Just a reminder about who runs our city

[Wacca Pilatka]

But these "right-wing theocratic" types of which I speak would have you believe that since certain religious people don't always get their way, then that must mean they are being prevented from expressing their beliefs.  And it's just not true.

I know the kind of persons of whom you speak and am familiar with the kind of overreaction you're describing.  I don't think that even remotely describes Debbie.  There was absolutely no reason to call her names like theocrat, parrot, and wingnut.

[Debbie Thompson]

Lol. I give up. Uncle. Thanks for defending me. My feelings were not hurt. I don't fit that well in the convenient pigeon holes people try to shove me into from time to time. If I can't explain myself, I give up and ignore it.

[Timkin]

Lol. I give up. Uncle. Thanks for defending me. My feelings were not hurt. I don't fit that well in the convenient pigeon holes people try to shove me into from time to time. If I can't explain myself, I give up and ignore it.

I feel ya , Debbie

[ronchamblin]

The recent Littlepage Times Union columns about prayer and religion, and the use of the name “Jesus” in city council meetings is interesting.  The promotion of, or act of, prayer in the city council meetings not only assumes that all of the council members are religious, and believe that Christian teachings are significant and worthy of attention at the meetings, but that all of the citizens of Jacksonville are religious, or believe in the Christian system. 

The objectives set before the city council are secular in nature, and therefore to expend time and thought energy engaging any religious practices is not only inappropriate, wasteful, and infringing on the rights of non-religious people, but the practice encourages attitudes and habits not conducive to effective and efficient problem solving. 

Prayer, not only involves a practice viewed as silly and useless by an increasing number of thoughtful and intelligent citizens, but by its very nature, prayer removes from an individual the responsibility to perform effectively when confronted with critical and important problems.  Prayer allows one to shift the burden of life, and the process of critical decision-making, to an illusionary entity most individuals call a god.  This unloading of responsibility promotes and permits lazy thinking, and encourages incompetence in the room, when the need in the room is for intelligence, integrity, and the acceptance of responsibility. 

The promotion of prayer and a religious outlook in a governmental environment is shamefully unproductive, as it also promotes other illusionary thinking, and prepares one for avoiding the important truths in society, and in science and nature.  Prayer, by shutting down one’s inclination to be responsible for one’s troubled predicament, allows one to avoid or postpone a solution to it. 

The mood in the city council should not be religious, prayerful, or pious, but should be attentive to the problems at hand, which are secular in nature, requiring sober thoughts and solutions offered by individuals who accept responsibility, and not thoughts offered by individuals who shirk them, by shifting responsibilities to a god that exists only in their minds.

Prayer tends to absolve one of responsibility, and gives one the opinion that enough has been done to solve a problem.  No! The problem will be solved by intelligent and aggressive attention to it, and not by ridiculous words to a figment in one’s imagination.  The use of prayer increases directly as one is inclined to shirk responsibility, to be incompetent, to be in desperation, or to be desperately religious.   
   
     

[JaxJag]

 

[spuwho]

The recent Littlepage Times Union columns about prayer and religion, and the use of the name “Jesus” in city council meetings is interesting.  The promotion of, or act of, prayer in the city council meetings not only assumes that all of the council members are religious, and believe that Christian teachings are significant and worthy of attention at the meetings, but that all of the citizens of Jacksonville are religious, or believe in the Christian system. 

The objectives set before the city council are secular in nature, and therefore to expend time and thought energy engaging any religious practices is not only inappropriate, wasteful, and infringing on the rights of non-religious people, but the practice encourages attitudes and habits not conducive to effective and efficient problem solving. 

Prayer, not only involves a practice viewed as silly and useless by an increasing number of thoughtful and intelligent citizens, but by its very nature, prayer removes from an individual the responsibility to perform effectively when confronted with critical and important problems.  Prayer allows one to shift the burden of life, and the process of critical decision-making, to an illusionary entity most individuals call a god.  This unloading of responsibility promotes and permits lazy thinking, and encourages incompetence in the room, when the need in the room is for intelligence, integrity, and the acceptance of responsibility. 

The promotion of prayer and a religious outlook in a governmental environment is shamefully unproductive, as it also promotes other illusionary thinking, and prepares one for avoiding the important truths in society, and in science and nature.  Prayer, by shutting down one’s inclination to be responsible for one’s troubled predicament, allows one to avoid or postpone a solution to it. 

The mood in the city council should not be religious, prayerful, or pious, but should be attentive to the problems at hand, which are secular in nature, requiring sober thoughts and solutions offered by individuals who accept responsibility, and not thoughts offered by individuals who shirk them, by shifting responsibilities to a god that exists only in their minds.

Prayer tends to absolve one of responsibility, and gives one the opinion that enough has been done to solve a problem.  No! The problem will be solved by intelligent and aggressive attention to it, and not by ridiculous words to a figment in one’s imagination.  The use of prayer increases directly as one is inclined to shirk responsibility, to be incompetent, to be in desperation, or to be desperately religious.   
   
   

Ron, I agree that using any religion as part of the public decision making process is inappropriate, however, in the Christian tradition, prayer is not intended to shirk responsibility or avoid decisions. While some may use prayer to do so, that tends to exemplify the characteristics of the individual, not necessarily the foundation of their beliefs.

There is nothing wrong in the calling of God to direct ones decisions, after all, Christian belief is a relationship based on faith. However, there is appropriateness and respect for citizens that are served through public service. Therefore one's calling on their faith as part of tough civic decision making is probably best made privately.

[ronchamblin]

Thanks for engaging the idea of faith spuwho, as it is similar to praying, in that both ideas are consequences of belief in a god.

There is a momentum of acceptance in our society, call it tradition, which protects those who perform the most ridiculous act of praying from being considered quite odd.  Millions of people doing stupid things out of habit and tradition seem okay for centuries, until time in contemplation by reasonable individuals increasingly exposes the ridiculous nature of it. 

I’m suggesting that the very act of praying, and even the act of having a religious faith, are both consequences of belief in a god, and although these mental exercises tend to remove the stress to the individual praying, and perhaps partially remove one from the responsibility to proceed with active problem solving, these acts do very little for others, and very little to attack the fundamental causes of any predicament or problem which initiated the prayer and the need for faith in the first place.
   

[Debbie Thompson]

Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

[If_I_Loved_you]

Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

Amen well Spoken Debbie Thompson!

[strider]

Even though I may not believe in organized religion, I can and do recognize one's rights to believe and practice whatever religion or faith they may choose.  However, I also recognize that a person has the right to smoke or not.  Yet, we as a society have decided that smoking in public is no longer acceptable.  As one who is old enough to remember, we used to sit on airplanes and smoke with the attractive young stewardesses.  We used to smoke waiting in line for our car tags.  What changed all that?  It is nothing but a simple majority rules.  Once smokers became the minority, society was then able to ban smoking from public places.  The same will eventually happen with public prayer, if the majority so chooses. Until then, we all need to be respectful of the majorities rights.  The those of you in the majority?  You need to remember that you can always be just one person away from being the minority yourself.  Learn to be as tolerant as you insist the current minority to be. Few of you are.

[Pinky]

Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

LOL - You use "non-believer" like it was a pejorative. 

I'm a "non-believer", by your definition, which appears to be "non-believer in my bizarro imaginary friend myth".  I do, however believe that a 30-45 second blast from a compressed air canister horn is exactly what is called for to clear the mind before making any sort of decision or participating in a meeting with others.  Even in the presence of the Air Horn Non-Believers, who by your reasoning should just smile while I let loose a 140 decibel blast of clarity and divine guidance. 

And of course, there are those for whom being buck naked provides a much greater connection to the universe around them.  So, surely you'd be okay with me pulling my junk out through my zipper whilst performing my Sacred Air Horn Ritual? 

Right?

You see, to us Non Believers out there, your need to have a highly public token conversation with the imaginary disciplinarian in the sky at key moments is as baffling and worrisome as my Air Horn Blast.  But hey, if that's what we each need in order to proceed, well then sure, we should all just tolerate each other.

Right?

Talk to Big Poppa in your head; trust me, he'll still hear you.  K?  And I'll leave my air horn at home and my fly up, and we can all tolerate each others desire to not have to watch each others weird behavior. 

OK?

[ChriswUfGator]

Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

Amen well Spoken Debbie Thompson!

I don't think it's a tolerance issue, Ron has rightly pegged that the types who'll bring it out in a government meeting are inevitably the same ones who are doing it for no ostensible purpose other than pandering, or to grease the wheels of guilt or piety in an effort to achieve some otherwise irrational secular objective. Prayer in the political process becomes a scam upon the voters, where it's most often used to court sentiment or gain acceptance for otherwise irrational views, by creating some false sense of sameness or collectivity, when really we should be focusing on the problem at hand and how best to resolve it for the public good.

There is a very good reason for the separation between church and state, which really says something considering most of the founding fathers were religious men. They did what they did because, whatever one may say about religion, politics have been the same from time immemorial. No doubt they had to put up with some idiot or another spewing falsely pious bullshit to achieve a political goal, eviscerate some enemy, pass some law, etc., and realized the damage it does to the fairness of the process.

You guys are pigeonholing his comments. He's not objecting to religion, he's just saying the obvious, that like bringing a bull into a china shop, or dropping a bunch of mentos into a 2 liter of coke, there is just no legitimate reason to bring certain things together, nothing good comes of it. Bulls and china shops are necessary and useful independently, and I like mentos and I like coke. Just not together. Like everybody else who's human, if you see me mixing things that don't naturally belong together, it's probably because I'm causing trouble.

If Don Redman is so religious, he should STFU already and go concentrate on, what's it now, his 5th marriage, and become a preacher. His political ideals are, well frankly I can't normally determine that he even has a position on any given issue, other than acting angry and bitching about everything regardless of what the issue may be. Kim Daniels is literally an incomprehensible lunatic, I can't understand but about every third word she says, and her only real attempt at writing any legislation was literally incomprehensible even after OGC cleaned it up. And other than trying to funnel a six figure handout to his kid's soccer team while voting to cut firemen's pensions, I don't know that our third prophet-in-chief is any less of a waste of space.

Look at the microcosm of our city council, the three religious panderers are the three biggest idiots on the council. Regardless of your views on religion, I think most of us agree we'd be better off without them. The only reason they are where they are is they use religion as a smokescreen, without it they'd have no common views with you, me, or most other voters. They're just using a belief system to get and keep a cushy job they wanted. That none of them are really any good at. Welcome to the result of mixing politics with religion.

[ChriswUfGator]

So to put this in a nutshell, when Pinky and I show up naked with air horns at the next council meeting, we're kosher as long as it intangibly comforts me while sharing my viewpoint?

[Pinky]

So to put this in a nutshell, when Pinky and I show up naked with air horns at the next council meeting, we're kosher as long as it intangibly comforts me while sharing my viewpoint?

I'm just pulling Big Jim And The Twins out through my zipper; it's just more polite that way.  Besides, we'd likely catch cold sitting there buck naked while the various factions impose their weird rituals on each other.  You've got the folks who worship Garbage Can Lid Cymbal Freestyling, the Hare Krishnas will need to do some dancing, a goat has to be slaughtered in a pentagram..  This tolerance stuff takes time. 

[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.