News Why Did Republicans Close Their Convention With an Evangelical Prayer?

[Dagenais]

It's how the religious nutjobs have a stranglehold on the party

The thing about the US is Freedom of Religion. It doesn't say anything in the constitution that says the religious can't be leaders in the Republican party.

it's how they have no respect for the environment

It's not just the Republicans that don't care about the enviroment. Don't throw every single problem with your Country on them.

Oh, I see. Muslim countries adopt the Koran as their standard of law, but WE are the bad guys because we closed our convention with a Christian prayer.

It's actually not that insulting to the Muslim either, since they've been known to include parts of the Christian bible in their teachings. I read in the book that it was the Old Testament?

Afterall, Muslims do believe in a Jesus Christ, just as a prophet.

Are they TRYING to alienate everyone who isn't a Christian that thinks dogma goes great with government?

America is country full of Christians, look at the Pledge of Alligence. Look at what's on your money, "In God We Trust."

What was in the prayer that would be offensive to muslims? or even Jews? Did they mention Jesus Christ or just God? Otherwise the only people it would offend are atheist or agnostics...

There was debate about this recently. The phrase, "Under God" was deemed as disrespectful. One of the biggest arguments was that it didn't say anything about which God.

 

[russ_watters]

Is the republican national convention a public or private event? Is it funded by republicans or by the federal government?

Though the campaigns are sometimes funded by the government (I think Kerry's is), the parties themselves are not and the conventions are not government functions.

 

[Gza]

Hmmm. Get a bunch of Republicans together in a room to pray. I doubt you'll be hearing many cries of "Allah Akbar." Their prayer is obviously in a Christian context. Continually supporting the action by saying they never explicitly mentioned which God they pray to, therefore it is non-offensive to non-believers, is naive to say the least.

 

[Prometheus]

Do you ever try to respond to me with anything to disprove what I've posted.I've read 99%. Prove I didn't. Just because it's a number larger than you expected doesn't make it ridiculous. It makes you ignorant. My FIRST google search pulled this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat042400.htm

"Prove I didn't." What a joke. As evidence, you pull up an irrelevant site. Looks to me like you are ignorant if you believe this number.

most (by up to 99% from what I've read) people on Earth believe in some sort of higher power.

95% then! OKay! That leaves 5% that are atheist in the USA alone. (do you really want to pull numbers for India, China, or the middle east? Africa, sOuth america. You think they believe in NO higher power?! )

Are you really assuming that if a website indicates that 95% of Americans believe in a "higher power", that you should be able to extrapolate that number to the entire earth? Do you really think that 95% or more of Chinese believe in a higher power, whatever that means to you?

By the way, what do you mean by a "higher power"? Do you mean some type of god? That would surely push China way off the 99% mark.

You really should be more critical in your acceptance of things that you read.

 

[member 5645]

1>"Prove I didn't." What a joke. As evidence, you pull up an irrelevant site. Looks to me like you are ignorant if you believe this number.

2>Are you really assuming that if a website indicates that 95% of Americans believe in a "higher power", that you should be able to extrapolate that number to the entire earth? Do you really think that 95% or more of Chinese believe in a higher power, whatever that means to you?

By the way, what do you mean by a "higher power"? Do you mean some type of god? That would surely push China way off the 99% mark.

You really should be more critical in your acceptance of things that you read.

You are the one who chose to argue about what I've read or not read.


I said 'higher power' for a reason, not god.

 

[kat]

Hmmm. Get a bunch of Republicans together in a room to pray. I doubt you'll be hearing many cries of "Allah Akbar." Their prayer is obviously in a Christian context. Continually supporting the action by saying they never explicitly mentioned which God they pray to, therefore it is non-offensive to non-believers, is naive to say the least.

So...what about when the Democrats got together in the room to pray at their convention? Do you think they were hearing many cries of "allah akbar"? I mean they wouldn't even let Al Jazeera post their sign up...

Conventions aren't set up to represent the entire population, they represent their own political parties. More pertinent to rather they should be holding prayer at the end of their convention might be what % of members of their political party are religious. I'm betting that the fact that the Democratic Party held prayer at their convention should be alienating more party members then the Republican party LOL.

SO WHY IS THIS THREAD ONLY CONDEMNING REPUBLICANS?

 

[Prometheus]

I said 'higher power' for a reason, not god.

Thanks. I suppose that I should understand what this means to you now. I am sure that it means the same to 99% of the other people on the earth.

 

[member 5645]

Thanks. I suppose that I should understand what this means to you now. I am sure that it means the same to 99% of the other people on the earth.

I'm not continuing this. You've successfully derailed this thread. Good job.

Let's get back on-topic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Hmmm. Get a bunch of Republicans together in a room to pray. I doubt you'll be hearing many cries of "Allah Akbar." Their prayer is obviously in a Christian context. Continually supporting the action by saying they never explicitly mentioned which God they pray to, therefore it is non-offensive to non-believers, is naive to say the least.

Each person is free to substitute their own personal God at every mention of His name.

This entire argument is petty.

 

[wasteofo2]

BTW Wasteofo2- I'm glad to see you're so angry at a political party that would dare hold a prayer during their convention. I'm assuming that you would not want to vote for the nominee of such a party?

So, if you could vote would you be planning to vote for Nader?


Or are you going to change your mind when I tell you about The Rev. John B. Ardis, the Catholic priest whom Senator John F. Kerry has chosen to give the benediction at tonight's closing session of the convention

I'll give it to you, Kerry's a bastard.

But I wouldn't vote for Nader after that whore took money from anti-gay republican groups so that he could leech votes off of Kerry. The choices for president are for different variety of bastards...

About the 95% of people believing in god, I actually saw a special on the discovery channel about Religion, and they said that there were around 1 billion Atheists in the world, with over 3/4 of them in Europe and Asia. America's definitely more religious than Eurasia.

How do they not have respect for the constitution? Its there convention and they can do whatever they want there.

That's just a ridiculous argument, they shouldn't be able to subvert the constitution/laws just because it's their convention. Would you be alright with them smoking pot in MSG because it's their convention?

 

[plover]

That's just a ridiculous argument, they shouldn't be able to subvert the constitution/laws just because it's their convention. Would you be alright with them smoking pot in MSG because it's their convention?

While I often find the Republicans' playing of the religion card to bludgeon their opponents (to mix a metaphor) appalling, I'm not sure a closing prayer at their convention (at least one that isn't calling for God to smite the heathen Democrats and scourge them from the Earth) can be said to do that. The Democrats had closing prayers at their convention too.

Also, the law just doesn't back you up on this one. The Republican party as such is not (thankfully) an arm of the U.S. government (much though they'd like to be ). The people there are not acting as government officials, but as candidates and party members, i.e. private citizens assembled for the meeting of a private organization, and as such they may worship as they please. Your drug comparison doesn't work, as pot (whether or not it should be) is illegal in or out of MSG, whereas prayer services are not.

I'm not saying there are no grounds on which such ceremonial observances, even very neutral ones, might be objected to, but U.S. law is not currently one of them.

On the other hand, if it was something about the particular form or content of the prayer that you found so incensing, rather than the simple fact that the event happened, you have not made this clear.

 

[member 5645]

About the 95% of people believing in god, I actually saw a special on the discovery channel about Religion, and they said that there were around 1 billion Atheists in the world, with over 3/4 of them in Europe and Asia. America's definitely more religious than Eurasia.
?

So be it...
Your thread, you brought it back to this...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million"

1 Billion for atheists alone? Oh how things get screwed in your head when you don't have links.

"This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. Atheists actually make up less than one-tenth of one percent of the population in many countries where large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (7.5% nonreligious) and Australia (15% nonreligious). "

oh, you were thinking of all NONRELGIOUS people, not just atheists.


and for the atheists...?
"Estimates for atheism alone range from 200 to 240 million"


240 million of 6 billion. And then there's the fact that:


"But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as atheists or nonreligious during Communist-era USSR and by the current Chinese government are actually atheists according to their personal beliefs, and how many are unregistered religious adherents or participants in less-organized traditional systems that are oriented around ancestors, animism, shamanism, etc. Many people are unaware, for instance, that China has one of the largest, most active Christian communities in the world, and that in many former Soviet nations religions such as shamanism, Islam and Russian Orthodoxy remained even while official government reports announced the elimination of religion in these regions. "

 

[Prometheus]

And then there's the fact that:

"But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as atheists or nonreligious during Communist-era USSR and by the current Chinese government are actually atheists according to their personal beliefs, and how many are unregistered religious adherents or participants in less-organized traditional systems that are oriented around ancestors, animism, shamanism, etc. Many people are unaware, for instance, that China has one of the largest, most active Christian communities in the world

Shall we all assume that your statement about the Christian population in China should be construed to mean large in percentage of the population? Is it, in actuality, anywhere in the vicinity of the 99% mark?

And then there's the fact that:

"But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as religious are in fact not religious.

 

[Gza]

Each person is free to substitute their own personal God at every mention of His name.

This entire argument is petty.

Did you leave the "r" out of petty? Damn I'm witty :laughing: .

 

[member 5645]

Shall we all assume that your statement about the Christian population in China should be construed to mean large in percentage of the population? Is it, in actuality, anywhere in the vicinity of the 99% mark?

And then there's the fact that:

"But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as religious are in fact not religious.

Not my statement. Not meant to be construed anyway. You can assume what you'd like. The statement is just a quote.

 

[Gokul43201]

All of this above argument assumes that a Christian (at least, and in fact, any God believer) would think it's okay to have praying at a National Convention. (DNC or RNC)

I don't know about the religious make-up of WasteofO2, but he was outraged by the incident, and he's not your tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing, Kerry-loving liberal. Could there be more like him ? Is it wise to risk disenfranchising this minority ?

 

[russ_watters]

That's just a ridiculous argument, they shouldn't be able to subvert the constitution/laws just because it's their convention. Would you be alright with them smoking pot in MSG because it's their convention?

I thought we made it abundantly clear that the constitution/laws don't have anything to say about this issue - and in the closest issue they could say something about (prayer in Congress), they say its ok.

I don't know about the religious make-up of WasteofO2, but he was outraged by the incident, and he's not your tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing, Kerry-loving liberal. Could there be more like him ? Is it wise to risk disenfranchising this minority ?

Quite frankly, wasteofo2 and anyone else who became disenfranchised over this hasn't been paying enough attention. This is a knee-jerk reaction to something he didn't know enough about. Especially considering that both conventions had prayer in them.

edit: to his credit, wasteofo2 did concede on the first page he was unaware of some of these facts.

 

[Artman]

There should be more concern if they were NOT allowed to pray at the close of their convention.

 

[Dagenais]

Is it wise to risk disenfranchising this minority ?

If it gurantees them the vote of the majority.

 

[plover]

All of this above argument assumes that a Christian (at least, and in fact, any God believer) would think it's okay to have praying at a National Convention. (DNC or RNC)

My comment is not intended imply that it is ok in any absolute sense. I'm simply pointing out what the law has to say, and inviting comment on other grounds.

I would also note that on one night the Democratic convention prayer was given by an imam.

he's not your tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing, Kerry-loving liberal.

Hey waste, are you going to put up with this kind of slander??

Could there be more like him ? Is it wise to risk disenfranchising this minority ?

Just to be pedantic, I'll note that 'disenfranchisement' is the denial of voting of rights, which (except arguably for age reasons) is not the case here.

While some secular types just look on such ceremonies indulgently as a foible of their religious compatriots, others do feel a sense of alienation that their presence is not acknowledged. Perhaps for a multi-day affair like a convention, an inclusively ecumenical solution would be to end one day with poetry of a non-religious character.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Anything but poetry!

 

[plover]

Anything but poetry!

Hey, the Republicans are already doing show tunes during the convention. That's pretty much past the point of no return...

 

[JohnDubYa]

Well, I prefer show tunes over The Macarena. Remember The Macarena?

 

[plover]

Well, I prefer show tunes over The Macarena. Remember The Macarena?

Fortunately, that was an aberration I mostly missed. You're not saying they used it at the 2000 Republican convention, are you?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Was it Tipper Gore that led The Macarena, or Al? I can't remember.

 

[plover]

Was it Tipper Gore that led The Macarena, or Al? I can't remember.

Must have been Tipper -- she's always been a pod person. Al just used to play one on TV...

 

[presentghost]

WasteofO2, you need to research the history of the United States. The whole foundation for our forefathers coming here was to escape religious persecution. In fact, as it is written in the First Amendment, the people at the GOP Convention have the right, protected by said document, to have a prayer. The First Amendment doesn't say anyone, a person of government, school, or wherever, can not pray. It is actually in the Constitution for people like you who say someone can't, or "how dare they". To the government as a whole, it says they can't make any laws prohibiting religion or creating only one throughout the land such as is done in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words there can be no laws either way even touching the subject. There is no such language as "Separation of Church and State". In fact this nation's foundation is in religion. People have taken the "establishment of religion" as meaning you can't pray or have religious language in schools, courts, and governments. It is just the opposite. The First Amendment says you can't "prohibit the free exercise thereof". You can't have it more obvious than that. So when a court comes down and says you can't pray in school or can't have the Ten Commandments written in stone in court, they are violating the First Amendment. This is where courts are legislating from the bench instead of interpeting the language.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, you have the right to worship and pray anyway you like or even not at all. But they also have the right to pray anyway they like. You can write the GOP and ask them to have a jewish and islamic prayer next time or...gee...you have the right to switch channels. Actually I feel sorry for you that of all things to complain about, you choose the benediction. Compare that with people who were tortured and executed because they were not Catholic during the Spanish Inquisition or who were arrested in England in the 1600's or in Russia the last century or the millions Jews gassed and tortured during Hitler's reign and the fight that Isreal has had to put up just to live. YOU saw a prayer on TV.

 

[enigma]

Are you really assuming that if a website indicates that 95% of Americans believe in a "higher power", that you should be able to extrapolate that number to the entire earth? Do you really think that 95% or more of Chinese believe in a higher power, whatever that means to you?

Research I did several years ago (so unfortunately, I don't have a link) showed that ~1.5-2% of the US population are atheists, an additional ~2-3% are agnostic.

Approximately 14%, including the two categories above, considered themselves "non-religious". That could mean that they were atheist/agnostic but didn't feel comfortable "outing" themselves, or it could mean that they considered themselves spiritual but not adherant to a specific faith (or something else entirely).

Those numbers could easily be out of date.