You WILL attend mosque

[jaminjim]

Nope - the officer was NOT required to participate in a church service. He was required to represent the police dept [or find a substitute to attend in his place] at an event to show appreciation for the department. Exactly the sort of community relations/PR events the police attend all the time, but he objected because it was held in a mosque, during a service. Oh, the horror!! What if they held him captive until he agreed to convert?
At least we know now what the big bad policeman is afraid of.....

One of the many traits of a good leader is to never order anyone to do something that you won't do yourself.

Why are you mocking him. Do you have any inside knowledge that shows that he's just trying to cause an uproar?

While in the Army we were often required to participate in parades when a foreign leader of one kind or another came to our Army post. We would march around in a big rectangle so that the person could review us. We would Present Arms (a type of salute in a parade formation) We would do the same thing while they played both Countries National anthem.

In the above example, we were there, we participated in the pomp and circus to show respect for their Country. The people that were required to attend, but not participate in the tin soldier crap, still participated when they stood for their National Anthem.

So when (if) they said please stand and ... (for what ever) and you do, Are you participating?

By the way is there any man out there that you won't mock when he takes a personal stance?

 

[Brisco]

Nope - the officer was NOT required to participate in a church service. He was required to represent the police dept [or find a substitute to attend in his place] at an event to show appreciation for the department......

NOT Required to Participate???

Just Ordered to go and "Observe"???

Where did you come across this Information?

This is the 2nd time you've mis-stated what is going on in this case.

This is the Whole Jest of the Lawsuit.......what you are ASSUMING here is EXACTLY what I covered way back on Page 1.

Unless you've come across something else other than what's been covered / reported in these articles that are online.......I think you might want to go back and re-read exactly what it is this Lawsuit is about......and what BOTH Litigants have brought to the table so far.............

 

[Brisco]

It's my understanding that observing a religious ceremony is participating in it. I don't go to church, so therefore I don't participate. If my butt was in a pew, I'd be participating.

Participating in school, and participating in a church service are two different things. One you have to do cause it's the law. The other you don't have to do, unless you're a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer.

Might depend on which specific definition of the word "observe" you were using:

observe - definition of observe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Certainly true with definition no. 6 in the transitive sense ... but in the cases of (some of) the other definitions, only possibly ... but not assuredly ...

You forgot this:

3. To watch or be present without participating actively

I've been to and "Observed" many a Weddings over the years.......2 Seperate Weddings for a Couple of my Friends...But I've never "Participated" in a single one of 'em.

If I looked at all these Weddings I've "Attended" over the years the same way Hawk is doing with this "Religious" event.........Then I'd say I have quite a Polygamist history by now.......without EVER saying "I DO" at any time in my life.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You forgot this:



I've been to and "Observed" many a Weddings over the years.......2 Seperate Weddings for a Couple of my Friends...But I've never "Participated" in a single one of 'em.

If I looked at all these Weddings I've "Attended" over the years the same way Hawk is doing with this "Religious" event.........Then I'd say I have quite a Polygamist history by now.......without EVER saying "I DO" at any time in my life.

You mean that a wedding party isn't participating in the ceremony? And the extended families aren't participating when they get up to dance at the reception? A religious ceremony is much simpler. The butts in the pews are only required to listen (or observe), to partake in the ceremony. That's MY take on it anyway.

By your definition, you'd have to be an actor in a porno, to actually partake in one. I'm saying - all you have to do is watch.

 

[jaminjim]

By your definition, you'd have to be an actor in a porno, to actually partake in one. I'm saying - all you have to do is watch.

I'm thinking I've watched enough, I'll opt for being part of the cast (of my choosing) OOPs I meant if I would have watched.

 

[RLENT]

You mean that a wedding party isn't participating in the ceremony?

Yeah ... that's what he means ... but it (IMHO) is a distortion of what actually occurs in most cases ... at least with the ones I'm familiar with.

One doesn't actually have to recite the wedding vows to participate ...

And the extended families aren't participating when they get up to dance at the reception?

Of course they are ...

A religious ceremony is much simpler. The butts in the pews are only required to listen (or observe), to partake in the ceremony. That's MY take on it anyway.

Not always the case, although such other actions on the part of the congregants might not rise to the level of requirement ...

In my experience there is often some interaction and participation, in terms of the singing of hymns, recitation of prayer, and/or partaking of communion, etc.

It is true that sermons often don't require any active participation though ... kinda sad really ...

 

[Turtle]

Christ says it, therefore it's true.

Problem is, Christ said everything though a third party who may or may not have been making it up. It's hearsay at best.

 

[Turtle]

You mean that a wedding party isn't participating in the ceremony?

The wedding party, by definition, are the participants in the wedding - the bride, broom, best man, main of honor, bridesmaids, groomsmen, flower girl, ring bearer, train bearer, etc. The observers in the audience are not participating. The wedding ceremony can take place with or without the observers.

And the extended families aren't participating when they get up to dance at the reception?

They're participating in the dance at the reception, but that's about it.

A religious ceremony is much simpler. The butts in the pews are only required to listen (or observe), to partake in the ceremony. That's MY take on it anyway.

Over the years I've spent many an hour in a church pew absolutely not listening.

By your definition, you'd have to be an actor in a porno, to actually partake in one. I'm saying - all you have to do is watch.

I've witnessed many things in which I did not participate. In order to participate, one must take an active part in, or have a share in something.

 

[cheri1122]

NOT Required to Participate???

Just Ordered to go and "Observe"???

Where did you come across this Information?

This is the 2nd time you've mis-stated what is going on in this case.

This is the Whole Jest of the Lawsuit.......what you are ASSUMING here is EXACTLY what I covered way back on Page 1.

Unless you've come across something else other than what's been covered / reported in these articles that are online.......I think you might want to go back and re-read exactly what it is this Lawsuit is about......and what BOTH Litigants have brought to the table so far.............

No reasonable observer or jury would see the directive "as endorsing Islam or disapproving of Christianity," the judge wrote.

Jordan and Deputy Chief Daryl Webster handled the invitation in a "conscientious" manner, and ensured "the visit's religious aspects were minimal and not required," Frizzell said.

Which part of the last sentence are you having trouble comprehending? The Judge found that Chief Jordan and Deputy Chief Webster did not require that the officer participate, nor even attend - he could have found another officer to go in his place. That he made no effort to do so, leads me [and the judge] to think that he chose to make it about his religious beliefs, rather than the public relations part of his duties that it actually was.
The whole gist - not 'jest', which is a joke [which the lawsuit was, in fact, but I'm positive you didn't misspell the word intentionally because you don't see it as a joke] of the suit was infringement of the officer's religious rights, which clearly was not the intent, nor would it have been the result of the order he disobeyed.
Learning about a subject [including religion, culture, etc] doesn't constitute endorsement - just a desire to learn, and the officer blew it, IMO.

 

[pandora2112]

You mean that a wedding party isn't participating in the ceremony? And the extended families aren't participating when they get up to dance at the reception? A religious ceremony is much simpler. The butts in the pews are only required to listen (or observe), to partake in the ceremony. That's MY take on it anyway.

By your definition, you'd have to be an actor in a porno, to actually partake in one. I'm saying - all you have to do is watch.

Then I'm in big trouble...I thought I had only witnessed a few deadly accidents, a bank robbery and a shooting by your definition of participation I should be jail for my participation....just saying.

)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(

 

[RLENT]

The wedding party, by definition, are the participants in the wedding - the bride, broom, best man, main of honor, bridesmaids, groomsmen, flower girl, ring bearer, train bearer, etc. The observers in the audience are not participating.

Depends on the specific service or rite, if other than a civil marriage ...

In some instances (faiths, cultures) the guests at the wedding do actually play a role in the overall ceremony - albeit a fairly limited one, as compared to the bride and groom, wedding party, and whoever is officiating.

The wedding ceremony can take place with or without the observers.

While largely technically correct, this fact doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether a ceremony that has guests in attendance includes those guests as some part of the overall ceremony.

Probably most often they are included as witnesses ...

 

[Brisco]

No reasonable observer or jury would see the directive "as endorsing Islam or disapproving of Christianity," the judge wrote.

Jordan and Deputy Chief Daryl Webster handled the invitation in a "conscientious" manner, and ensured "the visit's religious aspects were minimal and not required," Frizzell said.

Which part of the last sentence are you having trouble comprehending?

This is what the OUTCOME of the Lawsuit resulted in........

You have combined The Initial Action (The Original Lawsuit) and the Results (The Judges Ruling) together in your postings.................

This was not how the OP started the discussion.

This is getting tooooo easy...............................

And I agree with many others too....the way you do your postings to "Stand Out"...is just.....well.......annoying when it comes to quoting what you have to say.

 

[cheri1122]

This is what the OUTCOME of the Lawsuit resulted in........

You have combined The Initial Action (The Original Lawsuit) and the Results (The Judges Ruling) together in your postings.................

This was not how the OP started the discussion.

This is getting tooooo easy...............................

Because incomprehensibility is one of the easiest forms of BS - and the above is totally incomprehensible.

And I agree with many others too....the way you do your postings to "Stand Out"...is just.....well.......annoying when it comes to quoting what you have to say.

Like. I. Care.