Check this out

[Knight]

In an attempt to get some fellowship going take a look at this. My wife emailed this to me and I think it speaks volumes.

Samuel Thompson wrote:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome..."
But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer.
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me..
The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want.. it is time the majority rules!
It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly you are no longer going to take our rights away .. we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN! After all the God you have the right to denounce is on our side!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him...God bless America, despite all her faults.. still the greatest nation of all.....God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God...
May 2003 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up...... In God WE Trust

[Fiskare]

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

..and very large KA-BOOM! afterward.

[Dandey]

Here in UK we have similar problems except perhaps more so. You know about our problems in the Anglican communion regarding homosexuals, right? There is also problems regarding legislation for employment rights where it is suggested that Christian churches should not have the right to "discriminate" against members of other faiths or none. Interestingly enough, considering that we used to be called the nation of the Book, some of our partner nations in Europe want to include a reference to the Christian foundations of our nations, strongly opposed by UK amongst others - it might offend the minorities!

[kimber1]

AWESOME post knight!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kdet]

Amen Knight! Wonderful post!

[rookie]

Amen!!! If "others" want to rant about their rights, they can, but they forget our "rights."

rookie

[jbarcher]

Cool.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

As usual he forgets Matthew 6:1-8; but most of those full of hubris do.

[dignitized]

As usual he forgets Matthew 6:1-8; but most of those full of hubris do.
HUH?? care to explain?:scratch:

[dignitized]

[/i][/b][/size][/font]

..and very large KA-BOOM! afterward.
Too True. Those rotten baath terrorist would not pass up a chance to reek havoc and blow things up.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

HUH?? care to explain?:scratch:Did you check out the scripture? It is rather obvious they are doing the opposite of Christ's teachings, now, isn't it?

[Knight]

Did you check out the scripture? It is rather obvious they are doing the opposite of Christ's teachings, now, isn't it?
I read the scripture in question. Do you mean to suppose that people who want to pray before a football game are doing so just to be seen by men? Do you know their hearts?

Christ, in that passage, is addressing those who do their righteous acts JUST to be seen by men. I do not know that you can definitively say that in this case. Unless, of course, you know their intentions......

Besides, this is intended to facilitate discussion and fellowship..... Not debate.

[BBAS 64]

Knight,

Great post time to stand up and be counted. May he grant me strengh to do so, and the ability to see him more clearly.

For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

[wvmtnkid]

Knight-

Thanks for sharing. I agree with the senitiments of the message whole heartedly. Sometimes it seems that all other groups have their rights protected except for Christians. That may not be the case, but at times, it sure feels that way.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I read the scripture in question. Do you mean to suppose that people who want to pray before a football game are doing so just to be seen by men?
What other possible purpose is there to which it could be attributed? It is clearly an instance of "getting in your face" to non-Christians, which, as Christ says, is an inappropriate form of prayer.

An alternative is a form of public prayer that is nonsectarian, but even better would be to forego such symbolism and leave it to churches and homes.

Do you know their hearts?
Not exactly, but you have to admit the concept of prayer before a violent sport is most ironic.

Christ, in that passage, is addressing those who do their righteous acts JUST to be seen by men. I do not know that you can definitively say that in this case. Unless, of course, you know their intentions......
I know of lawsuits addressing this issue concerning the Sante Fe School District in the Houston suburbs (Texas). This is a town where Baptists dominate and there have been repeated instances of violence in the high school perpetrated by Baptist students against Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish students. The majority seeks to institute public sectarian prayer purely as a form of bullying.

Besides, this is intended to facilitate discussion and fellowship..... Not debate.
so what you are saying then is you want comments that agree with the article but not that disagree with it? You do not have that option. There can be no "fellowship" when you post something advocating wrong actions according to Christ.

[Knight]

What other possible purpose is there to which it could be attributed? It is clearly an instance of "getting in your face" to non-Christians, which, as Christ says, is an inappropriate form of prayer.

An alternative is a form of public prayer that is nonsectarian, but even better would be to forego such symbolism and leave it to churches and homes.
There is nothing unscriptural about acknowledging God in public. The question is the motives behind such action. You assume that people want to do this just so that they can look good. I would not make that assumption.

Not exactly, but you have to admit the concept of prayer before a violent sport is most ironic.
I don't know. Seems rather appropriate to me. If there is a possibility of getting hurt I would sure want God's blessing. :)


I know of lawsuits addressing this issue concerning the Sante Fe School District in the Houston suburbs (Texas). This is a town where Baptists dominate and there have been repeated instances of violence in the high school perpetrated by Baptist students against Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish students. The majority seeks to institute public sectarian prayer purely as a form of bullying.
I am not familiar with this situation. However, one case does not prove the rule for all.


so what you are saying then is you want comments that agree with the article but not that disagree with it? You do not have that option. There can be no "fellowship" when you post something advocating wrong actions according to Christ.
Of course you can disagree. I just would rather not get into a spitting contest with you about it.

I will admit that some people could be advocating public prayer and such to glorify themselves. I will also allow that there are those who simply wish to honor God.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

There is nothing unscriptural about acknowledging God in public.
Of course ancient Israel and Judah were theocracies. The U.S. legally acknowledges religious pluralism.

This issue gets more complex when we move into other areas: U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert was recently accused of anti-Catholicism because he named a Presbyterian as House Chaplain over a Catholic who was recommended. The Presbyterian withdrew and the Catholic was then named but for a while there it looked bad.

In local and state jurisdictions clergy give opening prayers before legislatures, city councils, etc. In addition to Christian clergy, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Wiccan etc. clergy have done it here and there. A controversy erupted in a small town where a small group of secular humanists asked to give the opening and at the urging of a fundamentalist preacher four council members walked out (one later apologized).

The question is the motives behind such action. You assume that people want to do this just so that they can look good. I would not make that assumption.
I simply cannot identify any good motives for such actions.

If there is a possibility of getting hurt I would sure want God's blessing. :)
Better to not play at all then.

I am not familiar with this situation. However, one case does not prove the rule for all.
It's typical. A similar situation existed in Tupelo, Mississippi, and just about every other place where litigation resulted.

[Knight]

I simply cannot identify any good motives for such actions.
Ok, that's your perrogative. Others may not share that opinion.


Better to not play at all then.
You don't like football. I get it.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Ok, that's your perrogative. Others may not share that opinion.
Good, maybe someone will address it.

You don't like football. I get it.
It's all right but it's not exciting like rugby, soccer, or hockey. Too many time outs and official time. I do have a bias in that in Texas where I recently moved from it is considered a more important part of high school life than academics. Plus the claim of "character building" is ludicrous when coaches encourages players to bend the rules and it is acceptable for a losing team to seek to injure the other team's star player...

[Knight]

Good, maybe someone will address it.
I thought they had.....


It's all right but it's not exciting like rugby, soccer, or hockey. Too many time outs and official time. I do have a bias in that in Texas where I recently moved from it is considered a more important part of high school life than academics. Plus the claim of "character building" is ludicrous when coaches encourages players to bend the rules and it is acceptable for a losing team to seek to injure the other team's star player...
You are a fan of rugby and hockey yet football is too violent??? Just kidding.

Actually, I'm more of a baseball fan myself.

[kimber1]

the original OP was to edify others. i'm not understanding why debate is neccesary here. i thought it was an awesome post myself!

[La Bonita Zorilla]

the original OP was to edify others. i'm not understanding why debate is neccesary here. i thought it was an awesome post myself!
Debate is necessary because there is not universal agreement that it was an awesome post.

[kimber1]

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/angry/0011.gif not agreeing with it is your right and priviledge however this is not the forum to debate it. it was meant as an edification thing and should be treated as such.

[Lanakila]

rofl Kimber. Some folks are just so used to debate. :scratch:

[Blindfaith]

La Bonita, if you don't like what Knight posted, then don't respond. Trying to pick a fight over an email his wife sent him is ridiculous. My mama taught me if I don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. ??

This forum is not up for debate. If you want to debate, then go to another forum that is open for it.

btw Knight - I appreciate the post.

[Knight]

Debate is necessary because there is not universal agreement that it was an awesome post.
As we've already discussed, it is not necessary for you to agree with this statement. However, you must also allow that those who do agree with it are going to oppose your opinion.

BTW, the day there is universal agreement among people on any single issue I will be very surprised.

[BarbB]

Knight - I so agree with your OP! Thanks for sharing that. Sometimes we just need to know that there is support for us.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

it was meant as an edification thing and should be treated as such.
If so, it fails to do so. The applicable dictionary definition of edification here is "instruction to improve spirituality" and the article does precisely the opposite by encouraging bad behavior and smugness among Christians.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

As we've already discussed, it is not necessary for you to agree with this statement. However, you must also allow that those who do agree with it are going to oppose your opinion.
As they certainly should. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Knight]

If so, it fails to do so. The applicable dictionary definition of edification here is "instruction to improve spirituality" and the article does precisely the opposite by encouraging bad behavior and smugness among Christians.
In your opinion......

[JOYfulbeliever]

If so, it fails to do so. The applicable dictionary definition of edification here is "instruction to improve spirituality" and the article does precisely the opposite by encouraging bad behavior and smugness among Christians.

I'm not sure how this "encourages bad behavior". I guess that is entirely your opinion.

Personally, I thought the OP was AWESOME! Thanks for sharing it, Knight. :clap:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I'm not sure how this "encourages bad behavior". :clap:
The article states:

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.

Which is a blatant falsehood as in no way are courts stripping "Christians" of all their rights, and certainly most Christians know that, so, they can't be "sick and tired" of something that is not happening.


Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Of course no such thing is happening whatsoever. No one is saying "stop praying". What is being said is "stop uttering sectarian prayer in official context as agents of government" which is quite different.


The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want.. it is time the majority rules!
Blatant bullying and advocacy of tyranny of the majority. Not very much in the spirit of Christian love, eh?




you are no longer going to take our rights away .. we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN!


Postulating a falsehood again, cheerleading, and hyperbole. Again, none of it in context of Christian ethics, but brimming over with arrogance and pride. Shameful.


After all the God you have the right to denounce is on our side!


Quite obviously not, per the scripture I cited above.


May 2003 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.


A disgusting Nixonian construction and appeal to bigotry and bullying. To put "God back as the foundation" of one's family depends on the individual family members; and, one would hope, churches and other religious institutions would already have God as their foundation. But it is wrong to demand such be done with government and other secular institutions. "The last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake."

[kimber1]

sounds like you have a personal beef adn i for one do not see why you are taking such offense to this article. it's all about standing up for what we Christians believe in. how is that wrong??????????????????????

[La Bonita Zorilla]

sounds like you have a personal beef adn i for one do not see why you are taking such offense to this article. it's all about standing up for what we Christians believe in. how is that wrong??????????????????????
Do you believe as Christians we should run roughshod over everybody else? That's exactly what it's advocating.

While we're at it, why not guillotine a few non-Christians or at least stick 'em in concentration camps? That's exactly the mentality being promoted here.

[JOYfulbeliever]

Whoa! Where in the world did you get that Christians should "run roughshod over everybody else"?

And forgive me, but I don't see the first person in here that has said ANYTHING that would even compare to the horrific events of guillotining a few non-Christians? No one is saying or promoting that! I have never met a true Christian that would agree with that. We are to LOVE, not chop the heads off of those that don't believe.

This thread is NOT debate. It's been said before. I can't believe it has to be said again.

If you don't agree with the OP, fine, but don't put words into the mouths of those that do agree with it. For that matter, if this stuff bothers you so much, I don't understand why you keep coming back to this. The OP was in support of many Christian beliefs. If you don't share those beliefs, it's cool...but don't come in and compare us to putting the heads of non-believers on a guillotine. If you don't like the discussion, no one says you have to continue in it.

And again, this forum is not for debate. If you want to debate this, it's fine. You are more than welcome to...by starting a thread in the debate forums! Let's keep this just a friendly discussion, okay? ;)

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Whoa! Where in the world did you get that Christians should "run roughshod over everybody else"?

And forgive me, but I don't see the first person in here that has said ANYTHING that would even compare to the horrific events of guillotining a few non-Christians? No one is saying or promoting that! I have never met a true Christian that would agree with that. We are to LOVE, not chop the heads off of those that don't believe.

This thread is NOT debate. It's been said before. I can't believe it has to be said again.

If you don't agree with the OP, fine, but don't put words into the mouths of those that do agree with it. For that matter, if this stuff bothers you so much, I don't understand why you keep coming back to this. The OP was in support of many Christian beliefs. If you don't share those beliefs, it's cool...but don't come in and compare us to putting the heads of non-believers on a guillotine. If you don't like the discussion, no one says you have to continue in it.

And again, this forum is not for debate. If you want to debate this, it's fine. You are more than welcome to...by starting a thread in the debate forums! Let's keep this just a friendly discussion, okay? ;)
I've said all I need to say about the text of the article in the post a couple above. The article is offensive to me as a Christian and should be to anyone else who takes Christ's words seriously. BTW there is nothing in the general rules nor the rules of this forum about it being "not for debate". So then is the unwritten policy that one can only be politically correct here, then?

[Knight]

Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Your point has been made. You disagree with the sentiment of the article. That's ok. I, and many others here, disagree with your analysis of it. That's ok too.

I have already stated my reasons why I disagree with your analysis. There is no need for me to do so again.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Your point has been made. You disagree with the sentiment of the article. That's ok. I, and many others here, disagree with your analysis of it. That's ok too.

I have already stated my reasons why I disagree with your analysis. There is no need for me to do so again.
Not a problem. Did you know both of the heroes you feature quotes from on your sig lines have been characterized as agnostic or atheist (not as an insult though possibly that too, but claimed as forebears by freethinking groups?

[dignitized]

The founding fathers gave us the first amendment to keep the GOVERMENT out of the church NOT - as some would have you believe - the church out of the government. The founding fathers were notorious for their public displays of faith, so much so that De Toque Ville commented on it in the book Democracy in America.

Its sad that we are being required to hide our faith. :(

[dignitized]

BTW - Twain may have been an agnostic, but Lincoln was not.

[JOYfulbeliever]

The founding fathers gave us the first amendment to keep the GOVERMENT out of the church NOT - as some would have you believe - the church out of the government. The founding fathers were notorious for their public displays of faith, so much so that De Toque Ville commented on it in the book Democracy in America.

Its sad that we are being required to hide our faith. :(


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: So very true, Br. Max!!!!!!!!!!

[Knight]

Not a problem. Did you know both of the heroes you feature quotes from on your sig lines have been characterized as agnostic or atheist (not as an insult though possibly that too, but claimed as forebears by freethinking groups?
Who said they were my heroes? I use the quotes because I like what was said not because I idolize who said it.

I've heard lots of reports about Lincoln. I can't say as I believe much of it.....

I know full well that Twain was something other than Christian... I happen to agree with and like that statement. It's true and funny. It dosen't mean that I agree with everything he said.

What was the point of even bringing this up?

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Who said they were my heroes?
Uh-uh, I said "the" heroues not "your" heroes.


What was the point of even bringing this up?
Irony.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

The founding fathers were notorious for their public displays of faith, so much so that De Toque Ville commented on it in the book Democracy in America.
Yes, and among his comments there was this: "Religious insanity is not uncommon in the United States."

[MorphRC]

hmmmm :confused:

[dignitized]

Yes, and among his comments there was this: "Religious insanity is not uncommon in the United States."
Can you reference where in the book that comment is found?

[Fiskare]

a) Since when are the American Founding Fathers experts on religion? (or any politicians for that matter?). So, because they make a statement about the separation of Church and State does that make it right? They were simply repeating their own traditional Protestant understanding and belief that the two institutions should not interfere in each other's business. That does not mean that members of either institution are excluded from the other. Politicians can go to church, and Christians can go into politics. However, the government can't define the nature of Christ and the Church can't define the tax system.


That's the clear, traditional, historic protestant understanding, and that's where these guys were coming from.


b) Since when were the American Founding Fathers the infallible magisterium of American politics? They certainly didn't think they were. They even made provision for their writings to be amended. Why then do the current debates in US politics tend to gravitate to citing old documents that can and on occasion should be ammended?


c) Since when do American Christians have to hide their faith? They even have strong political lobby groups! Christian Coalition, Moral Minority? No hiding there. I would suggest they have the appropriate amount of political clout they are entitled to in a democracy- it's proportional to the population. US Christians also plague the planet more than any other nationality with their own religions and its obvious that they expect the same kind of religious freedom abroad as they get in their own country. US Christianity is prolific, and I think that's good (except when they're exporting cults).


d) Relax everyone. :)

[kimber1]

d) Relax everyone. :) :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Knight]

Irony.
So in order to avoid irony I must only use quotes from confirmed Christian sources?

This has no bearing on the topic at hand.

[messageport]

Actually, the level of godliness in the US had declined by the time of 1776. Based on the history that I have read, visible godliness was greater among the settlers of Jamestown, Virginia and the Puritans of Plymouth, Massachusetts and those of the later 17th century. The reputation of this time has been tarnished by events at Salem. However, godliness in terms of knowledge of the Bible, knowledge of standards of sound doctrine such as the Westminster Confession and catechisms, ascribing historical events to the Providence of God, prayer, and devotion to public worship and observance of the Lord's Day was much greater. Godliness declined as settlers dispersed and many lived a distance from a visible church. The English parish system was more difficult to utilize in America where residences were often great distances from one another.

Godliness revivied during the Great Awakening from around 1730 to the 1770's under the mininstry of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Gilbert Tennant, Samuel Davies, and others. One of the major results of the Great Awakening was to unify 4/5ths of Americans in a common understanding of the Christian faith and life. Americans--North and South--shared a common evangelical view of life.

Godliness began at the grass roots and its influence reached to the leadership of the American Revolution.

The Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, is a greater authority than the heads of earthly governments. Earthly power comes from the One, True God. The powers that be are established by God (Romans 13:1).

May godliness in the churches flourish again and permeate into government.

[dignitized]

1 - the American founding fathers did NOT believe in the notion of excluding religious expression from public life the mistaken notion of separation church and state. ONE man amongst them wrote in a PRIVATE letter to the members of a baptist church saying that there was a wall of separation between church and state. I suggest you read the whole letter and its draft copies and realize that he was only stating that the federal government was prohibited from making laws about religion - any law establishing a state church (as was the case in ALL of Europe) - any law LIMITING how we can express our religion - any law at all that says ANYTHING about religion. It was a one way street statement. Government out of the church. There is no implication of faith out of the state. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

What more, of the 300 men who qualify as being called founding fathers, more than HALF were trained as clergy. Washington himself was a member of clergy in the Anglican church! The false notion that the founders were a bunch of Atheist is a blatant lie. There was NOTHING so repugnant to the FF as this notion. So much so, that there did not exist in this country a single atheistic institution until the middle of the 19th century with the founding of MIT. When Thomas Paine wrote his famous "Common Sense" booklet, he sealed his fate in America. From that point on, he was publicly lambasted and shunned. He only found acceptance for his ideas in France.

Today, Christianity is placed on Second class status pandering to the "feelings" of the irreligious. We have going before t he Supreme Court a case (which should never have happened in the first place) where in a Man claims his daughter - who happens to be a professing Christian - was "harmed" by having to say Under God in the pledge of allegiance. The man is a trouble maker who wants to force all expressions of faith out of public life. This is his professed goal in this action. He claims that the pledge violates the separation of church and state - a phrase that does not even appear in any government documents, but has been foisted on the American people as political doctrine, based on the misinterpretation of the Phrase "CONGRESS shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion (and now lets not forget the part that people like to overlook when they claim separation of church and state) NOR prohibiting the free EXERCISE thereof." The funniest thing about this is - when you look at how the FF defined religion, Atheism nor the other irreligionisms are covered or protected by this provision.

If you think that Christians are not being asked to hide their faith today, one need only look at cases that have set the precedents we live under in America today:

verbal prayers offered in the school are unconstitutional EVEN when voluntary. (Engel v. Vitale, 1962; abington v. schempp, 1963; commissioner of education v. school committee of leyden, 1971)

Freedom of speech and the press are granted to teachers and students UNLESS the topic is religious at which point this becomes unconstitutional. (Stein v. Osheinsky, 1965; collins v chandler unified school district, 1981; bishop v. arnov, 1991)

If a student prays over his meal it is illieagl for him to pray aloud. (reed v. Van Hoven, 1965)

it is illegal for a teacher to have a bible in school - even a personal copy (Roberts v Madigan, 1990)

It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten CLASS to ask who’s birthday is celebrated by Christmas (Florey v. Sioux Fall School Dist. 1979)

Look at current cases -

The Boy Scouts in San Diego have a case against them so as to remove them from being able to use public lands for camps because they are a "religious group" and because they will not let gay men go camping with boys. MEANWHILE in Idaho an Islamic group won the right to have RELIGIOUS camps on public lands.

A teachers aid in Pennsylvania was removed from her job for wearing a cross Necklace. While a muslim woman in Fla is suing the state because she was asked to remove her veil from her face for a Drivers Licences photo!

The pledge case out of San Francisco.

http://www.aclj.org/index.asp (http://www.aclj.org/index.asp) this link show lots of examples of the rights of Christians in America being truncated.

There are many, many other cases before the courts today in which Christians are being asked to hide our faith while other faiths especially Islam are winning protections.

Sorry to be so long winded here, but this is something I’ve done a good bit of study on and as a Teacher, I’m frustrated in being restricted from telling students the truth when I teach.

[Knight]

Well said Br. Max

[spirituality]

Good post knight :)

[Fiskare]

1 - the American founding fathers did NOT believe in the notion of excluding religious expression from public life the mistaken notion of separation church and state. ONE man amongst them wrote in a PRIVATE letter to the members of a baptist church saying that there was a wall of separation between church and state. I suggest you read the whole letter and its draft copies and realize that he was only stating that the federal government was prohibited from making laws about religion - any law establishing a state church (as was the case in ALL of Europe) - any law LIMITING how we can express our religion - any law at all that says ANYTHING about religion. It was a one way street statement. Government out of the church. There is no implication of faith out of the state. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html <a href="http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html">http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)</a>
Exactly. But there is also no statement of church as an institution interfering in government, like the medieval church did. Public life is not the issue in the proper distinction of church and state in protestant thought. Religion is largely a private and personal matter, and the protection of the right to have freedom of belief or disbelief is the issue as it stands regarding public life.

By the way- not all of Europe had established churches, and even in the nations where they had established churches there have always been dissenters and free churches. In most nations with established churches the co-mixture of church and state was carefully defined, and the boundaries remained in place, similar to what I outlined before.


What more, of the 300 men who qualify as being called founding fathers, more than HALF were trained as clergy. Washington himself was a member of clergy in the Anglican church!
I doubt Washington was an active cleric, and I've never heard of that before. Perhaps he gave that up. In those days, it was illegal for an Anglican cleric to have position in the military other than chaplain. It still is in some dioceses. If he had slaves he was also breaking Anglican canon law, and thus could not be eligible for ordination.

and The false notion that the founders were a bunch of Atheist is a blatant lie.
I've never heard that the FF were atheists- who says that? Some were Deists (maybe).


Today, Christianity is placed on Second class status pandering to the "feelings" of the irreligious.
<major snip but only for brevity>

But you live in a democracy. That means the rule by the majority of the people. If Christianity is losing status it is because it is losing popularity.

If the majority of the people don't want their children to be led in prayer by a teacher then that's what you have to live with. If the majority want to have the freedom of choice when it comes to abortions, then that's what you have to live with- or you have to overthrow democracy, which is how some people perceive the religious agenda to be in fact.

We all know the answer is about preaching the Gospel by example as well as words and converting the populace to Christianity. That's our job, and frankly, we do it poorly these days, and that's the real reason that the church has lost respect and popularity, and thus political and public influence.



Sorry to be so long winded here, but this is something I’ve done a good bit of study on and as a Teacher, I’m frustrated in being restricted from telling students the truth when I teach.
Well, the fact is that if you asked most of the parents in a public school if they were Orthodox and should have an Orthodox believer leading their children in prayer you might not get a majority answer in the affirmative, right?

It's a tough time for believers everywhere. Best to keep your religion alive at home and pray and work for the conversion of nations rather than enforce religious laws against the unwilling unbelievers. Christ is a shepherd, not a cowboy.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Can you reference where in the book that comment is found?
Sorry, I've never read the whole thing, but it was quoted by Paul Fussell in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System on page 149.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Since when do American Christians have to hide their faith?


Of course they don't. The whining about persecution of Christians is all a cognitive disconnect here where Christianity is the dominant faith.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

So in order to avoid irony I must only use quotes from confirmed Christian sources?
Perhaps if that is your desire.

A better course of action might be to embrace it, and recognize that things are not all black and white.

[/QUOTE]

[Knight]

Perhaps if that is your desire. A better course of action might be to embrace it, get off your high horse, and recognize that things are not all black and white.


I am not on a "high horse." You were the one who brought my signature into the discussion. For what reason I still cannot fathom....

[Fiskare]

Of course they don't. The whining about persecution of Christians is all a cognitive disconnect here where Christianity is the dominant faith.
I've often thought about how fortunate we actually are in democratic countries that have a Christian history. How about those Orthodox brethren in nations like Egypt? They can't even build churches anymore, unless they are underground (literally) and are victim to hate crimes and murders. That's religious persecution. I mean, my goodness, the Americans have how many religious TV networks?

Oh well. I guess I can also understand how there appears to be a diminishing of the influence of the church in secular life and how it will cause alarm among many Christians.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

1 - the American founding fathers did NOT believe in the notion of excluding religious expression from public life the mistaken notion of separation church and state. ONE man amongst them wrote in a PRIVATE letter to the members of a baptist church saying that there was a wall of separation between church and state. I suggest you read the whole letter and its draft copies and realize that he was only stating that the federal government was prohibited from making laws about religion - any law establishing a state church (as was the case in ALL of Europe) - any law LIMITING how we can express our religion - any law at all that says ANYTHING about religion. It was a one way street statement. Government out of the church. There is no implication of faith out of the state.
Actually many scholars dispute that analysis; Garry Wills' book Under God: Religion and Politics in America documents many sources to the contrary most notably in citing works of Madison and Jefferson.


The false notion that the founders were a bunch of Atheist is a blatant lie.
Quite true. Washington, Hancock, Franklin, Rush, Rutledge, and many others were Freemasons. To be initiated as an Entered Apprentice Mason one must profess belief in a supreme being. However, it is doubtful many would be comfortable with the nature of mixing of religion and politics ala The Christian Coalition, James Dobson's use of his nonprofit status to build a political machine, etc.

When Thomas Paine wrote his famous "Common Sense" booklet, he sealed his fate in America. From that point on, he was publicly lambasted and shunned. He only found acceptance for his ideas in France.
Actually, Common Sense, the first of Paine's three great works, was credited with winning working class support for the American Revolution and was quite popular here. His later works, The Age of Reason and The Rights of Man were hyperbolic in criticism of religion and did lead to his unpopularity.


Today, Christianity is placed on Second class status pandering to the "feelings" of the irreligious.
Second class status on what basis? Moreover I would doubt the cause for even the glimmer of such could be attributed in any way to 'the feelings of the irreligious'. Who do you mean by 'the irreligious' anyhow? Most nominally secular people have no problem with Christianity as long as Xians avoid bullying. I suspect those whose 'feelings' are being considered more likely include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. than 'the irreligious'.

The Boy Scouts in San Diego have a case against them so as to remove them from being able to use public lands for camps because they are a "religious group" and because they will not let gay men go camping with boys.
They have a sweetheart deal to use land in Balboa Park. But local law there forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accomodations. Therefore unless they change their discriminatory policy they are violating the law and merit the end of the sweetheart deal.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

It's a tough time for believers everywhere. Best to keep your religion alive at home and pray and work for the conversion of nations rather than enforce religious laws against the unwilling unbelievers. Christ is a shepherd, not a cowboy.
Very insightful Fiskare.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I am not on a "high horse."
Whatever. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Knight]

Whatever. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Believe what you wish.

You've a right to disagree with me as I do with you.

[dignitized]

Exactly. But there is also no statement of church as an institution interfering in government, like the medieval church did. Public life is not the issue in the proper distinction of church and state in protestant thought. Religion is largely a private and personal matter, and the protection of the right to have freedom of belief or disbelief is the issue as it stands regarding public life.

The FF were never worried about the church controlling the state - what more, most of the colonies were founded for just that purpose! However, by the 18th century, religious pluralism had been firmly established in America. Are you aware that Denominationalism is an American idea? Prior to its advent, each church, each sect professed that they alone had the true gospel and that all others were ****** to hell. YES including Knox, Luther, and Calvin. The number of people John Calvin had put do death rivals the alleged iniquities of the Spanish Inquisition!

Still - Look at what the FF said about religion in the state:

Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle - George Washington.

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God. - Gouvernor Morris

Of all t he dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports - George Washington



The great pillars of all government and of social life . . . are virtue, morality and religion. - Patrick Henry.

We have been assured , Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. - Benjamin Franklin

The religion which has introduced civil liberty in the religion of Christ and his apostles . . . And to this we owe our free constitutions of government. - Noah Webster



I doubt Washington was an active cleric, and I've never heard of that before. Perhaps he gave that up. In those days, it was illegal for an Anglican cleric to have position in the military other than chaplain. It still is in some dioceses. If he had slaves he was also breaking Anglican canon law, and thus could not be eligible for ordination. The office he held was equivalent to elder. I did not say he was a cleric, but that he was a member of clergy only because not being well versed in the offices of the Anglian church I was (and am still) unable to name the office which he held, but I do know that it was equivalent to an elder. He did not hold this post while active in the military, but during the interims between What more, he served as chaplain for his troops when none other was available. AND, what people fail to remember about Mr. Washington is that he did in fact free His slaves.



If he had slaves he was also breaking Anglican canon law, and thus could not be eligible for ordination. Oh I don’t know - the episcopal’s ordained a bishop who is in active and willful violation of the word of God so . . . .

FINALLY - America is NOT and I stress NOT nor was it ever intended to be a Democracy! We are a republic. In a democracy the feelings and whims of the mob rule. In a Republic, the Law rules. The FF LOATHED the notion of a democracy.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. - John Adams

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - James Madison.

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils - Benjamin Rush

In democracy. . . There are commonly tumults and disorders . . . therefore, a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. - Noah Webster



No one is forcing anyone to believe anything. If I speak a prayer are you obliged to agree with every word of my prayer? NO! You have a free conscience and can choose to disregard that which you do not agree with. Does it mean that I should be restricted from praying where you might hear me? In America today - yes it does. THAT is the problem. No one is trying to wrangle people into embracing religion, but are those who descent so weak in their faith of what they profess to believe that my displaying publically what I profess PRIVATELY will coerce them into faith in Jesus Christ? The last thing I believe in or want is for people to be forced to embrace any religious systems or any irreligious systems for that matter. Nor is any descenter forced to embrace Christianity because of a Nativity displayed at Christmas, nor by a prayer offered at Graduation.

[dignitized]

Sorry, I've never read the whole thing, but it was quoted by Paul Fussell in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System on page 149.
Interesting because I've read through the whole book twice (Democracy in America that is) and never once did I notice that quote.

[kimber1]

*am STILL trying to figure out why this OP has been taken so offensively*
NOONE is asking ANYONE to believe in what they personally believe. noone is saying that anyone HAS to pray before a football, soccer, rugby, (insert your sport here) game!!!!!! i for one will NOT back down in saying grace publicly(if you don't like it--don't look at me) nor will i back down from telling my children that it is PERFECTLY FINE to say under God when they recite the pledge in school.
what exactly is the problem here?????????????????????????

[dignitized]

kimber" the problem here is that Christianity must become crime before the end comes.

[Ken]

So La Bonita.... I guess that given your sig lines, you should get off your high horse too..... sheesh... you are just spoing for a fight aren't you?

at one point you said "What is being said is "stop uttering sectarian prayer in official context as agents of government"...
ok... so how is saying a prayer before a football game considered acting as an agent of the government?

you said "Perhaps if that is your desire. A better course of action might be to embrace it, get off your high horse, and recognize that things are not all black and white."
Who are you to decide for anyone else what is black and white and what is not? eg, when telling others to get off their high horse, you surely fail to realize that you are attempting to sit pretty high in the saddle yourself.... you encouraged others to read a Scripture earlier.. well, here is one for you.....
(Mat 7:3-5 NASB) "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? {4} "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? {5} "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[kimber1]

(Mat 7:3-5 NASB) "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? {4} "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? {5} "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kimber1]

kimber" the problem here is that Christianity must become crime before the end comes.true true, and the way society is treating Christians today, i'm betting the end isn't too far off. good thing i know my destination!! amen!

[Fiskare]

The number of people John Calvin had put do death rivals the alleged iniquities of the Spanish Inquisition!
One? (and he wasn't happy about that either. He was compelled by the local council to have Servetus executed)






The office he held was equivalent to elder. I did not say he was a cleric, but that he was a member of clergy only because not being well versed in the offices of the Anglian church I was (and am still) unable to name the office which he held, but I do know that it was equivalent to an elder.
Elder? In the protestant sense, there are no elders in the Anglican Church. In the Biblical sense (presbyteros) those men are priests.

Unless he was a deacon, priest or bishop he was not a cleric in the Anglican Church.

I'm beginning to think he was probably Methodist or something, just from what you describe. Either that or he was a vestry member, which is equivelent to being a on a parish council, voting about what colour carpet to have in the sanctuary.





Oh I don’t know - the episcopal’s ordained a bishop who is in active and willful violation of the word of God so . . . .
In the 1700's? Who?

FINALLY - America is NOT and I stress NOT nor was it ever intended to be a Democracy!
I agree. It's an oligarchy, it's not even a republic.

The last thing I believe in or want is for people to be forced to embrace any religious systems or any irreligious systems for that matter. Nor is any descenter forced to embrace Christianity because of a Nativity displayed at Christmas, nor by a prayer offered at Graduation.
The problem- as I have alluded to before- is whether or not you should in fact cite the FF as though they were the Blessed Apostles and just as infallible on matters of politics!

Times have changed. What the FF wanted is no longer relevant, it's what the people want now that matters when the rubber hits the road.

The nation may have been founded on certain principles, but those principles have obviously been found wanting by the people and are subject to change. Sure, the US of A may have been a Christianised nation once upon a time, but it sure isn't now (don't even try to tell me it is- listen to its music, watch its movies and television, see the sin of its leaders, watch the rapidly changing morals, observe the obsession with abortion and death etc). So, perhaps the entire Christianised paradigm is no longer wanted by the majority of the people. Quoting the FF ad infinitum is not gonna change that- they're dead, they can't vote, and holding them with in highly religious sentimentality is more than likely not what they had intended.

[dignitized]

Fisk: Times may have changed, but the original intent of the FF still stand. We cannot divorce the Constitution from the intent of the FF. For more than 100 years, this country was taught and observed the original intent of the FF. It's not until the post WWII world and the beginnings of an activist judiciary that we have forgotten the original intent. The one thing that the FF feared most in out government was an activist Judiciary, because they knew if that happened America would cease to be a republic and become an oligarchy.

BTW - I was not talking about an 18th century bishop but a modern day one. That wonderful man in New Hampshire who is living in contravention of the Word of God and is completely unrepentant in the process.

[Fiskare]

Fisk: Times may have changed, but the original intent of the FF still stand.
...but are they wanted?

We cannot divorce the Constitution from the intent of the FF. For more than 100 years, this country was taught and observed the original intent of the FF. It's not until the post WWII world and the beginnings of an activist judiciary that we have forgotten the original intent. The one thing that the FF feared most in out government was an activist Judiciary, because they knew if that happened America would cease to be a republic and become an oligarchy.
Interesting point. Of course, some people in political science believe that a republic based on capitalism is the seedling of an oligarchy so there is no surprise that one has resulted. Perhaps the FF didn't foresee that regardless of their intentions, this was inevitable based on the economic system that developed.



BTW - I was not talking about an 18th century bishop but a modern day one. That wonderful man in New Hampshire who is living in contravention of the Word of God and is completely unrepentant in the process.
Yes, of course I knew what you were referring to. However, it was irrelevant to the question of Washington's ministry as an Anglican clergyman. The church of the 1700's was somewhat different than today's, so I took your comment as a moot point.

[dignitized]

...but are they wanted?


Interesting point. Of course, some people in political science believe that a republic based on capitalism is the seedling of an oligarchy so there is no surprise that one has resulted. Perhaps the FF didn't foresee that regardless of their intentions, this was inevitable based on the economic system that developed.




Yes, of course I knew what you were referring to. However, it was irrelevant to the question of Washington's ministry as an Anglican clergyman. The church of the 1700's was somewhat different than today's, so I took your comment as a moot point.
are they wanted? welp, if you don't like the American Constitution as it was written and in the spirit it was given, you can always move to australia. ;)

I'll have to figure out what book I read about that it and find out what office it was that he held. All I remember for sure is that it was an unusal name for a possition and it was presented as being the euivolant to an elder/eucharistic minister.

[Fiskare]

are they wanted? welp, if you don't like the American Constitution as it was written and in the spirit it was given, you can always move to australia. ;)
*chuckle* :)

Actually, I 've really come to appreciate the Aust. system of govt. over the years I have spent here. But, really, there is a lot of good in the US gov't system too. However, my favorite system is the Swedish model.


I'll have to figure out what book I read about that it and find out what office it was that he held. All I remember for sure is that it was an unusal name for a possition and it was presented as being the euivolant to an elder/eucharistic minister.
Cool. I'll be interested.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

*am STILL trying to figure out why this OP has been taken so offensively*
NOONE is asking ANYONE to believe in what they personally believe. noone is saying that anyone HAS to pray before a football, soccer, rugby, (insert your sport here) game!!!!!! i for one will NOT back down in saying grace publicly(if you don't like it--don't look at me) nor will i back down from telling my children that it is PERFECTLY FINE to say under God when they recite the pledge in school.
what exactly is the problem here?????????????????????????
The problem is two-part: sectarian prayer at public events such as ending a prayer with "in Jesus' name we pray, Amen" is offensive and illegal. And inoffensive generalized prayers are not that easy to come by; people don't know them or how to write them, though, for example, the Masonic Lodges have several they use in meetings or ceremonies which pass the test. It's just in places like those I mentioned (Santa Fe, Texas; Tupelo, Mississippi) this has become an instrument of bullying and tyranny of the majority-definitely not what God intended for us in our prayer life.

[dignitized]

My favorite system of Government is the American - PRE-WWII. We had Statesmen back then. I can't think of a single Statesman in the world today. PLENTY of politicians, no statemen.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I guess I can also understand how there appears to be a diminishing of the influence of the church in secular life and how it will cause alarm among many Christians.
Fiskare, I believe you are correct that there appears to be a diminishing influence of the church in secular life to some...but in reality is "the Church" really experiencing such?

Obviously, in small town American life 80 years ago, for example, a person's affiliation with a particular church and participation in it was viewed by most of their neighbors as a sign of their character. But how accurate was that, really? Billy Carter, the self-styled 'redneck' brother of the churchgoing President Jimmy Carter, was known to indulge in beer consumption and he derided some of his brother's fellow Baptists as "kitchen drinkers" because they would not drink publicly but did so in their homes behind closed doors. Wasn't it always thus? Certainly the numerous church related scandals should clearly establish church membership and public piety is no guarantee of righteousness. My fellow United Methodist Ken Lay, erstwhile Chairman of the odious Enron Corporation, was a lay speaker and liturgist and (supposedly) committed Christian even as he was stuffing his pockets with his ill-gotten gains.

Another aspect is that as Harvard Divinity School's Dr. Diana L. Eck subtitled her book A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Became The World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation, "...Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Zoraastrians, and new varieties of Jews and Catholics have arrived from every part of the globe, radically altering the religious landscape of the United States." Whether some like it or not (and many don't) that is reality as opposed to the pompous assertion of the writer of the original article. How shall Christians interact with our new neighbors? If it is traditional for the City Council to begin a meeting with a prayer given by local clergy, this may mean not only will Baptist, Presbyterian, and Catholic clergy perform this duty, but also Muslim Imans, Jewish Rabbis, Santeria priests, Wiccan priestesses, or a Sadhu from India will do the same. To refuse equal access to this ceremony would be illegal. This is no time for bullying by the majority.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

So La Bonita.... I guess that given your sig lines, you should get off your high horse too..... sheesh... you are just spoing for a fight aren't you?

at one point you said "What is being said is "stop uttering sectarian prayer in official context as agents of government"...
ok... so how is saying a prayer before a football game considered acting as an agent of the government?
If it is a game featuring a school team, it is a school activity-and in America we use the term "public schools" to indicate government-run schools (I understand in Britain and the Commonwealth the term "public schools" refers to the prep schools for the rich like Eton). Hence, a game for a school team is a government activity-any court would agree that is obvious.

[dignitized]

rotfl! there is no bullying by the majority. It's the majority who are being bullied. REMEMBER please that it is only BECAUSE we are a Christian nation that we HAVE religious diversity. LOOK if you will at any Islamic, buddist, or even Jewish country in the world and you will see freedoms limited. Look at any communist state and things are even WORSE!

[kimber1]

The problem is two-part: sectarian prayer at public events such as ending a prayer with "in Jesus' name we pray, Amen" is offensive and illegal. And inoffensive generalized prayers are not that easy to come by; people don't know them or how to write them, though, for example, the Masonic Lodges have several they use in meetings or ceremonies which pass the test. It's just in places like those I mentioned (Santa Fe, Texas; Tupelo, Mississippi) this has become an instrument of bullying and tyranny of the majority-definitely not what God intended for us in our prayer life.hmmmmmm offensive and illegal you say????? then why aren't the people who say these public prayers such as (in my favorite sport) nascar racing ever arrested after saying a prayer for safekeeping over the drivers?

[JOYfulbeliever]

And why is it that our senators and state representatives pray before every meeting of Congress?

[dignitized]

I'm sorry if you find Christianity offensive. Perhaps you would like to relocate to Saudi Arabia. I hear they are very tollerant of religious diversity there. :rolleyes:

[La Bonita Zorilla]

rotfl! there is no bullying by the majority. It's the majority who are being bullied. I'd like to see documentation of such a thing. It sounds like a delusion.

REMEMBER please that it is only BECAUSE we are a Christian nation that we HAVE religious diversity. Isn't that kind of like saying 'because we have cheesecake, we have strawberries'?

LOOK if you will at any Islamic, buddist, or even Jewish country in the world and you will see freedoms limited. Look at any communist state and things are even WORSE!Basically true, though I'm not sure a Buddhist state exists-Perhaps Tibet, where if the Chinese get out the Dalai Lama would become a theocratic monarch, which is why the 'free Tibet" movement never impressed me. Or possibly Myanmar (Burma), but the state religion there is more Marxist than anything else.. Thailand? well, perhaps, but only in the same sense England is an Anglican country, what with their English-style constitutional monarchy and the saxaphone-playing King and his movie-directing son... What else, the Himilayan kingdom of Nepal, as well as the mountain principalities of Bhutan and Mustang...but people are so poor there the amount of freedom they have is hardly relevant...Still your point is generally valid.

[dignitized]

In May 1995, Samuel Kent, US district judge for the southern district of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word Jesus at a graduation ceremony would be arrested and incarcerated for 6 months.

In Connecticut, a law enforcement officer threatened to arrest a man and charge him with corrupting the morals of a minor if it could be proved that the man gave the student a religious tract.

Teachers are not allowed to have bibles on School property for fear that they might read to the students from them. Roberts v Madigan (10th circuit 1990)





If a student prays over his lunch it is unconstitutional for him to pray out loud _ reed v Van Hoven 1965





because a prosecuting attorney mentioned 7 words from the bible a jury sentence was overeturned in the case of a man who clubbed a 71_year_old woman to death (commonwealth v chambers 1991)

in Florida a judge ordered the courthouse copy of the 10 commandments covered because the jurors might see it and be prejudiced against the defendant if the read THOU SHALT NOT KILL. - State of Fla v Broxson 1992)

recent cases:

Locke v. Davey:

A Washington State student who was awarded a state scholarship, had that scholarship resided when he decided to go to a Christian college and major in theology.

U.S. District Court, Topeka, KS

The ACLU sued the Shawnee County, Kansas treasurer for displaying the national motto, "In God We Trust" in the public area of the Treasurer's office.

CUPO and Sarastano v. City of Newburyport, Massachusetts

U.S. District Court, Boston

The Mayor of Newburyport said the messages on commemorative bricks placed in a city park were "religious" and needed to be removed because some persons in the community were "offended" by them. The bricks were removed by the city in late September 2000.





Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

U.S. Supreme Court - 2000

the Supreme Court struck down a school board policy which allowed for student messages, including invocations, before football games. The Court held that the policy of allowing such invocations constituted an impermissible government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Knight v. Dept. of Public Health

Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

A state_employed nurse was disciplined for sharing her faith with an AIDS patient and his partner.

Do you need more?

[dignitized]

the Himilayan kingdom of Nepal, as well as the mountain principalities of Bhutan and Mustang...but people are so poor there the amount of freedom they have is hardly relevant...
OH wait so poor people don't diserve to be free?

[Fiskare]

My favorite system of Government is the American - PRE-WWII. We had Statesmen back then. I can't think of a single Statesman in the world today. PLENTY of politicians, no statemen.
Good point.

[Fiskare]

Basically true, though I'm not sure a Buddhist state exists-Perhaps Tibet, where if the Chinese get out the Dalai Lama would become a theocratic monarch, which is why the 'free Tibet" movement never impressed me.
Tibet, under the Chinese system has elections for the first time its entire history, has economic growth, freedom of religion and even a growing population. It's looking great there. The tyrannical rule of the Dalai Lama's is over. :)

Or possibly Myanmar (Burma), but the state religion there is more Marxist than anything else..
Myanmar is miles from Marxism. It's a military oligarchy of the totalitarian slant, with a marketised economy.

Br. Max- there has never been a communist country. If there was, it by definition would not be totalitarian, because communism abolishes government. There have been socialist nations however, and socialism is, according to Marxist theory, the first stage towards communism. The differences between socialist systems is basically centred around what form the socialism would take. The Marxist-Leninist system stated that the proletariat class should be the dictator over the capitalist class until such time as all disparity dissapears and then the state apparatus could be done away with, and other systems, such as many contemporary forms, are basically social democracies, often influenced by Fabian thought in the socialist brances of government.

[Fiskare]

OH wait so poor people don't diserve to be free?
That statement would ring true in accordance with market capitalism. Poor people in such a system only have formal freedom, not actual, material freedom. In other words, it's freedom on paper but if you don't have the cash to pay for it you cannot have an equal freedom with the rich.

[dignitized]

fiskare: the only real freedoms are the freedom of choice in the face of circumstances, and freedom of conscience. Socialism does not allow for either. Socialism demands conformity. Capitalism allows a man to prosper from his choices and his labors. Socialism does not. Capitalism allows for diversity in ideas and beliefs.

You speak of Tibet and say that there is freedom of religion. I say to you China will never allow freedom OF religion. It seeks to encourage freedom FROM religion. Marxism seeks to eliminate all religion holding that religion is a means of oppression and control. They seek this end by turning the STATE into the all powerful benevolent giver of all good. (Why does this sound suspiciously like the goals of the democratic party in America?)

Freedom is not bought. Freedom is possessed. One of the strengths of this country PRE WWII was that Americans realized that our freedoms do not come from the government but from God. Thus, Sovereignty rested with the people. The only way a sovereign people can loose their freedoms is to give them up.

As for the poor not being free, Speaking as some one who is poor and who lives in a poor neighborhood, works with the poor, and ministers to them - the poor are more free than the rich.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

In May 1995, Samuel Kent, US district judge for the southern district of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word Jesus at a graduation ceremony would be arrested and incarcerated for 6 months.

This is the Santa Fe case. In this case it was the right thing to do given the history of violence against non-fundamentalist students there.

In Connecticut, a law enforcement officer threatened to arrest a man and charge him with corrupting the morals of a minor if it could be proved that the man gave the student a religious tract.
Threatened to arrest? I'd need more details to form an opinion. If it was a Jack Chick tract, though, I sure wouldn't want him giving my kid that filth.


Teachers are not allowed to have bibles on School property for fear that they might read to the students from them. Roberts v Madigan (10th circuit 1990)
I had mine, but, I taught at a state university and in higher education academic freedom is more of a given. Seems like overkill. I believe President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich passed a bill to overturn some of these extreme judgements like this, though.






If a student prays over his lunch it is unconstitutional for him to pray out loud _ reed v Van Hoven 1965
More overkill, but why not follow Christ's recommendation in Matthew 6 anyway?






because a prosecuting attorney mentioned 7 words from the bible a jury sentence was overeturned in the case of a man who clubbed a 71_year_old woman to death (commonwealth v chambers 1991)
I've heard of this, but would like more details before stating an opinion. In a criminal trial the defense must be given leeway. To err on the side of caution in such a case would be good.


in Florida a judge ordered the courthouse copy of the 10 commandments covered because the jurors might see it and be prejudiced against the defendant if the read THOU SHALT NOT KILL. - State of Fla v Broxson 1992)
They probably would.


recent cases:

Locke v. Davey:

A Washington State student who was awarded a state scholarship, had that scholarship resided when he decided to go to a Christian college and major in theology.
You mean rescinded? Probably appropriate. Why should the state pay for clerical education in any case?


U.S. District Court, Topeka, KS

The ACLU sued the Shawnee County, Kansas treasurer for displaying the national motto, "In God We Trust" in the public area of the Treasurer's office.
And the result was?


CUPO and Sarastano v. City of Newburyport, Massachusetts

U.S. District Court, Boston

The Mayor of Newburyport said the messages on commemorative bricks placed in a city park were "religious" and needed to be removed because some persons in the community were "offended" by them. The bricks were removed by the city in late September 2000.
What was on the bricks?






Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

U.S. Supreme Court - 2000

the Supreme Court struck down a school board policy which allowed for student messages, including invocations, before football games. The Court held that the policy of allowing such invocations constituted an impermissible government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
This is the case I'm most familiar with. The Court did the right thing.


Knight v. Dept. of Public Health

Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

A state_employed nurse was disciplined for sharing her faith with an AIDS patient and his partner.
So this was an administrative procedure and not a lawsuit? Would need more details.


Do you need more?
Doesn't matter. Some are ridiculous, and some, like the Santa Fe cases are clear-cut instances of bad behavior on the part of those pushing religion in the schools. Like everything else it's a mixed result. But except for the teacher and Bible situation (which seems more authoritarian nonsense than anything else) it's hardly persecution.

[dignitized]

You asked for evidence that Christianity is being BULLIED - you have it. and what is your answer/ It doesn't matter. Why is that? Because you have already made up your mind that any evidence I present will be either bogus or trivial since you are convinced that you are right no matter what anyone says. :(

The results of the cases does not matter. The fact that these cases have been brought at all demonstrates that in America, Christianity is under attack we are being persecuted for our beliefs and asked to remove our faith from the public sphere. If a Christian says: homosexuality is wrong - they are bigoted. If a Christian says: abortion is murder - they are sexists who are trying to oppress women. If a Christian says: the universe and everything in it was created by God - they are ignorant backward buffoons threatened by science. If a Christian says: its wrong end your life- they are sadistic monsters who just like to see sick people suffer. If a Christian says: its wrong to have sex outside of marriage - they are sexually repressive. If a Christian says: women should care for their children and keep the home- they are misogynists.

Oh America likes the inane banal Christianity that says anything goes do what ever you like or the Christians who crawl in on themselves never speaking against the ills and evils of the world. Those kind of Christians are more than welcome. But the moment a Christian finds a voice and stands to say: THIS IS WRONG or makes a stand on an issue of morality - well that’s another story.

[KristiXP]

From a Fellowship thread, to a debate thread..... :rolleyes: nice........

[dignitized]

kristi: we do not always have to agree tofellowship. :)

[KristiXP]

Well you know.............nevermind, I'll just bite my tongue......

[La Bonita Zorilla]

hmmmmmm offensive and illegal you say????? then why aren't the people who say these public prayers such as (in my favorite sport) nascar racing ever arrested after saying a prayer for safekeeping over the drivers?
NASCAR's a private venue; a school football game is a public venue.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

And why is it that our senators and state representatives pray before every meeting of Congress?
Legislatures often are exempt from constitutional requirements affecting other government regulations, but, if you want the short answer, politics.

You might want to review the situation where Speaker Hastert refused to appoint a Catholic Chaplain who was recommended by a committee and appointed a Presbyterian instead, who then resigned so the Catholic was then appointed after he was accused of anti-Catholic bigotry. Also, at one time, the California House had a Buddhist Chaplain. I suspect it is the pluralism along with the politics that keeps the practice legal.

Say for instance in a small town's city council meetings, if opening prayers are given by Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic etc. clergy on a rotating basis, but, a Wiccan approaches them and says she'd like to give the opening prayer one time. To refuse would rightfully invite a lawsuit. Also it would be wrong morally.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I'm sorry if you find Christianity offensive. Perhaps you would like to relocate to Saudi Arabia. I hear they are very tollerant of religious diversity there. :rolleyes:
To whom is this directed?

[Blindfaith]

Moderation:

This thread will get back to the original OP. These little attempts at trying to sabotage the thread and make into a battleground over Politics is NOT acceptable, and will stop NOW.

If 1 more post is made with even a hint of Politics in it, I'll trash every single post that is not directly related to Knights Original Topic, issue warnings, but keep the Original Thread opened.

I hope I've made myself very clear.

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Is addressing whether or not Christians should feel persecuted considered an aspect of politics?

[Blindfaith]

Oh please. Your posts are all about Politics and religion. I'd stop now while you're ahead.

[dignitized]

I mean no disrespect, but I fail to see how the current discussion deviates from the topic of the thread. In the OP knight presented a message which asks (more or less): what's wrong with public displays of faith and why are Christians being silent about it?

While I disagree with Zorilla and her stance on this issue, we have only been discussing the topic presented in the OP. One cannot discuss public policy without discussing politics, but politics are not the main force of the discussion.

Again, I ask - how is that wrong?

[dignitized]

Would it be objectionable to spin off a thread to continue the disussion in this same forum? I don't know about anyone else - but I'd rather keep this between Christians.