I don't think anyone was forced to pray to anyone were they?
Even in this RNC incident. They may have been forced to listen to it, but you can't force a prayer to any god. No firey furnaces here.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think anyone was forced to pray to anyone were they?What do you think nonchristians and people who worship Waheguru feel when they are forced to pray to God?
I was just trying to remind you that we had prayer-free schools back in the dark ages just like we also had automobiles and television.Yeah, that is far back for me.
A city slicker you were, I see, a city with a 4 digit population...When I went to school in the 2000s and 2010s, there were no prayers in my rural schools in a small town of 15,000 people that I lived in until 2016.
It's always good to see public officials complying with the law.From 2016-2018, there were no prayers at the high school that I went to in a medium sized city.
There is a strong pull towards reactionary attitudes that arises from your religion, especially when it becomes rigid. I'd hate to see you captive to angry reactionary thinking and I suspect so would you. Cheers.Yeah, we are both not part of the GOP, so I see your point. I had a talk with an atheist guy yesterday at my work, and told him how I do not like why Christians are so quick to judge others who are different such as him and myself, and how I am trying to live the words of Jesus. The atheist guy likes how I respect him for his differences. So yeah, maybe I opened this post up a bit harshly, and I do regret labeling the prayer as to an ancient demon. Plus, Sikhism has only been around since the end of the 15th century, which is technically in the Medieval period and early Renaissance, not the ancient era (which is from 3000 BC to 500 AD).
In other words, my bad, and I am sorry for being quick to judge. In an ideal world, maybe there should be no prayers to open up government, political organizations or televised shows, but hey, there is freedom of religious expression in the US. And I like that freedom, cos I am free to profess the Christian faith, just as the Sikh woman is free to express her Sikh faith.
Only if you are Jewish.Hopefully this doesnt mean all the OT law applies.
I'm at that place as well. If we are going to move away from the recognition of our founding which incorporated the Christian faith then let's not do any prayers at all. But we shouldn't expect much blessing out of it. Just further evidence how far our nation has fallen and will continue to fall.I see your point. It would be uncomfortable if someone forced me to pray to another god. However, it feels uncomfortable for one to hear someone to go on live TV and pray to another god as well. So, it is best that the parties do not open with any prayer, to avoid alienating any religion.
I missed this. Did they actually bow down? Rhat would be unusual as rhat is what Muslims do.My take is Since People/ Christians actually bowed down in prayer to Waheguru God. A God, that they have no clue about. It's sweet that Harmeet Dhillon offered a pray to her God. But ,since Christians bowed down in prayer to Waheguru God. They believe Christian God is the same as the Waheguru God. Another reason people are confused.
They most likely bowed their head in prayer to God Jehova. When someone prays in public.like that it doesn't mean everyone has to pray the same prayer.I'm not sure that you can draw that definite a conclusion. Maybe they bowed out of politeness, or just to get all this prayer to foreign deities out of the way so that they could get to the Trump festivities faster.
I could try the movie, but it sounds so dark.You could call me libertarian, but when I vote, It's for someone that has a chance of winning.
BTW, my wife and I went to Paramount + yesterday and watched Shooter again (I saw it years ago). I forgot how good that movie is, especially after the events of the last week. But the end of the movie sums up how I see American politics. Especially Ned Beaty's justification for what he authorized.
It bugs me when I say this to my wife, but I stand by it, "everybody thinks they are justified in what they do and are doing the right thing." Even Hitler did, IMO. That is why we make such terrible Gods. It's best to defer to His wisdom.
I am trying my best. Yeah, prayer-free schools must have been a thing for 50+ years. And yes, I like when officials comply with the law.I was just trying to remind you that we had prayer-free schools back in the dark ages just like we also had automobiles and television.
A city slicker you were, I see, a city with a 4 digit population...
It's always good to see public officials complying with the law.
There is a strong pull towards reactionary attitudes that arises from your religion, especially when it becomes rigid. I'd hate to see you captive to angry reactionary thinking and I suspect so would you. Cheers.
Hey, we are both at the same place in this. Religion/prayers in the government is similar to walking on a tight rope. Sometimes it is best to walk around the obstacle, instead of over it.I'm at that place as well. If we are going to move away from the recognition of our founding which incorporated the Christian faith then let's not do any prayers at all. But we shouldn't expect much blessing out of it. Just further evidence how far our nation has fallen and will continue to fall.
Acceptance of people does not always mean we have to embrace their beliefs. Respecting others doesn't mean we have to embrace everything they believe.
That is understandable. For myself, I really want to vote against both Trump and Joe, hence why that third party option seems enticing. Just think, if all of us voted third party, we could get rid of Joe and Trump.Well, in my case, I usually vote against a candidate rather than for one. The only exceptions are 1980 and 2020. And notice I didn't include 1984 and 2016. I will add 2024 to the list, though.
For myself, I do not like Trump, as he was not as eloquent as Lincoln, and has been quick to judge others. Yes, Trump accomplished some things, but he has created some major division and has an ego of sorts (well, the Democrats have also created major division in the past few years also). Joe Biden has also done some bad things as well. But hey, if you like Trump, I am not here to judge. For myself, I feel that we need younger candidates, preferably born after 1950.Thing is, I always ignore what politicians say and focus on what they do. It's why I believe that Trump was the best president in my 70 years, and being a student of US history, I believe he's the best since Lincoln. I liked very much what he accomplished and was looking for a lot more.
That being said, I think we're coming to a day of reckoning from a lot of very bad governing all the way back to WW I. For starters, you can't borrow your way to prosperity. You are merely borrowing against your grandchildren's future. And that future is fast approaching. I mean months or years, not decades. in fact, I'm speaking to the last line in my tag below.
As a Catholic convert, I totally agree with your posts. I just wanted to say that. Peter Sonski, I like that guy. I too am going to write in a name. I like that Sonski is pro life AND anti capital punishment. I don't much care for his position on Ukraine but overall I like him.For myself, I do not like Trump, as he was not as eloquent as Lincoln, and has been quick to judge others. Yes, Trump accomplished some things, but he has created some major division and has an ego of sorts (well, the Democrats have also created major division in the past few years also). Joe Biden has also done some bad things as well. But hey, if you like Trump, I am not here to judge. For myself, I feel that we need younger candidates, preferably born after 1950.
What I am here to say, is that we need a Christian president, and so far, it does not seem that we have any true Christian presidents, so that is why it looks like I will have to write in Peter Sonski on the ballot. Yes, he has no experience, but he will do a lot better than Joe, and Peter is a pro-life Catholic (which Joe is a cafeteria Catholic).
Hey, we both agree on number 1 and partially on number 3, so I'd say we agree around 33-50%. And yes, I would take my car to a different town. My parents are going with independent, and one of my coworkers might vote independent as well. For Cyrus, he was a much better leader than any president we have had in the 21st century.Three things to clarify.
1. I think Trump is a terrible public speaker. I've not seen more than a minute or less of any of his speeches and they are kind of embarrassing, IMO. I used to joke that he must have gone into a store that had a sale on the word, "very", and he cleaned them out.
2. I think he's divisive in the same way the allies were "divisive" on D-Day. I've said for over 30 years that if you have no enemies you're not doing anything. And if those enemies hang you on a cross, just maybe you've hit the sweet spot. i.e. I don't blame the divisiveness on Trump, but his enemies. You know, stuff like Russiagate.
3. I'm not looking for a Christian president. The last one we had was Carter. I use this analogy all the time: There are two mechanics in your town. One is a genius with cars and his work stands the test of time. But he's also a drunk and horrible womanizer. The other is a terrible mechanic, and no work he does stays fixed. He's also a little league coach, a loving father and husband and teaches sunday school. Which one are you going to take your car to? On a side note, it's comical when I bring this up, just how many people will say, "I'll take my car to a different town", and they are serious. They completely refuse to see the point of the analogy. And it is real. From a Christian perspective, I see Trump as a modern Cyrus the Great.
Thank you. Also, welcome to the Catholic faith, sister. Yeah, Sonski is a good guy. Yeah, no politician has a perfect position on Ukraine, but he has good positions on the other issues. When did you become Catholic, if I may ask? I became Catholic in 2022, after my parents did in 2019, cos I was hesitant at first cos the bread turning into flesh sounded fake, until learning about Eucharistic miracles.As a Catholic convert, I totally agree with your posts. I just wanted to say that. Peter Sonski, I like that guy. I too am going to write in a name. I like that Sonski is pro life AND anti capital punishment. I don't much care for his position on Ukraine but overall I like him.
And hey, we live in a country with freedom to vote for anyone, so I respect your beliefs. In my short lifetime, I feel that Bush was a little better, as he got us out of 9/11, while Obama got us out of the 2008 financial crisis. Mitt Romney would have made a good president also, even though he had a different religion (LDS/Mormonism). But, I will give Trump one positive thing: Trump got us out of the wars, according to Reuters.This is where we may differ pretty strongly. I think Trump makes that cut better than any president in my lifetime. Sure, the rest gave it lip service, but he follows through. I simple example would be the First Step Act.
Yeah, the wars ending was the best achievement of Trump in my opinion, cos spending ~$800B/year on the military, mostly fighting foreign wars is overkill. We could cut that to $500B, and still have plenty of power as a US Military.I had not brought it up, but because I limit, in my mind, what the federal government should be doing, I don't expect all that much from presidents, but the BIG one regarding Trump, was the wars. That was huge for me. It was quite literally the main thing. Mayors can clean up cities, but only the federal government can get us out of these endless wars. And I have little doubt Kennedy was killed because he tried. This is a very interesting article about it, and has plenty of links if you want to drill into it. JFK’s War Against the Military Industrial Complex – The Future of Freedom Foundation
I reluctantly agreed with the Trump admin negotiating to hand back Afgh to the Taliban. Im not sure Hil would have done that. She might have.I had not brought it up, but because I limit, in my mind, what the federal government should be doing, I don't expect all that much from presidents, but the BIG one regarding Trump, was the wars. That was huge for me. It was quite literally the main thing. Mayors can clean up cities, but only the federal government can get us out of these endless wars. And I have little doubt Kennedy was killed because he tried. This is a very interesting article about it, and has plenty of links if you want to drill into it. JFK’s War Against the Military Industrial Complex – The Future of Freedom Foundation
And to be clear, I was pretty much a military hawk until the late 90's. I dumped TV in 1997 and the newfangled internet gave me news from all over the world, some of it obviously reliable, and much of it destroyed my paradigms regarding the US and war.
The OP is important for atheists, to remind folks that religion should stay out of political conventions. It is important for Christians, as it shows how Christianity is on the decline, and we Christians must try to help others, show empathy, and eventually spread the Gospel, after showing kindness through our actions.Why is it important for atheists?
How would that even be relevant? Why would an atheist, someone without religion bring something they do not have into politics.The OP is important for atheists, to remind folks that religion should stay out of political conventions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?