Just a reminder about who runs our city

[Pinky]

Actually Hare Krishnas do not need to do religious dancing before meetings.  They like most religions have a moment of meditation.

The only people who ritually slaughter goats in particular are Santeria and some versions of luciferianism.  And those are on high holy days and during certain prayer rituals that have nothing to do with public meetings, since being flip about something is almost the same thing as having a substantive discussion about it.

I believe that sarcasm and absurdity are valid forms of "substantive discussion" Stephen, in that they help "the believers" see the absurdity of their own positions.  On the other hand, your propensity to arbitrarily criticize and belittle others contributes nothing substantive and like prayer, is best kept to yourself.

hmm pinky.

apparently you only like sarcasm and absurdity when it isnt applied to you.

Naaah bro, I'm fine with it.  What I don't like is your tendency to post snide crap about other's posts instead of sticking to the topic at hand.  For example, this thread isn't about critiquing my posts, or second guessing what rhetorical devices I choose to make my point. 

[Pinky]

so you don't think that arguing with a self professed athiest about their innacurate depictions of religious behaviors isnt a bit sarcastic?

Or how about the absurdity of you calling everyone idiots and fools for believing in some form of a creator, but acting all butt hurt when someone jokes about your argument.

Now that my myopic friend, is hilarious.

I never claimed to be making a scholarly dissertation on various religious practices, but was simply showing the likely results of institutionalizing religious practice.  It was absurdity Stephen, intentionally so.  But thanks for your follow-up yap dog response "correcting" me.  We get it Stephen; you're really smart. 

Continuing along the "Wrong Again" theme, I also never called anyone an idiot or a fool for believing in anything, but instead addressed the appropriateness of accepting it's insinuation into public process by trying to show how absurd some practices can seem to others.  Again, deliberate absurdity Stephen.  Forcing me to listen to someone's hypocritical check-in with their god is as absurd as them having to endure a 45 second air horn blast from me; neither have a place in public life.  Get it? 

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I think somewhere along the way the distinction got lost. There's a difference between being a religious/spiritual person (something nobody is denigrating) and certain people who use it in political contexts to either get what they want, or as a publicity stunt, or worse they employ it as xenophobia's henchman. A'la Don Redman trying to force Parvez Ahmed to say a christian prayer at a city council meeting.

Every mainstream religion teaches humility, if these people are actually that devout about their belief system, then why are they hijacking a government meeting to force a bunch of people to sit around listening to them pray? Is there some inversely proportional secret ratio, like the more inappropriate the setting times the larger the number of people divided by pi equals the better christian you are? Our city council meetings already sound like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0-u85aAYg

Apologize for ruining my own joke, after 5 years I still don't know how to post a video on here.

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Debbie, ChrisUfGator, IILU, Strider, Pinky, and Stephen for your comments on my problem with a god etc. 

I have no problem with any city council member seemingly dozing off before the beginning of a CC meeting, perhaps hiding the act of praying, as long as the act doesn’t consume too much time, and doesn’t disrupt or delay proceedings of the meeting.  But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

I realize that the “Christians” believe in certain things, such as gods, and that they “worship” in this, the 21st century, and that the Native Americans believed also in a god of some kind, just as all earlier peoples and tribes believed in all kinds of “things”.  In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

I should think that, in order to project sufficient sincerity into one’s religious beliefs, into one’s god, as in the act of prayer, one would wish to do so in private so as to engage one’s god and spirituality with a more sacred mood.  Displaying loudly one’s religious necessities seems occasionally as if it is done by some only for show, or to show others that “their” religion is the “right one”, or to perhaps gain confidence in one’s religious package, or perhaps to simply gain the conviction that one is mentally stable, and not approaching insanity.
     
I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Yes, the polls show.  They show that just as it is possible for one or five persons to be deluded, it is possible for millions to be.  To assume that the majority must be right is to forget the lessons of history, which have shown that the majority have frequently been wrong.  To relax in one’s assumptions, to engage the habit of basking in the comfort of the majority is to be part of a flock, a follower, and because of this, one is vulnerable to error, to being duped, wrong, and screwed again.

The idea of tolerance?  The city council environment is secular, with serious objectives affecting all citizens.  There is work to be done, as should be evident by the work that is frequently not done in our council.  To allow the religious, who wish to impose their praying agenda upon the entire council, and therefore indirectly upon the entire city of Jacksonville, is to be presumptuous, and to attempt giving their religious practices a validity that is not deserved.

It becomes a matter of control.  It becomes a matter of power, sought by the religious in the city and the core who desire to perpetuate their privileged position in it.  Such is the nature of a church, or a group deluded and consumed by a revealed religion, as ensconced in a church.  There are some in this city core who believe that they are free, that they are independent, and that they wish to remain free from the control or restrictions of any church or religious entities.   

The issue is one of freedom.  Because of the necessity of accomplishing secular objectives in the city council, there is no place for waste and diversions in the form of prayer, or of religious associations, as they are non-productive.  More importantly, these religious activities shift energy, time, and assets in the direction of an imaginary god, when the energy should go to solving the actual problems at hand using the powerful and rational thinking abilities as shaped by nature according to the Darwinian process.

As an addendum, the city core and the people within it, are secular entities, and in order to achieve and live, both must be free.  A church or a religion, besides being an illusionary delusionary fiction, is controlling, demanding, and stifling to the natural and productive capacities of men.  We have, in this city, an octopus, strangling the city core via an overwhelming physical presence, via subtle pressures, persuasions, and controls, and thus preventing a movement toward a complete and finished city, and preventing its natural growth toward vibrancy.

No….. I probably will not attend church tomorrow, but will enjoy very much sitting at the café, having an Americano, and reading the NYT, the TU, and the NYP.  I will be free.   

[ChriswUfGator]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-27/story/public-state-sponsored-prayer-has-created-fault-lines

[ben says]

Well, if you think about it, every minute of a public meeting is an imposition to someone in the audience.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The thing about public meetings, as such, is that the people who are there want to be there for very specific reasons....they're interested in how their government is working, want to throw their two cents in, have a concern, comment, question etc. Every day, even every hour, something is imposed on someone. Bringing it up in this context, the way you do, is the epitome of mootness.

We are all forced to stand an pledge allegiance to the flag, we are forced to listen to other people's opinions that we don't like, don't agree with.

We are forced to wait while votes are taken, forced to listen to procedural argumentation, forced to listen to inappropriate stupidity.....

See my above comment. I'm trying really hard to see what you're getting at. It seems like your argument goes like this: "because we deal with XYZ here, we should be forced to deal with it there"....

Furthermore, your examples are all examples of government action....allegiance to a flag, listening to others opinions (1st Amendment), voting, procedure, etc. The difference here is you're making the argument we should be forced to listen to our representatives and our government endorse, even force, a particular set of religious beliefs on a crowd of people that came not to hear religious values and beliefs being endorsed/forced, but to talk government and civics. Not sure how you can make that analogy with a straight face.

Ron, as you know, I have no affiliation with 99% of the religious thought represented at these council meetings.  But I think its fair to say that it is important to recognize that most people believe that their public affairs should be governed by their core belief inasmuch as that is possible.

Why? Why is it so important we recognize that most people believe that their public affairs should be governed by their core beliefs? You can't shouldn't legislate morality, as our nation was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. Keep church out of state. This is a prime example.

It does me no harm to sit politely while people pray.  Just as it does me no harm to sit politely while people at the next table talk endlessly about the vagaries of electrical wiring and the thrilling sequence of events which led their cars to malfunction.

It does you no harm. You. What about other people? I think you're being a tad egocentric here....because you see no harm, nobody should. Insensitive at best. Again, we're talking about governmental meetings, not church. People shouldn't be forced to listen to church when they're attending a state meeting.

And while I have the same opinion that you have that government in and of itself is 'secular', upon researching it for a few years, I found no rule or doctrine the separates the religious convictions of townspeople from the governance of the town----as long as any laws passed do not violate state or federal consitutions.

This isn't 1850 and our town isn't made up of 12 people. This is a city of around a million people. These "townspeople" you speak of that sit there legislating are our representatives....how can they adequately represent when they hold "their version" above other peoples beliefs? How many people don't come to these meetings because they don't want to be subjected to the zealotry of their representatives?

All of this comes from the notion that we have the right to force people to cease and desist practicing their religious beliefs, and that we have the right to exclude them from our society.  Again---because we chose to attack the symbol of the belief, and not leave any room for disagreement.

This has gotta be the non sequitur of the day.

Allowing people to maintain their personal identity while engaging them in discourse is simple respect.  And maybe instead of arguing over religion, we can argue over the things that matter?

The moment of silence seems like a very small sacrifice considering the costs otherwise.

Simple respect? Huh? These are grown people....in a governmental meeting....who cares about their person identity!! How ridiculous!

Not to mention, Stephen, saying this issue "doesn't matter" is a slap in the face to the thousands (millions across the country) for whom this issue does matter. Church and state is supposed to mean something. You seem to be taking the argument that there are bigger fish to fry, so lets just ignore this one for awhile and move on.

[ben says]

I think Ron said it best.

But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

And...

I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Long story short....silence, in and of itself, is an act. Just because nobody is yelling and screaming or preaching during it doesn't make it any more or less a religious act. It's imposing. It's a waste of time. It's unnecessary. Hell, it's even awkward. People don't GO to these meetings to partake in silence. The moment of silence is systematic of the whole issue, that being church and state. Where's the line?

[If_I_Loved_you]

I think Ron said it best.

But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

And...

I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Long story short....silence, in and of itself, is an act. Just because nobody is yelling and screaming or preaching during it doesn't make it any more or less a religious act. It's imposing. It's a waste of time. It's unnecessary. Hell, it's even awkward. People don't GO to these meetings to partake in silence. The moment of silence is systematic of the whole issue, that being church and state. Where's the line?

“If a person wants to be atheistic it's his God-given right to be an atheist.”

[simms3]

Debbie Thompson +1,000
Stephen Dare +1
Ben Says, RonChamblin and Pinky, -1

I love how you militant atheists (so many of you guys in Jax) esteem yourselves as intellectuals and denigrate religious people as simpletons.  We can all agree that Jax City Council is a joke and that their [public] prayers are obviously not working, but just because they don't work for our city council members doesn't mean that others' private prayers haven't been answered.

For the record many if not most of who we consider the great intellectuals of human history have been RELIGIOUS philosophers.  Also for the record our world's great schools of philosophy are always linked/joined to theology schools (if the theology schools aren't actually part of the philosophy programs).  Take Princeton's programs, Emory's programs, Oxford's, Cambridge's, Harvard's, McGill's, St. Andrews, etc.

Many of the priests I have met or listened to have been the most well-read, most traveled people I have ever met.  No matter how religious or non-religious I may be, I will always readily take advice from and listen to a good priest, rabbi, monk, or nun.

[Pinky]

I think that a little civility in public discourse goes a long long way. 

Allowing people to maintain their personal identity while engaging them in discourse is simple respect. 

Ironic.

[ronchamblin]

Debbie Thompson +1,000
Stephen Dare +1
Ben Says, RonChamblin and Pinky, -1 

I vote:
Debbie Thompson                           -10
Stephen Dare                                   0  (uncommitted - the sign of an emerging politician)
Ben Says, Ronchamblin, and Pinky   +10

I love how you militant atheists (so many of you guys in Jax) esteem yourselves as intellectuals and denigrate religious people as simpletons.  We can all agree that Jax City Council is a joke and that their [public] prayers are obviously not working, but just because they don't work for our city council members doesn't mean that others' private prayers haven't been answered.

Do you really think that any private prayers have worked?  By what mechanism?  Have you any evidence of any prayers having been answered?  And yes, I do consider some religious people as simpletons.  After listening to many of them, observing their attitudes and relative ignorance about the world, I have no other choice.  Do I consider myself to be an intellectual?  No.  I am just me, whatever I am. I have no choice.

For the record many if not most of who we consider the great intellectuals of human history have been RELIGIOUS philosophers.  Also for the record our world's great schools of philosophy are always linked/joined to theology schools (if the theology schools aren't actually part of the philosophy programs).  Take Princeton's programs, Emory's programs, Oxford's, Cambridge's, Harvard's, McGill's, St. Andrews, etc.

Check the history.  You will find that most of the great intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists in history were not religious.  To avoid being banned from country, toasted, or guillotined at the hands of the church, many of course offered the position that they were religious.  And because all was controlled by the church in post dark age Europe, universities were at first closely related to theological programs.  Now, in most universities, the secular is primary, and theology is secondary.

Many of the priests I have met or listened to have been the most well-read, most traveled people I have ever met.  No matter how religious or non-religious I may be, I will always readily take advice from and listen to a good priest, rabbi, monk, or nun.

You left out the baptist preachers and evangelical ministers.  Wouldn't you take advice from them too?  I might be wrong, but the city council seems to be associated more with the baptists than with the others.   

[ben says]

I do not kid myself that my reliance on science isnt just another form of belief.

Ok, so net time you're sick, in the hospital, etc, which are you going to rely on...the unproven and intangible, or science? The different between belief in religion and belief in science is the latter can be proven and has a method of proof. Religion, on the other hand, is "I believe it, therefore it is!" That's not the "intangible in everyone's life" you speak it, that's being a moron.

[Debbie Thompson]

How about both, ben says?  If I'm in the hospital, I will rely on what science has learned to try and heal me, while praying to God to help the doctors, and bring healing. 

Science has not learned everything yet.  Only 100 or so years ago, we didn't know why some blood transfusions "took" and some didn't. We didn't know from blood types.  We didn't know about maintaining a clean environment during surgery.  We've come far, but modern medicine is still in it's infancy.  "Modern Science" is being proven wrong all the time.  Medicines we thought would help are being found to have horrible side effects and being removed from the market.  New types of surgery are being developed all the time, better than what we used to have.  But there is still far to go.

So if I choose to exercise my belief in Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen," take a leap of faith, and trust in my faith to help the doctors, why should anyone care? 

And on another note, why should you think it's OK to call me a moron for that?  What's it to you?  :-)

[ben says]

But science fails us even so.  It doesn't always provide answers, but instead provides a framework of answers.

Like you, I believed that Pluto was a planet most of my life.

Does that make you a moron?

Stephen,

Are you saying that because science sometime fails, religion is an equally good framework?

Furthermore, what's wrong with providing a framework for answers? Sure, we don't know everything about evolution, but nobody can say with a straight face that the theory of evolution isn't a damn good framework for answering those kinds of questions. Providing a framework is more than you can say about religion (please....please don't cite the Ten Commandments or something as a framework!)

Also, Pluto? Really? 

[Debbie Thompson]

I'm more of a believer that God created the basic framework, and that we are an evolving species.  But not that my ancestors were a one-celled blob floating in primordial slime.  The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven.  It's fine to work on a theory and try to prove it, but any scientist will tell you a theory isn't a fact.   Science 101.  You state a theory (Unproven idea...in other words a belief.  Gasp!  There's that word again) and then you go about trying to prove it.  There are a few hints so far, but nothing that can point to proof that a one celled amoeba (and where did that come from?) evolved into the sophisticated society we have today. 
 
So, you believe, and have faith in, this unproven theory of evolution.  And yet you think I'm a moron for believing is something different?  Hmmmm....methinks the pot may be calling the kettle black.