Officials ordered to stop prayer at schools

[Eupher]

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. 

[Eupher]

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.

[rubliw]

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.

[MrsSmith]

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.

[MrsSmith]

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.

[rubliw]

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? 

[Sam Adams]

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.

[Sam Adams]

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.

[Splashdown]

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.

[MrsSmith]

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 -

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. 

[Splashdown]

(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.

[MrsSmith]

(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. 

[Sam Adams]

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.

[The Village Idiot]

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

[Sam Adams]

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.

[Splashdown]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[Sam Adams]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[rubliw]

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!

[Chris_]

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.

[rubliw]

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.

[Chris_]

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?

[MrsSmith]

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”

School District Sued For Discrimination Against Christian Club

Appeals Court to Consider Case of Valedictorian Ridiculed for Religious Message

After-School Christian Club Wins Battle Against School Board Discrimination

Sixth-Grader Penalized For Mentioning Jesus in His Christmas Paper at School

Students Have the Right Not to Remain Silent on the Day of Silence
...

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

School District Sued For Unconstitutional Community Service Policy



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.

[Sam Adams]

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.