Here's Why "God" Can Never Be Taken Out of the Courthouse.

[Solomon]

As a lawyer for 23 years now, I can guarantee you, that there is more praying going on in courthouses every day, than ever gets done in a church.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I was a law clerk for 4 years and I think that there was more

praying going on in the administrator's office over whether the client would challenge the bill or not. The prayers went unanswered more often than not.

The backup prayer was the draw of who the presiding judge would be.

[Solomon]

3. Look, the judges are praying too, hoping those stupid lawyers

settle the damn case so that they won't have to get involved.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Lol.

Most of the judges I saw were lawyers who couldn't cut it anyway. Or Pro Tem guys who didn't want to burn any bridges.

"Don't get me involved!" Lol. So true.

[Solomon]

5. Well I would be remiss if I did not say, er - um, we have many

fine judges on the bench as well. Some lawyers prefer the security of a nice steady job and unbreakable pension, than the hazards of practicing, which are considerable. ;)

[depakid]

2. And a lot of souls being sold to the devil

Some are actually sitting right up there on the bench or over at opposing counsel's table. Maybe even sitting right next you.:evilgrin:

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Okay, so there's plenty there already; that's enough, right?

Got any more threads on your mind? Two's plenty, don't you think?

What's the point?

Yes, a lot of people believe. Do you think that's news?

There's certainly no need to institute it in any way, right? It's not like it's necessary to life just because many people truly believe and rely on it in times of stress, is it?

Mention of it, sanctioned by the government as if declaring the truth of the big assumption, is still unreasonable, invasive, exclusionary and reeking of privilege, right? You can't have an "us" without having a "them", right?

[Solomon]

7. Finally. Someone wiser than Solomon

I bow to you because I don't understand a thing you are trying to say.
I really don't. :shrug:

My ears are open though. Educate me. :smoke:

[PurityOfEssence]

8. I think you're playing the "common man" rhetorical ploy

but I'll take the bait.

Why have you started two threads like this? Are you trying to show that there's so much belief in god that it's obviously the truth? Are you trying to say that resistance is futile? Are you saying that it's really necessary to human life? Are you trying to say that any attempt to limit the exclusionary expression of faith in the public realm is wrong?

If there's so much religion everywhere, isn't that enough? Just what are you after here? You don't think that we need it proclaimed with the voice of the state, do you? Don't you agree that that would be a form of tyranny, causing any who don't suck up to the concept of a "supreme whatever" to be treated as inferior under the law? You don't dig bigotry, do you, because that's what it would promote? Just what are you advocating? On the face of it, it's just a chirpy: "oh, look: it's everywhere", but there's an unstated conclusion there, so just what are you suggesting?

There's also going to be plenty of human thought and action that has nothing to do with belief. That's not the denial of belief, it's just action that doesn't even address it. So what? There's an odd feeling among many believers that lack of belief is anti-belief, and people who see the whole thing as pointless or uninteresting or who just plain don't buy the idea are "mad at god" or rankling under the yoke of their resistance, when many of us just regard it as stuff and nonsense and don't think about it at all unless it's brought up.

I think you know perfectly well what I said in that last post, but are playing to the cheap seats with the standard "gosh folks, we just don't understand them high falutin' words, now do we?" that's the traditional American way of dismissing anything inconvenient if it has a whiff of complexity to it.

So what is the purpose of this and your other thread? What are you advocating?

[Solomon]

9. I'm not advocating anything.

Just merely trying to point out the ridiculousness of people saying that we are taking "God" out of courthouses if we remove a stupid rock that has the ten commandments on it. In other words, that rock is not "God".

Nor can you take prayer out of the schools by stopping forced classroom prayers.

Perhaps you are trying to read something in my posts that aren't there.

[Trajan]

10. Perhaps there is more to your posts ...

than you acknowledge or understand yourself ....

Perhaps ....

One might as well acknowledge that God "Allah" cannot be taken out of the hijacked airliner being aimed at innocent human beings ....

Have you EVER wondered if the Inquisitors chanted prayers as they tortured innocents during the middle ages ? ...

So much for where and when 'prayers' are offered ....

[Solomon]

11. You guys just don;t get it.

The reason I put "God" in quotation marks is to make it clear that I'm refering to a persons private thoughts no matter who your "God" is or even if you don't even believe in "God".

The post was very simple. You can't stop people from believing what they choose to believe. :smoke:

[knight_of_the_star]

12. I think this better illustrates

based on what has been offered as evidence what is referred to as "there is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole" situation.

[Solomon]

13. Yep. You got it.

I imagine that even atheists say something to themselves in stressful situations.

[PassingFair]

15. And I maintain, Sir,

That whoever said that was no Atheist!

[PurityOfEssence]

14. The implication is very simple too:

that anyone attempting to limit the governmentally endorsed "fact" of the existence of god is attempting to take people's religion away from them.

People are going to be disbelieving and believing everywhere. There will be an ebb and flow of the proportions of the two groups over time, but they will always be there. Many of us aren't actively trying to destroy religion and take it away from its followers.

There's more than enough religion in this society, and it gets more breaks than it should, but the line needs to be drawn around the perimeter of the reaches of government, otherwise it's anti-democratic (the concept, not the party) and abusive.

You've been very cagy to not state your intentions, when you obviously have some. At the very least, you intend to show that religion is unstoppable and inevitable, but you don't state what policies you endorse. What do you endorse? Shouldn't "under god" be taken out of a recitation to be required in governmentally operated schools? Shouldn't "under god" be taken off of the money? (E Pluribus Unum is a much better sentiment, and literally states the inclusiveness that most religions seek to destroy.)

Evoking the very concept that there's a supreme being is in violation of both the spirit and letter of the Constitution; to do so spits on anyone who doesn't believe, and tacitly marginalizes them as not one of "us" and not worthy.

To respond to your next post, many of us talk to ourselves, but don't think we're doing anything more than talking to ourselves. It's like a surrogate for conversation when one's alone. The implication of the riff on foxholes is that when the chips are down, deep inside, everyone really believes. That's just hogwash. They may talk to themselves, or they may just be ordering their thoughts in preparation for a horrible end, but that may well be it.

As I said before, if there's so much god stuff everywhere, isn't that enough? Don't feign a mild rumination being the source of your post; you have an agendum here.

[Solomon]

17. LOL I give up. Let the damn thread die. You just don't get it.

The only agenda I have is to show that you aren't taking someone's religion away by taking a f**king rock out of a courthouse. Is that so difficult to understand?

I'm not advocating for or against religion.

If you must know what my agenda is, I'll tell you.

I'm having big trouble with my family right now, who have gone completely fundie because of Bush's stupid war.

When the issue came up in Alabama about taking the rock out of the courthouse, I got in a relationship hurting argument with my parents and family about it.

Their interpretation of removing the boulder was that it was tantamount to taking God out of the courthouse.

My only point is for people who believe in God, God csn never be taken out of a courthouse, a school, or anywhere else, by removing boulders and forced group prayers.

Also my definition of "prayer" is probably much broader than yours in the sense that I see no real distinction between praying, and talking to yourself, exhorting yourself to do well in a situation.

Now. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. I'm not on any agenda. Just trying to drop a little nugget of wisdom. Sometimes you just gotta be careful where you cast your pearls.

Atheists are just as bad as monotheists when it comes to missing the point.

O8)

[FDRrocks]

16. That just isn't right.

I was really disheartened to hear that Roy Moore was not immediately dismissed from his position. People like him are fundamentally unfit to be a 'judge' of anything.

Praying and Death Sentences! Cognitive dissonance in religions is often very startling!

[quaker bill]

18. I have been in courthouses

I never met anything god-like there.

Your theosophical point is amusing. If God exists, and is understood as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Then God is everywhere all of the time. There is by definition, nothing we can do that changes that.

All of that being aside, the point about inquisitors, terrorists, or hell, football players praying for victory, is on point and makes the whole thing seem rather pointless.

Personally, I don't think either side has a clue.

The rock is not god, it is a wedge issue carefully designed to show democrats as godless commies. We take the bait when we take up the fight.

Yes, I agree on principle that the rock was offensive (and aesthetically unsightly to boot). That being aside it was a ploy to get us to take up a fight we could win legally and in doing so lose politically.

This is an aspect of the beast we are fighting when we take on the wingnuts. Never delude yourself with notion that it is not intentional. They know what they are doing and are completely amoral in their pursuit of power.