Author Topic: Paul Ryan fires Chaplain for "being too political" for praying for the poor (Read 4964 times)

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2018, 04:50:02 PM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on April 30, 2018, 12:36:03 PM

Spoken like a true 'born again Christian'.

If you go to church, you should know this isn't true.

I'm not going to get into a theological debate (again) but a perfect example would be, if you claim to be a Christian and you donate or support Planned Parenthood in any way, shape or form...OR pro-choice, there is no way you can make that claim. That's just for starters.

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2018, 04:51:42 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on April 30, 2018, 12:43:20 PM

Better chance of me running a marathon than him attending church

Would you bet your account on it?

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2018, 04:54:13 PM »

Quote from: Coach is Back! on April 30, 2018, 04:50:02 PM

I'm not going to get into a theological debate (again) but a perfect example would be, if you claim to be a Christian and you donate or support Planned Parenthood in any way, shape or form...OR pro-choice, there is no way you can make that claim. That's just for starters.

If you claim to be a Christian and you support Trump there is no way you can make that claim

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #28 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:07:17 PM »

Quote from: Coach is Back! on April 27, 2018, 10:32:37 PM

Stop pretending that liberals can be Christians. They can’t. On you’re above quote and my response shows how naive you are.

If you are the judge of who can and can't be Christians, then no wonder the religion is fucked.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #29 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:10:19 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on April 27, 2018, 09:43:59 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/27/paul-ryans-firing-house-chaplain-outrages-democrats.html

The fact there is a chaplain hired for a government function should be the first clue there is a problem.

It's only a problem if you believe government cannot engage in any form of religious expression. Fortunately, that's not the way the Constitution works. It's also inconsistent with 200 years of history: "The election of William Linn as first Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Second Continental Congress of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:12:45 PM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on April 30, 2018, 06:10:19 PM

It's only a problem if you believe government cannot engage in any form of religious expression. Fortunately, that's not the way the Constitution works. It's also inconsistent with 200 years of history: "The election of William Linn as first Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Second Continental Congress of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

I believe the government should not engage in any form of religious expression. They should focus on governing.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #31 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:16:45 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on April 30, 2018, 06:12:45 PM

I believe the government should not engage in any form of religious expression. They should focus on governing.

You're entitled to that opinion, wrong as it may be. That's an extremist viewpoint. It's the view held by paranoid atheists running around the country filing lawsuits claiming emotional distress over seeing any form of religious expression on public property.

Straw Man · « **Reply #32 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:44:37 PM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on April 30, 2018, 06:16:45 PM

You're entitled to that opinion, wrong as it may be. That's an extremist viewpoint. It's the view held by paranoid atheists running around the country filing lawsuits claiming emotional distress over seeing any form of religious expression on public property.

standard issue paranoid bullshit from a guy who imagines he's having a personal relationship with a 2000 year old Jewish zombie

Skeletor · « **Reply #33 on:** April 30, 2018, 06:51:24 PM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on April 30, 2018, 06:10:19 PM

It's only a problem if you believe government cannot engage in any form of religious expression. Fortunately, that's not the way the Constitution works. It's also inconsistent with 200 years of history: "The election of William Linn as first Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Second Continental Congress of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

I don't think the government should be engaging in religious expression, moreso when it starts making only certain religious expression or affiliation acceptable. The problem is when several bodies of government, down to the local level, only permit prayers and invocations from certain cults or religions and when others request to do the same they are either not granted permission or the rules and legislation are suddenly changed to stop the invocations.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #34 on:** April 30, 2018, 07:06:27 PM »

Quote from: Skeletor on April 30, 2018, 06:51:24 PM

I don't think the government should be engaging in religious expression, moreso when it starts making only certain religious expression or affiliation acceptable. The problem is when several bodies of government, down to the local level, only permit prayers and invocations from certain cults or religions and when others request to do the same they are either not granted permission or the rules and legislation are suddenly changed to stop the invocations.

It has never been our custom, practice, or part of the Constitution to prohibit any form of religious expression by government. From the Founders to president day, we are largely comprised of people of faith. That's why we put a chaplain on the payroll in the 1700s.

I do agree that allowing prayers by some sects and not others could be a problem. Not sure of specific instances? And I'm not talking about people like Michael Newdow (we have our version of him in Hawaii). I mean legit sects that were denied the opportunity.

That said, you and Agnostic are making a much broader point than prayers before legislative bodies. You're talking about censoring all forms of religious expression on public property. Way too broad IMO.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 30, 2018, 07:10:59 PM »

Quote from: Skeletor on April 30, 2018, 06:51:24 PM

I don't think the government should be engaging in religious expression, moreso when it starts making only certain religious expression or affiliation acceptable. The problem is when several bodies of government, down to the local level, only permit prayers and invocations from certain cults or religions and when others request to do the same they are either not granted permission or the rules and legislation are suddenly changed to stop the invocations.

agree

Skeletor · « **Reply #36 on:** April 30, 2018, 07:14:27 PM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on April 30, 2018, 07:06:27 PM

It has never been our custom, practice, or part of the Constitution to prohibit any form of religious expression by government. From the Founders to president day, we are largely comprised of people of faith. That's why we put a chaplain on the payroll in the 1700s.

I do agree that allowing prayers by some sects and not others could be a problem. Not sure of specific instances? And I'm not talking about people like Michael Newdow (we have our version of him in Hawaii). I mean legit sects that were denied the opportunity.

That said, you and Agnostic are making a much broader point than prayers before legislative bodies. You're talking about censoring all forms of religious expression on public property. Way too broad IMO.

Not quite. My point is that government has more important things to do than praying but even in such a case, and that is most important, that it should not only allow certain religious expression and disallow others it might not like.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #37 on:** April 30, 2018, 07:20:36 PM »

Quote from: Skeletor on April 30, 2018, 07:14:27 PM

Not quite. My point is that government has more important things to do than praying but even in such a case, and that is most important, that it should not only allow certain religious expression and disallow others it might not like.

I agree in part. If we're talking about prayers before legislative bodies, and Congress in particular, they have one person on the payroll. I don't really care if they rotate the faith of the person who holds the job, but they should.

I disagree with the "more important things to do" part. Prayer is part of the fabric of our society. And we're talking about a few minutes of their time. Plus I'd rather have them praying than passing some asinine law that makes my life more difficult.

Skeletor · « **Reply #38 on:** May 01, 2018, 11:38:32 AM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on April 30, 2018, 07:20:36 PM

I agree in part. If we're talking about prayers before legislative bodies, and Congress in particular, they have one person on the payroll. I don't really care if they rotate the faith of the person who holds the job, but they should.

I disagree with the "more important things to do" part. Prayer is part of the fabric of our society. And we're talking about a few minutes of their time. Plus I'd rather have them praying than passing some asinine law that makes my life more difficult.

Has legislative praying made them pass less asinine laws or made your life easier?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #39 on:** May 01, 2018, 11:59:56 AM »

Quote from: Skeletor on May 01, 2018, 11:38:32 AM

Has legislative praying made them pass less asinine laws or made your life easier?

I doubt it. But who knows? Maybe they did less damage.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 01, 2018, 01:13:25 PM »

Quote from: Dos Equis on May 01, 2018, 11:59:56 AM

I doubt it. But who knows? Maybe they did less damage.

Sound reasoning right there...

Dos Equis · « **Reply #41 on:** May 01, 2018, 01:41:55 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on May 01, 2018, 01:13:25 PM

Sound reasoning right there...

Sound and honest opinion. Thank you.

Straw Man · « **Reply #42 on:** May 02, 2018, 05:34:41 PM »

Quote from: Coach is Back! on April 30, 2018, 04:50:02 PM

I'm not going to get into a theological debate (again) but a perfect example would be, if you claim to be a Christian and you donate or support Planned Parenthood in any way, shape or form...OR pro-choice, there is no way you can make that claim. That's just for starters.

I don't recall reading that in the bible

Isn't the heaven supposedly filled with sinners who have accepted Jesus as their saviour

Isn't that the "good news"

Jesus and his Daddy (who are actually the same person) kept is simple for so idiots like you wouldn't get confused

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 02, 2018, 06:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Straw Man on May 02, 2018, 05:34:41 PM

I don't recall reading that in the bible

Isn't the heaven supposedly filled with sinners who have accepted Jesus as their saviour

Isn't that the "good news"

Jesus and his Daddy (who are actually the same person) kept is simple for so idiots like you wouldn't get confused

Remember, Coach is Christian by name only