The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Chris_ on January 13, 2009, 11:20:14 AM
-
Officials ordered to stop prayer at schools
A federal judge has ordered the Santa Rosa County School District to stop promoting religion and prayer in the classroom and at school events.
U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Friday after school officials admitted allegations in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
*snip*
Rodgers' order prohibits employees from:
Promoting prayer at school-sponsored events, including graduation.
Planning or financing religious baccalaureate services.
Promoting religious beliefs to students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities.
Holding school-sponsored events at churches
*snip*
The lawsuit said the two Pace High School students are offended by the district's support of prayer at school events — including graduation — because it promotes religious beliefs they do not subscribe to and fails to respect their religious choices and beliefs.
"The students were relieved the court upheld their First Amendment rights in December, and school officials would not be allowed to subject them to others' religious views," said Brandon Hensler, ACLU of Florida director of communications
So now the majority must, by court order, be subject to the religious views of the minority. Nah, no agenda there. :whatever: :banghead: Just the typical mantra from the Anti Christian Lawyers Union.
MORE (http://www.pnj.com/article/20090113/NEWS01/901130315/1006/NEWS01)
-
Public schools, for the most part, are sewers. And I just did a disservice to sewers.
-
Teachers and staff at Pace High School preaching about "Judgment Day with the Lord."
Teachers and staff offering Bible readings and biblical interpretations during student meetings.
The school admitted to these practices. I'll be just fine with the school doing this, when they also do it with the Koran and Torah.
Nothing at all in that lawsuit that prevents the students themselves from praying, just makes the Congressionally funded school stop preaching one religion, over another.
I hate to say it, but I think the ACLU was in the right on this one.
-
The school admitted to these practices. I'll be just fine with the school doing this, when they also do it with the Koran and Torah.
Nothing at all in that lawsuit that prevents the students themselves from praying, just makes the Congressionally funded school stop preaching one religion, over another.
I hate to say it, but I think the ACLU was in the right on this one.
That was my point. The did in fact select one religion over another.
...because it promotes religious beliefs they do not subscribe to and fails to respect their religious choices and beliefs.
Where exactly does the Constitution say that we have the right to not be offended, or the right not to be exposed to views we don't agree with? Those students were not forced to pray or participate in something they did not agree with.
-
That was my point. The did in fact select one religion over another.
Where exactly does the Constitution say that we have the right to not be offended, or the right not to be exposed to views we don't agree with? Those students were not forced to pray or participate in something they did not agree with.
That's true, but apparently the court was convinced that the practice of holding prayer was, in fact, tacit and/or implicit direction by the school staff toward those students to either participate in prayer or (worst case scenario here) that they be looked at as pariahs for not participating.
I'm offended all the time by decisions such as this and feel it's entirely misplaced efforts by the ACLU and other moonbat organizations to dismantle our core beliefs. And I also feel that these kinds of things gradually whittle away those intangibles that we used to accept as face value.
But the court doesn't acknowledge "feelings" or whether or not I or the plaintiffs were "offended" (despite what the briefs say). The court focuses on the law.
I'm not seeing anywhere in the story that says that any particular religion was being touted over another. It looks to me like the lawsuit stated that religious views, irrespective of religion, should not be espoused or supported in publically funded schools. I don't disagree with that.
-
That's true, but apparently the court was convinced that the practice of holding prayer was, in fact, tacit and/or implicit direction by the school staff toward those students to either participate in prayer or (worst case scenario here) that they be looked at as pariahs for not participating.
I'm offended all the time by decisions such as this and feel it's entirely misplaced efforts by the ACLU and other moonbat organizations to dismantle our core beliefs. And I also feel that these kinds of things gradually whittle away those intangibles that we used to accept as face value.
But the court doesn't acknowledge "feelings" or whether or not I or the plaintiffs were "offended" (despite what the briefs say). The court focuses on the law.
I'm not seeing anywhere in the story that says that any particular religion was being touted over another. It looks to me like the lawsuit stated that religious views, irrespective of religion, should not be espoused or supported in publically funded schools. I don't disagree with that.
I read the comments after the article. Some were saying that school is not the place for their children to be taught morality. I whole-heartedly agree. So let's take out sex ed, "conflict resolution" classes, and multi-cultural bullshit and focus on actually educating the students in those public schools.
Oh. The libs probably didn't mean THAT kind of morality.
:whatever:
-
The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.
Problem solved.
-
The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.
Problem solved.
Sorry, Sam, but that just ain't gonna happen. There are a lot of people practicing different religions who claim their religion is the only "true" religion. Claiming that only Christianity is the only true religion and putting that in the Constitution is so far out there it's crazy.
I happen to be a practicing Presbyterian and as an elder of the church, I am ordained and called to exercise leadership in my faith. Certainly, that requires being an avowed Christian, which I am.
But there is no way your proposal would ever be adopted.
Separation of church and state - I think that was a basic tenet of the Federalist Papers, though not specifically put into the Constitution.
But the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution is pretty well firmed up. Ain't goin' anywhere.
-
You've got to wonder...if Christianity is NOT the one true religion, then why do the ACLU and courts work so hard to shut down public support for it, while approving of "cultural classes" that teach any other religion?
-
You've got to wonder...if Christianity is NOT the one true religion, then why do the ACLU and courts work so hard to shut down public support for it, while approving of "cultural classes" that teach any other religion?
Very good point. H5
-
Sorry, Sam, but that just ain't gonna happen. There are a lot of people practicing different religions who claim their religion is the only "true" religion. Claiming that only Christianity is the only true religion and putting that in the Constitution is so far out there it's crazy.
I happen to be a practicing Presbyterian and as an elder of the church, I am ordained and called to exercise leadership in my faith. Certainly, that requires being an avowed Christian, which I am.
But there is no way your proposal would ever be adopted.
Separation of church and state - I think that was a basic tenet of the Federalist Papers, though not specifically put into the Constitution.
But the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution is pretty well firmed up. Ain't goin' anywhere.
I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.
I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.
Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
-
I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.
I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.
Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
You should give pause to reflect on what actually led Jefferson and the founders of this country to posit the "wall of separation". One of the most striking and brilliant ideas in political philosophy, if I do say so myself.
Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply.... even Christian empires. History bears this out... repeatedly. For all our sakes, I don't think we need to repeat it again if we can help it.
Not sure whether to :lmao: or to :bawl: here.
-
I am a presbyterian elder, too. Yes, I know what the US Constitution says. So, let's change it. As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.
I know that's an impractical suggestion, but that's exactly the sort of suggestion the old Scottish Covenanters (presbyterians all) would have wanted, and fought to get. Prayer and hard work can accomplish more than we dream possible.
Maybe this country is so broken it is time to start over. Let's quit trying to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Well, Sam, if I thought your suggestion was correct and in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I'd stand there with you. But I think you're mixing religion and government and the two just shouldn't mix.
Just as I despise most forms of government and consider the entity, in general, to work against my well-being, I don't want it anywhere near where I worship, pray, and otherwise develop my relationship with Christ.
Nope. Wouldn't be right.
-
You should give pause to reflect on what actually led Jefferson and the founders of this country to posit the "wall of separation". One of the most striking and brilliant ideas in political philosophy, if I do say so myself.
Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply.... even Christian empires. History bears this out... repeatedly. For all our sakes, I don't think we need to repeat it again if we can help it.
Not sure whether to :lmao: or to :bawl: here.
The problem with a church running a country is that the political leaders then run the church. As politicians have always been those that will do anything to gain power, allowing them to run the churches is bad for everyone. We need our Christian leaders to answer to God, not money or power.
Ideally, the church would educate the citizens, who would then vote for the best person for the job of governing. Where we went wrong was in creating public schools and then allowing the government to break the First Amendment by writing laws destroying the ability of Christians to teach children the truth.
-
Well, Sam, if I thought your suggestion was correct and in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I'd stand there with you. But I think you're mixing religion and government and the two just shouldn't mix.
Just as I despise most forms of government and consider the entity, in general, to work against my well-being, I don't want it anywhere near where I worship, pray, and otherwise develop my relationship with Christ.
Nope. Wouldn't be right.
It may not be "in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned," but does that make it wrong? I think the Founding Fathers were fallible, just like the rest of us. Besides, I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned Islamic clergy on the public payroll, either, but they did not do enough to stop it either. That's what you get, though, if you treat every religion equally. Presbyterian chaplain=Islamic chaplain=Wiccan chaplain. Is that what they/you had/have in mind?
-
Religion is never benevolent when it has any form governmental power.... and have been unrelenting wellsprings for human misery and destruction when they have mingled to deeply.... even Christian empires. History bears this out... repeatedly.
That statement is easy to disprove. It makes all the difference in the world what religion government is promoting. If the religion is benevolent, than promoting it is benevolence.
-
Yep, it's wrong.
The Founding Fathers were men and thus fallible. But let's not confuse what they set up versus what we have today, okay?
The bastardization of our Constitution has been blatant and seemingly irreversible. There's no question that what we have today pales in comparison to what we had 225 years ago.
Believe me, having ANY clergy on the public payroll goes beyond what we should be looking at. But other men, over the years, have been even more fallible than the FF and have created these things without a backwards glance.
IMHO, putting religion forward in any form goes beyond the role of government. The practice or non-practice of religion is a very private matter between an individual and whatever/whoever god or non-god that he chooses. That's the essence of liberty.
Forcing Christianity on the country as a direct result of hiring some freaking imam to try and convince us that Islam isn't evil isn't the answer - getting Congress to wake up and read the Constitution is.
But I think that's a hopeless proposition anymore. :banghead:
-
Establishing Christianity as the state religion? That's crazy. The one religious guy I'd trust with political power refused it flat out. He had more important things to do, like dying for our sins, rising from the dead, and ascending into heaven. If Jesus didn't think it was a good idea to mix religion with political power, He probably had a pretty good reason.
See: the crusades (except the first one)
the Inquisition (mostly)
Henry VIII and the sacking of the monastaries
Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
the Salem Witch Trials
I'm happy with just letting us worship God as we see fit--without government intrusion, thank you very much.
-
Forcing Christianity on the country
Who said anything about that?
-
Establishing Christianity as the state religion? That's crazy. The one religious guy I'd trust with political power refused it flat out. He had more important things to do, like dying for our sins, rising from the dead, and ascending into heaven. If Jesus didn't think it was a good idea to mix religion with political power, He probably had a pretty good reason.
See: the crusades (except the first one)
the Inquisition (mostly)
Henry VIII and the sacking of the monasteries
Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
the Salem Witch Trials
I'm happy with just letting us worship God as we see fit--without government intrusion, thank you very much.
You have cherry-picked a few examples, and I would even quibble with one of those. Henry VIII was justified in sacking the monasteries. Puritan New England was a fine place to live, better than our day, with the notable exception of the technological advances we enjoy.
-
If faith is banned in public schools... why show AlBore's slideshow in science classes??
-
Ahem......the concept of "separation of church and state" is not specifically a Constitutional mandate. If memory serves the Constitution stipulates that congress shall pass no law establishing a "State Religion"......
In the instant case, I find it a stretch to relate a school district policy to an act of congress, and I find it a further stretch to relate a prayer at a graduation ceremony as "establishing a State Religion".......
All of this "separation" nonsense spins out of a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church (I believe) regarding use of a facility, and is largely manufactured out of whole cloth....so to speak.....
Another of those Constitutional "penumbra" things that Liberals and their ilk are so fond of.....
doc
-
Who said anything about that?
The tone of your rhetoric is pretty firm, Sam. You started out saying this:
The U.S. Constitution should be amended to promote Christianity, since it is the only true religion. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the nations, including this one. The government should encourage everyone to become Christians.
Problem solved.
Do governments make "suggestions?" Or do governments even "encourage" one? Not in the manner you're talking about. So your basic premise is absurd on its face. But let's take it a step further:
As Christians, we know that not all religions are equal, so why have a Constitution that pretends they are? The US Constitution should be based on reality.
As a Christian, I know what works for me. And I'm happy to discuss that in its own context. The US Constitution, or any Constitution for that matter, can never be based on "reality." It can only be based on law.
Ask anybody who has ever been to court on a matter which seemingly was clear cut and a no-brainer, then some enterprising attorney finds a "t" not crossed or an "i" dotted in the wrong place and the whole decision goes irretrievably against that person. Is that right? Is that just? Not in terms of the guy who lost, but it's the law. :clueless:
From my perspective, Sam, you're discussing this matter from the standpoint of that same guy who lost the court case. You sound bitter, angry, and resentful (not difficult, given the steady diet of pablum given to us from western culture in compelling us to "welcome" Islam with "open arms" knowing full well that radicals from that "religion" want to destroy us), and those who insist on being angry generally don't present compelling arguments.
Your argument isn't compelling, Sam. It's just plain wrong. The US Constitution cannot and never will subscribe to only one religion - whether that's Christianity, Deism, or the Church of Wicca. It simply ain't gonna happen.
Why beat a dead horse?
-
The tone of your rhetoric is pretty firm, Sam. You started out saying this:
From my perspective, Sam, you're discussing this matter from the standpoint of that same guy who lost the court case. You sound bitter, angry, and resentful
Huh? What are you talking about?? What "bitter, angry and resentful"?
-
The US Constitution cannot and never will subscribe to only one religion - whether that's Christianity, Deism, or the Church of Wicca. It simply ain't gonna happen
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
-
Huh? What are you talking about?? What "bitter, angry and resentful"?
Reading between the lines, Sam. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. :whatever:
-
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
Okay, genius. Tell you what. Go ahead and stand on your little soapbox, braying to the world your point. See how far it gets you.
I'm done with this conversation. You're determined to make your religious viewpoint the watchword of the nation, so read it again, Sam:
That ain't gonna happen.
-
That statement is easy to disprove. It makes all the difference in the world what religion government is promoting. If the religion is benevolent, than promoting it is benevolence.
Uhh.... know much about the history of Christianity? Its apparent that you don't.
-
Uhh.... know much about the history of Christianity? Its apparent that you don't.
Wilbur, you've spent hundreds of posts on the 2 boards I frequent making your absolute ignorance of Christianity extremely obvious. Correcting those with 100x your knowledge is really not smart.
-
Some of Jefferson's actual writings on religious freedom (from the Virginia state statutes)
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
http://www.search.com/reference/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Let Congress make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Jefferson specifically said that limiting religious speech is dangerous.
-
Wilbur, you've spent hundreds of posts on the 2 boards I frequent making your absolute ignorance of Christianity extremely obvious. Correcting those with 100x your knowledge is really not smart.
I noticed in all of this, you didn't actually try to correct anything..
So would you disagree or agree with the poster who seems to think that if you mix an allegedly benevolent religion with government you are going to get a benevolent government? How does history bear your answer out?
-
Okay, genius. Tell you what. Go ahead and stand on your little soapbox, braying to the world your point. See how far it gets you.
"Braying"? Another ad hominen. We are getting a little testy, aren't we?
I'm done with this conversation. You're determined to make your religious viewpoint the watchword of the nation
Well, I 'll miss you. But at least know that it was not my religious viewpoint I was promoting. I was trying to promote the right of King Jesus to receive the obedience of the nations, which is expressed in many Bible passages, e.g. Psalm 2.
read it again, Sam:
That ain't gonna happen.
Read this again: You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
-
I noticed in all of this, you didn't actually try to correct anything..
So would you disagree or agree with the poster who seems to think that if you mix an allegedly benevolent religion with government you are going to get a benevolent government? How does history bear your answer out?
I did not say "allegedly benevolent." I said "benevolent." And it just makes sense.
Every government has a purpose behind its actions. If a government is pursuing benevolent goals (e.g. Puritan New England in the colonial period) it behaves one way; if it promotes a demonic religion (e.g. present-day Iran), it behaves quite another. There's your historical proof.
-
I did not say "allegedly benevolent." I said "benevolent." And it just makes sense.
Every government has a purpose behind its actions. If a government is pursuing benevolent goals (e.g. Puritan New England in the colonial period) it behaves one way; if it promotes a demonic religion (e.g. present-day Iran), it behaves quite another. There's your historical proof.
Lol. You just said that Puritan New England was "benevolent"? Ask members of any other Christian sect at the time. And I'm sure Puritan stalwarts like Rebecca Nurse would probably disagree.
Read the court transcripts of the Salem Witch Trials. Not the Crucible, mind you, but the transcripts themselves. That's "benevolence" at work for you, boy.
The Puritans were brave. They were hard working. Benevolent? Not so much.
-
I noticed in all of this, you didn't actually try to correct anything..
So would you disagree or agree with the poster who seems to think that if you mix an allegedly benevolent religion with government you are going to get a benevolent government? How does history bear your answer out?
First, repeating this, as you seemingly missed it.
Some of Jefferson's actual writings on religious freedom (from the Virginia state statutes)
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
http://www.search.com/ref...ute_for_Religious_Freedom
Let Congress make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Jefferson specifically said that limiting religious speech is dangerous.
Secondly, if you were to look at all of Christian history - History of the Christian Church, 8 Volumes (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=3196X&kw=history_of_the_christian_church&event=PPCSRC&p=1008728&cm_mmc=Yahoo-_-Academic-_-sets%20general-_-history%20of%20the%20christian%20church) -
you would discover that your knowledge of the Christian church:
(the crusades (except the first one)
the Inquisition (mostly)
Henry VIII and the sacking of the monasteries
Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
the Salem Witch Trials)
covers about 1% of the history of the church. You have ignored, or are ignorant of, the church's work in education, healthcare, care of orphans, feeding the starving, and all other charity works. You also conveniently ignore the persecution of Christians that were burned, fed to lions, or otherwise murdered wholesale. And you've evidently missed the fact that the crusades were intended to drive back the Muslim invaders...because their policy of "convert or die" wasn't very nice, either.
-
(the crusades (except the first one)
the Inquisition (mostly)
Henry VIII and the sacking of the monasteries
Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
the Salem Witch Trials)
Mrs. Smith, That was my list. And that was in answer to a specific point about the church (any church) and political power. I am well aware of the church's efforts furthering Western civilization; without the Christian church, there would have BEEN no Renaissance, no Greek philosophy, no civilization. I was addressing the question whether theocracy is a good thing. That list, while admittedly a bit cherry picked, contains some pretty darn plump cherries, if you will.
My main point is that if Jesus himself refused (on at least three separate occasions, by my count) refused political power, maybe there IS something to this whole "separation of church and state" meme.
-
(the crusades (except the first one)
the Inquisition (mostly)
Henry VIII and the sacking of the monasteries
Oliver Cromwell and his persecution of Irish Catholics
the Salem Witch Trials)
Mrs. Smith, That was my list. And that was in answer to a specific point about the church (any church) and political power. I am well aware of the church's efforts furthering Western civilization; without the Christian church, there would have BEEN no Renaissance, no Greek philosophy, no civilization. I was addressing the question whether theocracy is a good thing. That list, while admittedly a bit cherry picked, contains some pretty darn plump cherries, if you will.
My main point is that if Jesus himself refused (on at least three separate occasions, by my count) refused political power, maybe there IS something to this whole "separation of church and state" meme.
Ooops! I didn't look who posted it. :( My apologies to you...and to wilbur.
-
I am well aware of the church's efforts furthering Western civilization; without the Christian church, there would have BEEN no Renaissance, no Greek philosophy, no civilization. I was addressing the question whether theocracy is a good thing.
I think the Greeks had a philosophy, actually many, before the church had any influence on Greece.
My main point is that if Jesus himself refused (on at least three separate occasions, by my count) refused political power, maybe there IS something to this whole "separation of church and state" meme.
Actually, there is still no substance to the separation of church and state meme. Remember, the earthly life of Jesus is not all there is to Christianity. The kings of the Old Testament promoted and defended the true religion, and used their power and authority as kings to do so. Furthermore, God gave His approval to what they were doing. Good King Josiah is the best example I can think of.
-
There are schools in CA that have a class where the kids take on Muslim names, wear their clothes and read Korans... I am sure this won't upset the ACLU in the least
-
Lol. You just said that Puritan New England was "benevolent"? Ask members of any other Christian sect at the time. And I'm sure Puritan stalwarts like Rebecca Nurse would probably disagree.
Read the court transcripts of the Salem Witch Trials. Not the Crucible, mind you, but the transcripts themselves. That's "benevolence" at work for you, boy.
The Puritans were brave. They were hard working. Benevolent? Not so much.
The Puritans took seriously the commands to love God, to love their neighbors, and to love their enemies. The Salem witch trials took place in one town (Salem) over a very brief time (two years, I think) and actually resulted in the condemnation of a very few people (nine, if memory serves). Then the leaders of the community repented in the strongest terms humanly possible. Let's be fair to people who are not around to defend themselves.
Now compare the Puritans to virtually any other society, including the one we live in. Which is perferable? The facts speak for themselves.
-
I think the Greeks had a philosophy, actually many, before the church had any influence on Greece.
I'm just about finished here, too.
If it wasn't for the church, specifically monastaries in England and Ireland (later sacked by Henry VIII) All we would know about Greek philosophy would be those cool statues in Athens. Aristotle? Plato? Socrates? Homer? They'd be unheard of if it wasn't for the church.
-
Civil disobedience
Does the government really want to go on record as sending armed agents of the state to arrest children and teachers for praying?
Really?
I dare them.
-
Civil disobedience
Does the government really want to go on record as sending armed agents of the state to arrest children and teachers for praying?
Really?
I dare them.
You made some great points! If Christians would just go ahead and publicly pray at school functions, the authorities would backdown immediately. Instead, it seems like it's always the Christians that blink first.
-
You made some great points! If Christians would just go ahead and publicly pray at school functions, the authorities would backdown immediately. Instead, it seems like it's always the Christians that blink first.
It's the same thing as when the other civil rights and abolitionist battles were being waged (BTW Wilbur - under the mantle of religious imperative). When it came down to the question: should we exert the force of government power to keep blacks from sharing water fountains the people's conscience (informed by religion I'll wager) answered no.
-
It's the same thing as when the other civil rights and abolitionist battles were being waged (BTW Wilbur - under the mantle of religious imperative). When it came down to the question: should we exert the force of government power to keep blacks from sharing water fountains the people's conscience (informed by religion I'll wager) answered no.
Thats a mighty bit different from "exerting government force to prevent possible mandatory participation of non-Christians in Christian prayers".
Thats the rub in all these little stories... no one has prevented you from prayer, nor is going to. Who woulda thunk that non-Christians actually do not like being coerced by officials, teachers, judges, whom ever to pray to gods they don't believe in? People actually martyr themselves for this sort of thing (or even less), yet here people are trying to justify more of it for a happy society. Brilliant!
-
msg243596#msg243596 date=1232920462]
Thats a mighty bit different from "exerting government force to prevent possible mandatory participation of non-Christians in Christian prayers".
Thats the rub in all these little stories... no one has prevented you from prayer, nor is going to[/color]. Who woulda thunk that non-Christians actually do not like being coerced by officials, teachers, judges, whom ever to pray to gods they don't believe in? People actually martyr themselves for this sort of thing (or even less), yet here people are trying to justify more of it for a happy society. Brilliant!
They already did:
*from the article*
The district permits moments of silence at school and school-related events.
A moment of silence is not prayer. Can they pray aloud? Not anymore.
-
They already did:
*from the article*A moment of silence is not prayer. Can they pray aloud? Not anymore.
That is a limitation on what the schools can do and endorse as an official activity, but not what students or other possible participants can do on their own. You find a case where students (or groups of) are actively suppressed from praying at school on their own time, then you and I can both agree, that its wrong. However, the vast majority of these cases are nothing like this... and are generally initiated by other religious or non-religious folk because they feel coerced to pray to a certain god that isnt their own. Christians, most of all, should sympathize with that.
-
That is a limitation on what the schools can do and endorse as an official activity, but not what students or other possible participants can do on their own. You find a case where students (or groups of) are actively suppressed from praying at school on their own time, then you and I can both agree, that its wrong. However, the vast majority of these cases are nothing like this... and are generally initiated by other religious or non-religious folk because they feel coerced to pray to a certain god that isnt their own. Christians, most of all, should sympathize with that.
You should read the entire article.
There was no evidence of anyong being forced to participate or "coerced to pray to a certain god that isnt their own". They were offended by religious expression of others. It was their choice to be offended. Where exactly does the COTUS provide for protection from being offended?
-
That is a limitation on what the schools can do and endorse as an official activity, but not what students or other possible participants can do on their own. You find a case where students (or groups of) are actively suppressed from praying at school on their own time, then you and I can both agree, that its wrong. However, the vast majority of these cases are nothing like this... and are generally initiated by other religious or non-religious folk because they feel coerced to pray to a certain god that isnt their own. Christians, most of all, should sympathize with that.
Schools Must Stop Discriminating Against “Good News Clubs†(http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=718)
School District Sued For Discrimination Against Christian Club (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=725)
Appeals Court to Consider Case of Valedictorian Ridiculed for Religious Message (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=738)
After-School Christian Club Wins Battle Against School Board Discrimination (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=755)
Sixth-Grader Penalized For Mentioning Jesus in His Christmas Paper at School (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=759)
Students Have the Right Not to Remain Silent on the Day of Silence (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=679)
...
Florida - A principal told a father that if his son was not at school on the Day of Silence that the boy would fail the school year. Indiana - A public school is participating in the Day of Silence against the wishes of some parents. Parents were told that it is “against the law†to cancel the program and that any absences would be unexcused that day. Iowa - A school board member told a former student that a student refusing to speak on the Day of Silence was not anymore disruptive in a school setting than a “Christian wearing a cross.†Oklahoma - A high school graduate wrote to her former principal to protest the celebration of the Day of Silence. The principal said that if he did not allow the Day of Silence, he could not allow Bible clubs and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. South Dakota - A student was told that if she is absent on the Day of Silence, she must write a paper explaining why she will not participate.
Student Wins Talent Show After School Reverses Decision That Banned Christian Song (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=624)
School District Sued For Unconstitutional Community Service Policy (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=622)
Long Beach, CA – Liberty Counsel filed suit against the Long Beach Unified School District on behalf of a 15-year-old high school student, Chris Rand, because the district refused to grant credit for over 80 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at a church.
-
Silence is not prayer. Prayer is not silence.
Only a few years ago, public schools began their days with prayer. Those prayers were in the name of Christ, which is a good thing, since that is the only prayer God hears. Now, we are being told that the U.S. Constitution prohibits these prayers. One of two things has happened. 1) Recent legal scholarship has discovered an aspect to the U.S. Constitution that no one noticed, or enforced, until recently; or, 2) the Constitution has practically been altered by a new approach to interpreting it.
Either way, the Lord Jesus Christ is being insulted. Since we need His blessing to succeed at what we do, we are going to reap the fruits of our own folly.
-
Silence is not prayer. Prayer is not silence.
People can pray silently in moments of silence, though.... they even do this in church. Why can you not see the very real distinction here... no one has forced prayer out of public schools in this case... its simply been decided it isnt appropriate in the hands of school officials, who also subject non-religious people to prayers by way of mandatory participation. Bottom line is this: should you or anyone else be forced to pray to gods they don't believe in in order to attend public school?
Only a few years ago, public schools began their days with prayer. Those prayers were in the name of Christ, which is a good thing, since that is the only prayer God hears. Now, we are being told that the U.S. Constitution prohibits these prayers. One of two things has happened. 1) Recent legal scholarship has discovered an aspect to the U.S. Constitution that no one noticed, or enforced, until recently; or, 2) the Constitution has practically been altered by a new approach to interpreting it.
I was in public school all through the 80's and we never opened our days with prayer. We had moments of silence, the pledge, and the national anthem.
Was there a yet undiscovered portion of the constitution that allowed us to free the slaves? Or was it simply reinterpretation? Arent you the one who's also suggesting that we just re-write the constitution and get rid of any prohibition of state religion?
Either way, the Lord Jesus Christ is being insulted. Since we need His blessing to succeed at what we do, we are going to reap the fruits of our own folly.
Quite honestly, the mentality you have is dangerous and the stuff religious wars are made of... I'm almost tempted to call you a phony though... probably a troll just having some fun.
-
It is undeniable that the Constitution has been perverted. Our founding fathers quite clearly stated that religious speech is protected and Congress can write no laws to silence it...which is why the left has used the court system to "write" laws. Even Jefferson knew they'd left a loophole for the unelected, unaccountable judges to create an oligarchy, and the generations between have never closed it. Now we not only live in an unconstitutional oligarchy, but we even allow public schools to brainwash our students into idiots. Just think, if wilbur's school had not been silenced, perhaps he'd have grown into some real knowledge by now. :(
-
People can pray silently in moments of silence, though.... they even do this in church. Why can you not see the very real distinction here... no one has forced prayer out of public schools in this case... its simply been decided it isnt appropriate in the hands of school officials, who also subject non-religious people to prayers by way of mandatory participation. Bottom line is this: should you or anyone else be forced to pray to gods they don't believe in in order to attend public school? Where is this forced participation?
I was in public school all through the 80's and we never opened our days with prayer. We had moments of silence, the pledge, and the national anthem. Your loss.
Was there a yet undiscovered portion of the constitution that allowed us to free the slaves? Or was it simply reinterpretation? Arent you the one who's also suggesting that we just re-write the constitution and get rid of any prohibition of state religion?
Quite honestly, the mentality you have is dangerous and the stuff religious wars are made of... I'm almost tempted to call you a phony though... probably a troll just having some fun.
-
The forced participation is obvious. Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating officially led prayer as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it.
All you have to do is ask yourself what you would do if your kids were in the same situation... only the teacher was praying to Allah, or Vishnu.... what would you do then? Would you say its fine and that your kids don't have a right not to be offended?
-
The forced participation is obvious. Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating officially led prayer as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it.
All you have to do is ask yourself what you would do if your kids were in the same situation... only the teacher was praying to Allah, or Vishnu.... what would you do then? Would you say its fine and that your kids don't have a right not to be offended?
Ah, sill no evidence of "forced participation", eh Wilbur? "an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it" <<< your own words....it's either optional or forced. It can't be both.
Still waiting for that quote from the COTUS where we have the right to not be offended. If you can find it, please let me know. We can shut down the MSM and the DNC immediately.
-
Ah, sill no evidence of "forced participation", eh Wilbur? "an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it" <<< your own words....it's either optional or forced. It can't be both.
"Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating officially led prayer as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it." I wasnt calling it optional although the sentences meaning could be more clear this way:
"Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating the situation by denying that officially led prayer couched as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it, is actually optional."
Still waiting for that quote from the COTUS where we have the right to not be offended. If you can find it, please let me know. We can shut down the MSM and the DNC immediately.
Your teacher prays to Allah out loud, in class, while urging your kids to say the words and forces them to sit through it..... should they just sit there and be offended? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone around who would simply rest at saying "well your kids don't have a right not to be offended"
-
Your teacher prays to Allah out loud, in class, while urging your kids to say the words and forces them to sit through it..... should they just sit there and be offended? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone around who would simply rest at saying "well your kids don't have a right not to be offended"
Students have been forced to emulate the Islamic faith in schools under the guise of multiculturalism.
-
"Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating officially led prayer as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it." I wasnt calling it optional although the sentences meaning could be more clear this way:
"Lets call a spade a spade here and cease obfuscating the situation by denying that officially led prayer couched as an optional exercise for those who are forced to sit through it, is actually optional."
Your teacher prays to Allah out loud, in class, while urging your kids to say the words and forces them to sit through it..... should they just sit there and be offended? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone around who would simply rest at saying "well your kids don't have a right not to be offended"
I don't care what other people say. They can choose to be offended or not. Where does the COTUS say that we have the right not to be offended? Where are we provided the right to not to be exposed ideas we don't like?
-
People can pray silently in moments of silence, though.... they even do this in church. Why can you not see the very real distinction here... no one has forced prayer out of public schools in this case... its simply been decided it isnt appropriate in the hands of school officials, who also subject non-religious people to prayers by way of mandatory participation. Bottom line is this: should you or anyone else be forced to pray to gods they don't believe in in order to attend public school?
I was in public school all through the 80's and we never opened our days with prayer. We had moments of silence, the pledge, and the national anthem.
Was there a yet undiscovered portion of the constitution that allowed us to free the slaves? Or was it simply reinterpretation? Arent you the one who's also suggesting that we just re-write the constitution and get rid of any prohibition of state religion?
Quite honestly, the mentality you have is dangerous and the stuff religious wars are made of... I'm almost tempted to call you a phony though... probably a troll just having some fun.
I assure you I am not a troll.
Here is what's missing from your posts: Any consideration of the right the Lord Jesus Christ has to be honored as the King of Kings and the Lord of lords. The question is not whether people can pray whereever they are. the question is whether government (e.g. public schools is going to give Christ the honor He deserves. I realize we all learned something or other about the separation of church and state in our high school civics classes, but we have the right to question the conventional wisdom. Yet that's exactly what most people do not do.
-
Students have been forced to emulate the Islamic faith in schools under the guise of multiculturalism.
I know it has happened.... and the school in that case was sued... by both atheist and Christian families alike, IIRC... and they are right to, just like in this case.
-
I know it has happened.... and the school in that case was sued... by both atheist and Christian families alike, IIRC... and they are right to, just like in this case.
Wonder why you haven't answered this question:
Where does the COTUS say that we have the right not to be offended? Where are we provided the right to not to be exposed ideas we don't like?
-
Here's another point: Schools should help their students to become better people. That would include teaching them to pray to the one true God.
-
Wonder why you haven't answered this question:
Why won't you answer mine? I have answered yours.. this transgression is more than a simple matter of personal offence.
-
People can pray silently in moments of silence, though.... they even do this in church. Why can you not see the very real distinction here...
Why can't you see the distinction between silence and prayer? Yes, I know people can pray silently during moments of silence. People can pray silently while their television set is on, too, but a television set is not a prayer.
Bottom line is this: should you or anyone else be forced to pray to gods they don't believe in in order to attend public school?
Actually, no, that is NOT the bottom line. The bottom line is whether God is going to be honored in our schools, or will we do everything we can to remove Him from the premises. No one was being forced to pray to anything.
-
Why won't you answer mine?
What question?
I have answered yours..
No. You haven't.
this transgression is more than a simple matter of personal offence.
Again:
Where does the COTUS say that we have the right not to be offended? Where are we provided the right to not to be exposed ideas we don't like?
-
Thats a mighty bit different from "exerting government force to prevent possible mandatory participation of non-Christians in Christian prayers".
Thats the rub in all these little stories... no one has prevented you from prayer, nor is going to. Who woulda thunk that non-Christians actually do not like being coerced by officials, teachers, judges, whom ever to pray to gods they don't believe in? People actually martyr themselves for this sort of thing (or even less), yet here people are trying to justify more of it for a happy society. Brilliant!
What are you even talking about?
I'm no Christian, in fact if God exists I'm more than likely riding the greased flagpole to Hell, but I am at a loss for examples of Christians compelling non-Christians to pray with the force of executive sanction. Yet, the opposite is quite true.
-
Force people to pray? How is that even possible? I was a substitute teacher in the public schools. We cannot even get the kids to class on time. They won't even sit down, unless they are in the mood.
The previous poster is correct. Christians (at least in modern times) don't force people to do anything.
Here's what could happen: At the beginning of the school day, someone comes over the PA system, and intones, "Let us pray...," with the clear understanding on everyone's part that there are no consequences to not praying. The atheists have their moment of silence, while the Christians pray.
Would that make the earth stop spinning on its axis?
-
Since the same Thomas Jefferson that penned the "immortal" line about the wall of separation also purchased Bibles for the schools in his area, it seems highly unlikely that he would have a problem with a moment of silence, a non-denominational prayer, or even **gasp** a prayer that mentions Jesus!!! The Supreme Court pulled that wall crap out of the same place as the Dred Scott decision and the Roe v Wade decision...they're all B@))$hit.
-
I'm no Christian, in fact if God exists I'm more than likely riding the greased flagpole to Hell,
That condition is avoidable.
-
That condition is avoidable.
I never said it wasn't. I merely noted it wasn't for me.
-
I never said it wasn't. I merely noted it wasn't for me.
I sincerely hope you will change your mind about that. It's offered to everyone.