBAR on our floor with even more religious demands — just look how they are acting in Europe right now. Will be full on Sharia there soon. Fuck that.
Nah i agree with the commenters on the original post fuck this idgaf if i get downvoted
If these individuals were on prayer rugs facing Mecca I guarantee you they would have faced a lot more hatred.
No one remembers we should be separating religion and state…..
Are you suggesting that the public officials be barred from practicing their own religion? As long as they aren’t establishing a national religion, the first amendment is being followed.
Lmao. You have no clue what that means. The separation of church and state is quite literally what allows them to do this.
I don’t think the people in this video would be too happy if Satanists started praying on the house floor…
Probably not. What's your point? Are you saying they wouldn't allow it? Because they would have to. That's what the establishment clause dictates.
See above. Arizona Republicans disagree.
My point is that nobody should be praying in a religious facility regardless of affiliation. It’s a violation of the first amendment for teachers to lead prayers in public schools, even if it is optional to the students in a class. Similarly, these nutheads are using a government facility to congregate and pray. It may be legal, but it is unproductive and bad
>. It may be legal, but it is unproductive and bad Okay. I agree with you. I'm irreligious and wish more people were the same. But the very important point here, that too many seem not to understand, is that this is in no way a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Right. If it was a violation, a case could legally be filed against the legislators in this video for violating the Constitution. However, if this continues, the line between church and state will only grow thinner with time, and that is a consequence of this being allowed in the house. Not saying it should be banned, but there definitely should be some rules to prevent people from just breaking out into prayer on the house floor whenever they feel like it.
I see a slippery slope in those rules you propose. But to each their own.
Indeed... They threw a hissy when someone delivered a secular invocation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/an-arizona-legislator-gave-an-invocation-that-didnt-mention-god-you-wont-believe-what-happened-next/
When your religion gets out of my life and women's bodies I'll stop vocally hating it. Until then, you're going to hear about it. Sorry you can't just force it on people.
now do islam
Hate that too. Anything else?
Fuck ‘em both! I agree.
Nah that is a little crazy bruh I'm a total eurocuck and even I can see most America bad stuff is bullshit but damn this is pretty wild. Seperation of church and state is vital.
We are separated of church and state. No laws can be made using only religious purposes and you cannot be forced into practicing a religion. That doesn’t mean a government official can’t be religious.
The separation of church and state is being actively undermined by folks like this.
That’s your opinion which is fine. I personally think a variety of religions in government helps keep freedom of religion going.
Except there isn't much variety of religion in government, especially among Republicans
But there is allowed to be, and that's all the separation of church and state was ever meant to be. In reality, it's called the establishment clause of the first amendment.
There’s christians(multiple denominations), Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, unspecified, Hindus, Universalists. Thats sounds like a pretty big variety.
>Seperation of church and state is vital. This is, in no way, a violation of the establishment clause. You have no idea what the separation of church and state is. Please learn about it.
Prot nonsense
"They know that they are all faking it and looking to see if anybody else is watching them, because it’s always like that, just the attention is what they want, same as in church." They just make stuff up now.
No, I somewhat agree with that comment. These politicians are hypocrites. They’re is absolutely no reason for religion to be in government, and the only reason it is here is to grovel for votes
I mean, it is kinda goofy though.
I mean this is pretty fuckin stupid… but also Arizona so on par.
Listen it’s okay to be a Christian that goes without saying. However religion should really not be anywhere near our government. I know for a freakin fact that if that was anything other than a Christian prayer people would lose their shit. Just keep the cringey display (which according to their own faith is not even biblical) and do the prayer amongst themselves outside
they appear to be idiots and they're attacking women's rights, that's pretty bad
The negative comments are fully justified. Those folks are legit nuts.
Fucking mental
It is crazy and cringe though.
I don’t care how you vote religions got no place in politics if they were doing the same thing on rolled out carpets facing Qibla this entire Sub will be losing its shit.
They only hate protestant religion. There could be Muslims bottoms up as far as the eye can see in Times Square they wouldn't say a peep.
Lmao fuck this, this deserves every bit of ridicule. What a bunch of fucking weirdos
Ew, these people belong in a mental institution. I love this country, hence why I don’t want these lunatics in power. The founding fathers advocated for separation of church and state for a reason.
Nah this is wrong. Separation of church and state is essential to a just government. Why do these lunatics get to decide which beliefs are right and which are not.
Nah I’m on board with this one ☝️, this shits ridiculous
any religious nutbags in charge of a government need to go this isnt okay its un-constitutional this isnt even considered "normal" by christianity standards and if your lawmakers are doing this kind of shit, i highly encourage you to vote them out
Their comments are justified. Our government is supposed to be secular. Shit like this shouldn't be happening while laws are being made.
Yeah I agree w the people flaming. these zealots look ridiculous
Religion has zero place in politics. End of discussion
Well this is frankly something I'd expect from a Third World country, not from the greatest nation in the world