• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Prayer at government meetings

Haha there are a ton of religious people at Wake still, hung out with a lot of them. Good people too.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
That's not correct. There's no fucking way that 75% of the country supports prayer before government meetings. If this is from a poll then they didn't adequately sample people under 30. I probably met just as many atheists and agnostics at Wake than I met religious people. The problem is generally Christians insulate themselves to hanging out with other Christians (just like most groups do) and believe that everybody is religious too. Hell some girl at Northeastern last year said she didn't think she knew a single atheist at school. It's the most liberal law school in the country, literally 80% of the population is an atheist.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine this is partly conflating agnosticism with choosing to go out on saturday nights vs. going to church on sunday mornings.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
That's not correct. There's no fucking way that 75% of the country supports prayer before government meetings. If this is from a poll then they didn't adequately sample people under 30. I probably met just as many atheists and agnostics at Wake than I met religious people. The problem is generally Christians insulate themselves to hanging out with other Christians (just like most groups do) and believe that everybody is religious too. Hell some girl at Northeastern last year said she didn't think she knew a single atheist at school. It's the most liberal law school in the country, literally 80% of the population is an atheist.
Click to expand...

The poll is linked to in the article.
 
Last edited:
And I seriously doubt you met as many agnostics and atheists as Christians at Wake. If you did, I'd be very surprised, but if it's true that's hardly indicative of how most Americans self-identify.
 
Prayers should not be allowed- 23%
Prayer should be allowed- 73%
DK- 4%

So it's just under 75%. Still, it looks like most people do not have a problem with a prayer, which is about what I would expect. Kind of surprised it's not higher.
 
Last edited:
There is a distinction between being cool with it and advocating for it, though. (Which you can say about most hot-button issues in this country.)

If the poll question were "Do you think public meetings should begin with a prayer," I'd imagine you wouldn't get 73% in favor. Even fewer would probably sign on for "Should each school day begin with a prayer" or something similar.

That probably gets toward the disconnect between BSF and Numbers.
 
CYA
 
justices+speech.tiff
 
WFFaithful said:
justices+speech.tiff
Click to expand...

This wasn't a free speech case.

I'd be interested to look behind the curtain on that chart. If, for example, they count this case as "speech," then it's no surprise the conservatives favor "conservative" speech--Thomas and Scalia think the Establishment Clause shouldn't be incorporated against the states and, even if it is, it only prohibits governmental coercion.
 
Last edited:
Also included in there is the insane decision about Citizen's United and money being speech.
 
^ Appointing Justices is one of the most powerful acts a President can do. I don't like the way the system is set up though- that a justice can "hold out" before retiring so have a shot at a replacement appointment from a different party. Seems like it should be as party neutral as possible. I get the point of a lifetime appointment, but how about something like 15-20 years instead?
 
RevDeac06 said:
^ Appointing Justices is one of the most powerful acts a President can do. I don't like the way the system is set up though- that a justice can "hold out" before retiring so have a shot at a replacement appointment from a different party. Seems like it should be as party neutral as possible. I get the point of a lifetime appointment, but how about something like 15-20 years instead?
Click to expand...

I really don't want elections to hinge on the certainty of a president getting to appoint x number of justices. I know the possibility of a justice retiring is always an issue during a presidential election, but the lack of certainty places it on the periphery of things that people base their vote on.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I really don't want elections to hinge on the certainty of a president getting to appoint x number of justices. I know the possibility of a justice retiring is always an issue during a presidential election, but the lack of certainty places it on the periphery of things that people base their vote on.
Click to expand...

Yea- that's a good point too. Just seems like it's a flawed process either way you slice it. Which is unfortunate because the Supreme Court is becoming more and more powerful (it seems to me). States are passing stupid laws and the courts are making decisions that our dysfunctional legislature won't. Doesn't sound like democracy to me (not that I actually thought the US is a democracy, but still).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top