Spirit of God shining around the world again...Re: Prayer Disrupts Graduation As Student Is Detained
John P. Boatwright
> PRAYER DISRUPTS GRADUATION AS STUDENT IS DETAINED
> FOR PROTESTING
Nah, the kid tried to disrupt the cerimony by
BREAKING IN after it had started.
===============================
HE WAS TRYING TO BREAK THE LAW.
===============================
(why are atheists so blind to the law?)
Anyway, the prayer was great stuff, the kid walking out
didn't know what he was missing.
Too bad eh?
And here's the scoop for anyone not knowing how
good it got:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-05/28/053r-052899-idx.html
I like this kind of story, it says what should
be said... that free speech is in fact free. If
4000 people want to pray as they graduate, go for it.
But when some kid want's to break the law and
try to leave an assembly then break back in disrupting
the cerimony...
Nope, he needs to follow the law.
And you can't tell 4000 people not to pray to God
in public, it's their choice, free speech an all.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obivously God was right in Genesis)
yang hu
> ===============================
> HE WAS TRYING TO BREAK THE LAW.
> ===============================
Wrong, the school is breaking the law.
There is this little organization called the Supreme Court,
you might have heard of them
The Supreme Court decision on Abington School District v.
Schempp in 1963 mandated that schools favor Christianity
over other religions.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
are true."
George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
John P. Boatwright
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > ===============================
> > HE WAS TRYING TO BREAK THE LAW.
> > ===============================
> Wrong, the school is breaking the law.
Nope.
The POLICE were guarding the entrances and
the POLICE were following the LAW telling them
that if a student left the event, that student
count NOT come back in.
(stops people from coming back drunk, drugged,
armed, etc...)
And don't give out any:
"he didn't know any better... blah, blah, blah..."
ha ha ha...
It's clear that they tell all the rules up front
and if the atheist isn't listening... oh well.
(atheist's rarely listen, too busy trying to forget God)
The prayer would have been best, IF he had just
LISTENED to it and figured it out.
Maybe someday he'll do so.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Dexter
> I like this kind of story, it says what should
> be said... that free speech is in fact free. If
> 4000 people want to pray as they graduate, go for it.
As an Atheist I am glad to see Mr. Boatwright striking this position because
it exposes the 'moment of silence' ploy for the backdoor prayer sham it is.
When Christians drop even the pretense of a moment of SILENCE to pray
verbally then the courts can have no option but to disallow it all together
for to sanction a verbal prayer violates the separation of church and State.
Everyone recognizes the 'moment of silence' is an accommodation to people of
religious belief, but when Christians (like Mr. Boatwright ) demand all or
nothing where prayer in school is concerned there can be no alternative to
nothing. This suits Atheists just fine. We were never happy with the
Christian 'moment of silence' ploy to begin with. So before Christians place
their stamp of approval on the prayer disruption of this graduation ceremony
they should think long and hard about the ramifications of these actions to
their long term cause.
Now, you may wonder why I as an Atheist am so eager to offer Christians
advice. The answer is simple. I don't for an instant expect that this little
post will have any impact on the issue. What it does do, however, is
establish my taunting rights towards Mr. Boatwright when these foolish
Christian actions which he endorses blow up in his face. And I shall be here
to remind him of the fact that it was Christians like himself who (allowing
zero room for moderation) were responsible for the expulsion of the 'moment
of silence' pretense from our Schools. = )
> And you can't tell 4000 people not to pray to God
> in public, it's their choice, free speech an all.
You have some funny ideas on freedom of speech. Free speech does *not* mean
freedom of speech at any time. This is why protestors are escorted out of
the halls on Congress. Most people, even Christian people, understand this
much even if Mr. Boatwright is not honest enough to admit it. I remind you
again; it was to be a minute of *SILENCE*, not a minute of 'Vocal Prayer'.
Free speech does not extend to disrupting Graduation Ceremonies.
> But when some kid want's to break the law and
> try to leave an assembly then break back in disrupting
> the cerimony...
The ceremony had already been disrupted, the law already broken. Because it
is the responsibility of the school administration to maintain order they
should have made an allowance for the young man who was adversely impacted
by the failure to maintain that order.
But weather or not the Principle of the school should have escorted the
young man back inside was a judgement call for the Principle and not of
particular importance. Let us agree that Rules Should Be Followed.
Of greater importance is the question of why the disruption of the minent of
silence was tolerated at all. Why was the ceremony not abruptly stopped, the
man who disrupted the silence with his prayer promptly expelled, and the
moment of silence attempted again???? This is what should have happened.
This is what the school administration (perhaps caught flat-footed) failed
to do. After all, Rules Should Be Followed. ** EVEN ** by Christians. (If
this sort of disruption is tolerated in the future at that highschool then
Superintendent Mr. Hook should be dismissed for malfeasance.)
If the Christians Would Not allow the ceremony to continue, then the
ceremony should have been canceled, and apology made to any non-Christians
present, and the diplomas sent out by mail. Be that as it may, next year a
reconsideration of inclusion of the opportunity for disruption in the form
of a minute of silence must be seriously made. It is an unfortunate fact
that Christians like Mr. Boatwright may not be able to restrain themselves
within the letter of the law.
> Nope, he needs to follow the law.
As should you, you disingenuous frump. As should you.
-Dexter
Spamblock: Remove 'GOD' to respond by e-mail.
Mike
John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:375266...@teleport.com...
John,
Below is something I posted in response to another thread on this topic. It
is apparent that you need to read the bible to learn the rules that your god
has laid out for you:
Begin post from other thread
=========================================================================
It's not about "trampeling on the religiouse rights of others", it's about
trying to help them be good christians. If you were to read the bible, the
book these very people support, you will read in Mathew 6:5-6 that Jesus
says the following:
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love
to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may
be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But
when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father
who is in secret..."
So you see, we are actually trying to help christians, yeh, that's it, we're
trying to help christians. If all those people had listened to the young
man and not prayed in public, they wouldn't have offended their god. In
fact, they wouldn't have shown themselves to be the hypocrites they truly
are.
So what can be learned from this incidence?
Listen to your friendly neighborhood atheist. We're only trying to help you
bad, hypocritical little christians.
Mike
====================================================================
End post to other thread.
So John, why don't YOU listen to YOUR god and support what he says? You
should be upset with the hypocrits who prayed in public during that
graduation ceremony. If you're not upset with those hypocrits, why not?
Could it be that you're a hypocrit also? Are you someone who says believe
in the bible, just don't do what it says. When YOUR bible, YOUR jesus,
says not to pray in public, please explain to me how the action of those
hypocrits could be considered good.
To paraphrase one of your statements:
"The bible would have been best, IF christians had just READ it and
figured it out."
Mike
Amy
Non Nobis!
Kevin & Amy
http://southsound.com/NonNobis
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
non nobis domine non nobis
sed nomine tuo da gloriam
In article <iox43.51$Cf.194...@news.onr.com>, "Mike" <hun...@onr.com> wrote:
*snip*
yang hu
> > Wrong, the school is breaking the law.
>
> Nope.
>
> The POLICE were guarding the entrances and
> the POLICE were following the LAW telling them
> that if a student left the event, that student
> count NOT come back in.
lawful for a policeman to stop a blackman from coming and
going to a public library because the library has given
the KKK complete control.
> (atheist's rarely listen, too busy trying to forget God)
Let's see, According to you:
Jupiter is a solid ball of iron
Depleted uranium is radioactive
So who's the one *not* listening in his remedial science class?
> The prayer would have been best, IF he had just
> LISTENED to it and figured it out.
School sanctioned prayer is unlawful, look it up.
Don't like the Constitution? move to Afghanastan.
John P. Boatwright
and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
yang hu wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > Wrong, the school is breaking the law.
> > Nope.
> > The POLICE were guarding the entrances and
> > the POLICE were following the LAW telling them
> > that if a student left the event, that student
> > count NOT come back in.
> Wrong again, according to you silly logic, it would be
> lawful for a policeman to stop a blackman from coming and
> going to a public library because the library has given
> the KKK complete control.
Nah, the people were excersizing their FREE SPEECH,
the same free speech that allows all kinds of strange
statements, opinions, etc... even if an atheist wants
to claim God not existing (even though all the evidence
says he exists), the atheist can say such freely.
That's right, FREE SPEECH works both ways.
The atheist was trying to stop free speech and impose
his disbelief in God on 4000 people. They said "who cares"
and said their prayer anyway.
That's free speech.
The state had nothing to do with it, THE PEOPLE used
their FREE SPEECH much like the atheist did.
Oh well.
John P. Boatwright
> "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites;
> for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the
> street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say
> to you they have received their reward. But when you pray,
> go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father
> who is in secret..."
ONE PERSON: yes.
Why?
Because ONE PERSON praying in front of others would be
trying to look better than the rest, talking to others
rather than God.
See Jesus's statement about the one guy thinking to
himself that he's better than the sinner for praying
while the sinner is thinking to himself how he's
easily deserving of the wrath of God. Jesus said the
sinner was right with God, rather than the other.
======================================================
But A GROUP of people, that's different. In a group of
people, they are all EQUALLY praying to God, praising
him together as A GROUP.
======================================================
No one person within the group can feel they are better
for praying since they are all praying to God at once.
The key is that being right with God >>> is known to God <<<
and outward display in the presence of others right with God
who might not be praying at the time has NO EFFECT and even
has a NEGATIVE EFFECT since God already knows who's right
with him.
The group can praise God anytime the group wants.
See the crowd praising the ARM OF GOD (Jesus) as he
entered the city. Jesus said the stones would have
cried out if they hadn't.
Again, THE GROUP can praise God in public, no problem.
John P. Boatwright
> > I like this kind of story, it says what should
> > be said... that free speech is in fact free. If
> > 4000 people want to pray as they graduate, go for it.
> As an Atheist I am glad to see Mr. Boatwright striking this position
Cool.
I like how >>> 4000 PEOPLE <<< had their graduation the way
they wanted it.
Sure, the one guy that started praying wouldn't have
been very loud, only heard right near him, but when
all the others quickly joined in, why stop them from
having the graduation prayer they want?
Anyway, it's just like "In God We Trust".
The majority rules.
Shane D. Killian
free speech for one person to say he shouldn't be forced to?
Yours is a tyranny of the majority, nothing more.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
John P. Boatwright
> Boatwright, why is it free speech for 4000 people to
> pray, but it's not free speech for one person to say
> he shouldn't be forced to?
Who ever said that (other than you just now)?
Both the 4000 and the kid have FREE SPEECH.
He was free to do whatever, he did.
> Yours is a tyranny of the majority, nothing more.
The majority have kept "In God We Trust" where
it needs to be.
The mojority does NOT trust money, we trust God.
John P. Boatwright
> Why don't you learn how to read without putting
> your own assinine interpretation on it?
ha ha ha...
See a church, a temple, the people praising Jesus
as he rode into the city ...
Groups ALWAYS pray to God, it's not big deal with God
if a GROUP decideds to sing to him, praise him ...
The time Jesus said not to was when a hypocrite would
go stand outside praying in front of others:
=====================================
TO MAKE HIMSELF SEEM GOOD TO OTHERS
=====================================
A GROUP praying to God loses all aspects of that since
there is no one person trying to fool the others since
they're all praying at once, rich, poor, good, sinner...
It's impossible to be a hypocrite in the case of a group
praying to God.
Obviously.
yang hu
> Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
> and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
Actually the school is breaking the law. Read up on
Supreme Court decisions.
> Proof God described the planet density profile
According to you:
Jupiter is a solid ball of iron.
Deplete uranium is radioactive.
Here's a quote from my junior high science book:
"Jupiter is primariliy composed of light elements. If it were
possible to drop Jupitor in a tub of water it would float."
Okay, you don't need a BS in science, how about basic
proficiency in science?
Shane D. Killian
>
> So Mike, who's the hypocrite??? Free speech apparently is only free
> when it is convenient and agreeable to your own subjective reasoning.
>
disrespected by a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who cared more
about making a show and forcing their agenda on others than they did on
praying to the Lord. There is no reason why they couldn't have prayed
silently during that moment, and in fact that's what Jesus told us to
do. They were behaving *exactly* like the hypocrites Jesus was speaking
of in Matthew 6.
yang hu
> Dear chairman Yang. It's funny how you limit yourself to pointing out the
> scientific errors in the statements of theists, when there are an equal
> number of scientific bullshitters among atheists which you have no
> comment on. For example, you had nothing to say concerning the nonsense
> in...
Why would I el direktor? you obviously do such a good job.
Oh, I almost forgot, were you following your *theistic* morality
when you were picking on a 17 year-old girl?
Bleeds
>
> yang hu wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > HE WAS TRYING TO BREAK THE LAW.
> > > ===============================
>
>
> Nope.
>
> The POLICE were guarding the entrances and
> the POLICE were following the LAW telling them
> that if a student left the event, that student
> count NOT come back in.
The POLICE should have grabbed the miscreant who disrupted the
graduation in the first place with his moronic bleating and disposed of
him. But then, the pigs were probably oinking along with the Christians
instead of doing their job.
Bleeds
Bleeds
>
> Shaney boy whined:
>
> > Boatwright, why is it free speech for 4000 people to
> > pray, but it's not free speech for one person to say
> > he shouldn't be forced to?
>
> Who ever said that (other than you just now)?
>
> Both the 4000 and the kid have FREE SPEECH.
Wrong. The 4000 people were breaking the law (and so was the kid, later
on--see what kind of effect the Christ has on people?). The officers
should have silenced them, removed them, beat them if they had to...
But because they were praying to JESUS the ONE and ONLY GAWD it was
awwwlraght becawse them officers of duh law luv GAWD, and luv
kristchins, and wish they could live in a GAWDLY society wit prayer in
duh skools, an' no single muthers, atheists, faggots, niggers, or
kikes... HOORAY FOR GAWD!
Bleeds
Dr Sinister
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>> and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>> trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>> and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>
>
>Actually the school is breaking the law. Read up on
>Supreme Court decisions.
>
>
>> Proof God described the planet density profile
>
>According to you:
>
>Jupiter is a solid ball of iron.
>
>Deplete uranium is radioactive.
>
>Here's a quote from my junior high science book:
>
>"Jupiter is primariliy composed of light elements. If it were
>possible to drop Jupitor in a tub of water it would float."
>
>Okay, you don't need a BS in science, how about basic
>proficiency in science?
Dear chairman Yang. It's funny how you limit yourself to pointing out the
scientific errors in the statements of theists, when there are an equal
number of scientific bullshitters among atheists which you have no
comment on. For example, you had nothing to say concerning the nonsense
in...
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in <7ir7b3$kfl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Definitions can be empty, like "the largest real number which is
>smaller than one". Cantor's diagonal argument shows that there is no
>largest number, if you want to talk mathematics.
...and a myriad of other equally fallacious "scientific" arguments
proposed by your atheist comrades.
--
Atheism is the opiate of the masses - Groucho Marx
Mark Richardson
wrote:
Still, if its a contest Boatwright is so far ahead of any atheist in
this newsgroup in the "Completely wrong "facts" I know about the
world" stakes that we are comparing molehills and mountains here.
Read something written by boatwright.
Anything.
It is increadible how stupid a person can be and still function on
some level.
Mark.
Amy
In article <3753419B...@vnet.net> , "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
This was supposed to be a *MOMENT*...*OF*...*SILENCE*.
Amy
Dr Sinister
<375440fc...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>:
>On 1 Jun 1999 01:01:31 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-dejanews.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>Dear chairman Yang. It's funny how you limit yourself to pointing out
>>the scientific errors in the statements of theists, when there are an
>>equal number of scientific bullshitters among atheists which you have
>>no comment on. For example, you had nothing to say concerning the
>>nonsense in...
>>
>>hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in <7ir7b3$kfl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>
>>>Definitions can be empty, like "the largest real number which is
>>>smaller than one". Cantor's diagonal argument shows that there is no
>>>largest number, if you want to talk mathematics.
>>
>>...and a myriad of other equally fallacious "scientific" arguments
>>proposed by your atheist comrades.
>
>Still, if its a contest Boatwright is so far ahead of any atheist in
>this newsgroup in the "Completely wrong "facts" I know about the
>world" stakes that we are comparing molehills and mountains here.
>
>Read something written by boatwright.
>Anything.
>It is increadible how stupid a person can be and still function on
>some level.
Christian fundamentalists do not claim to be following the tenets of
rational skepticism. You shouldn't expect scientific arguments from
religious fanatics, nor should you expect to have any effect on them by
proposing scientific arguments yourself. It's a psychological error on
your part to assume otherwise.
You should not be wasting your time refuting claims that are obviously
stupid. However, as a rational skeptic, an atheist *should* and *must*
debunk other atheists when they make questionable scientific
pronouncements as HRG often does, and he is only one among the thousand
others in alt.atheism who fancy themselves armchair Carl Sagans. If you
ignore the fallacies committed daily by your atheist comrades, you are
falling into the same psych groupthink which you claim to abhor in
organized religion.
John P. Boatwright
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
> > and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> > trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> > and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
> Actually the school is breaking the law. Read up on
> Supreme Court decisions.
That school broke NO law, they in fact ENFORCED the law.
They didn't let someone leave then re-enter the cerimony.
Of course the atheist ended up looking rather ... well...
ha ha ha...
> > Proof God described the planet density profile
> According to you:
> Jupiter is a solid ball of iron.
What???
Have a quote for that?
> Deplete uranium is radioactive.
I posted an EXACT QUOTE.
Argue with the source.
Oh ya, the source was recent, in the last couple of months.
Go find it on DejaNews if you doubt it.
They even stated exactly how radioactive the residue is
and how after the bomb had "done it's work" the residue
MASSIVELY exceeded federal guidelines if you got it on
you.
Or just ask for the quote after denying it says it.
I'll then post the quote to show you don't know jack.
(Most guys on alt.atheism don't know jack, since he's
often hiding out in the library, studying and such.)
> Here's a quote from my junior high science book:
You have one of those?
How old are you anyway?
(Someday I'll have one of those and then you'll be sorry.)
> "Jupiter is primariliy composed of light elements. If it were
> possible to drop Jupitor in a tub of water it would float."
See the graph posted showing the planet density profile
of the planets, notice YOU just confirmed what God
said all along.
Again...
This is just too easy.
> Okay, you don't need a BS in science, how about basic
> proficiency in science?
You should get what ever you need to figure out God
was right all along.
Your time is running out and God gave more than
enough proof to figure it out. You won't have
any excuse for denying him.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
bu...@bigfoot.com
wrote:
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>> and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>> trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>> and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>
>
>Actually the school is breaking the law. Read up on
>Supreme Court decisions.
As I heard it, it was the audience that initiated the prayer. All the
school did was declare a moment of silence. There's nothing illegal
about that. I think that both the Christians and the atheist kid were
in the wrong: the Christians for chanting during a moment of
*silence*, and the kid for trying to get back in after he left. If I
were the kid who left the auditorium, instead of walking out I would
have said a very *loud* prayer to the IPU or some god I just made up
on the spot :)
Walter
#1461
>> Proof God described the planet density profile
>
>According to you:
>
>Jupiter is a solid ball of iron.
>
>Deplete uranium is radioactive.
>
>Here's a quote from my junior high science book:
>
>"Jupiter is primariliy composed of light elements. If it were
>possible to drop Jupitor in a tub of water it would float."
>
>Okay, you don't need a BS in science, how about basic
>proficiency in science?
>
>
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites;
> > for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the
> > street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say
> > to you they have received their reward. But when you pray,
> > go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father
> > who is in secret..."
>
> ONE PERSON: yes.
>
> Why?
>
> Because ONE PERSON praying in front of others would be
> trying to look better than the rest, talking to others
> rather than God.
>
silence?
> The group can praise God anytime the group wants.
>
to be the majority doesn't make it right.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Mike wrote:
> > your own assinine interpretation on it?
>
> ha ha ha...
>
> See a church, a temple, the people praising Jesus
> as he rode into the city ...
>
> Groups ALWAYS pray to God, it's not big deal with God
> if a GROUP decideds to sing to him, praise him ...
>
The entire reason of graduation is to graduate, something that one
protester was not allowed to do. This was blatant hypocrisy, plain and
simple.
> The time Jesus said not to was when a hypocrite would
> go stand outside praying in front of others:
>
> =====================================
> TO MAKE HIMSELF SEEM GOOD TO OTHERS
> =====================================
>
> A GROUP praying to God loses all aspects of that since
> there is no one person trying to fool the others since
> they're all praying at once, rich, poor, good, sinner...
>
righteous than the ones who didn't want to pray. Otherwise, they would
have prayed silently.
> It's impossible to be a hypocrite in the case of a group
> praying to God.
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> As I heard it, it was the audience that initiated the prayer. All the
> school did was declare a moment of silence. There's nothing illegal
> about that.
>
a moment of silence. I'm trying very hard right now to think of anything
which could possibly be more disrepectful than that, and I'm coming up
blank.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Dexter wrote:
>
> > > I like this kind of story, it says what should
> > > be said... that free speech is in fact free. If
> > > 4000 people want to pray as they graduate, go for it.
>
> > As an Atheist I am glad to see Mr. Boatwright striking this position
>
> Cool.
>
> I like how >>> 4000 PEOPLE <<< had their graduation the way
> they wanted it.
>
> The majority rules.
>
I always suspected you were for religious tyranny. Thank you for
confirming it. You are an enemy to freedom and democracy.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shaney boy whined:
>
> > Boatwright, why is it free speech for 4000 people to
> > pray, but it's not free speech for one person to say
> > he shouldn't be forced to?
>
> Who ever said that (other than you just now)?
>
> Both the 4000 and the kid have FREE SPEECH.
>
have been detained as well! This was a graduation ceremony, after all.
> > Yours is a tyranny of the majority, nothing more.
>
> The majority have kept "In God We Trust" where
> it needs to be.
>
Shane D. Killian
Here's the URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-05/28/053r-052899-idx.html
Thomas P.
>"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
snip.
>
>> The majority rules.
>>
Majorities do not rule. Majorities are manipulated by demagogues. It
is obviously impossible for majorities to rule. A lynch mob is a
majority. It is not ruling it is being ruled by the emotions of a
mob. When the majority "rules", no one is safe - especially the
members of the so-called majority.
I find it hard to believe that not one person among the 4 thousand did
not believe it was wrong to do what they were doing. When majority
"rules", however, it is safest to keep quiet and go along. Not much
freedom left when the majority "rules".
Thomas P.
President of IEAC
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
asa...@my-deja.com
First off, pertaining to public vs. private prayer...
I notice that some of you like to call Christians hypocrites for
praying in public because of the passage where Jesus says to pray in a
prayer closet. Of course, you have ignored the context in which the
statement was made. Jesus came to this world, God in a man's body, and
he did this to die for our sins. In doing this, He eliminated works-
salvation. Nobody is saved by something they can do, otherwise Jesus
died for nothing, as He said "lest any man boast." It is not possible
for one person to save themselves by works, making us ALL equalle
eligible for salvation through grace. "LEST ANY MAN BOAST" Jesus made
an example of the people that prayed in public because at the time,
there was no salvation from Christ's blood--he had not yet died, and
the people praying in public were doing it because they were trying to
demonstrate some sort of superiority as if to say "My works (prayer)
are better than yours or more than yours--I will get saved and you will
not" all the while forgetting that prayer is not a service to man but
to God. They did it for show, period, and Jesus knew that. He said
that people should pray in a closet for equality and elimination of
boasting. These days anyone who prays boastfully will be judged by God
and Christians know this. Jesus, by dying on the cross, eliminated
works-salvation anyway, so prayer in public can only be that. When I
pray, it is an homage to the Lord, not a display of my faith or a way
of bragging. I seriously doubt that the people in the assembly forgot
that. It may also have been a form of rebellion, and the people that
will rebel against the restriction of God's word, I am sure, will be
blessed.
NEXT: It looks like some of you skipped the line in this article that
said "ignored a school ban on prayer..." School bans on prayer are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. The school was wrong to begin with.
The reason a "moment of silence" was appealed for was to SILENCE
CHRISTIANS. If that youth didn't have a discrimination problem against
Christians, there would be no article to debate. Prayer had been
initiated in past years at that school with no problems.
The fact is, no rights of that young boy were violated. He was free to
do as he pleased pertaining to worship, but he was NOT free to tell
others what they may or may not do.
Reading this article, it stated twice that Becker was not allowed to
reenter the assembly because the school felt he would disrupt it or
cause trouble...apparently the boy had quite a reputation!
I say, when it comes down to respecting God with prayer and respecting
other people, hate to say it but the people lose. God always comes
first.
Asaurus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Red Celt
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
<snip waffle>
Boaty, it wasn't 400 people. You really do have a problem with your
maths don't you dear boy?
One of those interviewed after the event (who joined in the prayer)
said that "about half" of those in attendance joined in. So it may
well not have even been a *majority* of those 4000 let alone all of
them.
The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer (that
one person who shouldn't pray aloud according to your saviour) and
only afterwards did more join in. It was a case of xians disrespecting
a minute's silence. End of story.
Red Celt
#883
Red Celt
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>yang hu wrote:
>
>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> > Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>> > and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>> > trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>> > and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>
>> Actually the school is breaking the law. Read up on
>> Supreme Court decisions.
>
>That school broke NO law, they in fact ENFORCED the law.
>
>They didn't let someone leave then re-enter the cerimony.
>
>Of course the atheist ended up looking rather ... well...
>
>ha ha ha...
>
<snip>
I sense a certain amount of bitterness here, Boaty. Let me guess; you
didn't graduate, right?
Red Celt
#883
asa...@my-deja.com
> The entire *reason* for churches is to get together to praise the
Lord.
> The entire reason of graduation is to graduate, something that one
> protester was not allowed to do.
That was his choice. The rule stated beforehand that a person is not
readmitted if they left. It had nothing to do with people praying.
This was blatant hypocrisy, plain and
> simple.
Hypocrisy? When did the Christians in the group tell him that he was
not allowed to worship as he pleased? None of his rights were violated.
> > The time Jesus said not to was when a hypocrite would
> > go stand outside praying in front of others:
> >
> > =====================================
> > TO MAKE HIMSELF SEEM GOOD TO OTHERS
> > =====================================
> >
> And how were these 4000 people any different?
They were praying because they love God and because they were rebelling
against the school's UNCONSTITUTIONAL ban on prayer. God would be
pleased.
> > A GROUP praying to God loses all aspects of that since
> > there is no one person trying to fool the others since
> > they're all praying at once, rich, poor, good, sinner...
> >
> Bullsmeg. They were setting themselves up to look better and more
> righteous than the ones who didn't want to pray.
No they weren't. The ones who DIDN'T want to pray tried their best to
silence the ones who did by instating a "moment of silence." Everyone
there was free to worship or be silent as they so chose. It just so
happened that the majority chose to worship God.
Otherwise, they would
> have prayed silently.
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess WITH THY MOUTH the Lord
Jesus"...Prayer OUT LOUD is always the normand always a + .
asa...@my-deja.com
> And why is it any different when it is 4000, *disrespecting* a moment
of
> silence?
It started with the SCHOOL disrespecting the rights of students and
violating the first amendment to the Bill of Rights by initiating a ban
on prayer. Why should the group allow its rights to be trampled?
Red Celt
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 13:07:15 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
><sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>>and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>>trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>>and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
><snip waffle>
>
>Boaty, it wasn't 400 people.
Ooops, oh the irony! :)
make that: 4000 not 400
Red Celt
#883
dotcom
>
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites;
> > > for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the
> > > street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say
> > > to you they have received their reward. But when you pray,
> > > go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father
> > > who is in secret..."
> >
> > ONE PERSON: yes.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because ONE PERSON praying in front of others would be
> > trying to look better than the rest, talking to others
> > rather than God.
> >
> silence?
>
> >
> Ah, but it *wasn't* the entire group, wasn't it? Just because you happen
> to be the majority doesn't make it right.
But but but but... Isn't that the basis of christianity? That the
majority is right, and since they're right, it's their god-given duty to
ram that rightness down your throat, whether you want it or not?
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann
Bleeds
>
> yang hu wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> > > trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> > > and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>
> > Supreme Court decisions.
>
> That school broke NO law, they in fact ENFORCED the law.
Hardly. They agreed to comply with the law up front, but did nothing to
stop those who began to pray--in fact, several school officials began
PRAYING ALONG with the crowd. Later the school principal commented
positively on the event, and expressed his hope of something simliar
taking place in the future!
Were I in charge of this country, the ones who began to pray would have
been herded into Christian de-programming camps (like the ones in
China? At least I think that's the country...) and the school officials
would have been executed. But, we can't all have our way, now can we?
Bleeds
Mark Richardson
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in
> <375440fc...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>:
> >this newsgroup in the "Completely wrong "facts" I know about the
> >world" stakes that we are comparing molehills and mountains here.
> >
> >Read something written by boatwright.
> >Anything.
> >It is increadible how stupid a person can be and still function on
> >some level.
>
> Christian fundamentalists do not claim to be following the tenets of
> rational skepticism. You shouldn't expect scientific arguments from
> religious fanatics, nor should you expect to have any effect on them
by
> proposing scientific arguments yourself. It's a psychological error on
> your part to assume otherwise.
He and his ilk flood this newsgroup with nonsense about everything from
biology, geology, astronomy and physics.
I know "science" is irrelevant to "faith" but they dont seem to know
that.
> You should not be wasting your time refuting claims that are obviously
> stupid.
I don't argue with Boatwright but some take it as a kind of sport.
Not my idea of sport, but I have a "live and let live" attitude towards
those that do.
> However, as a rational skeptic, an atheist *should* and *must*
> debunk other atheists when they make questionable scientific
> pronouncements as HRG often does, and he is only one among the
thousand
> others in alt.atheism who fancy themselves armchair Carl Sagans.
I dont know enough about Mathematics to know which of you is correct.
I know enough to follow the discussion.
(I pride myself on a wide general knowledge.)
> If you
> ignore the fallacies committed daily by your atheist comrades, you are
> falling into the same psych groupthink which you claim to abhor in
> organized religion.
>
That's fair.
In my defence:
I do sometimes critizise my fellow atheists.
I do *try* not comment on things I am not familiar enough to comment on.
(I can think of a few times i have gone off half cocked.)
Perhaps I let "errors" of my comrades slide where I would pounce on my
philosophical opponents but I could make the same charge against you
surely?
Mark.
-vincent33
asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> NEXT: It looks like some of you skipped the line in this article that
> said "ignored a school ban on prayer..." School bans on prayer are
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. The school was wrong to begin with.
> The reason a "moment of silence" was appealed for was to SILENCE
> CHRISTIANS. If that youth didn't have a discrimination problem
against
> Christians, there would be no article to debate. Prayer had been
> initiated in past years at that school with no problems.
>
who planned to deliver the invocation were abused. The individual
has a right to free speech, and it appears that she was acting as
an individual. Her mistake was in asking permission, but she thought
she was doing the right thing. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I
believe that such a student would have every right to pray at such
an occasion as long as it wasn't dictated by the school that she
should pray.
> The fact is, no rights of that young boy were violated. He was free
to
> do as he pleased pertaining to worship, but he was NOT free to tell
> others what they may or may not do.
>
Absolutely! Now, backing up in time, I would have to back the kid
on the hair-spike thing and refusing to stand for the pledge of
allegiance. Neither of those things put anybody in danger, nor
were they detrimental to the rights and freedom of others. Those are
undoubtedly issues of personal expression and freedom that should
never have been stifled. But in this case, he was trying to do
the same thing to the young lady who had planned to lead in prayer -
stifle her freedom of expression.
> Reading this article, it stated twice that Becker was not allowed to
> reenter the assembly because the school felt he would disrupt it or
> cause trouble...apparently the boy had quite a reputation!
>
From the article: "Calvert County school policy bars any student
who leaves a school event from returning." This is probably a policy
in about 80 - 90% of the high schools in the country - and the
reasonableness of it is coming into sharper focus all the time.
If my kids were present at such an event, I'd darn sure count on
a hot-head being kept from disrupting the ceremonies. The kid
made it clear he wasn't going back to get his diploma, or to take
part in the rest of the program. He told the police officer at the
front door that he was going back in to "get a friend." Again,
if my kids were involved in the graduation, I would count on
somebody keeping that kid - or anyone else - from causing a
disturbance or worse.
Does anyone really believe that his tender sensibilities were
bruised? Or did he get a little p.o.'d when somebody pulled
the old double-reverse on his plans? He got burned, that's all!
He thought he had everybody by the short hairs, but they
wriggled loose. hee hee! Maybe there's too much of the 60's
activist left in me, but I see this as a classic case of civil
disobedience, and reading about it made my day!
-v33
John P. Boatwright
> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:27:27 GMT, SP...@redcelt.com (Red Celt) wrote:
> ><sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >>Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
> >>and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> >>trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> >>and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
> ><snip waffle>
> >Boaty, it wasn't 400 people.
> Ooops, oh the irony! :)
> make that: 4000 not 400
How about 400,000?
Ya, next time make it 400,000 people praying to God.
They could surround the building and right when
the "moment of silence" is FORCED ON THEM, they
could blatantly ignore it and praise God till
the atheist runs out... he see's 'em all outside
and decides to stay inside.
Then everybody's happy.
So then no prayer occurs in the building, the atheist
gets his dipoloma without having to BREAK THE LAW
by trying to BREAK BACK IN, and lot's of people
praise God ... just because it's the right thing
to do anytime A GROUP wants to.
Ya, looks like a plan for next time around.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
John P. Boatwright
> >Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
> >and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> >trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> >and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
> Boaty, it wasn't 400 people. You really do have a problem with your
> maths don't you dear boy?
Ya ya, you've typo'd, no big deal.
> One of those interviewed after the event (who joined in the prayer)
> said that "about half" of those in attendance joined in. So it may
> well not have even been a *majority* of those 4000 let alone all of
> them.
I didn't bother to memorize how many, it was either 4000 or
1/2 of 4000, again, no big deal.
Quite a few people, 2000 vs. 4000, either are a lot of people.
They only wanted 30 seconds to confirm beleif in God amoungst
their family while one of their kids graduated.
That's not so bad.
> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
Ooo!
Let's see that again in instant replay:
==================================================================
> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
==================================================================
Ya, that quote's a keeper.
>(that one person who shouldn't pray aloud according to
> your saviour)
You're guessing motive.
The one guy may have been there over YEARS of graduations,
he may have noticed that point in the cerimony and started
praying like other times.
I wasn't there, but I can see how some guy might have
mistaken the cues and started praying. Others in the audience
may also have thought it was time and started up as well.
From there, it was same as all the other times.
In a matter of seconds, things like that can happen.
Personally though, I perfer blatant recognition of God
when an atheist says God doesn't exist.
> and only afterwards did more join in.
They knew what was good and right, what else could they do?
> It was a case of xians disrespecting
> a minute's silence. End of story.
It was classic and the video should be played in
an endless loop.
Oh well.
Out of all this, I wouldn't doubt the atheist
figures it out and finds God.
That many people praying is a HUGE light, there's
a good chance he might have seen it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the two graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
yang hu
Re: Daneel still insists Jupiter has no surface...
uhm... so Shoemaker-Levy-9 never happened???
Date:1997/05/24
Author: John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com>
David B. Trout wrote:
> BM wrote in article
> <5m5irs$9...@geolabserver.geo>...
> > Daneel (ust...@cs.elte.hu) wrote:
> > : After laughing for a minute, I first tought Boatwright
> > : made a joke; but
> > : it doesn't sound so:
> > : > > Second day: (the light: the Milky Way begins to shine) heaven is
> > : > > created; a firmament dividing the waters - gravity fragments the
> > : > > originally homogenuous cloud, and the proto-Sun begins to form.
> > : > > Night: the condensing cloud core with the protostar becomes
> > : > > opaque.
> > : > Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was
> > : > a fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view
> > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > : > the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!!
> > : Isn't this funny?
> > He doesn't seriously believe that! (Does he?)
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BM doesn't get it, he just wants to make freinds with Daneel.
> I'm having trouble distinguishing just who is saying what here, but
> whoever it is that thinks Jupiter is solid is mistaken.
Tell it to Shoemaker-Levy-9 and the firey impacts made on
it's surface.
> Jupiter is indeed
> a gaseous planet.
How can you say this after what the comet showed???
> Below is a paragraph taken from an article in Compton's
> Interactive Encyclopedia:
Was this AFTER comet Shoemaker-Levy-9???
> Jupiter is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium. It has no solid
> surface,
Gosh, this is dense, the comet showed a SOLID impact on
Jupiters surface (or just erase all that video from CNN).
> only layers of gaseous clouds.
And then note what they say in the very next sentence....
> At the planet's center is probably
> a rocky core
ha ha ha ....
Duh!!! A solid core!!!
(I'm brain dead and will write anything a scientist tells me....)
> with more than ten times the mass of the planet Earth.
> Temperatures in the core may exceed 25,000 K. Surrounding the core is a
> liquid hydrogen-helium mixture that has been squeezed into metallic form
> under the intense pressure of the planet's upper layers.
What did the the impact say for Jupiters elemental make up?
Did the SOLID CORE "poof" away both before and after the SOLID IMPACT???
(no no no, Jupiter's a gas planet with no solid core and
no surface to measure any temperature... ha ha ha)
Face it Daneel, Jupiter has a surface where a maximum
surface temperature can be measured. You either don't
know beans about astronomy, or your fear of God
has you completely confused.
asa...@my-deja.com
-vincent33 <vinc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7j1836$res$1...@nnrp2.deja.com>,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > NEXT: It looks like some of you skipped the line in this article
that
> > said "ignored a school ban on prayer..." School bans on prayer are
> > UNCONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. The school was wrong to begin with.
> > The reason a "moment of silence" was appealed for was to SILENCE
> > CHRISTIANS. If that youth didn't have a discrimination problem
> against
> > Christians, there would be no article to debate. Prayer had been
> > initiated in past years at that school with no problems.
> >
> VERY well put!!! I
Thank you
t seems to me that the rights of the young lady
> who planned to deliver the invocation were abused.
One thing the article never mentioned was the purpose of the "moment of
silence." Is sounded to me like it the only reason it was proposed was
to prevent prayer, because it did not say that they were having a
moment of silence to honor or remember or reflect on anything. It was
simple overkill on the political correctness.
The individual
> has a right to free speech, and it appears that she was acting as
> an individual. Her mistake was in asking permission, but she thought
> she was doing the right thing. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I
> believe that such a student would have every right to pray at such
> an occasion as long as it wasn't dictated by the school that she
> should pray.
I agree.
>
> > The fact is, no rights of that young boy were violated. He was free
> to
> > do as he pleased pertaining to worship, but he was NOT free to tell
> > others what they may or may not do.
> >
> Absolutely! Now, backing up in time, I would have to back the kid
> on the hair-spike thing and refusing to stand for the pledge of
> allegiance.
I agree also.
Neither of those things put anybody in danger, nor
> were they detrimental to the rights and freedom of others.
Indeed.
Those are
> undoubtedly issues of personal expression and freedom that should
> never have been stifled.
Yes, that was the school being wrong again. What is this ban on
expression these days?! That's like burning the flag--I disagree on
making flag burning illegal, it is a form or expression, although it
makes me ill. With the freedom of expression comes responsibility.
But in this case, he was trying to do
> the same thing to the young lady who had planned to lead in prayer -
> stifle her freedom of expression.
>
> > Reading this article, it stated twice that Becker was not allowed to
> > reenter the assembly because the school felt he would disrupt it or
> > cause trouble...apparently the boy had quite a reputation!
> >
> From the article: "Calvert County school policy bars any student
> who leaves a school event from returning." This is probably a policy
> in about 80 - 90% of the high schools in the country - and the
> reasonableness of it is coming into sharper focus all the time.
> If my kids were present at such an event, I'd darn sure count on
> a hot-head being kept from disrupting the ceremonies. The kid
> made it clear he wasn't going back to get his diploma, or to take
> part in the rest of the program. He told the police officer at the
> front door that he was going back in to "get a friend." Again,
> if my kids were involved in the graduation, I would count on
> somebody keeping that kid - or anyone else - from causing a
> disturbance or worse.
>
> Does anyone really believe that his tender sensibilities were
> bruised?
I certainly don't, and he gets no boo-hoos from me.
Or did he get a little p.o.'d when somebody pulled
> the old double-reverse on his plans? He got burned, that's all!
> He thought he had everybody by the short hairs, but they
> wriggled loose. hee hee! Maybe there's too much of the 60's
> activist left in me, but I see this as a classic case of civil
> disobedience, and reading about it made my day!
Me too :)
Thanks for your response.
>
> -v33
Asaurus
jeremy h todd
>ah, the wonders of dejanews....
[Reposted article snipped]
You might want to make it explicit which parts are by another
author when you're reposting an article; I had to read that a couple
times to make sure you weren't actually saying any of it (hey, at least
be glad that I doubted you would post something so idiotic enough to
double-check in the first place!)
-jht
--
Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
========================================================= // \\
"M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
Craig McDonald
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Red Celt wrote:
>
>> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> >Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>> >and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>> >trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>> >and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>
>> Boaty, it wasn't 400 people. You really do have a problem with your
>> maths don't you dear boy?
>
>Ya ya, you've typo'd, no big deal.
Happens to the best (and worst) of us.
>> One of those interviewed after the event (who joined in the prayer)
>> said that "about half" of those in attendance joined in. So it may
>> well not have even been a *majority* of those 4000 let alone all of
>> them.
>
>I didn't bother to memorize how many, it was either 4000 or
>1/2 of 4000, again, no big deal.
Well, actually, no. You aren't going to escape quite so easily on that
one. Before you brush it under the carpet, can I remind you that in a
very recent post (possibly in this same thread) you said "Majority
Rules".
I point out to you that there is a good deal of doubt as to wether
those reciting the lord's prayer were in the majority... in which case
the majority were those who respected the minute's silence.
That would mean that the minority were not only disrespectful in
denying the requested silence... they were also disrespectful to the
majority of those in attendance.
If recently stated figures are to be believed, in the USA, 90% of the
population believe in a god (the majority of whom share your belief in
YHWH).
90% of 4000 is 3600. That means that 1600 theists respected the
silence (perhaps they weren't christian?), 2000 showed utter contempt
for any belief other than their own.... leaving 400 atheists/agnostics
in silence. One of whom was the student whose graduation day was
ruined.
>Quite a few people, 2000 vs. 4000, either are a lot of people.
>
>They only wanted 30 seconds to confirm beleif in God amoungst
>their family while one of their kids graduated.
Then why on earth couldn't they have done that within the confines of
their own head? Were they afraid that god is going deaf, or were they
too wrapped up in making a statement to those around them?
Something that Jesus himself condemned?
Tut tut.
>That's not so bad.
Open defiance of the teachings of christ? Not so bad?
>> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
>
>Ooo!
>
>Let's see that again in instant replay:
>
>==================================================================
>> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
>==================================================================
>
>Ya, that quote's a keeper.
Have it framed if you like. Want me to sign it?
>>(that one person who shouldn't pray aloud according to
>> your saviour)
>
>You're guessing motive.
Of course I'm guessing. Short of reading the guy's mind, all we can do
is guess. It is, however, an educated guess and I'd be willing to bet
the price of a pint of beer that I'm right.
>The one guy may have been there over YEARS of graduations,
>he may have noticed that point in the cerimony and started
>praying like other times.
Why on earth would one guy be there for years of graduations? I
thought these events were supposedly by invitation to the families of
those graduating. Just how many kids does this guy theoretically have?
Do you suppose he was a catholic? :)
If he was a tutor, then he was breaking the law (as I understand it)
by engaging in religious acts on school property and in school time.
This is a guess about the application of your laws as I'm not a US
citizen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
>I wasn't there, but I can see how some guy might have
>mistaken the cues and started praying. Others in the audience
>may also have thought it was time and started up as well.
You make them sound like sheep, hopelessly following a leader. You're
not exactly painting a rosey picture of christianity, here, John.
>From there, it was same as all the other times.
All other times they would have just as equally have been compromising
the beliefs (or lack thereof) of everyone else.
>In a matter of seconds, things like that can happen.
Gee, I'm glad the 1st guy (your theoretical catholic) didn't pull a
gun out and shoot himself. We would have had another Jonestown
massacre on our hands.
Follow the leader. Baaah. Baaaaaaaah.
>Personally though, I perfer blatant recognition of God
>when an atheist says God doesn't exist.
Why should an atheist's views have any bearing on how you feel about
your communion with god? I'm getting some strong signals from you
John, and they aren't a great advertisement for christianity. I would
question your motives in "recognising god" in front of an atheist.
>> and only afterwards did more join in.
>
>They knew what was good and right, what else could they do?
Erm, they could have remembered that they weren't in a place of
worship and said a silent prayer like the other 50% (give or take)
managed to do.
>> It was a case of xians disrespecting
>> a minute's silence. End of story.
>
>It was classic and the video should be played in
>an endless loop.
Again, I question your motives.
>Oh well.
>
>Out of all this, I wouldn't doubt the atheist
>figures it out and finds God.
The whole silly incident is not a good advertisement for your faith.
If anything I would say that it would be an excellent recruiting tool
for the (non-existent) EAC.
>That many people praying is a HUGE light, there's
>a good chance he might have seen it.
2000 people is many? Huge light?
I dread to think of the supposed power of a football stadium with tens
of thousands of people praying for their team. :)
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Hey! Did I ask him to die for my sins? I'll die for my own sins
thankyouverymuch. Just as soon as I've figured out exactly what a sin
is.
Red Celt
#883
Craig McDonald
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Red Celt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:27:27 GMT, SP...@redcelt.com (Red Celt) wrote:
>
>> ><sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
>> >>and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
>> >>trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
>> >>and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
>> ><snip waffle>
>
>> >Boaty, it wasn't 400 people.
>
>> Ooops, oh the irony! :)
>> make that: 4000 not 400
>
>How about 400,000?
That would be quite some graduation ceremony.
>Ya, next time make it 400,000 people praying to God.
In a secular building or in a church? 400,000 praying in a church
would be fine as far as I'm concerned (although it would be quite some
collection-plate), but in a concert hall? In a ceremony celebrating
the succesful completion of years of study? Inappropriate unless it
was a christian college.
>They could surround the building and right when
>the "moment of silence" is FORCED ON THEM,
Forced? What do you find so offensive about staying quiet for 60
seconds? According to that logic, god forces silence on his believers
8 hours out of every 24 when he designed humans to need sleep.
>they
>could blatantly ignore it and praise God till
>the atheist runs out... he see's 'em all outside
>and decides to stay inside.
>
>Then everybody's happy.
You condone a baying-mob? If I were that atheist I would be seriously
concerned about my physical safety. Is this the message handed down to
you by christ?
>So then no prayer occurs in the building, the atheist
>gets his dipoloma without having to BREAK THE LAW
>by trying to BREAK BACK IN, and lot's of people
>praise God ... just because it's the right thing
>to do anytime A GROUP wants to.
In a place of worship, yes.
>Ya, looks like a plan for next time around.
Why do you seem to find more satisfaction in making life uncomfortable
for a handful of atheists than you do in communing with god?
No matter how I twist this idea in my mind, I can't see christians in
a positive light.
What you are suggesting is using mob-rule to intimidate a minority
during a time when all of your thoughts should be focused on praising
god. What other conclusion can one come to?
Red Celt
#883
none
> They could surround the building and right when
> the "moment of silence" is FORCED ON THEM,
This is John's view of faith: force it on them.
And he wonders why we reject his brand of Christian belief.
Geo
Atheist #15
David Kellogg
: Groups ALWAYS pray to God, it's not big deal with God
: if a GROUP decideds to sing to him, praise him ...
The "group" was the audience at the graduation. The people who prayed
aloud were individuals coopting the ceremony for their own purposes.
According to the Washington Post editorial, "The real disruption began
earlier, when reportedly half of the audience of 4,000 chose to initiate
an act of religious worship during a secular public ceremony."
Read that? Half.
Source:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/29/009l-052999-idx.html
: The time Jesus said not to was when a hypocrite would
: go stand outside praying in front of others:
: =====================================
: TO MAKE HIMSELF SEEM GOOD TO OTHERS
: =====================================
: A GROUP praying to God loses all aspects of that since
: there is no one person trying to fool the others since
: they're all praying at once, rich, poor, good, sinner...
They were NOT all praying at once, only half of them were. The others
joined: why? It's obvious that the main accomplishments of the prayers
were to: 1) provide those who prayed with a
: It's impossible to be a hypocrite in the case of a group
: praying to God.
IMPOSSIBLE?
Are you really this dumb? Let's see:
1) Is the person who doesn't believe but prays because the person next to
her is praying a hypocrite?
2) Is the person who prays aloud as a believing Christian a hypocrite when
he/she also believes a prayer such as the Lord's Prayer at a civil
ceremony is inappropriate?
Cheers,
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg Duke University
kel...@acpub.duke.edu Program in Writing and Rhetoric
(919) 660-4357 Durham, NC 27708
FAX (919) 660-4381 http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg/
Shane D. Killian
>
> yang hu wrote:
>
>
> > Jupiter is a solid ball of iron.
>
> What???
>
> Have a quote for that?
>
You, you doink. Back when Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter, you said
it impacted the "solid iron surface."
Lorrill Buyens
<sa...@teleport.com> finished their moo goo gai pan, opened their
fortune cookie and read:
>It's impossible to be a hypocrite in the case of a group
>praying to God.
>
>Obviously.
Unless everyone in the *group* is a hypocrite.
Obviously.
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
yang hu
ah, the wonders of dejanews.... below is post, in all its gory
details...
John P. Boatwright
> ah, the wonders of dejanews....
Ya, let's see what an encyclopedia says:
> Below is a paragraph taken from an article in Compton's
> Interactive Encyclopedia:
======================================
> > At the planet's center is probably
> > a rocky core
======================================
> ha ha ha ....
Exactly.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
John P. Boatwright
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >That school broke NO law, they in fact ENFORCED the law.
> >They didn't let someone leave then re-enter the cerimony.
> >Of course the atheist ended up looking rather ... well...
> >ha ha ha...
> I sense a certain amount of bitterness here, Boaty. Let me guess; you
> didn't graduate, right?
You mean in the sense of running outside when the cerimony
is inside? Then trying to BREAK BACK IN when a POLICE OFFICER
told him he could NOT re-enter?
In that sense, no.
Atheists are just so "ascared". You even mention God and
they run outside in fear.
Typical.
yang hu
> > Below is a paragraph taken from an article in Compton's
> > Interactive Encyclopedia:
> ======================================
> > > At the planet's center is probably
> > > a rocky core
> ======================================
> Jupiter is indeed
> a gaseous planet.
nice try, this is what you said in response to above:
"How can you say this after what the comet showed???"
"Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was
a fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view
the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!!"
hmmm... I wonder who said that?
yang hu
Bleeds
>
> Red Celt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:27:27 GMT, SP...@redcelt.com (Red Celt) wrote:
>
> > ><sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Who needs a BS in science to discuss God being right
> > >>and 4000 people wanting to pray to God while an atheist
> > >>trys to BREAK THE LAW by disobeying a POLICE OFFICER
> > >>and attempting to BREAK IN to an assembly?
> > ><snip waffle>
>
> > >Boaty, it wasn't 400 people.
>
> > Ooops, oh the irony! :)
> > make that: 4000 not 400
>
> How about 400,000?
>
Scary thought.
> They could surround the building and right when
> the "moment of silence" is FORCED ON THEM, they
> could blatantly ignore it and praise God till
> the atheist runs out... he see's 'em all outside
> and decides to stay inside.
If they're standing around outside the building, how could the silence
that is supposed to take place within the building be forced upon them?
> Then everybody's happy.
What Bloatwrong meant to say is, "Then everybody who MATTERS
(Christians) gets a sick thrill by forming a MOB and harassing another
human being."
> So then no prayer occurs in the building, the atheist
> gets his dipoloma without having to BREAK THE LAW
> by trying to BREAK BACK IN, and lot's of people
> praise God ... just because it's the right thing
> to do anytime A GROUP wants to.
>
> Ya, looks like a plan for next time around.
...a herd of 400,000 sheep loudly bleating in a public place? Sounds
like disturbing the peace to me. But then, what did Christianity ever
have to do with peace?
I guess the "man" you worship was right when he said--
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword." -Matthew 10:34
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
God never existed, Jesus was put to death like the political criminal he
was.
Bleeds
-vincent33
dot...@navix.net wrote:
<snip>
> But but but but... Isn't that the basis of christianity? That the
> majority is right, and since they're right, it's their god-given duty
to
> ram that rightness down your throat, whether you want it or not?
>
> dotcom, off...
> yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
>
> There is no god worth our worship.
> Martin Schlottmann
Uh.... Sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind whether you're an
atheist or pantheist - or both - or neither... The point is this:
A student wanted to pray; another student decided she shouldn't
be allowed to express herself quite so freely; some misguided
bureaucrats agreed; and other individuals pulled the ol'
switcheroo on all of them. I think it's hilarious! Can you say
"civil disobedience"? Martin Schlottmann? Doesn't he own the
Cincinnati Reds? Got a St. Bernard named Schlottzie?
-v33
John P. Boatwright
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Red Celt wrote:
> >> One of those interviewed after the event (who joined in the prayer)
> >> said that "about half" of those in attendance joined in. So it may
> >> well not have even been a *majority* of those 4000 let alone all of
> >> them.
See what he just said?
One of the people interviewed said 1/2.
But I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know.
> >I didn't bother to memorize how many, it was either 4000 or
> >1/2 of 4000, again, no big deal.
I also didn't think it any big deal if it was 2000 or 4000,
who cares?
It was quite a few people.
But notice, atheists running around saying:
"nobody believes God anymore... blah blah..."
are OBVIOUSLY WRONG, the one guy said about 1/2 were praying.
> Well, actually, no. You aren't going to escape quite so easily on that
> one. Before you brush it under the carpet, can I remind you that in a
> very recent post (possibly in this same thread) you said "Majority
> Rules".
See "In God We Trust" for details.
> I point out to you that there is a good deal of doubt as to wether
> those reciting the lord's prayer were in the majority... in which case
> the majority were those who respected the minute's silence.
See just above, the guy said someone interviewed, someone
actually there, said 1/2.
> That would mean that the minority were not only disrespectful in
> denying the requested silence... they were also disrespectful to the
> majority of those in attendance.
The others probably prayed whenever they felt like it.
Being in a group praying doesn't mean you have to do so
right then.
It's your choice whether or not you pray along.
I see a group prayer as "praise" to God since the group is
not saying "individual" type statements to him.
In the case of GROUP prayer, it's praise, a statement by the
group of a set of thoughts they want said.
> If recently stated figures are to be believed, in the USA, 90% of the
> population believe in a god (the majority of whom share your belief in
> YHWH).
That's good.
> 90% of 4000 is 3600. That means that 1600 theists respected the
> silence (perhaps they weren't christian?), 2000 showed utter contempt
> for any belief other than their own.... leaving 400 atheists/agnostics
> in silence. One of whom was the student whose graduation day was
> ruined.
Again, see the guy interviewed saying 1/2.
You taking percentages is pointless.
> >Quite a few people, 2000 vs. 4000, either are a lot of people.
> >They only wanted 30 seconds to confirm beleif in God amoungst
> >their family while one of their kids graduated.
> Then why on earth couldn't they have done that within the confines of
> their own head? Were they afraid that god is going deaf, or were they
> too wrapped up in making a statement to those around them?
Why bother with a cerimony in the first place???
eh?
The original cerimony consisted of bland statements
made over the years:
"So you're about to graduate... blah blah blah..."
Why do they need to say anything at all? Why not just
mail the certificate and be done with it?
Nope.
People want a CERIMONY to both END the schooling
experience and to give the kids a mental picture
that they have moved on to the next "level":
they've graduated.
The prayer being said is ALSO PART OF THE CERIMONY.
It CONFIRMS the parents and kids both believing God
while the kids move forward from the schooling
experience.
Atheists want to deny that from the majority.
Atheists want to erase God.
They can't.
> Something that Jesus himself condemned?
There is a huge difference between A GROUP praying
and one person.
Jesus even CLARIFIED that statement by saying the
guy was doing it just to be seen by others to make
himself look good to them. The guy didn't care
what God thought about it.
=============================================
The guy was a hypocrite for praying to God,
yet NOT caring if God listened or not.
=============================================
Get the picture?
No?
I'll spell it out in the simplest of terms.
Jesus basically said:
==================================================
The guy was TALKING TO GOD, but he's NOT CARING
IF GOD LISTENS, he wanted OTHERS to listen to
him TALKING TO GOD so OTHERS would think he's
something good. His praying (talking to God) was
POINTLESS since he was really talking to people.
==================================================
A GROUP praying to God can't have such a problem
since they are all praying AT ONCE to God, no one
in the group is "impressed" that the others said
something to God since they are saying the same thing.
THE GROUP can't be a hypocrite in the same sense
as the man trying to impress others.
That's why I consider group prayers to more of a
praise to God, join in as much as you like.
> Tut tut.
> >That's not so bad.
> Open defiance of the teachings of christ? Not so bad?
It was A GROUP.
See churches, temples, etc...
> >> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
> >Ooo!
> >Let's see that again in instant replay:
> >==================================================================
> >> The point is, that one person started reciting the lord's prayer
> >==================================================================
> >Ya, that quote's a keeper.
> Have it framed if you like. Want me to sign it?
Sign it:
"Atheists are ascared of 30 seconds of praying, RC".
> >>(that one person who shouldn't pray aloud according to
> >> your saviour)
> >You're guessing motive.
> Of course I'm guessing. Short of reading the guy's mind, all we can do
> is guess. It is, however, an educated guess and I'd be willing to bet
> the price of a pint of beer that I'm right.
You're wrong.
Pay up.
> >The one guy may have been there over YEARS of graduations,
> >he may have noticed that point in the cerimony and started
> >praying like other times.
> Why on earth would one guy be there for years of graduations? I
> thought these events were supposedly by invitation to the families of
> those graduating. Just how many kids does this guy theoretically have?
> Do you suppose he was a catholic? :)
Lot's of people show up over years, often they
were past graduates, teachers, coaches, etc...
It's no big deal for someone to show up year after year.
> If he was a tutor, then he was breaking the law (as I understand it)
> by engaging in religious acts on school property and in school time.
> This is a guess about the application of your laws as I'm not a US
> citizen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
You can pray on school grounds.
Feel free.
> >I wasn't there, but I can see how some guy might have
> >mistaken the cues and started praying. Others in the audience
> >may also have thought it was time and started up as well.
> You make them sound like sheep, hopelessly following a leader. You're
> not exactly painting a rosey picture of christianity, here, John.
To me, a GROUP praying is just basic praise towards God.
> >From there, it was same as all the other times.
> All other times they would have just as equally have been compromising
> the beliefs (or lack thereof) of everyone else.
You mean like teachers having kids read about:
* Witchcraft
* Satanism
* Greek mythology
* Atheism
* etc...
Isn't that something.
> >Personally though, I perfer blatant recognition of God
> >when an atheist says God doesn't exist.
> Why should an atheist's views have any bearing on how you feel about
> your communion with god? I'm getting some strong signals from you
> John, and they aren't a great advertisement for christianity. I would
> question your motives in "recognising god" in front of an atheist.
The atheist makes claims that God doesn't exist.
In response, I'll make claims that he does.
What else do you expect?
> >That many people praying is a HUGE light, there's
> >a good chance he might have seen it.
> 2000 people is many? Huge light?
> I dread to think of the supposed power of a football stadium with tens
> of thousands of people praying for their team. :)
Now you're talking.
> >God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> Hey! Did I ask him to die for my sins? I'll die for my own sins
> thankyouverymuch. Just as soon as I've figured out exactly what a sin
> is.
A sin is defined as going against what God desires.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
Randall J. Currie
yang hu wrote in message <7j577u$q...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> > Below is a paragraph taken from an article in Compton's
>> > Interactive Encyclopedia:
>> ======================================
>> > > At the planet's center is probably
>> > > a rocky core
>> ======================================
>
>> Jupiter is indeed
>> a gaseous planet.
>
>nice try, this is what you said in response to above:
>
>"How can you say this after what the comet showed???"
>
>
>"Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was
>a fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view
>the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!!"
>
>hmmm... I wonder who said that?
>
upon impact as well. That does not prove that the ocean is solid. The
relative speed of Comet Shoemaker-Levy was so great that as soon a the
object plowed through the attenuated upper atmosphere and hit the far-denser
atmospheric layers less than 100 km down, the comet literally exploded, an
explosion forced up and out, like any explosion in the sea, towards the path
of least resistance (the vacuum of space). Gravity would have then caused
the particulates and frags to drift thousands of kilometers into Jupiter's
vast interior where the incredible density of the atmosphere turns it into a
virtual liquid. Jupiter's atmosphere is, however, fluid and gaseous at the
surface. Just look at the data from the probe that the Galileo spacecraft
dropped into Jupiter's atmosphere.
- Tophet7 (and amateur astronomer).
Robibnikoff
Care to explain how reading/learning about the above compromises one's
beliefs? - Not that you may want to face this, but what you have listed above
if part of the history of humankind, like it or not. Didn't you even read
one Greek myth in school? And speaking of Witchcraft, you don't happen to
put up a Christmas tree by any chance do you? Decorate at the holiday season
with the colors red and green? Light a Yule log or two? Of course you must
be well aware that these traditions are PAGAN (Witchcraft being a part of
Paganism). Just remember that when you're lighting the lights on your
"Christmas" tree - enjoy
(Snippage of all that silly "died for your sins stuff)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Tiggs
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <37560C...@teleport.com>...
>yang hu wrote:
>
>> ah, the wonders of dejanews....
>
>Ya, let's see what an encyclopedia says:
>
>> Interactive Encyclopedia:
>======================================
>> > At the planet's center is probably
>> > a rocky core
>======================================
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>
>Proof God described the planet density profile
>BEFORE science did:
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
>(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
I didn't see the beginning of this thread so I'll just form my opinion with
what I see above.
So.........Jupiter has a rocky core, therefore there is a god.
oops I mean God.
hmmmm...
Okay! Ya got me convinced.
tiggs
Shane D. Killian
>
> Hypocrisy? When did the Christians in the group tell him that he was
> not allowed to worship as he pleased? None of his rights were violated.
>
They shouted the prayer into his ear. That was a hateful, spiteful act,
and it blemishes all of Christianity when people try to make excuses for
it.
> They were praying because they love God and because they were rebelling
> against the school's UNCONSTITUTIONAL ban on prayer. God would be
> pleased.
>
I very sincerely doubt it.
Shane D. Killian
>
> I say, when it comes down to respecting God with prayer and respecting
> other people, hate to say it but the people lose. God always comes
> first.
>
Any true Christian knows you cannot respect God by disrespecting your
fellow man. "That which you have done for them, so have you done to me."
Shane D. Killian
kind of hypocrisy I was talking about.
These were *NOT* a group of Christians coming together in prayer. These
were BULLIES, plain and simple. Come on, people--the people next to him
SHOUTED the prayer in his ear!!!
It was a blatant disregard for the most imporant commandment of all:
Love your neighbor and your God as yourself. This was *not* done out of
live. It was done out of spite, nothing more.
Shane D. Killian
>
> In article <3753D09B...@vnet.net>,
> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > And why is it any different when it is 4000, *disrespecting* a moment
> > of silence?
>
> It started with the SCHOOL disrespecting the rights of students and
> violating the first amendment to the Bill of Rights by initiating a ban
> on prayer. Why should the group allow its rights to be trampled?
>
This is an outright lie. there *was* no ban on prayer. Nothing was
stopping these peopel from praying, silently, to themselves, as Jesus
said all good Christians should. Shouting a prayer in the ear of someone
who didn't want to hear it is shameful, spiteful, and every bit what
hypocrisy is all about.
Bleeds
>
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Hypocrisy? When did the Christians in the group tell him that he was
> > not allowed to worship as he pleased? None of his rights were violated.
> >
> They shouted the prayer into his ear. That was a hateful, spiteful act,
> and it blemishes all of Christianity when people try to make excuses for
> it.
>
> > They were praying because they love God and because they were rebelling
> > against the school's UNCONSTITUTIONAL ban on prayer. God would be
> > pleased.
> >
> I very sincerely doubt it.
Oh, I believe that, if God existed, this would have made his day--the
Christian God, the God of the Bible, is nothing but an angry, more
potent version of John Boatwright with a beard and magic powers. A
hypocrite and a monster, with poor disposition and a great capacity for
ignorance--this is the Christian God, who contradicts even himself.
I'm sure he'd be pleased as punch.
Bleeds
-vincent33
the
> kind of hypocrisy I was talking about.
>
> These were *NOT* a group of Christians coming together in prayer.
These
> were BULLIES, plain and simple. Come on, people--the people next to
him
> SHOUTED the prayer in his ear!!!
>
> It was a blatant disregard for the most imporant commandment of all:
> Love your neighbor and your God as yourself. This was *not* done out
of
> live. It was done out of spite, nothing more.
>
Sorry, Shane, but I really don't see it that way. First, I seriously
doubt anyone was snarling and shouting the Lord's Prayer. We have
the word of the young man in question, but I doubt that he can be
considered an unbiased witness.
Do you truly believe that the young lady did *not* have the right
to deliver a prayer? Personally, I think the young man in question
had every right to wear his hair any way he wanted; he had a perfect
right - that has been upheld by the Supreme Court (I think...) to
not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance; and the young lady in our
story had every right to deliver a prayer at her graduation.
Now, in my opinion, she was the one being bullied. She and the rest
of the graduating class, who didn't have a dog in the fight until
our young antagonist decided to open it up to anyone willing to
express an opinion or make a stand.
One more observation: The Lord's Prayer is "contagious" in that
once it begins, people tend to join in. I have been to
enough AA meetings where folks of all colors, classes, and
beliefs join hands and say the Lord's Prayer, that if someone
started saying it in the middle of a crowded mall, I'd most
likely bow my head and grab the hand of whoever was standing
next to me, and say, "Our Father, who art in heaven..." hee hee
That'd be a sight!
No, what we had here was a young man who wanted to prove a point.
Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately for him, there were a few
other points to be made...
-v33
ps- Congrat's on young Sinclair! I can tell by his syntax that
he is certainly gifted. You think he'll be posting here before
the end of the summer? :-)
asa...@my-deja.com
> >
> > In article <3753D09B...@vnet.net>,
moment
> > > of silence?
> >
> > It started with the SCHOOL disrespecting the rights of students and
> > violating the first amendment to the Bill of Rights by initiating a
ban
> > on prayer. Why should the group allow its rights to be trampled?
> >
> This is an outright lie.
No it isn't.
> there *was* no ban on prayer.
The article clearly stated that there was. I suggest you read it again.
Nothing was
> stopping these peopel from praying, silently, to themselves, as Jesus
> said all good Christians should.
Jesus never said thet, and in fact, Jesus never said the word
"Christian".
> Shouting a prayer in the ear of someone
No one shouted in anyone's ears, according to the article.
> who didn't want to hear it
If they didn't want to hear it they were free to leave. If they don't
want to hear any references to any religions, including Christianity,
they should go live in a sealed box somewhere and get a life and a
cause.
is shameful, spiteful, and every bit what
> hypocrisy is all about.
No it isn't, but I won't argue with you because you, quite frankly,
don't know what you are talking about. See my earlier posts pertaining
to prayer out loud.
ROMANS 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess WITH THY MOUTH the Lord
Jesus..."
There is no law in this country that can legally silence people. Get
over it.
Asaurus
Shane D. Killian
>
> Sorry, Shane, but I really don't see it that way. First, I seriously
> doubt anyone was snarling and shouting the Lord's Prayer.
>
what the witnesses told the reporters.
> ps- Congrat's on young Sinclair! I can tell by his syntax that
> he is certainly gifted. You think he'll be posting here before
> the end of the summer? :-)
>
Haha! Someone on another group told me that there were some UNIX
commands in there. :^)
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
Shane D. Killian
>
> In article <37570895...@vnet.net>,
> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > there *was* no ban on prayer.
>
> The article clearly stated that there was. I suggest you read it again.
>
allowed to pray silently during the moment of silence--or any other
time, for that matter--or stop lying.
> Jesus never said thet, and in fact, Jesus never said the word
> "Christian".
>
the ones who prayed out loud. Matthew 6. Go read it.
> > Shouting a prayer in the ear of someone
>
> No one shouted in anyone's ears, according to the article.
>
shouted it into his ear.
> If they didn't want to hear it they were free to leave.
>
consequence. Neither was he allowed to attend the graduation party
afterwards, which he had pre-paid for.
> If they don't want to hear any references to any religions, including
> Christianity, they should go live in a sealed box somewhere and get a
> life and a cause.
>
In other words, only Christians should be allowed to attend graduation
ceremonies. How 13th century of you.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Uh.... Sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind whether you're an
> atheist or pantheist - or both - or neither... The point is this:
> A student wanted to pray; another student decided she shouldn't
> be allowed to express herself quite so freely; some misguided
> bureaucrats agreed; and other individuals pulled the ol'
> switcheroo on all of them. I think it's hilarious! Can you say
> "civil disobedience"? Martin Schlottmann? Doesn't he own the
> Cincinnati Reds? Got a St. Bernard named Schlottzie?
>
Just another example of hypocrites crying, "Oh, we Christians are SOOO
persecuted! Whine, whine, whine!" while they continue their campaign of
tyranny against the free mind.
-vincent33
<snip>
>
> > ps- Congrat's on young Sinclair! I can tell by his syntax that
> > he is certainly gifted. You think he'll be posting here before
> > the end of the summer? :-)
> >
> Haha! Someone on another group told me that there were some UNIX
> commands in there. :^)
>
> Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
> "uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
> gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
> --Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
See? The kid already knows more Unix than I do! Seriously, being
a father myself, I am convinced that this is one of the greatest
times in history to bring a new life into the world. My children
are considerably older than yours, but still young enough to have
benefited from the technology revolution. And it will only get
better from here. Have fun raising him! It's a great adventure!
-vincent
-vincent33
> > atheist or pantheist - or both - or neither... The point is this:
> > A student wanted to pray; another student decided she shouldn't
> > be allowed to express herself quite so freely; some misguided
> > bureaucrats agreed; and other individuals pulled the ol'
> > switcheroo on all of them. I think it's hilarious! Can you say
> > "civil disobedience"? Martin Schlottmann? Doesn't he own the
> > Cincinnati Reds? Got a St. Bernard named Schlottzie?
> >
> It is extremely laughable to call this an act of "civil dispbedience."
> Just another example of hypocrites crying, "Oh, we Christians are SOOO
> persecuted! Whine, whine, whine!" while they continue their campaign
of
> tyranny against the free mind.
>
say to make you say things like that? You probably won't find anyone
more interested in free thinking than I am. You sure won't
find them in the atheist groups; I've found them much more stifling
than most of the religious groups. I believe everyone has the right
to believe any way they choose. That's all I've been saying through
this whole thing. (Do you actually read people's posts before you
knee-jerk your way to a response?)
Call me a libertarian, but people have rights, Shane. Let's assume
the young man in question had been valedictorian of the class. Let's
further assume that he decided in his address to say that there is
no God, and he feels like every single accomplishment he made was
due to himself and no one else. Would you tell him he couldn't say
such things? I wouldn't. I love the idea of the kid doing his hair
like the Statue of Liberty. How stupid of the school administrators
to even mention such a thing! I don't agree with his decision not
to stand for the pledge, but I support his right to make his own
choice. Nothing in this incident violated the separation of church
and state. You have to know that.
Man, I've gotta find a newsgroup I can hang out in! I go over to
alt.bible and get called a "God-hater" and I drop by here and you
call me a Christian fanatic. I'm so confused!!! ;-)
ps- I never said, nor do I think, that Christians are persecuted
here in the United States. Why would you put those words in my
mouth?
-v33
Shane D. Killian
>
> In article <37582339...@vnet.net>,
> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > It is extremely laughable to call this an act of "civil dispbedience."
> > Just another example of hypocrites crying, "Oh, we Christians are SOOO
> > persecuted! Whine, whine, whine!" while they continue their campaign
> > of tyranny against the free mind.
> >
> What's up with this, Shane? Hypocrite? Tyranny? What did I post or
> say to make you say things like that?
>
impression. I was referring to those who took it upon themselves to
disrupt a moment of silence, disrespecting those that didn't want to
partake in the prayer, and those who were trying to justify their
behavior as being "God-given rights." I wasn't attempting to put any
words into your mouth, just stylizing that point of view.
Those ~2000 people were *not* repressed people disobeying an evil law of
an oppressive government. The ones who set up the graduation ceremony--
including the valedictorian who originally wanted a prayer--decided to
go with a moment of silence out of respect. The behavior of those
praying aloud in this forum was a sure sign of *dis*respect, and not at
all the way Jesus told us to act towards our fellow man.
They do this, and when people dare to speak out against their actions
have the gall to claim that the Christian view is being oppressed. Our
view is *not* being oppressed, my friend! In fact, we have allowed the
more extreme among us to become the oppressors! And we just sit back and
justify it and make excuses and say that it's okay because, after all,
we're right and everyone else is wrong.
I seriously doubt that I'm the only Christian who has a problem with
this.
Royce Buehler
> I seriously doubt that I'm the only Christian who has a problem with
> this.
Yep, I'm another. It's important, though, to be clear about what
we have a problem with. I'm not sure if it was you, but I've seen
the words "separation of church and state" bandied about.
The 2,000 people who stuffed the Lord's Prayer down the throat
of the enemy, in a demonstration of their fundamental belief that
might makes right, were not violating the separation of church and
state. They were acting as individuals - boorish, bullying,
disrespectful individuals. There's no constitutional issue involved.
The violation of the separation of church and state came with the
later action of the school - its decision that the student who did
*not* pray should be punished for not joining in, by being denied
the privilege of rejoining the graduation ceremony, and denied
entrance to the graduation party.
Where I think I agree with Vincent is this. If I remember the story
right, this all came up originally because one of the student
speakers wanted to include a Christian prayer in her speech. There
is a fine line here; but I think the content of speeches by the
graduates shouldn't be regarded as speech from the State; and any
student speaker should be allowed to speak as she sees fit, from
the Lord's Prayer to Carroll's Jabberwocky to a neoNazi call to
arms. (If, however, the school vets the speeches in advance, and
censors speech it doesn't approve of, it gets trickier.)
I am sure there were plenty of Christians in the audience who found
the whole performance disgraceful. If, flushed with their victory,
the crowd tries to pull the same trick next year, I hope there'll
be Christians prepared to follow up the prayer to the God Of Mob
Rule with the Boddhisattva vows ("I take refuge in the Buddha,
I take refuge in the dharma, I take refuge in the sangha..."),
then with the Wicca Rede, and so on; topping it all off by saying
a Kaddish for the death of civility in the community.
maff91
wrote:
>In article <37582339...@vnet.net>,
> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>> -vincent33 wrote:
>> >
>> > Uh.... Sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind whether you're an
>> > atheist or pantheist - or both - or neither... The point is this:
>> > A student wanted to pray; another student decided she shouldn't
>> > be allowed to express herself quite so freely; some misguided
>> > bureaucrats agreed; and other individuals pulled the ol'
>> > switcheroo on all of them. I think it's hilarious! Can you say
>> > "civil disobedience"? Martin Schlottmann? Doesn't he own the
>> > Cincinnati Reds? Got a St. Bernard named Schlottzie?
>> >
>> It is extremely laughable to call this an act of "civil dispbedience."
>> Just another example of hypocrites crying, "Oh, we Christians are SOOO
>> persecuted! Whine, whine, whine!" while they continue their campaign
>of
>> tyranny against the free mind.
>>
>What's up with this, Shane? Hypocrite? Tyranny? What did I post or
>say to make you say things like that? You probably won't find anyone
>more interested in free thinking than I am. You sure won't
>find them in the atheist groups; I've found them much more stifling
>than most of the religious groups. I believe everyone has the right
>to believe any way they choose. That's all I've been saying through
>this whole thing. (Do you actually read people's posts before you
>knee-jerk your way to a response?)
>Call me a libertarian, but people have rights, Shane. Let's assume
>the young man in question had been valedictorian of the class. Let's
>further assume that he decided in his address to say that there is
>no God, and he feels like every single accomplishment he made was
>due to himself and no one else. Would you tell him he couldn't say
>such things? I wouldn't. I love the idea of the kid doing his hair
>like the Statue of Liberty. How stupid of the school administrators
>to even mention such a thing! I don't agree with his decision not
>to stand for the pledge, but I support his right to make his own
>choice. Nothing in this incident violated the separation of church
>and state. You have to know that.
>Man, I've gotta find a newsgroup I can hang out in! I go over to
>alt.bible and get called a "God-hater" and I drop by here and you
>call me a Christian fanatic. I'm so confused!!! ;-)
>ps- I never said, nor do I think, that Christians are persecuted
>here in the United States. Why would you put those words in my
>mouth?
You simply don't understand why the founding fathers enacted the wall
of separation between church and state, do you? Do you think forcing
Muslims and other religionists listen to Christian prayers is going to
pay off? That path will eventually make what happened in the former
Yugoslavia look like a picnic.
Michael Cooper
>"Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was
>a fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view
>the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!!"
The Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacted on the surface of the planet. You see, a
glass of water is not solid, yet it has a surface..... hmm thats funny isn't
it..? Is a glass of water solid? I think not....
-vincent33
fig...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Shane D. Killian wrote:
>
> > I seriously doubt that I'm the only Christian who has a problem with
> > this.
>
> Yep, I'm another. It's important, though, to be clear about what
> we have a problem with. I'm not sure if it was you, but I've seen
> the words "separation of church and state" bandied about.
>
> The 2,000 people who stuffed the Lord's Prayer down the throat
> of the enemy, in a demonstration of their fundamental belief that
> might makes right, were not violating the separation of church and
> state. They were acting as individuals - boorish, bullying,
> disrespectful individuals. There's no constitutional issue involved.
>
I suggest we procure a video tape of the ceremony for our own
review. We shall all meet in Petersburg, IN, home of the world
atheist museum, for our first viewing, then move on to the crystal
cathedral for a second showing. By then we should all be familiar
with the inflections & nuances of the prayer and should be better
able to judge the intentions and sensibilities of the folks who
took part. ;-)
We all bring our backgrounds and personal feelings into the fray,
and my judgement may well be clouded by my past experience. Many
years ago, I was introduced to AA & NA, and I attended many of
their meetings for many years. Before that, I would have had a
tough time reciting the Lord's Prayer. But after a few hundred
times of holding hands with extremely diverse groups of people
and saying it with them, it became pretty ingrained. Not as a
Christian prayer or Jewish prayer, but as a prayer of humility.
That's why it is extremely difficult for me to envision any group
of people snarling and shouting it to hurt someone. Maybe they
did, but I would honestly have to see proof of it (beyond the
young man's statement that someone behind him was shouting it)
to believe it.
> The violation of the separation of church and state came with the
> later action of the school - its decision that the student who did
> *not* pray should be punished for not joining in, by being denied
> the privilege of rejoining the graduation ceremony, and denied
> entrance to the graduation party.
>
I agree that he should have been allowed to go to the party, but I
strongly disagree that he should have been allowed to return to
the graduation ceremony. He told the first policeman that he was
going in "to get someone" - I assumed to encourage a friend to
leave. The school's policy was clear about anyone returning to
the function, and he was undoubtedly familiar with it. Again, my
personal experience comes into play. I've had a lot of dealings
with "rebellious" young folks. For the most part, I admire their
courage and individuality. But I am also realistic enough to
realize the explosive potential many of them possess. Again,
that's my experience and background, and I may well be unique
here in those areas.
> Where I think I agree with Vincent is this. If I remember the story
> right, this all came up originally because one of the student
> speakers wanted to include a Christian prayer in her speech. There
> is a fine line here; but I think the content of speeches by the
> graduates shouldn't be regarded as speech from the State; and any
> student speaker should be allowed to speak as she sees fit, from
> the Lord's Prayer to Carroll's Jabberwocky to a neoNazi call to
> arms. (If, however, the school vets the speeches in advance, and
> censors speech it doesn't approve of, it gets trickier.)
>
That's basically where my argument begins and ends. Her right to
free speech was denied by the school. She should have adopted that
tried & true philosophy that it's easier to ask for forgiveness
than permission... I truly doubt that the young man raised the
issue because of his tender sensibilities concerning prayer. It
was probably (again, JMO) a clever act of revenge.
> I am sure there were plenty of Christians in the audience who found
> the whole performance disgraceful. If, flushed with their victory,
> the crowd tries to pull the same trick next year, I hope there'll
> be Christians prepared to follow up the prayer to the God Of Mob
> Rule with the Boddhisattva vows ("I take refuge in the Buddha,
> I take refuge in the dharma, I take refuge in the sangha..."),
> then with the Wicca Rede, and so on; topping it all off by saying
> a Kaddish for the death of civility in the community.
>
Or we could go with a nice Zoroastrian prayer, like:
"With propitiation of the Dahman Afrin of the good ones and the strong
wise one with higher intellect, for worship,
adoration, propitiation, and praise.
'Yatha Ahu Vairyo', the zaotar should say to me
'Yatha Ahu Vairyo', he who is the zaotar should say to me
'Atha ratush ashatchit hacha', the Asha-sanctified knowing one
should say."
Hee hee! We might have to have a few practice sessions with that one!
We obviously have two very different images of what happened, Royce.
I may well be wrong, but I just can't see the crowd later on that
night high-fiving each other and saying, "May, we kicked his butt,
didn't we?!?!" Can somebody get me a copy of that tape????
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shane D. Killian wrote:
>
> > I seriously doubt that I'm the only Christian who has a problem with
> > this.
>
> Yep, I'm another. It's important, though, to be clear about what
> we have a problem with. I'm not sure if it was you, but I've seen
> the words "separation of church and state" bandied about.
>
> The 2,000 people who stuffed the Lord's Prayer down the throat
> of the enemy, in a demonstration of their fundamental belief that
> might makes right, were not violating the separation of church and
> state. They were acting as individuals - boorish, bullying,
> disrespectful individuals. There's no constitutional issue involved.
>
> later action of the school - its decision that the student who did
> *not* pray should be punished for not joining in, by being denied
> the privilege of rejoining the graduation ceremony, and denied
> entrance to the graduation party.
>
> Where I think I agree with Vincent is this. If I remember the story
> right, this all came up originally because one of the student
> speakers wanted to include a Christian prayer in her speech. There
> is a fine line here; but I think the content of speeches by the
> graduates shouldn't be regarded as speech from the State; and any
> student speaker should be allowed to speak as she sees fit, from
> the Lord's Prayer to Carroll's Jabberwocky to a neoNazi call to
> arms. (If, however, the school vets the speeches in advance, and
> censors speech it doesn't approve of, it gets trickier.)
>
audience is there to pray. They're there to graduate, or to see their
children and friends graduate.
> I am sure there were plenty of Christians in the audience who found
> the whole performance disgraceful.
>
-vincent33
maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91) wrote:
<snip>
>
> You simply don't understand why the founding fathers enacted the wall
> of separation between church and state, do you? Do you think forcing
> Muslims and other religionists listen to Christian prayers is going to
> pay off? That path will eventually make what happened in the former
> Yugoslavia look like a picnic.
Yeah, and if we let the Commies take Viet Nam, the rest of the
countries in Southeast Asia will fall like dominoes!!! And...
and... Jesus is coming back New Year's Eve!!! And... and...
and...... Listen to this! Paul. McCartney. Is. DEAD!!! A guy
named Billy Shears took his place. Really, man, look at the
Abbey Road cover some time. And who's the walrus really? ;-)
Shane D. Killian
>
> I suggest we procure a video tape of the ceremony for our own
> review. We shall all meet in Petersburg, IN, home of the world
> atheist museum, for our first viewing, then move on to the crystal
> cathedral for a second showing. By then we should all be familiar
> with the inflections & nuances of the prayer and should be better
> able to judge the intentions and sensibilities of the folks who
> took part. ;-)
>
it, what they did was morally repugnant.
> I agree that he should have been allowed to go to the party, but I
> strongly disagree that he should have been allowed to return to
> the graduation ceremony.
>
he does not have freedom to avoid the prayer and yet still graduate.
This is precisely why there should never have been a prayer to begin
with.
> He told the first policeman that he was going in "to get someone"
>
He told him he was going to graduate.
"I told the cop I'm getting my diploma," Becker said. "He said, 'You're
not going back in.' He walked me over to the car, put me in the front of
the patrol car and said he was going to give me a citation for failing
to obey a lawful order."
> That's basically where my argument begins and ends. Her right to
> free speech was denied by the school.
>
That might be a good argument, except that it was *her* decision to
replace the prayer with a moment of time for reflection, so as to not
offend her fellow students. The audience went against *her* wishes as
well.
> I truly doubt that the young man raised the issue because of his tender
> sensibilities concerning prayer. It was probably (again, JMO) a clever
> act of revenge.
>
You have a strange idea about revenge. He gets *himself* thrown in jail,
and nothing happens to anyone else, and this is revenge???
> We obviously have two very different images of what happened, Royce.
> I may well be wrong, but I just can't see the crowd later on that
> night high-fiving each other and saying, "May, we kicked his butt,
> didn't we?!?!"
>
Well, of *course* they wouldn't. They're going to pretend to be all
pious and humble so as not to feel guilty about it. And many were
doubtless just caught up in the moment. The lion's share of the blame
starts with the person who started up. This was started with a lone
voice, remember.
Eric Sneddon
If we eliminated every possible permutation of belief from public life, then
all forms of theism as well as atheism would be disallowed.
-vincent33 wrote:
> -v33
--
Eric
;柵
And Sharkey says: Hey Kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
Sharkey's Night, Laurie Anderson
Bolo
<asa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7j8na8$e03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If they didn't want to hear it they were free to leave. If they don't
> want to hear any references to any religions, including Christianity,
> they should go live in a sealed box somewhere and get a life and a
> cause.
>
when the event is ORGANIZED (like a high school graduation) and the people
are REQUIRED to be there (to get their diplomas and be honored just like
everyone else) THEN prayer is clearly NOT a good idea. IF you honor one
person's god then you dishonor another's faith (or lack of faith). The only
way to handle if fairly for EVERYONE is to not inject religion into a public
gathering. Because let's face it... is a graduating senior REALLY free to
leave their graduation before they get the diploma? I don't think so...
if you're honest, you won't think so either.
How would you like if at your graduation they had prayers and songs to
Allah instead of Jesus? How about Osiris or Thor? How about if 10 students
asked for an animal sacrifice to Satan? Is that ok then???? If those aren't
ok, then why is it ok to pray to any god at all????
Frankly most fundies I've talked with don't EVER consider that there are
other faiths here in the USA. It honestly NEVER occurs to them. Doesn't make
it right, just makes them look stupid.
I'm reminded of the snickers commercial. The one where the football team
is in the locker room and the coach brings in a priest... then a pastor...
then a rabbi... then a shaman... the camera pans to a line of "holy men"
going out the door... and the commercial says: "Not going anywhere for
awhile? Try a snickers bar."
I personally take it a little further. When the event is organized and
attendance is widespread and open to the public (like a high school sports
event) then prayers are not a good idea again. Same reasons, but can't you
see that a prayer to JeeZus is patently offensive to Hebrews???? And let's
face it, Judaism is NOT exactly an unknown faith in the USA. But it's
surprising how many Christians go right ahead and offend their neighbors
without a thought... and that is the key... it's done WITHOUT THINKING.
By the way... the cause is enforcement of the First Amendment. The part
where the government shall make no laws respecting religion. Most courts
have ruled that public schools are representatives of the government because
they obtain their funding primarily with government money (provided through
taxes). Therefore, prayers at schools, at public government meetings like
city council meetings, etc. should NOT endorse any religion.
That's why that maniac judge in Alabama was ordered to take down the ten
commandments from his court room. No one is 'violating his rights' by asking
him to pray in church or in his home or anything. All they are saying is
that he has no business endorsing a religion (Christianity in this case, but
if he had posted Qur'an sayings he'd have been asked to take those down too)
in PUBLIC court. As a court official he deals with people of all faiths
every day. He needs to understand that his faith is not necessarily EVERYONE
ELSE'S faith, and he has no business pushing his faith on anyone else.
Do you get it yet?????
Bolo
Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a
thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas
fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to
be committed.
- Voltaire
Christopher A. Lee
>Hey Vincent;
>If we eliminated every possible permutation of belief from public life, then
>all forms of theism as well as atheism would be disallowed.
How so? Hint: atheism isn't a belief but the absence of one.
Why is it so difficult for believers to grasp this simple point?
Eric Sneddon
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> How so? Hint: atheism isn't a belief but the absence of one.
Hint: atheism is a belief that there is no God.
> Why is it so difficult for believers to grasp this simple point?
Seems that, "believers" aren't the only ones.
Megavolt
wrote:
>
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
>> How so? Hint: atheism isn't a belief but the absence of one.
>
>Hint: atheism is a belief that there is no God.
Actually, no. Atheism is the lack of the belief in a deity.
It is an altogether different proposition from what you have said. No
belief is required, nor used.
>
>> Why is it so difficult for believers to grasp this simple point?
>
>Seems that, "believers" aren't the only ones.
Aren't the only ones what?
John P. Boatwright
> <asa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7j8na8$e03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > If they didn't want to hear it they were free to leave. If they don't
> > want to hear any references to any religions, including Christianity,
> > they should go live in a sealed box somewhere and get a life and a
> > cause.
> Here's the thing...
> when the event is ORGANIZED (like a high school graduation) and the people
> are REQUIRED to be there (to get their diplomas and be honored just like
> everyone else) THEN prayer is clearly NOT a good idea.
Ya it is.
It's >>> EXPECTED <<< that people would stand giving their
speech and ALSO mention God. It's part of most any SENSIBLE
discussion at a major cerimony.
It says to people not that the person saying it is "good"
but it is to recognize God in the overall scheme, the
graduation, the moving forward to the next level.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
>> How so? Hint: atheism isn't a belief but the absence of one.
>
>Hint: atheism is a belief that there is no God.
Why are so many theists such arrogant idiots that they think
they know what it means to be atheist better than we atheists
do ourselves?
>> Why is it so difficult for believers to grasp this simple point?
>
>Seems that, "believers" aren't the only ones.
No, liar. What makes you think that you know our minds
better than we do ourselves?
Eric Sneddon
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> Why are so many theists such arrogant idiots that they think
> they know what it means to be atheist better than we atheists
> do ourselves?
Indeed, we? It seems that arrogance and idiocy are not the exclusive
trademarks of theists.
> No, liar. What makes you think that you know our minds
> better than we do ourselves?
Interesting argument, what if anything does your mind have to do with
it?
Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
>> Why are so many theists such arrogant idiots that they think
>> they know what it means to be atheist better than we atheists
>> do ourselves?
>
>Indeed, we? It seems that arrogance and idiocy are not the exclusive
>trademarks of theists.
Except that we're talking about you, when you tell atheists what
their atheism means and get it wrong. Then insist that you
know better than we do ourselves. It's arrogant and rude. Also
par for thecourse.
>> No, liar. What makes you think that you know our minds
>> better than we do ourselves?
>
>Interesting argument, what if anything does your mind have to do with
>it?
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha. Duh. You are insisting you know what
we believe better than we do ourselves.
-vincent33
chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
> >
> >Hint: atheism is a belief that there is no God.
>
> they know what it means to be atheist better than we atheists
> do ourselves?
>
Let me try to explain something to you here: I've seen some of
the arguments between you guys and the fundamentalists over
whether or not atheism is a religion. It's laughable to say that
atheism is a religion. But it's equally laughable to say that
it isn't a belief system. You can play with the words any way
you want, but when you do, you have more in common with the
fundamentalists than you do with any kind of rational thinkers.
> >> Why is it so difficult for believers to grasp this simple point?
> >
> >Seems that, "believers" aren't the only ones.
>
> better than we do ourselves?
>
"visit" over here I feel like I've stumbled across the He-Man
Woman Haters Club. I halfway expect to see Spanky and Alfalfa
hanging up the by-laws. A lot of you guys are JUST LIKE
the religious fundamentalists you hate so much. Since you
quote a definition of atheism that cites you as its source,
I'll do the same. The vincent33 definition of fundamentalism:
"I'm right; you're wrong; shut up!"* Go ahead; lace up that
shoe. It fits perfectly.
*Reference: 33,vincent alt.atheism article
There are those among us who would
like to engage in some semi-intelligent discussion about
religion & atheism & belief & unbelief & a world of things
that people like us like to think about. If you ever hear of
such a place, be sure to let me know, ok?
I'll leave you with a quote I ran across on one of your links.
I have a lot of trouble concentrating, so I'm not too well-read.
I'd heard of Huxley, but I didn't know he "invented" agnosticism.
I also didn't know what agnosticism meant exactly. I guess if it
really means "freethinker" I may be one. Hard to say... Or maybe
you could just say I have an absence of belief in gnosis.
-v33
======================================
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether
I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last
I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any
of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most
of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I
differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a
certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem
of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty
strong conviction that the problem was insoluble." -Aldous Huxley
Shane D. Killian
>
> It's >>> EXPECTED <<< that people would stand giving their
> speech and ALSO mention God. It's part of most any SENSIBLE
> discussion at a major cerimony.
>
> It says to people not that the person saying it is "good"
> but it is to recognize God in the overall scheme, the
> graduation, the moving forward to the next level.
>
I wonder how you can sleep at nights after spewing out so many lies?
Eric Sneddon
and
to be free from discrimination on the basis of it. The government does
not
have the right to make laws concerning an establishment of religion, nor
does it have the right to curtail the right of free speach of either
believers or nonbelievers.
-vincent33 wrote:
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Eric Sneddon
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> Except that we're talking about you, when you tell atheists what
> their atheism means and get it wrong. Then insist that you
> know better than we do ourselves. It's arrogant and rude. Also
> par for thecourse.
What's arrogant is that you have chosen to represent yourself as a person
who knows what it means or signifies to be, "an atheist." to the exclusion
of both
1) other atheists who do not share your beliefs as to what defines an
atheist in a significant enough fashion, to warrant either their inclusion
into the group which you refer to as atheists, or your inclusion into the
group which other atheists consider as atheists.
2) others who may question the legitimacy of your beliefs as well as their
own.
Additionally, at least most atheists I know or have had contact with
within the context of the usenet environment and elsewhere, have been
discerning enough to understand the difference between the word God and
the word god. Actually most Christians would probably not fit into your
definition of theists at all, and would probably qualify as people who (in
your opinion) have patently absurd beliefs.
This is something that atheists and Christians have in common.
> Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha. Duh. You are insisting you know what
> we believe better than we do ourselves.
I know myself better than you know yourself obviously. This is why I
insist that if you wish to refer to yourself as a member (or
representative) of a group, that I am also to be included in that group as
well. And that is why I know you do not represent or even (in all
likelihood) even fully comprehend what it means to be an atheist. The term
atheist probably has no greater significance to you than the brand of
jeans you wear, or the kind of soda you drink.
That's, "par for the course."
Duh?
Shane D. Killian
>
> However each person is guaranteed the right to his or her own beliefs,
> and to be free from discrimination on the basis of it. The government
> does not have the right to make laws concerning an establishment of
> religion, nor does it have the right to curtail the right of free speach
> of either believers or nonbelievers.
>
a moment of silence; doesn't matter *what* they were saying. And the
student was perfectly within his rights to want to leave and come back.
His rights were blatantly violated.
That would be true regardless of whether they were praying or singing
"I'm Henry VIII I am."
-vincent33
> >
> > However each person is guaranteed the right to his or her own
beliefs,
> > and to be free from discrimination on the basis of it. The
government
> > does not have the right to make laws concerning an establishment of
> > religion, nor does it have the right to curtail the right of free
speach
> > of either believers or nonbelievers.
> >
> But that doesn't apply here. The crowd was wrong because they
disrupted
> a moment of silence; doesn't matter *what* they were saying. And the
> student was perfectly within his rights to want to leave and come
back.
> His rights were blatantly violated.
>
Specifically, which rights of his were violated, and by whom? Are
you saying the crowd violated his civil rights?
Eric Sneddon
Don Kresch wrote:
> No, it is laughable to say that, as atheism is a lack of belief.
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>In article <chrisleeF...@netcom.com>,
> chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>> In article <3759FC1F...@erols.com> tgr...@erols.com writes:
>> >
>> >"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>> >
>> >> How so? Hint: atheism isn't a belief but the absence of one.
>> >
>> >Hint: atheism is a belief that there is no God.
>>
>> Why are so many theists such arrogant idiots that they think
>> they know what it means to be atheist better than we atheists
>> do ourselves?
>>
>Wipe the slobber off your mouth, honey! You're drooling again!
>Let me try to explain something to you here: I've seen some of
>the arguments between you guys and the fundamentalists over
>whether or not atheism is a religion. It's laughable to say that
>atheism is a religion. But it's equally laughable to say that
>it isn't a belief system.
No, it is laughable to say that, as atheism is a lack of belief.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"