Umm, if you not understand why the atheists are doing this, your certainly aren't going to find out by asking a priest.

Not only is it in direct violation of the constitution, his invitees are a bunch of hateful, bigoted loons:

http://videosift.com/video/Tasty-batshitidbits-by-Dick-Perry-s-horde-of-christian-loons

Militant Atheists? The priest makes them sound like a terrorist group. And no, Atheists don't "love" publicity, they would prefer to keep quiet. But, when "believers" are constantly trying to influence policy and teach their bronze age dogma to our kids, atheists, like all freedom seekers, have a duty to speak out. he actually summed up the atheist view very succinctly; "If you want to be religious, do it in your home."

I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?

Most citizens do not understand "separation of church and state". This clip is actually an accurate representation of what the 1st Amendment is NOT. It does NOT mean that the government can not mention, condone, or participate in religious events. It means that the federal government may not enforce, through law, the establishment of a religion, or limit, through law, the freedom to practice your chosen religion (or practice no religion).

I saw a very true discussion in this clip, which explained why those who raised this protest are clearly constitutionally wrong.

Schlub, even without your own explanation of what you understand it to mean, I believe you are the one who does not understand based on your title of the clip.

>> ^hpqp:

Not only is it in direct violation of the constitution, his invitees are a bunch of hateful, bigoted loons:
http://videosift.com/video/Tasty-batshitidbits-by-Dick-
Perry-s-horde-of-christian-loons


Care to explain how a private event by a politician is establishing a law that limits religious freedom?

Well, I disagree. He's not limiting people's freedoms, but he is using his position as governor to solicit christians to assemble in a massive pray-athon to have their god come and fix his state for him because he's too much of an incompetent. It's not some random citizen organizing this... it's the frigging governor! If he wishes to participate, or tell people that he's attending such an event - fine. Rallying people to help him do it is something else entirely.

>> ^possom:

Most citizens do not understand "separation of church and state". This clip is actually an accurate representation of what the 1st Amendment is NOT. It does NOT mean that the government can not mention, condone, or participate in religious events. It means that the federal government may not enforce, through law, the establishment of a religion, or limit, through law, the freedom to practice your chosen religion (or practice no religion).
I saw a very true discussion in this clip, which explained why those who raised this protest are clearly constitutionally wrong.
Schlub, even without your own explanation of what you understand it to mean, I believe you are the one who does not understand based on your title of the clip.

I have no idea how the interpretation of the law works - nor do I care to partake in that arguement.

But I believe that using his Government position to rally people together to pray to his God is clearly a conflict of interest. Soliciting, endorsing and hosting a massive prey-in to help him be a better leader and to divine his way through his job is massively offensive to those people he serves that don't buy into that cultist and useless practice.

He is in that JOB because he is supposed to have the skills to perform that job. Just by saying he needs every one to assemble and pray clearly states that he is not only incompetent to perform his duties but he is turning to religion to help lead the government.

There is no reason why he should be evoking religion and prayer to help lead the people. Those that are atheist or don't endorse the validity of prayer should be offended because and have the right to point out the separation between church and state because it's a massive slap in the face.

The man being paid to lead the people - All the people in that state - to use his elected powers to orchestrate and fix that which needs fixing in order to keep the state running smoothly, is turning to Hocus-Pocas, Mumbo-Jumbo to do the job for him. It's a natural feeling for the religious Sheeple to feel calmed and re-assured after they prey and what a warm hug-fest this is for them. They will go away feeling like things are better now that they have placed everything in their prayers and God's hands. But in fact, absolutely nothing gets accomplished. Nothing gets addressed and nothing is solved. Everything is the same as it was when they went in. The only difference is now there is less opposition within the religious majority. This in turn becomes a political platform.

And besides all of that, who want's to bet how many of the expenses from this event, paid by the governor, become tax write off expenses!

>> ^messenger:

I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?


I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.

Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?

It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."

I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.

Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.

I'm with you. These atheists have taken it way too far. I brought it up with some mixed religious/atheist friends last night and we all sided with Perry.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Fox completely misrepresented this whole story, and it's actually a government funded event to be held in the oval office itself, campaign donations to be solicited.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^messenger:
I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?

I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.
Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?
It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."
I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.
Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.

This is a pretty tough one. Not sure if this is a violation of the constitution or not. Part of the idea of freedom of religion is to stop gov't promotion of any particular religion, and a logical conclusion of that would be promoting a belief in any religion or god at all. As the chief executive of the state, and because this is in response to addressing issues the state government is heavily involved in, it's coming really really close to crossing the line if it doesn't. Generally, I tend to then let voters decide if it does or not by voting him out of office if it does cross the line.

I do think that he shouldn't be doing it. Atheists care just as much about the topics they're praying about; why do something like this that just divides people even more? At least as a governor, let someone else put their name on it, and you can attend.

Fair and Balanced? Get a dictionary, Fox.

Establishment clause.

He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.

He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no such thing as freedom from religion, the fictional "right" that all religious people must not disturb even the air atheists breathe.

There's no wrongdoing here.

>> ^quantumushroom:

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no such thing as freedom from religion, the fictional "right" that all religious people must not disturb even the air atheists breathe.
There's no wrongdoing here.

You forgot to tick the sarcasm box

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