Jesus is against prayer in school!
Elizabeth C King
word of God. But, he does make alot of sense sometimes.
Matthew 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I asked him for mercy, he gave me a gun."
Elizabeth
ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Lad A. Jelen
In a previous article, ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) says:
> As an atheist, I don't believe Jesus' words BECAUSE they are the
>word of God. But, he does make alot of sense sometimes.
>
[snip]
>
As an atheist, what do you think you will do after you physically die?
This is a legitamate question, as I don't know anyone atheistic,
and can't discuss this with my friends.
Also, how do your beliefs affect your day-to-day behavior?
--
I am presently pro-life. I would consider changing my position if
the pro-choice people would agree to be aborted retroactively.....
boddhisatva
Of course Ms. King is exactly right. The so-called persecution of
the modern neo-fundamentalist neo-christian is nothing more than a decent
reacton to those who are becoming increasingly the "scribes and Pharisees"
that their saviour warned them not to emulate.
Rather than the tricky, bothersome COMPASSION part of the teaching of
jesus, they like the chauvinistic, bigoted, self-serving part where you get
alot of nice kudos and power for being "righteous". A poster complains about
students creating an uproar by asking that a prayer be spoken over the p.a.
at a Mississipi school. He described the prayer as "non-sectarian". Of
course he conveniently forgot that orthidox Jews and other Judeo-Christian
fundamentalists find the use of the word God to be blasphemous, to the extent
that people don't even write it. Asking for blessings directly is also
troubling to many major religions. But of course the point is for these poor
kids to be the tools or their neo-christian prosletyzer "pastors".
Naturally, this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior the saviour Jesus was
reffering to. The PLACE one INSISTS on praying, especially with the STATED
purpose of inflicting that prayer on others is in direct contradiction to this
portion of the word.
I would think that the constitution is clearly the "outside of the cup
and of the plate" (Matthew 23.25) when it comes to matters of the soul.
--
Brian E. Clark
> There have been a number of ammendments to the Constitution added by our
> democratic process. Looks like there might be one more on the horizon.
The irory here is tornado-force.
In an effort to get back to the supposed "Christian roots" of the
country, some short-sighted zealots mean to do away with the protections
established by the founders of the country. The founders, we're supposed
to believe, were of like mind to today's Falwells and Robertsons, but
mistakenly wrote the separation of church and state into the
Constitution.
Whoops. Don't worry, these diviners of Jefferson and Franklin tell us. We
know what they *meant* to do, and we'll set it straight. Even if we must
neuter the document the founders themselves created.
-brian
--
_________________________________________________________________
The only people who could stomach being seen in a Lincoln
are the exact types that would be wearing a hat.
-- Christopher R. Boggs
A.X. Lias
: As an atheist, what do you think you will do after you physically die?
: This is a legitamate question, as I don't know anyone atheistic,
: and can't discuss this with my friends.
I expect to do the exact same thing that I did before I existed.
: Also, how do your beliefs affect your day-to-day behavior?
I have any number of beliefs that effect my day-to-day behavior. Atheism
is nothing more than a *lack* of belief regarding a specific subject. My
atheism has very, very little impact on my daily routine, other then
giving me a reason to participate in discussions on alt.atheism.
Being a part of a detested minority whose rights are often threatened also
gives me some cause towards political action. On the other hand, given
that I was a libertarian sympathizer before I was an atheist, I think that
I would be inclined towards like action anyway.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com | Frobozz on IRC | Finger for PGP key
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
The 1st Law of Usenet thermodynamics: The friction generated by rubbing
two newsgroups together will inevitably lead to flames.
Elizabeth C King
Lad A. Jelen <af...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) says:
>
>This is a legitamate question, as I don't know anyone atheistic,
>and can't discuss this with my friends.
>I am presently pro-life. I would consider changing my position if
>the pro-choice people would agree to be aborted retroactively.....
As an atheist, I've actually had to do incredible amounts of
thinking about what is and what isn't and also what should be and
shouldn't be. I'm absolutely convinced that when I die, my brain will
stop funcitioning, and I will be buried in the ground. This is probably
similar to what you think happens to bugs when you kill them. I don't
think that there was any divine action which made me, a human, superior
to animals. Our brains have just evolved better. To put things in
perspective, if you took a timeline of the history of animal-kind, you
will see that humans have been around for less than 1% of the time.
My day-to-day behaviour is governed by MY morals. I think
stealing is wrong, I think lying is wrong, ... etc. I am very confused
about abortion, but just look how complex the issue is. However, because
of my confusion, I absolutely think the role of the government should be
zero. I would have to think that my ethical being is made up both of
what my parents have taught me and what I have come to believe through
lengthy reflection. My problem with many religious zealots (not the
majority of religious people), is that they absolutely believe in a set
of morals which have, generation after generation, without reflection,
been handed down as the word of God. The problem is that many
generational beliefs have included that sex is dirty, whites are
superior, homosexuals are going to hell, masturbation is immoral ...etc.
Bryan Hayward
>
>In a previous article, ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) says:
>
>> As an atheist, I don't believe Jesus' words BECAUSE they are the
>>word of God. But, he does make alot of sense sometimes.
>>
>[snip]
>>
>As an atheist, what do you think you will do after you physically die?
What does this have to do with school prayer?
>This is a legitamate question, as I don't know anyone atheistic,
>and can't discuss this with my friends.
>Also, how do your beliefs affect your day-to-day behavior?
>--
>I am presently pro-life. I would consider changing my position if
>the pro-choice people would agree to be aborted retroactively.....
Another Paul Hill. Great. I hope you get thrown in prison if you try
any of his anti-social crap. Do you hear voices, too? Do they tell
you God wants to kill all abortionists? If so, you haven't reading
your Bible very carefully.
Bryan Hayward
my views aren't my employer's
James J. Herlburt
Again, for the third time, it's not where you pray its why you pray. It
is the attitude in your heart that matters. All the prayers in the world
are meaningless unless your heart is directed toward God in an attitude
of humility, respect, and honor. I know this is a simple answer to a
complex issue. But aren't most answers?
: --
: Gregory Tucker-Kellogg g...@walsh.med.harvard.edu
: Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology
: Harvard Medical School, Boston MA 02115
: "It is because agents never know completely what they are doing that
: what they do has more sense than what they know."
: -- Pierre Bourdieu _Logic_of_Practice_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. And hopefully for the last time that is not what Jesus said. I'm
sure you can be humble and pray in a public place but that's not what
Jesus says to do. Be humble and pray in private. What is it about Jesus
that causes so many so-called Christains not to follow their Lord's own
words? Wish we had some Amish on the Internet. *grin*
Jim.
In Prometheus We Trust - jjh3...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Stephen McIntyre
> I don't see how this says Jesus is against prayer in school. What it
> says to me is: Those who pray merely to be appear pious by others are in fact
> hypocrites. Because they pray to be seen, not out of their worship of God.
> It has nothing to do with where you pray, but rather the reasons why you
> pray.
I find it interesting that most of those people pushing for
voluntary prayer in school, moments of silence, and etc.,
are coming from the religious, not the secular and/or
non-religious. I must ask if these same people are really
pushing the point so children may be left to pray on their
own, or so they may show everyone how pious they (and
presumably) their parents are?
Stephen
--
Ken Hudson
>: >: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
>: >: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>: >: streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
>: >: their reward.
>: >: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
>: >: hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
>: >: which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
>
>: >says to me is: Those who pray merely to be appear pious by others are in fact
>: >hypocrites. Because they pray to be seen, not out of their worship of God.
>: >It has nothing to do with where you pray, but rather the reasons why you
>: >pray.
water down a text so much and say that what it means "to me" is something
that leaves out 90 percent of the context of the text. This refusal
to "read" honestly drives many of my teacher friends crazy...it is so
hard to teach a fundamentalist, because they never READ what is in
front of them, only PROJECT some loosely associated personal tenet
onto a couple words in the text. And if you get three of them doing
this in three separate rooms, you end up with three totally different
answers, so they don't even agree on what they believe. But the bottom
line: this passage CLEARLY talks about secret--PRIVATE--prayer versus
open--PUBLIC--prayer. But those who want school prayer aren't demanding
it to obey Christ or respect His teachings (obviously), but to preserve
some traditional heresy that says public prayer is a good thing. Go
figure...
Ken Hudson
>>Jesus prayed and preached countless times before thousands of people.
>>Those hold a dissenting position made him a political issue and
>>eventually had him killed.
Whoa! In EVERY ONE of these situations, it was a religious gathering!!!
Persons were there by choice. Christ was fulfilling his function as
ordained minister. His prayers were invocations as a part of His
ministry. This was not a school session; a public town hall meeting;
an in-service training session at work. I don't believe anyone
says you can't invoke the Almighty as a group during a religious
service or gathering. It is in the mixed, secular, public school
system that it becomes a problem...
In the few cases where Christ uttered a prayer in the presence of
others NOT at a religious gathering where He was preaching and teaching,
He made invocation for healing. Certainly, if a child is injured
on a playground and another walks up, lays on hands and heals them
with an invocation to God, I doubt anyone would be upset. Christians
might find the witness presented by genuine healing to be very
powerful, more so than school prayer...
But Christ NEVER walked out into a public marketplace and just
started praying publicly. It NEVER HAPPENED. He DID spend HOURS
and HOURS praying privately (e.g. in the Garden of Gethsemane). Do
those who support school prayer spend a proportionately high number
of hours in private prayer after Christ's example? I wonder...
Stephen McIntyre
> If just this much were true, I would have nothing to say. Unfortunately,
> only Christians are aware of the problems they face. It is simply
> not fashionable to report abuses against faithful people.
>
> Here are some examples of what has happened just this year:
>
> In California a kindergarden-age girl stood up to do her school
> assignment: to sing her favorite song. She began to sing a children's
> song called "Jesus Loves Me". She was immediately told to stop, go to
> her desk and put her head down. She was crushed. Later, when her parents
> asked the teacher for an explanation, they were told that religion is
> disallowed in schools. The principal and school board backed the teacher up.
>
> In Mississippi (I believe) students wrote a non-denominational prayer
> that went something like this:
>
> "Dear God, we ask you to bless our
> parents, teachers and us as we work
> through this day. Amen."
>
> The students requested that their student body president read the prayer
> over the PA. The principal agreed and was fired the next day. The
> school board held that student-led prayer was disallowed in schools.
> Ultimately, after vocal support from the students led to legal
> intervention, the principal was reinstated with back pay. My point is,
> however, that the government did not direct the students request for
> prayer. And, as represented by this principal, the government did not
> stand in its way, either.
>
> "Zeus" is a little off, but I have absolutely no problem with "Allah",
> "Jehova", or any of the other names for God. A friend of mine is
> Muslim. He and I have had long discussions regarding religion and I am
> convinced that, despite tremendous differences, the nature of God in both
> of our religions is the same (I am Christian). The prayer above could
> just as easily been written by a Jew. IMHO, the only people who could be
> offended by such a prayer are those who want suppression of religious
> beliefs of any kind and _that_ is not constitutional.
>
> One would think that a non-believer would simply "let the people babble
> on for half a minute like silly kids". Surprisingly, that's not enough.
>
> There have been a number of ammendments to the Constitution added by our
> democratic process. Looks like there might be one more on the horizon.
>
> It has been a spirited debate, Allison. I will pray for you. We could
> use you on our side :)
Let me enter this debate a second. I am the father of two sone,
one who is now attending school. I am also an atheist, who
wishes that his son not be exposed to the idea of God until
he has passed that impressionable age where the words of
adults and his peers are infallible.
Listed above were some "abuses." Imagine how I felt when my son
came home singing the pledge of allegiance, not the one
written in the original, but the one adopted by the pious
President Eisenhower. Already the indoctrination begins.
Next my son comes crying home, because at school some children
made fun of him because he told them the truth: he doesn't
go to church. I was able to comfort him, although now he
feels he's a social pariah because he doesn't do what his
friends all do.
My wife was walking my child to school one day, with my other son
and some neighborhood kids. One of these children went up
to my wife in a sarcastic tone of voice, pointed and said,
"YOOOUU don't go to church. My mom says you could go to
hell." Of course, my wife, not wanting to "abuse" this
child, told her the reason we don't go to church is because
we know all about God, and there's no reason for us to go.
This, thankfully, satisfied the child. Had I been there I
don't know what I would have done. But I can say this: had
I told the child I don't believe in God, and told her why I
don't, I can bet I would have raised a ruckus throughout the
community. (Just imagine if I told the six-year-old that
Santa didn't exist, and how her parents would have reacted.
Then switch "Santa" with "God"; you can imagine the
decibels, I'm sure.)
That's what I feel is a problem here. The Christians, the
Muslims, the Jewish, and etc., can all have their children
believe what they want, do what they want, and etc. But if
an atheist raises a hand, WHOABOY, watch out! We're abusing
children.
Remember, hon, abuse works both ways, although I think atheists
have it the worst.
Stephen
William Barwell
Ken Hudson <ke...@yaleads.ycc.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Jesus prayed and preached countless times before thousands of people.
>>>Those hold a dissenting position made him a political issue and
>>>eventually had him killed.
>
>Whoa! In EVERY ONE of these situations, it was a religious gathering!!!
>Persons were there by choice. Christ was fulfilling his function as
>ordained minister.
actually pray in public. Mainly he specifically withdraws to pray in
private. John 17 is at the last supper with only his apostles apparently.
Not thousands of people. John 11 is at Lazarus's grave and Jesus states
he only prays openly so people will know that it is god who is
responsible for the following miracle. None of which have much to do
with school prayer or massed public prayer.
His prayers were invocations as a part of His
>ministry. This was not a school session; a public town hall meeting;
>an in-service training session at work. I don't believe anyone
>says you can't invoke the Almighty as a group during a religious
>service or gathering.
Mark 6:5. Jesus is actually pretty clear on this point notwithstanding
the pettifogging of various Xians. 2000 years of sinnin'..
My, my. Doesn't ANYBODY follow the scriptures? Now we know why Jesus
says the raod is wide but the gate narrow.
It is in the mixed, secular, public school
>system that it becomes a problem...
>
>In the few cases where Christ uttered a prayer in the presence of
>others NOT at a religious gathering where He was preaching and teaching,
>He made invocation for healing.
Certainly, if a child is injured
>on a playground and another walks up, lays on hands and heals them
>with an invocation to God, I doubt anyone would be upset. Christians
>might find the witness presented by genuine healing to be very
>powerful, more so than school prayer...
>
>But Christ NEVER walked out into a public marketplace and just
>started praying publicly. It NEVER HAPPENED. He DID spend HOURS
>and HOURS praying privately (e.g. in the Garden of Gethsemane). Do
>those who support school prayer spend a proportionately high number
>of hours in private prayer after Christ's example? I wonder...
>
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
Ted Krueger <kru...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>In article <3adds8$5...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
>Elizabeth C King <ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>> As an atheist, I don't believe Jesus' words BECAUSE they are the
>>word of God. But, he does make alot of sense sometimes.
>
>of this passage because some other anti-christian type told you
>about it. Probably neither of you understand it.
>
>>Matthew 6:5
>> And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
>>for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>>streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
>>their reward.
>> But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
>>hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
>>which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
>
>interested in knowing what He was talking about, drop me an e-mail,
>I'd love to discuss it with you.
>
Hey Ted. Why not discuss it here so everybody can have the benefit of
your wisdom?
Show us any place else in the NT that Jesus commanded, recommended or
approved of public prayer? Especially massed public perfuntory prayers
of the sort the Xian far right wants to saddle everybody's children with.
Show us where in the NT Jesus is depicted as leading public prayers?
None? Hmmm. Odd isn't it.
Mark 6:5 is the only place he does tell us of his views.
If you do not follow his specific commands, you are no Christian,
according to Matthew 7:21.
Jesus said not to pray publically.
Mark 6:5 proves it.
That settles it.
Elizabeth C King
Larry Ferreira <lar...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
>Greg Tucker-Kellogg (kel...@proton.chem.yale.edu) wrote:
>: Larry Ferreira (larryf@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE) wrote:
>: > Elizabeth C King (ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
Because they pray to be seen, not out of their worship of God.
>: > It has nothing to do with where you pray, but rather the reasons why you
>: > pray.
>
>Again, for the third time, it's not where you pray its why you pray. It
>is the attitude in your heart that matters. All the prayers in the world
>are meaningless unless your heart is directed toward God in an attitude
>of humility, respect, and honor. I know this is a simple answer to a
>complex issue. But aren't most answers?
>
Ahhhhhh, thank the gods, we finally agree. You are 100%
correct. You are absolutely right when you say that just sitting through
a prayer every morning is meaningless. Boy, you walked into that one.
So why don't you think that we should stick with our system as it is
now? The first amendment already protects every student's right to pray
to God (even during school) in the way that student feels is proper. Why
do you want the school to organize some generic one size fits all prayer
when you already admit that it would be meaningless?
David M. Cook
George E. Herrera Jr <gher...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In California a kindergarden-age girl stood up to do her school
>assignment: to sing her favorite song. She began to sing a children's
>song called "Jesus Loves Me". She was immediately told to stop, go to
>her desk and put her head down.
This, I agree, is unacceptably insensitive behavior for a teacher. My
experience, though, is that most of the insensitivity is directed toward
non-Christian rather than Christian students.
>In Mississippi (I believe) students wrote a non-denominational prayer
>that went something like this:
>
> "Dear God, we ask you to bless our
> parents, teachers and us as we work
> through this day. Amen."
>
>The students requested that their student body president read the prayer
>over the PA. The principal agreed and was fired the next day. The
>school board held that student-led prayer was disallowed in schools.
The students are a captive audience. Whether the prayer is lead by
the student body president or by a faculty member, the effect is the
same, to marginalize non-monotheistic and non-religious students.
Do you really think that Wiccan, Buddhist, Native American or even Moslem
students will be given equal representation in such prayer readings? I
suspect that in many areas Jewish, Catholic and Mormon students would be
descriminated against as student prayer leaders.
There is a school district here in Texas that banned the Star of David as
a "Satanic" symbol (the ban was withdrawn after some parents
complained.) With such ignorance and insensitivity rampant in many
school districts do you really think that such a law would be applied
equally to all religions?
Do you really want to open the doors to this kind of religious
factionalism?
>Ultimately, after vocal support from the students led to legal
>intervention, the principal was reinstated with back pay. My point is,
>however, that the government did not direct the students request for
>prayer.
All the students had to sit through the damn prayer. The effect is
the same.
>And, as represented by this principal, the government did not
>stand in its way, either.
The principal was using the student president as his proxy to promote
religion, and only thinly disguised Christianity to boot.
>: Of course the majority of Americans are in favor of prayer in schools. The
>: majority of Americans are Christians. If the public prayer proposed was
>: prayer to Zeus or Allah, would you still be in favor of the amendment> I
>: think not.
>
>"Zeus" is a little off, but I have absolutely no problem with "Allah",
Would Zeus be disallowed then? I suppose the children who pray to Zeus
will be considered troublemakers ("Nobody worships Zeus, that kid is just
trying to be a wiseass") and sent to the principal.
Many, many Christians would blanche at the idea of Moslem students leading
their children in prayer (I doubt they would allow it.) Many Christians
consider any religion but their own to be pagan or even satanic.
>"Jehova", or any of the other names for God.
But not gods. There are more and more non-monotheistic students in the
classroom every year. Buddhism does not have a god.
And I wonder how long it will take for "Jesus" to creep into the prayers.
I'm guessing milliseconds.
> A friend of mine is
>Muslim. He and I have had long discussions regarding religion and I am
>convinced that, despite tremendous differences, the nature of God in both
>of our religions is the same (I am Christian). The prayer above could
>just as easily been written by a Jew.
What about Buddhists? Native Americans? Wiccans? New age religion X?
Non-believers? (No, non-believer is not synonymous with
"anti-Christian".)
Or are these groups just shit outa luck.
Many Jewish groups will oppose any such ammendment. They know that it
will be seen by many Christians as a green light to proselytize and
marginalize their children.
Many Christians, Muslims and Jews don't agree with you that Yahweh,
Allah and the Holy Ghost are just different names for the same God.
>IMHO, the only people who could be
>offended by such a prayer are those who want suppression of religious
>beliefs of any kind and _that_ is not constitutional.
Allowing children to be free of a religiously divisive atomosphere for
the time they are in school is in no way supression of religious belief.
It in fact prevents people from being at each others throats.
>One would think that a non-believer would simply "let the people babble
>on for half a minute like silly kids". Surprisingly, that's not enough.
What I'm against is the babble becoming sanctioned peer pressure to make
my kids feel marginilized. I heard the "You're going to hell" babble too
much when I was a kid. Don't forget, bringing the heathen to Jesus is
an important part of many peoples religious expression.
>There have been a number of ammendments to the Constitution added by our
>democratic process. Looks like there might be one more on the horizon.
They still have to stand constitutional muster. Or will you seek to
repeal the 1st amendment to prepare the way?
>It has been a spirited debate, Allison. I will pray for you. We could
>use you on our side :)
Add me to the list. I hope that prayer is a looooooong one.
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
K R Paarlberg <kp...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>I went to a public school and at our graduation we had a minister come in
>and give a prayer.
What, they didn't invite a rabbi, immam, brujo or priests (Catholic and
Buddhist.)
>No one objected
Sheep.
>, but I think this year it was not
>allowed because the school board was afraid of getting sued.
Good.
>Our school
>still has baccalaurette. Even though it is totally optional, most students
>do go to it.
Students usually don't vote, either. Sheep.
>Maybe the answer is home rule.
May you only rule at home.
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
James J. Herlburt <jjh3...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Again, for the third time, it's not where you pray its why you pray.
I'm assuming that you support directed prayer in public schools.
Then I must also assume that you want the public schools to do for
religion what they've done for education.
Dave Cook
Ted Krueger
Greg Tucker-Kellogg <g...@walsh.med.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Larry Ferreira (larryf@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE) wrote:
>> Elizabeth C King (ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
>
>> : Matthew 6:5
>> : And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
>> : for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>> : streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
>> : their reward.
>> : But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
>> : hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
>> : which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
>
>> says to me is: Those who pray merely to be appear pious by others are in fact
>> It has nothing to do with where you pray, but rather the reasons why you
>> pray.
>
>If prayer in schools is not "pray[ing] to be seen", what is it?
You really have to be squeezing your eyes together quite hard
not to see this as it really is.
It is the same as praying before the start of a day in session of
congress. It is asking God's blessing and help for the day that
you are beginning.
Ted
--
"Bill Clinton went out of his way to make these elections a referendum
on the 1980's and the votes are in; the 1980's have won."
- George Will on ABC television, election day 1994
Ted Krueger - kru...@neosoft.com
Loren Petrich
... My problem with many religious zealots (not the
>>of morals which have, generation after generation, without reflection,
>>been handed down as the word of God. The problem is that many
>>generational beliefs have included that sex is dirty, whites are
>>superior, homosexuals are going to hell, masturbation is immoral ...etc.
>Sounds like stereotyping to me.
More like the ugly truth.
... If you want to find out what the Bible says
>about these issues, look at it. In fact there is even a commandment. I
>think it goes something like this: "Thou shalt not commit adultury".
Adultery? I think it was referring to a man not being allowed to
have sex with another man's wife. Other women, except for relatives, and
including the multitude of prostitutes, were fair game.
The Bible also recommends abortion on command if a man suspects
that his wife has been unfaithful after he has returned from a long trip
(Numbers 5).
>The problem with this arguement is that the Bible was written approximately
>2000 years ago. It has not changed. Why should beliefs change?
I'm not sure if Kevin Paarlberg believes in:
The legitimacy of slavery (never questioned anywhere in the Bible)
The Divine Right of Kings
The comparison of marriage to slavery (Ephesians 6:5 or thereabouts)
[the latter one was Hillary's alleged sin; her vilifiers chose to quote
her out of of context when she mentioned some eminent jurists of a couple
of centuries ago as having such an opinion]
Etc.
--
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
pet...@netcom.com Happiness is a fast Macintosh
l...@s1.gov And a fast train
William Barwell
pettifogging reasons decided to pander to the Christians and to utterly
ignore Jesus's specific commands in the Bible, (and who would be more apt
to fit the phrase hypocrites than American politicians), Then it is like
wise perfectly acceptable to ignore Poor Ol' Jesus in Mark 6:5 and
extend the hypocrisy to our schools. Because our good American mouth
breathers do not understand Jesus much better and demand the forbidden fruit
of publical prayer such as specifically condemned by Jesus.
B'god! It all makes sense! Not.
Rick Gillespie
>pray. The United States House of Representatives begins every session
>with a prayer.
Yes, an activity that borders on unconstitutional.
> ...
>I think that this "You can't do that" attitude is a little childish in
>this modern society. Especially if you considers what is
>permissible now that wasn't before. Thankfully, we live in a
>democracy. Polls show that a majority of Americans are in favor prayer
>in schools.
Excuse me, but prayer IS allowed in schools. Coercive prayer led by teachers
*is* prohibitted. How would you feel if your child was required to bring
a prayer mat to school so that he/she had to say a Muslim prayer to Allah
several times a day?
Rick Gillespie
"I speak only for myself"
Roger Taylor
prayer.. by K R Paar...@iastate.ed
> From: kp...@iastate.edu (K R Paarlberg)
> Subject: Re: Jesus is against prayer in school!
> Date: 17 Nov 1994 23:46:10 GMT
[snip]
> Sounds like stereotyping to me. If you want to find out what the Bible says
> about these issues, look at it.
I've read it multiple times (as well as other mythological/religious
texts). Maybe
you should read the whole thing instead of the rereading the parts that
make you
feel all warm and fuzzy.
> In fact there is even a commandment. I
> think it goes something like this: "Thou shalt not commit adultury".
> The problem with this arguement is that the Bible was written approximately
> 2000 years ago. It has not changed. Why should beliefs change?
I guess you think we shouldn't have gotten rid of slavery or given women
equal rights, huh?
-Roger
Brian E. Clark
> Jesus prayed and preached countless times before thousands of people.
> Those hold a dissenting position made him a political issue and
> eventually had him killed.
Oferkrisake! Jesus was killed for praying in public, was he? Wow! That
would mean he was persecuted for his stand on public prayer just like
today's Christians are presecuted for theirs. Today's Christians could
almost feel they are retracing Jesus steps, and feel assured he is on
their side. What a coincidence.
Greg Tucker-Kellogg
> : If prayer in schools is not "pray[ing] to be seen", what is it?
> Again, for the third time, it's not where you pray its why you pray.
For individual prayer, I agree with you. Officially led prayer in
school is, however, precisely an issue of where one prays. And when.
Greg Tucker-Kellogg
> In article <3aghsd$3...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
> William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
> > Don't fall for Christian switch and bait. Don't let 'em sucker you by
> >pretending to know about the Bible when he does not!
> And so they should fall for the anti-Christian switch and bait?
Actually, fellas, it's "bait and switch".
> You know, the one where some non-Christian tries to tell Christians
> about Christian doctrine but puts restrictions on the discussion like
> "We only want to talk about Jesus' words here. Nothing else in the
> Bible or Church doctrine is instructionally valid."
> Listen folks, not only does SubGenius Charles not comprehend the
> context of Matthew 6:5, he ignores everything else in the Bible.
> How about these, Sub-Charles:
> Luke 18:1 "...men ought always to pray."
> Luke 22:36 "Watch ye therefore and pray always."
So teach your kids to pray in school. When I was in high school, we
had a group that prayed every morning. Nobody told us to stop. (I can
just see it: "Hey! Knock that off and talk about secular humanism!")
But that is a completely different matter from a scheduled prayer at
graduation or in home room. One is about freedom of religious
expression; the other is about coersion of religious expression.
Charles Randall Yates
>In article <3aj7h4$l...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Ken Childress <kchi...@uccs.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>In article <3air3j$b...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,>>>In article <3aihtm$e...@starbase.neosoft.com>,
>>>Ted Krueger <kru...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>>>>In article <3agsut$r...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,>>>>I would be a lot more afraid of having them listen to an anti-Christian
>>>>like you who goes so far to mischaracterize anything you disagree with.
>>>>"Going to hell for not participating in a prayer" indeed.
>>>
>>> Are you actually saying that there aren't religions out there
>>>which have as one of their basic tenets that non-believers will go to hell?
>>
>>As a non-believer, one must be quite insecure about one's beliefs to
>>care what another's religion has to say about non-believers. IOW, why
>>do you care what some religion says about those who don't believe if you
>>don't believe in that religion?
>
>
>First of all, I am not at all insecure about my beliefs. And, I truly
>don't care what religions say about hell, because I don't believe them
>anyway. I do strongly care, however, about the ridicule my future child
>will have to go through if I am forced to go to her school and set up
>some system so that she doesn't have to sit through a prayer. BTW, it
>strikes me that the pro-prayer-in-school people must be insecure about
>their beliefs if they think they have to rely on the school to force
>their children to pray every day. Haven't they been able to teach their
>children how to pray. Or is it, that they are really worried about other
>peoples children not hearing the word of God.
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I asked him for mercy, he gave me a gun."
>Elizabeth
>ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>
I am a Christian, and in my opinion the school prayer issue is *not* about
whether or not we allow teacher- or student-led prayer in the classroom - it
is about whether or not a student or group of students/faculty has the right
to say a prayer, participate
in Bible reading/studies, etc., in "off" time on public school property or at
public school events (football games, etc.).
A perfect example: Can my child say a prayer over his/her lunch (if he/she so
desires) in the lunchroom? I hope so. If you think this "violates" your
rights, please tell me how?
I believe the problem is not that Chrisians are trying to "force" others to
pray - rather it is that others despise Christian's actions and want to see
them stopped. Please tell me why my child cannot close his eyes and silently
move his lips for a few seconds on school grounds?
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% EE/Mathematics Student % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% University of South Florida % the coin will fall."
%%%% <yat...@eggo.csee.usf.edu> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
Deana Holmes
lists that I'm on where we're discussing this issue. I think my
experience might shed some light on how school prayer in reality operates.
And, FWIW, I am now a Christian and I pray. But certainly not as a
result of the experience below.
Deana Holmes
mir...@xmission.com
==========================================================================
First of all I should preface this by noting that I was raised in a
casually irreligious household. My father's idea of Sunday was to get
up, read the paper, do some chores around the house (like mow the lawn)
and then settle down for Sunday afternoon worship at the temple of the
holy NFL (or AFL, depending on whether San Francisco or Oakland was on).
As for myself, I think I was about eight or nine before I figured out why
there weren't any good cartoons on Sunday mornings, just dumb ol' church
services and "Davey & Goliath." (Just a sidenote: I later worked with a
guy who did a wicked imitation of Goliath. One of Vinnie's favorite
Goliathisms was, "Aw, Davey, why'd you go and get that girl pregnant?"
It was guaranteed to crack us all up.)
The only time we darkened the door of a church was at the Christmas
season, when my mother had a hankering to see us in a Christmas pageant.
So we'd go for November and December, but as soon as the pageant was
over, we went back to our irreligious ways. It goes without saying that
we did not have family prayer in our home, or scripture reading or the like.
In February, 1968, we were living in Concord, California, in a rather
cramped and tiny three-bedroom house. My parents decided to move across
town, towards Clayton, and into a larger, four-bedroom house. (Shortly
thereafter, the four-bedroom house became cramped when my anti-war,
pot-smoking, Vietnam Vet, college student Uncle Richard moved in.) That
meant we had to change schools in the middle of the year.
So my mother took my sister and I over to Silverwood Elementary school and
enrolled us. I ended up in Mrs. Gaede's second grade class. Mrs. Gaede
was recently married (indeed, all the other little children in the class
had gone to the reception!) and if memory serves, she was probably not
more than twenty-four or twenty-five.
It was a gloomy, stormy day, and the school did not have a cafeteria. So
when lunchtime came around, we all went over to the coat closets and got
out our sack lunches and went back to our desks to eat. I was used to
this routine; in fact, we did the same thing in Mrs. Croft's class at
Springwood Elementary across town. And so I began to eat.
But none of my classmates were eating. They were waiting for something.
They were waiting for Mrs. Gaede. And Mrs. Gaede turned to me and said,
gently, but the words stung, "Deana, we are not pigs. We pray before we
eat."
Well, it goes without saying that I was hyperskittish about lunch for the
remainder of the school year. And I was marked as different from the
first day in that class. But I didn't go home and say anything to my
mother and father about it. Why? I don't know. I was a few years older
before I mentioned it to my mother, who was quite annoyed. She wished she
had known, because she would have given Mrs. Gaede a piece of her mind.
After we moved to Texas, my mother made a name for herself in the
elementary school as the lady who walked out of the PTA meeting during the
opening prayer with my sister and brother in tow. As she told the PTA:
"That prayer is offensive to Jews." I didn't understand _why_ she said
these things until just a few years ago, when she offhandedly remarked
that her maternal grandmother, my great-grandmother, was Jewish.
So I'm real sensitive to this, and dead-set against organized prayer in
the schools. In a pluralistic society like ours, there's no way that a
state-sponsored and state-led prayer could adequately represent all the
religious beliefs in the classroom. I mean, what do you say? "To Whom
it may concern, if you _happen_ to exist, and if you're listening?"
When our schools have so many other problems, to expect that a prayer at
the beginning of the day is going to solve them is nuts. It's an easy
political thing, but I can guarantee you, in the 1990s, people are not
going to roll over and play dead when their children are asked to sit
there while a prayer to which they object is being said. If I had
children, I would strongly object.
As you can see, I have very strong opinions on this!
Deana Holmes
mir...@xmission.com
Charles Randall Yates
>Elizabeth C King (ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
>: Ken Hudson <ke...@yaleads.ycc.yale.edu> wrote:
>: >>
>: >>Again, for the third time, it's not where you pray its why you pray. It
>: >>is the attitude in your heart that matters. All the prayers in the world
>: >>are meaningless unless your heart is directed toward God in an attitude
>: >>of humility, respect, and honor. I know this is a simple answer to a
>: >>complex issue. But aren't most answers?
>: >Again for the nth time, hear the other side: if prayer is to be
>: >private communication with God as Christ taught, why do you insist
>: >on doing it publicly?
Are private thoughts sometimes thought in public? Yes. Can "private prayers"
be prayed in public? Yes. I don't see what the location has to do with the
nature of the act. As Ken said, it has to do more with your intentions than
with the physical cirumstances.
Please don't assume my response acknowledges your assertion that all prayer
should be private. There are different types of prayers just as there
are different types of conversations. I think it is perfect acceptable (and
pleasing) to God when Christians pray publicly to, e.g., give thanks for their
meals.
>: >What is your motivation? Why is private prayer
>: >inadequate to you, and what do you achieve by praying aloud in the public
>: >classroom with persons not sharing your faith? If this is not to
>: >be "seen" praying, then please elaborate on what it IS for you? If
>: >you are given two doors that lead to the same room--one locked, the
>: >other wide open--what can we say about your motivation if you
>: >intentionally ignore the open door and try to break the lock on the
>: >other? If private prayer is freely accessible to you, what is it
>: >you achieve by praying in public? Are you trying to say, look at me,
>: >I can pray in public and be seen but am not self-righteous about it?
Lady you *are* thick. I'm afraid that no amount of exposition is going to
illuminate you, but perhaps there are others reading these posts
who are more open to reason.
>: >Share with us your motivations and how this prayer is required of
>: >you by Christ...
>: >
Not necessarily required, but pleasing - see previous paragraph.
>: ...But this is just a guess.
Yep.
robert gally
>
>What really scares me is this whole flap we had over prayer at graduation
>last spring. In schools were there was overwhelming support for it, school
>boards would not allow it because of the legal implications. People did
>find ways around it, but it seems to me that this should not be prohibited
>when there is support for it. Sounds like a lack of freedom to me.
>
Freedom for who ? Do you not understand the protections offered by our
Constitution. It does not protect the rights of the mojority (as in
"overwhelming support"). It protects those who need to fear opposing
the overwhelming supporters.
If you feel the need to attend a school which provides school sponsored
prayer ... attend a private school. I object vehemently to any
governmental spending of my tax money to sponsor prayer.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tony Lawrence
: As an atheist, what do you think you will do after you physically die?
I expect to spend a fair amount of time hanging around with dead theists
saying "Nyahh! Nyahh! Told ya there wasn't a god! Told ya! Idiot!"
That's my plan, anyway. Circumstances (such as the inability to move
my toungue or even excite a neuron in my dead brain) may interfere
with my desires.
Such is the ultimate frustration of atheism.
--
Tony
Taint Anthony the Astonished
Surgeon General's Warning: Quitting Religion Now Greatly Increases
the Chances of World Peace.
John Rickert
>Excuse me, but prayer IS allowed in schools. Coercive prayer led by teachers
>*is* prohibitted. How would you feel if your child was required to bring
>a prayer mat to school so that he/she had to say a Muslim prayer to Allah
>several times a day?
If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances. I
would not seek to forbid everyone else. Or I would move. The whole
world doesn't have to revolve around what I want, does it? There are
_plenty_ of good ways to work out accomodations where those who wish
to pray aloud in public may do so, peacefully, and those who do not
wish to do so may take their leave. Let me pose a question to you:
I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
offended now?
> > Rick Gillespie
> "I speak only for myself"
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
Dan Johnson
>Allison Mitchell (all...@mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
>: The fact that it has been done for centuries doesn't mean that Jesus
>: condoned it.
>
>Jesus prayed and preached countless times before thousands of people.
Which makes it kind of odd that he condemned public prayer,
don't it?
>Those hold a dissenting position made him a political issue and
>eventually had him killed.
Perhaps, perhaps. It's so hard to tell.
>: The only thing I'm saying that Christians shouldn't do is subject those who
>: aren't Christians to public prayer. The public schools can't stop you from
>: praying on your own, and usually don't even try.
>
>If just this much were true, I would have nothing to say.
It is true. You know the old saying: "As long as there are tests,
there will be prayer in school."
Even in the (rare) cases where somebody goes overboard and *does*
try to supress all religion, or just Christianity, it just
doesn't work. You can't make 'em atheists for 6 hours
a day.
> Unfortunately,
>only Christians are aware of the problems they face. It is simply
>not fashionable to report abuses against faithful people.
You mean *Christian* people. This is not the same thing as "faithful".
>Here are some examples of what has happened just this year:
Presuming that these reports are accurate- you don't say were you
got them- then...
>In California a kindergarden-age girl stood up to do her school
>assignment: to sing her favorite song. She began to sing a children's
>song called "Jesus Loves Me". She was immediately told to stop, go to
>her desk and put her head down. She was crushed. Later, when her parents
>asked the teacher for an explanation, they were told that religion is
>disallowed in schools. The principal and school board backed the teacher up.
The principle and the board are incorrect; religion is not
disallowed in schools. The government is never allowed to
take sides in the matter. But I don't see how this is what
happened; I think the board screwed it up.
>In Mississippi (I believe) students wrote a non-denominational prayer
>that went something like this:
>
> "Dear God, we ask you to bless our
> parents, teachers and us as we work
> through this day. Amen."
>
>The students
->ALL<- of the students? I think not.
>requested that their student body president read the prayer
>over the PA. The principal agreed and was fired the next day. The
>school board held that student-led prayer was disallowed in schools.
>Ultimately, after vocal support from the students led to legal
>intervention, the principal was reinstated with back pay.
Bet he didn't do PA-system prayers anymore, though.
Firing him was a bit extreme, though so far as I know
within the School Boards rights.
> My point is,
>however, that the government did not direct the students request for
>prayer. And, as represented by this principal, the government did not
>stand in its way, either.
You don't get it. It doesn't matter whether the the students,
the parents, the teachers, or the priests desire it; the
government is not allowed to promote religion. And that
is what that prayer does.
>: Of course the majority of Americans are in favor of prayer in schools. The
>: majority of Americans are Christians. If the public prayer proposed was
>: prayer to Zeus or Allah, would you still be in favor of the amendment> I
>: think not.
>
>"Zeus" is a little off, but I have absolutely no problem with "Allah",
>"Jehova", or any of the other names for God.
How 'bout Ganesh? There are plenty of Hindu's in the world, and Ganesh
is way popular with them. How 'bout Krisha, while we're on Hinduism?
What if 65% of the school *your kids* are in are Buddhist, and they
all want the Heart Sutra recited on the PA system?
Hell, the Heart Sutra doesn't say anything directly inimical to
Christianity.
Or if you think that's too denominational, howsabout just the
mantra from said sutra: "Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate,
Bodhi Svaha!"; which means: "Gone, Gone, Gone all the way, Gone
all the way to the far shore, Enlightenment; Yahoo!"; That
covers *all sorts* of religion; Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism,
Taoism (after a fashion).. who could ask for more?
> A friend of mine is
>Muslim. He and I have had long discussions regarding religion and I am
>convinced that, despite tremendous differences, the nature of God in both
>of our religions is the same (I am Christian). The prayer above could
>just as easily been written by a Jew. IMHO, the only people who could be
>offended by such a prayer are those who want suppression of religious
>beliefs of any kind and _that_ is not constitutional.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "failure to support"
and "supression".
Just because the government isn't trying to spread your faith,
doesn't mean it actually opposes it.
>One would think that a non-believer would simply "let the people babble
>on for half a minute like silly kids". Surprisingly, that's not enough.
They can bable on all they like, for all of me. It's the big
where they get official government support for their babbling
that bothers me.
>: Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't mean
>: it's a good idea. That's why we have the Constitution -- to prevent the
>: majority from taking away the rights of those who aren't in the majority.
>
>There have been a number of ammendments to the Constitution added by our
>democratic process. Looks like there might be one more on the horizon.
Extremely unlikely. It takes 2/3s of both houses of Congress and 3/4s
of teh state legislatures. I'd say "It hasn't got a prayer"; but that's
probably not true. It's got lots of prayers; it just hasn't got a chance.
>It has been a spirited debate, Allison. I will pray for you. We could
>use you on our side :)
[snip- provocative .sig. I will resist the temptation to waste time on it.]
---
- Dan "No Nickname" Johnson
"Your argument does hold for triangular cows, however."
- John Finkbiner, on alt.atheism
These opinions probably show what I know.
A.X. Lias
: In article <3agsut$r...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
: Elizabeth C King <ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
: >Maybe the school board was scared to make some of the kids feel like
: >shit. How would you like to sit with 300 other people who pray to a god
: >which they think is going to send you to hell for not participating in
: >that prayer?
: I would be a lot more afraid of having them listen to an anti-Christian
: like you who goes so far to mischaracterize anything you disagree with.
: "Going to hell for not participating in a prayer" indeed.
: Which liberal liar told you that one?
I have been told this enough times by conservative christians that I need
not seek a liberal liar to tell me likewise.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com | Frobozz on IRC | Finger for PGP key
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
A whole generation started the day with prayer and ended up not
benefiting very much from it. After all, it was not 7-year-olds who
gathered stoned and naked at Woodstock. -- Richard Cohen
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <3agsut$r...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
>Elizabeth C King <ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Maybe the school board was scared to make some of the kids feel like
>>shit. How would you like to sit with 300 other people who pray to a god
>>which they think is going to send you to hell for not participating in
>>that prayer?
>
>I would be a lot more afraid of having them listen to an anti-Christian
>like you who goes so far to mischaracterize anything you disagree with.
>
>"Going to hell for not participating in a prayer" indeed.
>
>Which liberal liar told you that one?
In my case it was the other pupils in my year when I was about 8 and my
teacher discovered that I was an atheist. They were good little christian
kids who wouldn't have known what a liberal or a conservative was.
But then you wouldn't understand that, would you, shit-for-brains?
What would *you* have done when you were that age and found a kid who
didn't believe in "God"?
>Ted
ssatchell on BIX
>I find it interesting that most of those people pushing for
> voluntary prayer in school, moments of silence, and etc.,
> are coming from the religious, not the secular and/or
> non-religious. I must ask if these same people are really
> pushing the point so children may be left to pray on their
> own, or so they may show everyone how pious they (and
> presumably) their parents are?
Then I guess I'm in the minority as an agnostic (and seeker of a sane
religious philosophy) who thinks that a moment of meditation, provided
that the parents in the district feel it important, is within the limits
of the Constitution -- indeed, I feel that any attempt to regulate such
activity is an attempt by government to regulate the free exercise of
religion by individuals in contridiction with the First Amendment.
Besides, I've noticed that even the absence of a "moment of meditation"
hasn't impacted praying much -- particularly around final exam time.
I've oberved a number of students who have their hands folded, their
eyes closed, and their lips moving while the final exam papers were
being distributed. I don't think they were chanting mantras or trying
to recall what was on page 287 of the text book. :-)
So prayer is alive and well, at least in the high schools and in the
halls of higher learning.
Have you even seen anyone tell those beseeching students that what they
were doing was "wrong" or "illegal"? I haven't.
Alan L. Cassel
: As a non-believer, one must be quite insecure about one's beliefs to
: care what another's religion has to say about non-believers. IOW, why
: do you care what some religion says about those who don't believe if you
: don't believe in that religion?
I'm a believer, but I'll answer this for her: Because of the demonstrated
tendency of an astonishingly large number of people of those religions
towards violence against those who don't believe as they do, i.e., if they
believe that non-believers are going to be eternally damned in hell
anyway, the non-believers are less than human and it doesn't matter if
they are killed, their rights taken away, etc.
Haven't you heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Ku Klux Klan?
Skinheads?
robert gally
>
>Well, I'm not Elizabeth but I am an atheist. I don't think I'll do anything
>at all after I physically die, I believe I'll just be nothing. A great big
>nothing who doesn't know it's nothing. The real answer of course is I don't
>know. Atheism is an article of faith, just like any religion. It's simply
>a system of beliefs to help one define reality, and as such it's no better
>or worse than religious faith. Heck, there's no way I can prove God doesn't
>exist. OTOH, there's no way any religious person can prove (satisfactorily)
>that he/she/it does.
As I share your convictions, I do not take issue with them, EXCEPT:
You, my friend, are not an athiest.
An atheist is a person who believes there is no god ... takes that fact on
faith or with 'proof' (IMHO, 'proof' like theists use holy books for
'proof').
Your statement that proving the existance or non-existance of god is a
futile excersize defines you as being an agostic.
I too used to view myself as an atheist, but I tired of asserting there
'is no god' when I had absolutely nothing to back that statement up
with. That sort of proof by assertion makes one no better than
the opposition.
I also like the notion of keeping an open mind. In my mind's eye,
theists and atheists will not be able to recognize the truth when
and if such a truth ever becomes recognizable because they believe
they already know all that they need to know. Similiar to the
scientists of bygone eras who 'knew' that the universe revolved
around the earth, or that the earth was flat. They were simply
too ignorant to know how ignorant they were.
robert gally
>In article <3ag3jn$8...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> r...@fc.hp.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:
>> How would you feel if your child was required to bring
>>a prayer mat to school so that he/she had to say a Muslim prayer to Allah
>>several times a day?
>
> If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
>moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
>to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances.
And let us pretend for a sec that you live in a community which is
predominantly Muslim by a factor of %51 muslim, %49 non-muslim.
Would you still shut your mouth and allow the school to require your kids
to bring in a prayer mat?
At what point does the religious will of the majority become acceptable to
impose upon the minority?
>_plenty_ of good ways to work out accomodations where those who wish
>to pray aloud in public may do so, peacefully, and those who do not
>wish to do so may take their leave.
Better yet, for those who want to pray aloud in public, let them pray on
their own time, not while non-participants are forced to attend.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept this as reasonable?
> Let me pose a question to you:
>I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>offended now?
I say: it is not the government's role to extort money from taxpayers
to fund _ANY_ art.
We don't need a frivolous government deciding what art is worthwile
and what art is not.
William Barwell
Emil T. Chuck <e...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) says:
>> As an atheist, I don't believe Jesus' words BECAUSE they are the
>>word of God. But, he does make a lot of sense sometimes.
>
>what source do you feel his wisdom is derived?
>
>>Matthew 6:5
>> And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
>>for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>>streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
>>their reward.
>> But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou
>>hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
>>which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
>
>--
Because it puts the relationship-to-god back into prayer. It takes the
sweet glow of holier-than-thou out of prayer. It takes the hypocrisy
out of prayer. It takes the various kind of little ego trips public
piety provides out of prayer. It takes the showmanship out of prayer and
shifts prayer back to a one-to-one relationship with God. It takes the
public face of hypocrisy out of prayer, the use of prayer for effect on
others rather than it's primary reason. For many, prayer is used
for things other than prayer, and jesus wisely attempts to strip prayer
of it's usefulness for these games that have nothing to do with the real
reason for prayer, as Jesus sees the reason for prayer.
Read Matthew 6:5 again. Think about what he is saying here.
john rementeria
Tucker-Kellogg) writes:
At the head of this article Mr. Barwell writes about, "...non-Christians
trying to teach Christians about the Blble...", or words to that effect
The first four books of the Bible were written by non-Christians. The
fifth one was written by Jews who converted to Christianity quite
recently. He also included two verses from -Luke- that are badly mis-
quoted. The original situation was -Luke's- reply to the issue of the
Pharasees and their parades whenever they went to temple to pray with
banners and trumpets marching ahead of them. -Luke- was trying to say
that man can pray in ALL ways. In a church, on a bike, on a bus, eating
green eggs and ham, etc. NOT TO MEAN...pray all the time!
Now Mr. Tucker(hyphen)Kellogg's unconscious and inadvertent admonish-
met for everyone to go out and Break The Law is also a misunderstanding.
You know, "...and Give Caesar His Due, etc.,"
--
Filed by,
Thor K. Maddah
Email,
tork...@ix.netcom.com
Snailmail,
P.O. Box 948
Whittier, CA.
90608-0948
Timothy Jones
On 18 Nov 1994, Ted Krueger wrote:
> In article <3agsut$r...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
> Elizabeth C King <ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Maybe the school board was scared to make some of the kids feel like
> >shit. How would you like to sit with 300 other people who pray to a god
> >which they think is going to send you to hell for not participating in
> >that prayer?
>
> I would be a lot more afraid of having them listen to an anti-Christian
> like you who goes so far to mischaracterize anything you disagree with.
>
> "Going to hell for not participating in a prayer" indeed.
>
> Which liberal liar told you that one?
Actually, it was a Xtian -- asshole!
"Liberal liar", indeed!
>
> Ted
>
> --
> "Bill Clinton went out of his way to make these elections a referendum
> on the 1980's and the votes are in; the 1980's have won."
> - George Will on ABC television, election day 1994
> Ted Krueger - kru...@neosoft.com
>
>
Irrelivant quote -- I don't worship GW either!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lord works in mysterious ways..." -- Xtian saying
"Well I DON'T!" -- Atheist crito
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Rickert
>In article <1994Nov19.0...@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
>John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>>I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>>of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>>offended now?
>
>government shall not establish an art gallery? Are you forced to go to
>this art gallery in order to get your diploma?
The government is here funding preferentially art that mocks or
scandalizes religion. Under a completely neutral reading of the First
Amendment this is forbidden, whether it be through the NEA or no.
As for diplomas, just about every district makes commencement
exercises optional. In fact, in Lee v Weizman, the court called
prayer at commencement unconstitutional, even though the specific
prayer in question had been worked out by a diverse group of parties
so as not to be sectarian, and commencement exercises were _completely
optional_ for reception of the diploma.
Why are you so superstitious against religion? Does my talking
about it convert you? I doubt it. You think that if nonbelievers
hear one small prayer at one ceremony, it will undermine their faith
in atheism? I wouldn't mind if it did, but it is highly unlikely to
say the least. And note that the situation is not symmetrical here.
I am not saying that the absence of one small prayer at one ceremony
will cause people to lose their religion. That is not the point of
having the prayer. The purpose is to express thankfulness and ask for
the well-being of the teachers, parents, and students -- highly
appropriate, I believe; and even if the Constitution forbade it (which
it does not), then the law ought to be changed.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
John Rickert
>attempt to refute the earlier claim, instead of "we've always done it, so it
>must be right."
I don't think that's the justification given: you've
mischaracterized it. For me at least, and most people I know, the
frame of mind is that the way we've always done it has the presumption
of rightness and gets the benefit of the doubt. You are, I suppose,
at least college-aged yourself: You've developed habits of living,
haven't you, that you feel sure are right enough? You wouldn't want
to have to give an account of all these to a panel, would you? (If
you live that rationally and Objectivistly, let us part company
amicably right now.) Well, what about communities? The genuine sense
of community has been profoundly lost in big cities and suburbia, but
it still exists in smaller towns. Communities themselves develop
character, habits. I think you have to respect that. You might want
some things done differently, but it's about like going around and
correcting all the foibles of your friends. Long-standing practices
don't just happen; they are maintained, retained, handed-on. They
allow an extension of the community over generations. So again, the
frame of mind is not what you've indicated, it more like a habit,
which one does all the time as the result of long experience. I don't
know whether any of this will register on those who come from the
city, though.
If nothing else can sway you, let me make one request: Try to
understand better why people could be old paleoconservative fossils
like me. Or at least, try to understand what traditionalist
communities are like. I don't get the sense that you really do
understand it. You will probably retain many objections, I admit, but
at least they won't be based on such broad misconceptions.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
John Rickert
>John Rickert (rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu) wrote:
>: wish to do so may take their leave. Let me pose a question to you:
>: of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>: offended now?
>
>your government funded. Children do have to sit through religious
>crap.
But they don't have to listen, just as I don't have to see the
objectionable art. And even if they listen, they don't have to
believe. Moreover, I'm offended simply at paying for offensive art
produced, even if I am not required to see it.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
Alan L. Cassel
: Which religions espouse violence against non-believers? This is news to me.
Where were you during all the violence in Northern Ireland between
Protestants and Catholics?
: >Haven't you heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Ku Klux Klan?
: >Skinheads?
: Are these examples of the "astonishingly large number of people" who
: violently act against others? Come on now. I suspect there are more kids
: who are gang members than skinheads in the US. Guess who's more dangerous.
You tell me.
: Besides, I don't think neo-Nazi skinheads are that much into "religion."
They are only against those who don't believe as they do -- that's all.
A.X. Lias
: In article <3ag3jn$8...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> r...@fc.hp.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:
: >Excuse me, but prayer IS allowed in schools. Coercive prayer led by teachers
: >*is* prohibitted. How would you feel if your child was required to bring
: >a prayer mat to school so that he/she had to say a Muslim prayer to Allah
: >several times a day?
: If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
: moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
: to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances. I
: would not seek to forbid everyone else. Or I would move. The whole
: world doesn't have to revolve around what I want, does it?
There is a (ahem) fundemental difference betwixed the United States and
Saudi Arabia. One is a theocracy, while the other is not. Given that
the founders of our nation had no desire to establish a theocracy (and
went to pains to make certain that one was not established after they
left the scene) I think that there is more to the matter than a simple
desire to have the world revolve around me and mine.
: There are
: _plenty_ of good ways to work out accomodations where those who wish
: to pray aloud in public may do so, peacefully, and those who do not
: wish to do so may take their leave. Let me pose a question to you:
: I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
: of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
: offended now?
I think that the NEA should be dismantled. I don't think that government
funding of the arts does either the government or the artist much good
for precisely the reason you just outlined.
Now explain to me again why my position is inconsistent and yours is not.
Alan L. Cassel
: A perfect example: Can my child say a prayer over his/her lunch (if he/she so
: desires) in the lunchroom? I hope so. If you think this "violates" your
: rights, please tell me how?
: I believe the problem is not that Chrisians are trying to "force" others to
: pray - rather it is that others despise Christian's actions and want to see
: them stopped. Please tell me why my child cannot close his eyes and silently
: move his lips for a few seconds on school grounds?
Please show me even *one* court case in which anyone has _ever_ been
stopped from doing this.
You can't. That's because there is absolutely no need for your
Constitutional amendment -- they already have the right to do that.
Indeed, if they _were_ stopped, the ACLU would come to their rescue.
Emil T. Chuck
In a previous article, alca...@crl.com (Alan L. Cassel) says:
>Ken Childress (kchi...@uccs.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: As a non-believer, one must be quite insecure about one's beliefs to
>: care what another's religion has to say about non-believers. IOW, why
>: do you care what some religion says about those who don't believe if you
>: don't believe in that religion?
>
>I'm a believer, but I'll answer this for her: Because of the demonstrated
>tendency of an astonishingly large number of people of those religions
>towards violence against those who don't believe as they do, i.e., if they
>believe that non-believers are going to be eternally damned in hell
>anyway, the non-believers are less than human and it doesn't matter if
>they are killed, their rights taken away, etc.
Which religions espouse violence against non-believers? This is news to me.
>Haven't you heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Ku Klux Klan?
>Skinheads?
Are these examples of the "astonishingly large number of people" who
violently act against others? Come on now. I suspect there are more kids
who are gang members than skinheads in the US. Guess who's more dangerous.
Besides, I don't think neo-Nazi skinheads are that much into "religion."
--
"For you see, my fellow Republicans, we _are_ the change!"
Ronald Reagan, RNC Speech, August 17, 1992
Emil Thomas Chuck (e...@po.cwru.edu) Department of Genetics
CWRU School of Medicine and Rainbow Babies & Children Hospital
robert gally
>
>Which liberal liar told you that one?
>
Somewhere in your existance you have erroneously equated conservatism
with religious correctness. Just a heads up for you, pal, I consider
you to be a left wing liberal. You apparently want to use governement
for a social agenda. Prefering a government which sticks its nose
into the extremely private affairs of citizens is just about as
liberal as liberal can be.
True conservatives want minimal government. Not preachy government which
finances religious indoctrination at the point of a gun.
Rick Abrams
newspaper, the Times-Picayune, published an article about good old newt.
He attended Tulane University right here in (that den of iniquity)
Naw'lins. Poor lad got into a bit of mischief here, he was on the school
newspaper and they tried to publish *get this* sexually oriented cartoons.
Shades of Maplethorpe. When the school said 'Nope', he and two other boys
went and...and...PROTESTED.
In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
--
rha
Tony Lawrence
: wish to do so may take their leave. Let me pose a question to you:
: of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
: offended now?
I find it gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, to
fund *any* art with my taxes.
But that's not the point. You don't have to view the obscene art
your government funded. Children do have to sit through religious
crap.
--
John Rickert
[earlier I said:]
>> If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
>>moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
>>to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances.
>
>And let us pretend for a sec that you live in a community which is
>predominantly Muslim by a factor of %51 muslim, %49 non-muslim.
>Would you still shut your mouth and allow the school to require your kids
>to bring in a prayer mat?
Well, as I said, if you read my post, I would try to work out an
agreement. I think in the vast majority of cases this could be done.
And, as I said, if I couldn't, I'd move. I don't know what's unclear
about this.
>At what point does the religious will of the majority become acceptable to
>impose upon the minority?
How is it ever permissible for the majority to impose its will upon
the minority? I am _not_ saying that the majority is always right,
but why is the majority so singularly untrustworthy when it comes to
religion? And if you don't go with the majority, then which minority
do you follow?
>>_plenty_ of good ways to work out accomodations where those who wish
>>to pray aloud in public may do so, peacefully, and those who do not
>>wish to do so may take their leave.
>
>Better yet, for those who want to pray aloud in public, let them pray on
>their own time, not while non-participants are forced to attend.
>Why is this so difficult for you to accept this as reasonable?
I never said it was unreasonable, and in some circumstances it may
even be a good policy. I just don't think this forced Berlin Wall of
Separation should itself be obligatory: it's an imposition of
Latitudinarianism, and you should find that objectionable by your
standards. I think that church-state relations for the most part (not
entirely, but to a much greater extent than is currently permitted by
the imperious Court) should be worked out _locally_.
Let me recall some European history to you. Germany was wracked
for over a century by religious wars. The Peace of Westphalia
arrived at an unpretty but effective solution: Cujus regio, ejus
religio. "Whose region, his religion." It isn't uniform; it leaves
room for a perhaps bewildering array of arrangements; but it did one
thing, it brought religious wars to an end. Or you can look at what
Cromwell tried to do during the English Civil War. It distresses me
that the Court seems hellbent on following a similar path. We don't
need that.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>In article <gherreraC...@netcom.com>,
>George E. Herrera Jr <gher...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>May the Lord bless our President and all the participants on the
>>internet (whether they like it or not). :) Amen.
>
>When you bring any religion into my life other than my own, you are
>plainly ASKING for trouble. Let's put these differences between religions
>behind as and keep them to ourselves, and perhaps there will be less
>fighting about it in the world.
>--
>Joshua R. Poulson, Widener University Department of Computer Systems
>PGP Key available upon request, MIME capable, no postage due, please
Ah, at least you are honest that your goal here is in the limitation of
public debate over religious issues. And all of this bluster about what
Jesus would or wouldn't want is just a smoke-screen to cover that up and
cloud the issue.
The reason that Christians are "up in arms" over the matter of school
prayer is because the Federal government a couple of decades ago took it
upon itself to begin to dictate to local community governments and their
school boards that religious ideas are to be excluded from public policy,
from public debate, and from public life in general. In my opinion, that
action was *unconstitutional* because the 1st amendment, in combination
with the 9th and 10th amendments, prohibit the Federal government from
having any jurisdiction in religious matters. I've been told that the 14th
amendment applies the 1st amendment to local governments, but those who
say that are (in my opinion) twisting the 14th amendment to their own ends
by intentionally ignoring the fact that the 14th amendment *did not in any
way whatsoever* repeal or modify the clear intent of the 9th amendment.
Their intent is clearly *not* to preserve our religious liberties; it *is*
clearly to exclude the ideals and values of those whom they oppose from
public debate, from public policy, and from public life in general. What
better way to do that than to convince the public that the Federal
government has the power to dictate *at the local level* which
philosophies and ideals and values may and may not enter into public
debate or policy, and which may or may not be taught in the local
community controlled schools. The clear intent of our Constitution's
framers was to leave such decisions in the hands of PEOPLE and to leave
them free in their own own loose associations (communities) to make such
decisions for themselves.
Personally, as a Christian and as a constitutionalist, I will find myself
opposed to any School Prayer amendment which expands the power of the
Federal government to dictate *at the local level* what can and can't be
done with respect to public policy and religion. Because such an amendment
would be a severe blow *against* our religious liberties; it would, in
effect, all but completely overturn the 1st amendment because it would
codify into the Constitution a power of federal control over religion. I
would, however, be completely in favor of an amendment which re-affirms in
the strongest wording possible that the Federal government has no
jurisdiction whatsoever in such matters and that it must leave such
decisions to public debate and/or vote in the local communities.
Only an amendment which completely removes the matter of religion and
local public policy from the jurisdiction of all branches of Federal and
State government has any chance whatsoever of actually preserving rather
than destroying our religious liberties. And, in my opinion, the
Christian's of this country are, for the most part, being deceived and
manipulated into supporting something that would ultimately be used
against us.
Leland D. Hosford | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
lel...@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>...
>Show us where he approved of mass prayer, public prayer of lead
>any crowds in any such prayer. Broad statements ar efine, Ted, but they
In Mark 8:6 (during the feeding of the four thousand) is says: "And He
directed the multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven
loaves, He gave thanks and broke them and started giving them to His
disciples ... "
He was clearly, in that passage, *leading* the multitude in prayer when He
"gave thanks".
>prove nothing. What is needed is evidence. You got any that shows that
>Mark 6:5 can safely be disregarded?
>Show me that I am mistaken.
I would agree and say you are correct that Mark 6:5 should not be
disregarded (it should be taken in its full context, which I don't believe
you have done, but it should definately not be disregarded -- as with all
of scripture). I would, however, also say that it is completely irrelevant
to any discussion about prayer in the public schools. Prayer in the
schools is about Federal control of *local* public policy regarding
religion, and not about how you or I interpret what the Bible means. It is
about whether or not the Federal government should be allowed to control
local community schools regarding what philosophies and ideals and values
they should teach. That is what the debate started over, but those who
would wish to destroy our religious freedoms have manipulated the debate
to try and gain the very Federal control over local religious decisions
that they desire and that the vast majority really do not want them to
have.
Up until about the last 3 decades, the Federal government understood that
the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution prohibited it from
having any jurisdiction over local public policy regarding religion. But
about 35-40 years ago the Federal government started usurping powers
specifically prohibited to it by the Constitution, and majority of the
good people of the United States were, unfortunately, asleep. They are now
beginning to wake up, but they are still a little groggy and haven't yet
seen that all that is needed is to take back the powers that the Federal
government has unconstitutionlly usurped; unfortunately, they seem so far
to have been deceived and manipulated into believing that they need to
give to the Federal government the very power that it has usurped.
To summarize very briefly: giving the government more power isn't the
answer; the answer is to take back from it the power it has
unconstitutionally seized.
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>David M. Cook (dc...@linux2.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: Do you really think that Wiccan, Buddhist, Native American or even Moslem
>: students will be given equal representation in such prayer readings? I
>: suspect that in many areas Jewish, Catholic and Mormon students would be
>: descriminated against as student prayer leaders.
>
>Sometimes I think we should just let these Christian fools have their
>prayers, and then immediately start pressing for equal representation
>for the minority positions.
>
>So the school day could start with the "non-dnominational" Judaic/Christian
>babbling, perhaps followed by a selected passage from the Humanist Manifesto,
>then a short Wiccan chant, a nice little Navaho thingy, and so on.
>
>Maybe around 4:00 or 5:00 they could start teaching.
>
>Idiots. Idiots. The Christians pushing this are just so incredibly stupid.
What you have said is *exactly* why the real answer isn't to give the
Federal government this power that it has so lusted after for these past
few decades; the real answer is to again force it to abide by the 1st,
9th, and 10th amendments such that it doesn't unconstitutionally exert
jurisdiction over local community decisions regarding religion and *local*
public policy.
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
> [snip]
>Acknowledging first that we do not have the objective facts on what
>happened, I would be appalled that a teacher would give such an
>assignment then hurt the feelings of a student. If all the children
>were Christian, then she should have been allowed to finish the song
>and the teacher should have grown wiser from the experience.
>
>However, the teacher could have been in hot water--her career threatened--
>if the parents of ANY of the other students in the class had filed a
>complaint because they were Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, or even
>of a Christian denomination that wanted no religious activity going
>on in the public classroom. To react as though only this one child
>has rights, and as if the situation can be judged from this singular,
>narrow vantage point, is not very wise or mature.
That one child *does* have rights!!!!!!!!!!!!! On this point the
Constitution is very singular and narrow-minded, if you will. And for her
teacher to dismiss her rights, silence her, and publicly disgrace her by
making her put her head down on her desk -- all because some reactionist
Federal judges have ignored the Bill of Rights and twisted the
Constitution to make it seem like the Federal government has the power to
exclude religion from public life -- is *exactly* the kind of thing that
the people of this nation are reacting against. The very purpose of our
Constitution's 1st amendment was to protect the rights of the PEOPLE to
make their own decisions regarding religious and other informal
associations (like their newspaper subscription), and to protect the
rights of the PEOPLE to be free to exercise their religious and
philosophical beliefs without the Federal government butting in and saying
"No! You can't do that." Are you really so blinded by your disapproval of
Christians that you can't see that is exactly what was done to this child?
Her rights were abridged! And it was all because the teacher was afraid of
reprisals by an overbearing and patronizing Federal government.
J. F. Tims
>No, my friend. Everywhere, and for centuries, people have gathered to
>pray. The United States House of Representatives begins every session
>with a prayer.
Representatives don't even have to be in the same country, much less
in the same room.
[...Polls show that a majority of Americans are in favor prayer
>in schools.
>
>And, suddenly, so is our president.
[...
Terrifying, indeed.
-jim tims
J. F. Tims
>I honestly don't care if people pray to god, Jesus, Baal, Zeus, Thor,
>Odin, Crom, Mitra, Set, Frodo, Gandalf, Tarzan, Space Ghost, Wolverine,
>or any other fictional characters. I just don't want to hear it and I
>don't want my future children to have to hear it.
>
> Stephen (Crom laughs at your puny god!) Cumblidge
Why not have a prayer? Students could take material home to study
before the next day's prayer, so that they could learn how to do it
correctly. One day, Buddhist prayer wheels, Hindu with incense the
next. Every child should bring a live rat for Voodoo day! (Topical,
the children would learn something about Haiti!) Bacchus? The kids
could start the day with a little alcohol haze. I think, all in all,
the children would go for it. Could even include hats, funny shoes, or
whatever you need to do it "respectfully".
-jim
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>...
> Adultery? I think it was referring to a man not being allowed to
>have sex with another man's wife. Other women, except for relatives, and
>including the multitude of prostitutes, were fair game.
What you have said here is simply false. The Bible doesn't in any way
condone those things, unless you take what it says grossly out of context
in order to distort what it says very badly.
> The Bible also recommends abortion on command if a man suspects
>that his wife has been unfaithful after he has returned from a long trip
>(Numbers 5).
Again, Numbers 5 has nothing to say about abortion, unless you twist what
it says in order to support what you want it to say.
>>The problem with this arguement is that the Bible was written approximately
>>2000 years ago. It has not changed. Why should beliefs change?
Actually, its writing was spread over a time period from about 5000 years
ago to about 2000 years ago (despite what those who would revise history
say about it), but that's beside the point. There were probably people
having similar arguments 2000, 3000, 4000 years ago. So what makes you
think that beliefs about God's word have changed? There have always been
some who truly believe what God's word says (and who endeavor to truly
live by what it says); and there have always been those who reject it for
themselves (but try to use it to manipulate others into doing what *they*
want them to do); and there have always been others who completely reject
it (and do their best to ignore it). With all due respect, you seem to
fall into the middle of those three groups; you reject God's word for
yourself, yet you are trying to use it to manipulate those you disagree
with into doing what *you* want them to do. The sad fact is that people in
our society today, Christians included, are so completely blind to how
manipulation works that they don't even see when they themselves are
manipulating others, much less when others are manipulating them.
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>In article <gherreraC...@netcom.com>, gher...@netcom.com (George E.
>Herrera Jr) wrote:
>[deletia]
>> I think that this "You can't do that" attitude is a little childish in
>> this modern society. Especially if you considers what is
>> permissible now that wasn't before. Thankfully, we live in a
>> democracy. Polls show that a majority of Americans are in favor prayer
>> in schools.
>[snip]
>
>the bill of rights was intended to prevent majorities from trampling
>the rights of minorities. since freedom of religion, and the
No! The Bill of Rights was intended to prevent the *Federal government* or
any of the State governments from becoming an all-powerful, overbearing,
patronizing, dictatorship. It was intended to strictly limit the powers of
government to the very minimum that it needed to provide for the common
welfare and defense of the people. It was intended primarily to prevent
the Federal government from trampling the rights of *everyone* be they
individually part of the majority or a minority.
>separation of church and state are provisions in the bill of rights,
>the majority of americans don't, and shouldn't really have any say
>in dictating governmental policy in such matters.
I'd agree that what the majority wants shouldn't necessarily have the
final say in dictating government policy (at least not until they are able
to have the Constitution amended), but I disagree with your assesment of
what the Bill of Rights says. The 1st amendment contains an "establisment
clause" prohibiting the Federal government from "establishing" a state
religion. It also contains a "free exercise clause" prohibiting the
Federal government from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. Those
two clauses, taken in conjunction with the 9th amendment, constitute a
complete limitation upon the Federal government, prohibiting from it *any*
power or jurisdiction over religious matters. That prohibition of power,
taken in conjunction with the 10th amendment, clearly reserves that power
"to the States respectively, or to the people."
What all of that means is that the Bill of Rights prohibits the Federal
government from having any power over what local communities decide their
schools should teach regarding religion. To say otherwise gives a
frightening unconstitutional power to the Federal government.
Timothy Jones
On 20 Nov 1994 lel...@ins.infonet.net wrote:
> In article <17072B66...@yaleads.ycc.yale.edu>, ke...@yaleads.ycc.yale.edu (Ken Hudson) writes:
> > [snip]
> >Acknowledging first that we do not have the objective facts on what
> >happened, I would be appalled that a teacher would give such an
> >assignment then hurt the feelings of a student. If all the children
> >were Christian, then she should have been allowed to finish the song
> >and the teacher should have grown wiser from the experience.
> >
> >However, the teacher could have been in hot water--her career threatened--
> >if the parents of ANY of the other students in the class had filed a
> >complaint because they were Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, or even
> >of a Christian denomination that wanted no religious activity going
> >on in the public classroom. To react as though only this one child
> >has rights, and as if the situation can be judged from this singular,
> >narrow vantage point, is not very wise or mature.
>
> That one child *does* have rights!!!!!!!!!!!!! On this point the
> Constitution is very singular and narrow-minded, if you will. And for her
That was never in question. Reread the above. It says "Only this
one child", not "that one child". Point being, she was not the only child
in the school or classroom, and others should not be forced to experience
her religion, merely because they are in the same room with her.
> teacher to dismiss her rights, silence her, and publicly disgrace her by
> making her put her head down on her desk -- all because some reactionist
Your opinion of the incidents' flavor is subjective and off
topic. If she felt disgrace, then *she* was the reactionist.
> Federal judges have ignored the Bill of Rights and twisted the
They have upheld both the bill of rights *and* the constitution;
it's called freedom of religion, which includes freedom *from* religion,
in case you didn't know.
> Constitution to make it seem like the Federal government has the power to
> exclude religion from public life -- is *exactly* the kind of thing that
> the people of this nation are reacting against. The very purpose of our
Religion *IS* excluded from public life, as it should be!
Especially in a state-sponsored facility! Religion is for private life,
and NOWHERE else. If you feel different, it is you who is undemocratic.
> Constitution's 1st amendment was to protect the rights of the PEOPLE to
> make their own decisions regarding religious and other informal
> associations (like their newspaper subscription), and to protect the
> rights of the PEOPLE to be free to exercise their religious and
> philosophical beliefs without the Federal government butting in and saying
> "No! You can't do that." Are you really so blinded by your disapproval of
Almost right. But guess what else...
"The rights of the people to be free to exercise their religious
and philosophical beliefs" includes *by necessity* the right to abstain
from the practise of any religious and philosophical beliefs. This right
cannot be guaranteed in any environment wherein a practice of this type
is enacted in a state funded context -- like a classroom -- and the
participation is all but complusory for those present in that they must
experience another's religious practice on their time and against their
will. School ground is not the issue. School TIME *is*. At that point, it
becomes STATE time, which makes it STATE religion. Say hello to theocracy.
> Christians that you can't see that is exactly what was done to this child?
> Her rights were abridged! And it was all because the teacher was afraid of
> reprisals by an overbearing and patronizing Federal government.
Rubbish! It is the rights of the rest of us that have been
protected by a government that is wise enough not to allow one
brainwashed child to all but force her religion on the minds of other
equally impressionable children. The only attempted overbearance here is
that of theism towards a secular environment. If someone wants to pray on
their own time, that's their business. If they want to pray on mine or
the governments time, that's something I will fight with everything that
I am! I will anihilate such imperious nonsense; and I *won't* be alone in
doing so...
Now -- I'm really very sorry that the child involved here was
humiliated, if indeed she was (only a very slight sarcasm intended). It
is unfortunate this was a souce of tension of embarassment for her. I am
in no way meaning to declare war on one single little child. But, whether
she knows it (or meant it) or not, what she attempted was improper, and
she ahould have been taught better.
Are you or anyone else so blinded by religious extreamism and
fanatical hatred of atheism, secularism, seperatisim (re: church vs.
state, *NOT* ethnicity), and anything else that doesn't hone with your
isolated worldview that you cannot see and acknowledge another's right
*NOT* to have your superstitions force-fed to them? -- and on a daily
basis, no less!...
> Leland D. Hosford | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
> lel...@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
> -----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
> ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
See reason, before it's too late!
Loren Petrich
Well, I'm sure that John Rickert would really enjoy it if some
neo-pagan teacher decided to put up some pillars dedicated to the god
Priapus with inscriptions on them like
Steal from me once
And my Holy Rod will go up your rear
Steal from me twice
And my Holy Rod will go into your mouth
Steal from me three times
And my Holy Rod will go both places
[loosely based on inscriptions found on the original Priapus
pillars; see Richard Zacks' _History Laid Bare_]
I'm sure that all the prayer-in-schools partisans will applaud
the exemplary moral message of such pillars.
--
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
pet...@netcom.com Happiness is a fast Macintosh
l...@s1.gov And a fast train
Loren Petrich
John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
... Moreover, I'm offended simply at paying for offensive art
>produced, even if I am not required to see it.
What makes something "obscene" in the first place?
And if you want obscenities, you can check out my Biblical
Satanic Verses, available by e-mail.
Loren Petrich
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A. <lel...@ins.infonet.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichC...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>>...
>> Adultery? I think it was referring to a man not being allowed to
>>have sex with another man's wife. Other women, except for relatives, and
>>including the multitude of prostitutes, were fair game.
>What you have said here is simply false. The Bible doesn't in any way
>condone those things, unless you take what it says grossly out of context
>in order to distort what it says very badly.
There are lots of cases of men going to prostitutes without it
being criticized, and there's nothing in those "Laws of Moses" that
unequivocally forbid it.
>> The Bible also recommends abortion on command if a man suspects
>>that his wife has been unfaithful after he has returned from a long trip
>>(Numbers 5).
>Again, Numbers 5 has nothing to say about abortion, unless you twist what
>it says in order to support what you want it to say.
One has to read between the lines. Women naturally gain a bit of
weight during pregnancy, and if the pregnancy ended, then they would show
that they had lost some of it -- those sagging thighs.
Loren Petrich
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A. <lel...@ins.infonet.net> wrote:
[Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo story deleted...]
... And it was all because the teacher was afraid of
>reprisals by an overbearing and patronizing Federal government.
I have some advice for anyone who dislikes the Federal Gov't:
To move somewhere where one will not have to live under its
sovereignty.
There are lots of such places in the world, and there even are
lots of places where the people speak English, or use it as a second
language.
America: Love It or Leave It!
Elizabeth C King
John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ak5vn$m...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) writes:
>>In article <1994Nov19.0...@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
>>John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>>>I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>>>of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>>>offended now?
>>
>>Is there another clause of the first amendment which states that the
>>government shall not establish an art gallery? Are you forced to go to
>>this art gallery in order to get your diploma?
>
> The government is here funding preferentially art that mocks or
>scandalizes religion. Under a completely neutral reading of the First
>Amendment this is forbidden, whether it be through the NEA or no.
If the state gave preferential treatment to artists based on their
mocking religion, it would definitely violate the first amendment. It is
because the state may not take into account religion when deciding which
artists receive grants that you will see diverse religious themes in the
art that gets funded. Of course the only NEA art that you might see on
TV is that art which offends the Christian majority in this country. (I
guess it's the liberal media.)
> As for diplomas, just about every district makes commencement
>exercises optional. In fact, in Lee v Weizman, the court called
>prayer at commencement unconstitutional, even though the specific
>prayer in question had been worked out by a diverse group of parties
>so as not to be sectarian, and commencement exercises were _completely
>optional_ for reception of the diploma.
How can a prayer not be sectarian? Can a prayer be secular?
And, you are right most graduation ceremonies are not mandatory. But,
most students (or at least their parents) feel that it is a benefit that
the student has a right to receive upon completing high school
requirements. Do you think that the school should be able to condition
this right on the students giving up of constitutional rights?
> Why are you so superstitious against religion? Does my talking
>about it convert you? I doubt it. You think that if nonbelievers
>hear one small prayer at one ceremony, it will undermine their faith
>in atheism? I wouldn't mind if it did, but it is highly unlikely to
>say the least. And note that the situation is not symmetrical here.
>I am not saying that the absence of one small prayer at one ceremony
>will cause people to lose their religion. That is not the point of
>having the prayer. The purpose is to express thankfulness and ask for
>the well-being of the teachers, parents, and students -- highly
>appropriate, I believe; and even if the Constitution forbade it (which
>it does not), then the law ought to be changed.
I don't think I am superstitious against religion. I don't even know
what it means to be superstitious against religion. And, I know that no
amount of prayers would ever convert me. Undermining the faith of
atheists is of no concern to me. In fact, I think that atheists should,
in the appropriate forum, learn about other religions. If this convinces
them to be converted, great. It is my experience that listening to
diverse religious speakers actually makes atheists stronger believers in
atheism. (At least it gives them better arguments against the existence
of God)
I also think that the intention of the prayer is very noble. However, I
believe that the dangers of mixing the state with religion far outweigh
any benefit from this good intention.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I asked him for mercy, he gave me a gun."
Elizabeth
ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Elizabeth C King
Elizabeth C King
first amendment does prohibit prayer in school. I'm merely restating
Justice Goldberg's reasoning so I WOULD be interested in criticism. I
personally don't feel like I know all the issues about it.
The 9th amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be constured to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
This seems to me pretty obvious this means that the first eight
amendments are not exhaustive. Other rights not enumerated in the first
eight amendments include privacy (generally accepted). The existence of
fundamental rights taken in conjunction with the 14th amendment result in
the existence of fundamental (not enumerated in the bill of rights) that
the states can not violate. So, for instance, a state may not outlaw
contraceptives.
Timothy Jones
On 18 Nov 1994, Ted Krueger wrote:
> In article <3aghsd$3...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
> William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>
> > Don't fall for Christian switch and bait. Don't let 'em sucker you by
> >pretending to know about the Bible when he does not!
>
> And so they should fall for the anti-Christian switch and bait?
We do not switch; and rational argument and deduction are not bait!
> You know, the one where some non-Christian tries to tell Christians
> about Christian doctrine but puts restrictions on the discussion like
> "We only want to talk about Jesus' words here. Nothing else in the
> Bible or Church doctrine is instructionally valid."
The only 'restrictions' I'm privy to, are rules regarding
consistancy, sufficency of evidenciary support, and non-contradiction --
things that theists have time and again shown themselves to be quite
incapable of handeling.
> Listen folks, not only does SubGenius Charles not comprehend the
> context of Matthew 6:5, he ignores everything else in the Bible.
Swell -- but this dogme defrays nothing the subgenius said. You
are drifting, here.
> How about these, Sub-Charles:
>
> Luke 18:1 "...men ought always to pray."
> Luke 22:36 "Watch ye therefore and pray always."
What about them? Your's is hardly the only religion that tells
its followers to pray on a constrnt and consistant basis -- so? These
references do not speak to the topic of public prayer.
> >Matthew 6:5 still stands.
> >for the only two cases of Jesus obviously praying in public, see John
> >11:41-2, and John 17:1-26 spoken alledgedly at the last supper. (How did
> >the writer of John know this long speech, not having been there?)
> >This is similar to teh long speeches greek historians sometimes put
> >in teh mouths of long dead figures they were writing about.
> >And have nothing to do with public prayer or Jesus cammanding or allowing
> >that.
> >I hate it when some Xian spews nonsense and somebody else buys it or is
> >intimidated by it.
>
> And I hate it when some anti-Christian tries to define Christian doctrine
> to the masses, especially when they have little idea what they are
> talking about.
And you apparantly hate it the most when you are proven wrong, by
someone like the subgenius or me who know plenty about it, thank you very
much, and have in fact demonstrated a superior knowledge to yours in this
regard.
> >Pope Charles
> >SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> >Slack!
>
> Cut yourself some slack, dude.
>
> Ted
Agreed. You already have enough to hang yourself.
> --
> "Bill Clinton went out of his way to make these elections a referendum
> on the 1980's and the votes are in; the 1980's have won."
> - George Will on ABC television, election day 1994
> Ted Krueger - kru...@neosoft.com
I'd like to see you do better in two measily years. Oops, I
forgot; your kind had 12 years to screw up this country! If our president
has made little positive progress, could it be because he's had to spend
all his time trying to frverishly repair the damage done by republicans,
partiotic yahoos, and zombie fundies over more than a decade!?
Your worthless quote does not belong on this group. Ever heard of
the alt.political groups?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lord works in mysterious ways..." -- Xtian saying
"Well I DON'T!" -- Atheist crito
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Rickert
>If the state gave preferential treatment to artists based on their
>mocking religion, it would definitely violate the first amendment.
So, then, it would not be a violation to give funding for a creche
displayed in public, as long as it was through the NEA? Quite
possibly I misunderstand your position.
>How can a prayer not be sectarian? Can a prayer be secular?
"Sectarian" in its usual sense rather than in the sense that you
take it. I.e., not specifically Catholic or Baptist, and in this case
(Lee v Weizman), the prayer was crafted so as to be sensitive to the
beliefs of Jews and Moslems. (I think the prayer was delivered by a
rabbi, incidentally.) But if you want to construe "sectarian" very
broadly, then I'd say it is quite sectarian -- towards the atheistic
side -- to _forbid_ such prayers at any school.
Let me stress and clarify that I do _not_ want prayers required in
schools across the country or at graduation; rather, I want localities
to maintain their prerogative to decide for (govern!) themselves.
>And, you are right most graduation ceremonies are not mandatory. But,
>most students (or at least their parents) feel that it is a benefit that
>the student has a right to receive upon completing high school
>requirements. Do you think that the school should be able to condition
>this right on the students giving up of constitutional rights?
We do it all the time. It's part of our freedom to accept
conditions. Look at the immense restrictions people agree to in
joining the military. Is it "fair" to make them give up part of their
constitutional rights so that they can have the honor of serving in
the military? I don't want to purse that rabbit trail much further.
Note also: If there are strenuous objections, _try to work something
out_. It is very wrong how many people make litigation the first
resort instead of the last one. They'd rather have the heavy hand of
a bureaucrat grant them their wishes than to sit down and work out a
middle ground that is acceptable to about everyone. Why is this
better? One, people need to learn to solve their own problems. Two,
the bureaucrat who imposes the solution probably won't have to feel
the effects firsthand of his decisions; therefore, it is harder to
keep him responsible.
>I don't think I am superstitious against religion. I don't even know
>what it means to be superstitious against religion. And, I know that no
>amount of prayers would ever convert me.
Well, I'll pray for you anyway.
>I also think that the intention of the prayer is very noble. However, I
>believe that the dangers of mixing the state with religion far outweigh
>any benefit from this good intention.
The Framers were of a different view, George Washington in
particular. This post is too long already -- I'll post the Washington
subsequently if I can find it.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
EYLERJS
>In article <3ak5vn$m...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) writes:
>>In article <1994Nov19.0...@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
>>John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>>>I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>>>of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>>>offended now?
>>
>>Is there another clause of the first amendment which states that the
>>government shall not establish an art gallery? Are you forced to go to
>>this art gallery in order to get your diploma?
>
> The government is here funding preferentially art that mocks or
>scandalizes religion. Under a completely neutral reading of the First
>Amendment this is forbidden, whether it be through the NEA or no.
>
>exercises optional. In fact, in Lee v Weizman, the court called
>prayer at commencement unconstitutional, even though the specific
>prayer in question had been worked out by a diverse group of parties
>so as not to be sectarian, and commencement exercises were _completely
>optional_ for reception of the diploma.
>
>about it convert you? I doubt it. You think that if nonbelievers
>hear one small prayer at one ceremony, it will undermine their faith
>in atheism? I wouldn't mind if it did, but it is highly unlikely to
>say the least. And note that the situation is not symmetrical here.
>I am not saying that the absence of one small prayer at one ceremony
>will cause people to lose their religion. That is not the point of
>having the prayer. The purpose is to express thankfulness and ask for
>the well-being of the teachers, parents, and students -- highly
>appropriate, I believe; and even if the Constitution forbade it (which
>it does not), then the law ought to be changed.
>
>
>rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
>
Oh come now. Commencement optional? In other words a child should give up
graduation exercises that s/he and parents have waited for for 12 years and
which are among life's little highlights if s/he is offended by being forced to
sit thorugh prayers that do not represent this families beliefs?
Baccalaureates are specific optional religious ceremonies that many churches
have for their new graduates; commencement is a school wide observation.
The problem with school prayer is that it is both coercive and directed at
young children who have no way to protect themselves. To encourage biggotry by
singling out children who do not share the dominant belief by having them leave
the room [or else forcing participation] is unconscionable. Instituting this
type of plan pretty much guarantees that these kids will be abused and
tormented by those whose religionb is given the imprimatur of authority.
[kids are great at this. My son was told he was going to hell by the little
Christians across the streat because they thought Catholics weren't Christians;
I am sure there are little Catholics sharing the same good news with little
fundamentalists elsewhere]
Of course the other obvious possibility if we go back to bullying kids in
schools with religion, is that wiseass teenagers will yank everyone's chain by
demanding satantic prayer circles, their turn at reading tributes to Baal and
just generally turning the process into a circus.
What's wrong with a moment of silence? This sends the message that spiritual
needs and beliefs are to be respected and that they are often diverse; it is
ok to worship or reflect in one's own way.
The law now allows the study of religion as part of history; the study of the
Bible and other religious works as part of literature; and private devotional
activities by students as long as they are not sanctioned by the school
formally. e.g. the kids can gather around the flagpole and pray before school,
but they can't force everyone to listen to their prayer over the PA.
The only real objection to these current approaches are, I believe, by people
who want to inflict their relgious training, not on their own children, but on
other people's children. I have heard such discussions. 'We want to have
prayers because so many parents don't take their kids to church.' This is not
about 'my right to pray' it is about my right to use political power to try to
convert other children to my way.
William Barwell
>>...
>>Show us where he approved of mass prayer, public prayer of lead
>>any crowds in any such prayer. Broad statements ar efine, Ted, but they
>
>In Mark 8:6 (during the feeding of the four thousand) is says: "And He
>directed the multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven
>loaves, He gave thanks and broke them and started giving them to His
>disciples ... "
Let's see, did he:
A. Demand the crowd to pray?
B. lead them in prayer?
C. Tell them to always pray when thus massed togaether?
None of the above, yes? The question is massed, public prayer.
Public prayer in the schools. So Matthew 6:5 where public prayer from
his followers is specifically forbidden, still stands as the operative
commandment of Jesus to all Christians as to the proper place and
situation for them to pray.
>
>He was clearly, in that passage, *leading* the multitude in prayer when He
>"gave thanks".
No. He gave thanks. He diod NOT require, ask, demand, that others do so.
You are reading much into this. And it quite simply does not asy that in
the least. Are you SO DESPERATE that ypu will purposefully distort the
very Bible it's self in a attempt to fill in the lack of
evidence for public prayer in the Bible with such fantasies?
Come on. You yourself woul;d not accept such a distortion of similar ilk
against any positions you hold would you?
Do you think your oppnents in debate will accept this?
>
>>prove nothing. What is needed is evidence. You got any that shows that
>>Mark 6:5 can safely be disregarded?
>>Show me that I am mistaken.
>
>I would agree and say you are correct that Mark 6:5 should not be
>disregarded (it should be taken in its full context, which I don't believe
>you have done, but it should definately not be disregarded -- as with all
>of scripture). I would, however, also say that it is completely irrelevant
>to any discussion about prayer in the public schools.
The context is quite plainn and simple. When you pray retire and pray
privately. Jesus obviously has observed that prayer often is not prayer
but other things. Public piety for manipulative or egotistical
purposes. Private prayer is meant to try to strip prayer of it's
usefulness for things other than a personal relationship to God.
But the command that prayer be private is the important command.
Prayer in the
>schools is about Federal control of *local* public policy regarding
>religion, and not about how you or I interpret what the Bible means. It is
>about whether or not the Federal government should be allowed to control
>local community schools regarding what philosophies and ideals and values
>they should teach.
No. It is about collectivist practices demanded by evagelical Christians
determined to run roughshod over those who object to their obvious
collectivist practices in the name of more or less subtle use
of the schools for proselytization of America's school children.
Do not forget that the court's interpretation as to the status of
prayer in school goes back to teh earliest presidents, especially
Jefferson who took a very hard line against religion in government.
Jefferson going so far as to sate specifically that even for a president
to reccommend unofficailly a day of prayer was unconstitutional. Since
Jefferson was one of the fathers of the first amendment he should
know how it was meant to be taken.
See his letter to Rev, Mr. Millar, January 1804.
Would Jefferson be against school prayer in public schools? You bet!
After all Jefferson was the one who set up a University and yet
decided to do with out Theology in his college.
And ofcourse he was the President who published his own version of
the Bible. He would have well known Jesus's commands as to
the manner of prayer reccommended.
Public schools came after Jefferson, but you can bet he would have taken
just as hard a line.
That is what the debate started over, but those who
>would wish to destroy our religious freedoms
No freedoms have been destroyed. The freedoms children are given to pray
quietly and privately perfectly accord with teh commands of Jesus
to pray privately. So the Bible and the law are in perfect harmony.
What has been gained is the freedom against pushy, irritating collectivist
policies that assume that the schools are more informed about religion
practices than individual parents.
have manipulated the debate
>to try and gain the very Federal control over local religious decisions
>that they desire and that the vast majority really do not want them to
>have.
Up to the early 60's the majority of people supported Jim Crow Laws too.
Screw what the majority wants. The Majority has no right to impose it's
wrong headed notions on the correct minority.
Religion is a private thing and should remain so. Prayer especially in
the light of Matthew 6:5.
Once again, the law and the commands of Jesus are in perfect accord and
harmony. If a majority disagress, too bad for the majority. What is
right is right, even if a small minority hold to that.
>Up until about the last 3 decades, the Federal government understood that
>the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution prohibited it from
>having any jurisdiction over local public policy regarding religion. But
>about 35-40 years ago the Federal government started usurping powers
>specifically prohibited to it by the Constitution,
Wrong. Just plain wrong.
and majority of the
>good people of the United States were, unfortunately, asleep. They are now
>beginning to wake up, but they are still a little groggy and haven't yet
>seen that all that is needed is to take back the powers that the Federal
>government has unconstitutionlly usurped; unfortunately, they seem so far
>to have been deceived and manipulated into believing that they need to
>give to the Federal government the very power that it has usurped.
>
>To summarize very briefly: giving the government more power isn't the
>answer; the answer is to take back from it the power it has
>unconstitutionally seized.
The constitution specifically places a wall of seperation between state
and church. The collectivist bent of proselytizing evangelical sects
is always trying to undermine such limits to their power.
Despite once again, Jesus's own prohibition against such prayers.
The curent laws and Matthew 6:5 coincide in perfect harmony.
This is all the rights the Evangelical right deserves even though they
have mistated the whole proposition ever so loudly and long and
have fooled many persons into foolishly abandoning teh words of Jesus
in name of the anti-individualist collectivism of viruliently
proselytizing apostate sects. Sects who do not bother to read the words
of their own Savior.
So what is so wrong with Jesus that he should be ignored? Who is
so Christian that they can tell us safely to ignore the teachings of
Jesus? Apostate forms of pseudo-christianity have no business
forcing their collectivist practices in our school rooms.
Jesus states that prayer is an individualistic act, not an act of mass
rote, perfuntory piety forced on children.
EYLERJS
>In article <CzIxo...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (Tony Lawrence) writes:
>>John Rickert (rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu) wrote:
>>: wish to do so may take their leave. Let me pose a question to you:
>>: I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>>: of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>>: offended now?
>>
>>your government funded. Children do have to sit through religious
>>crap.
>
>objectionable art. And even if they listen, they don't have to
>believe. Moreover, I'm offended simply at paying for offensive art
>produced, even if I am not required to see it.
>
>
>rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
>
But they are children. I doubt that adults are more than slightly annoyed if
they are forced to listen to prayers, not of their faith, in public. But
children are profoundly influenced by authority and they are profoundly
influenced by peers making fun of their differences.
I grew up in a part of the country where religious freedom was respected and
public school did not begin with morning prayers. They were just like the
orderly schools of the 50s everywhere else. The changes in school discipline
are not about prayer, they are about the myriad other changes in our culture.
Elizabeth C King
John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3alqp8$e...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Elizabeth C King) writes:
>>If the state gave preferential treatment to artists based on their
>>mocking religion, it would definitely violate the first amendment.
>
> So, then, it would not be a violation to give funding for a creche
>displayed in public, as long as it was through the NEA? Quite
>possibly I misunderstand your position.
I haven't thought of this before. This is a very good point. But, there
is a subtle difference. No, the state could not set out to pay for a
creche to be displayed in public. But it could, conceivably, fund an
artist to put up a creche in public. The Supreme Court does put alot of
importance on the intent of the state. If the intent of the state is to
help struggling talented artists by giving a park for them to display a
piece of art. And, if the artist was selected for purely artistic
reasons, (ie. not select because she was or wasn't a religious artist),
then I think it would be a violation of the first amendment to require
that artist to not do the creche. IOW, I think it is conceivable that
the NEA could constitutionally fund a creche. However, I am open to
other points on this. I haven't thought of it before.
>>How can a prayer not be sectarian? Can a prayer be secular?
>
> "Sectarian" in its usual sense rather than in the sense that you
>take it. I.e., not specifically Catholic or Baptist, and in this case
>(Lee v Weizman), the prayer was crafted so as to be sensitive to the
>beliefs of Jews and Moslems. (I think the prayer was delivered by a
>rabbi, incidentally.) But if you want to construe "sectarian" very
>broadly, then I'd say it is quite sectarian -- towards the atheistic
>side -- to _forbid_ such prayers at any school.
The first amendment protects the rights of students to pray. It would be
unconstitutional to forbid an individual prayer. The first amendment,
also, however, forbids organized group prayer.
> Let me stress and clarify that I do _not_ want prayers required in
>schools across the country or at graduation; rather, I want localities
>to maintain their prerogative to decide for (govern!) themselves.
>
>>And, you are right most graduation ceremonies are not mandatory. But,
>>most students (or at least their parents) feel that it is a benefit that
>>the student has a right to receive upon completing high school
>>requirements. Do you think that the school should be able to condition
>>this right on the students giving up of constitutional rights?
>
> We do it all the time. It's part of our freedom to accept
>conditions. Look at the immense restrictions people agree to in
>joining the military. Is it "fair" to make them give up part of their
>constitutional rights so that they can have the honor of serving in
>the military? I don't want to purse that rabbit trail much further.
You don't have a 'right' to join the army. In fact I hear gay people are
strongly discouraged from joining.
>Note also: If there are strenuous objections, _try to work something
>out_. It is very wrong how many people make litigation the first
>resort instead of the last one. They'd rather have the heavy hand of
>a bureaucrat grant them their wishes than to sit down and work out a
>middle ground that is acceptable to about everyone. Why is this
>better? One, people need to learn to solve their own problems. Two,
>the bureaucrat who imposes the solution probably won't have to feel
>the effects firsthand of his decisions; therefore, it is harder to
>keep him responsible.
If the compromise is to have the school act unconstitutionally, I would
rather have a law suit. But, I think I generally agree with you.
>>I don't think I am superstitious against religion. I don't even know
>>what it means to be superstitious against religion. And, I know that no
>>amount of prayers would ever convert me.
>
> Well, I'll pray for you anyway.
>
Scott Brown
> Let me stress and clarify that I do _not_ want prayers required in
>schools across the country or at graduation; rather, I want localities
>to maintain their prerogative to decide for (govern!) themselves.
I don't think I'm just picking terminological nits if I point
out that a "locality" (note: singular noun) does not govern
itself, it governs its citizens (note: plural noun). To portray
a "locality" as a single homogenous entity is misleading at best.
A local government in a place that is eighty percent Hindu should
not be permitted to require prayers of non-Hindu members of the
locality.
Surely you agree?
Scott
Jeffrey J Barbose
From: Ted Krueger, kru...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
Date: 18 Nov 1994 09:40:38 -0600
In article <3aihtm$e...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Ted Krueger,
kru...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM writes:
>In article <3agsut$r...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
>Elizabeth C King <ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Maybe the school board was scared to make some of the kids feel like
>>shit. How would you like to sit with 300 other people who pray to a god
>>which they think is going to send you to hell for not participating in
>>that prayer?
>
>I would be a lot more afraid of having them listen to an anti-Christian
>like you who goes so far to mischaracterize anything you disagree with.
>
Ted....where did he mention christians? He mentioned praying to a god.
Not your mythos in particular.
Did you think that your god = THE god?
Very telling.
>"Going to hell for not participating in a prayer" indeed.
>
And if, during that gang-prayer, I closed my eyes and repeated over and
over "there is no god...there is no god...there is no god...", would I be
a candidate for hell?
>Which liberal liar told you that one?
You tell me, Ted: does failure to believe in your god spell an eternity
in hell for me, according to the christian dogma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And for Christ, a Cross, and for me, a chair.
I will sit and earn the ransom from up here. -- Live
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel B Case
>Which religions espouse violence against non-believers? This is news to me.
The Koran commands death for apostates, I think (Salman Rushdie may be able to
give you a better idea). And religions often tacitly distinguish between those
who believe just as strongly in other faiths and those who challenge the very
idea of religion in the first place. If you're the one atheist kid in a
Baptist town, you're going to have a lot more explaining to do than the one
Jewish kid.
Religion often becomes a part of people's identity, to the point that they take
atheism personally, and interpret a religions strictures and exhortations
wrt nonbelievers differently than the "official" interpretation, with
consequences not often favorable to the nonbelievers.
>Besides, I don't think neo-Nazi skinheads are that much into "religion."
Ever hear of "Odinism?" if not, ask on alt.skinheads. There are a number of
skins there who would be happy to tell you all about it.
A.X. Lias
: : As a non-believer, one must be quite insecure about one's beliefs to
: : care what another's religion has to say about non-believers.
Given that there have been points in the not-to-distant past when
non-believers were subject to a number of horrors from believers
motivated by the things their religion had to say about non-believers, I
would suggest that it is in the best interest of the non-believer to care
very much about what someone elses religion says about him.
It's hard to be apathetic when hot pokers are involved.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com | Frobozz on IRC | Finger for PGP key
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
A whole generation started the day with prayer and ended up not
benefiting very much from it. After all, it was not 7-year-olds who
gathered stoned and naked at Woodstock. -- Richard Cohen
A.X. Lias
: As for diplomas, just about every district makes commencement
: exercises optional. In fact, in Lee v Weizman, the court called
: prayer at commencement unconstitutional, even though the specific
: prayer in question had been worked out by a diverse group of parties
: so as not to be sectarian, and commencement exercises were _completely
: optional_ for reception of the diploma.
I take it, then, that you would have no difficulty with a Senior Prom
starting off with a prayer to Satan? It is, after all, an optional event.
Daniel B Case
>Ummm...I'm curious...I'm an athiest - I don't pray. If my high school
>started a "moment of silence" what exactly do they expect me to do?
Fart, perhaps?
Paul Carver
> If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
>moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
>to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances. I
>would not seek to forbid everyone else. Or I would move. The whole
>world doesn't have to revolve around what I want, does it? There are
I don't believe you posted this in a public forum. You just said
that anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs should either put
up with them or else move to another country. (you must want them to
move to another country since we are discussing an amendment which
would apply to the entire United States)
This demand that everyone believe as you do or leave ought to be
grounds for revoking your American citizenship. You obviously
do not care at all about the ideals of tolerance and freedom
that this country was founded on.
Paul
Bill Anderson
:
: "Sue" the school board? Now, now. Let's be reasonable here.
:
: Acknowledging first that we do not have the objective facts on what
: happened,
Acknowledged.
I would be appalled that a teacher would give such an
: assignment then hurt the feelings of a student. If all the children
: were Christian, then she should have been allowed to finish the song
: and the teacher should have grown wiser from the experience.
:
: However, the teacher could have been in hot water--her career threatened--
: if the parents of ANY of the other students in the class had filed a
: complaint because they were Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, or even
: of a Christian denomination that wanted no religious activity going
: on in the public classroom. To react as though only this one child
: has rights, and as if the situation can be judged from this singular,
: narrow vantage point, is not very wise or mature. Unfortunately,
: this is exactly the kind of narrow-minded, reactionary "thinking"
: that I fear we are in for from the Conservative part of our new
: Congress... The ones I've listened to talk in simplistic, often
: bigoted platitudes more often than they talk serious evaluation
: of problems and solutions... It seems their fundamental political
: philosophy is "funnel the people's frustration into anger against
: certain groups of people"...which of course recalls the tactics
: of certain historic dictators...
:
Bzzt. Hate to see such a nice tirade go to waste, but I'm a lefty,
an agnostic and a fervent opponent of state-sponsored prayer. In
this case, though, the state didn't sponsor anything at all; the little
girl was asked to sing her favorite song, and her favorite song happened
to be "Jesus Loves Me". We have a right to expect our government not
to sponsor religion; we don't have a right to have our tender ears
protected from the utterances of believers.
Bill
Scott Brown
>Ken Hudson wrote:
>: However, the teacher could have been in hot water- her career threatened-
>: if the parents of ANY of the other students in the class had filed a
>: complaint because they were Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, or even
>: of a Christian denomination that wanted no religious activity going
>: on in the public classroom. To react as though only this one child
>: has rights, and as if the situation can be judged from this singular,
>: narrow vantage point, is not very wise or mature.
>Bzzt. Hate to see such a nice tirade go to waste, but I'm a lefty,
>an agnostic and a fervent opponent of state-sponsored prayer.
Me too, except replace "agnostic" by "atheist".
In this case, though, the state didn't sponsor anything at all; the
little girl was asked to sing her favorite song, and her favorite
song happened to be "Jesus Loves Me". We have a right to expect our
government not to sponsor religion; we don't have a right to have our
tender ears protected from the utterances of believers.
Seconded. The little girl was invited to share something important
to her, not to lead the class in any way.
Scott
John Rickert
>But they are children. I doubt that adults are more than slightly annoyed if
>they are forced to listen to prayers, not of their faith, in public. But
>children are profoundly influenced by authority and they are profoundly
>influenced by peers making fun of their differences.
True. But consider that public education is compulsory. Why is
this? Where does the Constitution authorize and require it? I mean,
the exact clauses.
In order to respect the rights of parents, courts had, over the
years, held to a rule called "in loco parentis." The teachers,
administrators, etc. were there "in place of the parent." But now it
has come to just the opposite: Schools do what they will, parents be
damned. Handing out condoms, even against the wishes of parents, is a
clear example of this.
The Constitution prohibits an _establishment_ of religion, such as
you find in England or used to find in Italy, and I think this is a
good policy. It does not prohibit other kinds of arrangements.
These are to be worked out -- just like all our other political
problems -- locality by locality, state by state.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
David Berner
(Bill Anderson) wrote:
> Bzzt. Hate to see such a nice tirade go to waste, but I'm a lefty,
> an agnostic and a fervent opponent of state-sponsored prayer. In
> this case, though, the state didn't sponsor anything at all; the little
> girl was asked to sing her favorite song, and her favorite song happened
> to be "Jesus Loves Me". We have a right to expect our government not
> to sponsor religion; we don't have a right to have our tender ears
> protected from the utterances of believers.
hey. i just wanted to say that bill is the only one making sense on
this particular topic.
in no way can the little girls attmept to complete her assignment
be construed as state sponsorship of religion. the teacher was
wrong. however, i would argue that this is an isolated incident and
dosen't demonstrate any malicious intent on the part of the current
prohibition of state sponsored prayer in school. the teacher was
wrong. she enforced what she percieved to be the law, but was wrong.
perhaps to avoid other incidents such as this, teachers could educate
themselves on what is and isn't permissable (sp?) wrt religious
activity in public schools.
anyway.
--
David Berner -- dcbe...@host0.colby.edu -- IRC: Wastrel
EYLERJS
jWell, of course, Public Education is not compulsory. You are free to send
your children to whatever sectarian school you choose. My child is no less
coerced when subjected to other people's religion selected locally than by the
Secretary of Religion. Just look around the world, if you think mixing
government and religion is such a hot idea. The only people who need to have
public coercive prayer -- rather than, say moments of silence to start the day
and the right to pray privately -- are those who wish to inflict their beliefs
Keenan Clay Wilkie
> But they don't have to listen, just as I don't have to see the
>objectionable art. And even if they listen, they don't have to
>believe. Moreover, I'm offended simply at paying for offensive art
>produced, even if I am not required to see it.
I am offended at simply paying for offensive military actions in
countries I don't think we have interest in, even if I am not required to
serve...
Would you support cutting funds to only the art you deem "offensive", or
would you take the stance of "If one goes, they all go". This will
better help me determine if you have a double-standard here.
--
Power corrupts;
Absolute power corrupts absolutely;
God is all-powerful.
Draw your own conclusions
Keenan Clay Wilkie
Sebastian Nyberg
>Congress doesn't have a problem starting their day off with a prayer.
>Why should you? Oops, I forgot. Congress doesn't follow the same rules
>we have to follow.
Can you please tell us exactly why you want to have public praying in
school? Anyone who wants to, can find five minutes (after/before lunch, for
example) to pray. Why does it have to be organized?
Base
Rick Gillespie
John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ag3jn$8...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> r...@fc.hp.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:
>>Excuse me, but prayer IS allowed in schools. Coercive prayer led by teachers
>>*is* prohibitted. How would you feel if your child was required to bring
>>a prayer mat to school so that he/she had to say a Muslim prayer to Allah
>>several times a day?
>
> If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
>moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
>to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances.
Are you really as clueless as you seem? I was talking about forced prayer in
the USA. How would you feel about *your* children being forced to pray to
something other than what you believe in.
> I
>would not seek to forbid everyone else. Or I would move. The whole
>world doesn't have to revolve around what I want, does it? There are
>_plenty_ of good ways to work out accomodations where those who wish
>to pray aloud in public may do so, peacefully, and those who do not
>wish to do so may take their leave.
Since all kids who want to pray *now* have that ability, then what on
Earth are you complaining about?
>Let me pose a question to you:
>I find it a gravely objectionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, use
>of my taxes to fund obscene art. Where's your concern for the
>offended now?
My tax money is used for lots of things I find objectionable too. So what?
Perhaps you heard of the l'il ol' unconstitutional war against a part of
Vietnam (not that *my* tax money was used for it ...)
What could possibly be unconstitutional about funding obscene art?
Rick Gillespie
"I speak only for myself"
Paul Carver
through my brain. The implications are rather disturbing.
He seems to be saying that although the federal government may not
establish or prohibit any religion, the individual state governments
are under no such restriction.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This clearly applies only to the United States Congress. Is it
possible that the individual state governments could institute
their own little theocracies on a statewide level?
Does anyone know how many, if any, state constitutions make any
mention of religion? Either for or against?
Could the US *conceivably* fragment into states of differing
official religion?
As I said, it's slightly disturbing.
Paul
Emil T. Chuck
In a previous article, alca...@crl.com (Alan L. Cassel) says:
>Emil T. Chuck (e...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>
>: Which religions espouse violence against non-believers? This is news to me.
>
>Where were you during all the violence in Northern Ireland between
>Protestants and Catholics?
Oh so, all of Catholicism around the world is engaged in military conflict
with Protestants all around the world? Come on now. Be more even more
specific than this. Sure, we have religious conflicts all throughout the
world and throughout world history in the names of religion. But many of
the major reasons is essentially xenophobia: Arab-Israeli conflicts
throughout centuries and millenia of history have essentially been wars to
try to eliminate all the Jews from the Middle East or to defend land from
hostile Arabs. But all in all, the doctrines of the religions don't all
advocate killing and murdering and raping those who don't believe in their
religion.
--
"For you see, my fellow Republicans, we _are_ the change!"
Ronald Reagan, RNC Speech, August 17, 1992
Emil Thomas Chuck (e...@po.cwru.edu) Department of Genetics
CWRU School of Medicine and Rainbow Babies & Children Hospital
Allison Mitchell
John Rickert <rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ah347$p...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> all...@mathcs.emory.edu (Allison Mitchell) writes:
>>attempt to refute the earlier claim, instead of "we've always done it, so it
>>must be right."
>
> I don't think that's the justification given: you've
>mischaracterized it. For me at least, and most people I know, the
>frame of mind is that the way we've always done it has the presumption
>of rightness and gets the benefit of the doubt. You are, I suppose,
>at least college-aged yourself: You've developed habits of living,
>haven't you, that you feel sure are right enough? You wouldn't want
>to have to give an account of all these to a panel, would you? (If
>you live that rationally and Objectivistly, let us part company
>amicably right now.) Well, what about communities? The genuine sense
>of community has been profoundly lost in big cities and suburbia, but
>it still exists in smaller towns. Communities themselves develop
>character, habits. I think you have to respect that. You might want
>some things done differently, but it's about like going around and
>correcting all the foibles of your friends. Long-standing practices
>don't just happen; they are maintained, retained, handed-on. They
>allow an extension of the community over generations. So again, the
>frame of mind is not what you've indicated, it more like a habit,
>which one does all the time as the result of long experience. I don't
>know whether any of this will register on those who come from the
>city, though.
I don't think I've mischaracterized at all. I know that I do quite a few
things because of tradition, and that tradition is often, indeed, very
important to community. I certainly don't intend to berate the importance
of tradition.
However, I think you may have misunderstood the context in which the words
I wrote above appear. Someone (was it George Hererra?) replied to a posting
in which someone had copied Matthew 6:5 (if I remember the book and verse
correctly) and had asked Christians to refute the conjecture that Jesus did
not condone public prayer. This person responded by saying that the original
poster was wrong because people had been praying in public for centuries.
Although this is probably true, it does nothing to refute the original claim,
and I just felt that this person needed to come up with a better justification
in order to even begin to argue his position. That was all I intended to
say here. The words I wrote above were in response to the accusation that
because I bowed out of that direct argument when better reasoning was given
(reasoning I don't have the experience to argue against) I was falling for
some sort of Christian "switch and bait."
>
> If nothing else can sway you, let me make one request: Try to
>understand better why people could be old paleoconservative fossils
>like me. Or at least, try to understand what traditionalist
>communities are like. I don't get the sense that you really do
>understand it. You will probably retain many objections, I admit, but
>at least they won't be based on such broad misconceptions.
Idon't think people are paleoconservative fossils for doing things because
of tradition -- I orginally come from a small community and a tight-knit
family. In both of those places, tradition has played an extremely
important role in my life. I really did not mean to offend you, and
apologize if I did so.
--
Allison Mitchell, (math grad)
Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Internet: all...@mathcs.emory.edu
UUCP: {rutgers,gatech}!emory!allison
John Rickert
>rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>> If I lived in a predominantly Muslim community -- e.g., if I
>>moved to Saudi Arabia -- I would either put up with it or I would try
>>to reach an agreement exempting my children from these observances. I
>>would not seek to forbid everyone else. Or I would move. The whole
>>world doesn't have to revolve around what I want, does it? There are
>
>I don't believe you posted this in a public forum. You just said
>that anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs should either put
>up with them or else move to another country.
If you want to argue your point of view, fine, but don't misinterpret
mine for that purpose, please.
>grounds for revoking your American citizenship. You obviously
>do not care at all about the ideals of tolerance and freedom
>that this country was founded on.
I care very much about political freedoms that are being wrested
from the hands of ordinary people living their day-to-day lives and
being put in the hands of nonelected, nonrepresentative officials who
hold their office for life. I care very much about communities being
able to decide for, govern, themselves. And I am very distressed at
the attitude that Washington elites somehow have such a better
understanding of rights than everyone else, except, of course, the Ivy
League savants and their toadies.
The ideals on which this country was founded find one of their
best expressions in the Federalist Papers, which I have read
thoroughly and which I greatly revere.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
Scott Brown
>The majority of Americans think they want to have school
>days start with a prayer.
Then they should by all means start them that way, instead of waiting
a couple of hours until the kids are gathered in a groups with others
of different beliefs.
>To do this as teacher or school led or group prayer violates the
>rights of people - particularly captive minor children- to be free
>from state
>imposed relgion. It seems to me that the moment of silence is a more
>than fair
>compromise of those positions; Christians can pray as Christ intended,
>privately and to God alone, and others can think about what they want to
>do for
>the day, reflect or meditate, or have sexual fantasies. No one has to know
>what and it is no one's business. This allows us to show respect for
>diverse
>spiritual commitments and also allows Christians and other sects the prayer
>they desire. Sounds good to me.
I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I think little harm is done
by a mere moment of silence. On the other hand, why should religions
whose prayers require chants be excluded? What about religions whose
prayers involve physical rituals?
Why should various sects be allowed the prayer they desire, on
school time? They can pray on their own time perfectly well.
No one can disallow that. Once they're on school time, though,
I think it's inappropriate to require the rest of the group
to be quiet so some members can practice their religion. That's
not what schools are there for.
If the first bell rings at eight, seems to me there's nothing
wrong with allowing students who wish to to gather in an empty
classroom at 7:45 to pray or whatever. They can even do it
aloud. It's not on school time then, and I believe allowing
the use of school facilities for this kind of activity outside
academic hours is appropriate.
Scott
Andrew Hall
>>>>> Ted Krueger writes:
Ted> In article <3aj3ea$h...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>,
>> I think that it is logical that if a religious person wants to get the
>> most out of his prayers, the best way to do this would be by himself with
>> the appropriate meditation. I would even bet that religious thinkers
>> and leaders would advise people that it is better to pray once a day with
>> the correct mindset than to to spend hours at a church merely mouthing
>> the words to some words you aren't even thinking about.
Ted> The problem that you and atheists like you have in comprehending prayer
Ted> is that you think that all prayer is just a waste of time.
Ted> What you fail to realize is that spending time in your closet AND
Ted> praying wherever you are is better than either.
>> And Guess What,
>> most of the kids in school would be mouthing the words or thinking of
>> something else. And the kids that might get something out of the prayer
>> are probably the same kids that have been taught by their parents to be
>> sure to take some time out of the day to pray.
Ted> So? Why not let the kids pray everywhere? Are you afraid that some
Ted> of them would?
We do. Anyone can silently pray anywhere anytime. What
you want is not prayer, it is organized prayer where a student
that does not want to participate has to get up and leave
the room. That is wrong.
>> But guess what, the first
>> amendment already protects the rights of these kids to do this.
Ted> Not sufficiently in the minds of many Christians.
The last time this was tried 40 religious groups, including
many christian denomination, signed a petition to Congress asking
Senators not to pass such an amendment. It failed by 11 votes.
Ted> I'd bet that you don't believe that the Bill of Rights protects the
Ted> rights of women. In other words, I'd bet that you are in favor of
Ted> the ERA.
Why not?
ah
=======================================================================
Fight for what you believe in, stand up for what you believe in.
-- Ex President George Bush, to Chinese dissidents, May
21 1989. Nine days later he waived trade
restrictions against China.
John Rickert
The application of the establishment clause against the states,
via the 14th amendment. This is the usual justification, and I really know
of none other; I strongly suspect that any other justification would
require a strained reading of the Constitution. (Which, of course, has
not stopped people before.)
To begin with, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Barron
v Baltimore (32 U.S. 243, 1833) that the Bill of Rights was not
applicable to individual states. This is not only logically correct, it is
also consonant with the history of the Constitution: The Bill of Rights
was passed at the insistence of the Southern states that feared
excessive federal intervention in their internal concerns. Barron v
Baltimore has never been explicitly overturned although the Court has
ignored it in fact for the last few decades.
The principle point of contention, then, is whether the Bill of
Rights becomes applicable against the states in virtue of the 14th
amendment, through what is called "Incorporation." On this point I
quote from James McClellan, "Joseph Story and the American
Constitution," p.149 f:
"Historical research has since shown, fairly conclusively, that
the debates accompanying the proposal and ratification of the
Fourteenth Amendment do not justify the doctrine of incorporation.
Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, state
courts and the Supreme Court adhered to the principle that the Bill of
Rights applied only to the federal government. `In at least twenty
cases between 1877 and 1907,' Charles Warren noted, `the Court was
required to rule upon this point and to reaffirm Marshall's decision of
1833.' As late as 1922, in Prudential Insurance Co. v Cheek, the
Court declared that `neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other
provision of the Constitution imposes restrictions upon the state about
freedom of speech.' ... Writing in the Harvard Law Review in 1926,
Warren observed apprehensively that the Supreme Court had followed
Barron v Baltimore even after the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment, `Yet, in this Gitlow case, without even mentioning these
previous cases, the Court assumes, without argument, that this right of
free is speech is so protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.' ... Then,
in 1947 (80 years after the passage of the amendment! -- J.R), the
doctrine of incorporation was extended to the establishment clause."
And on p. 154,
"With regard to the establishment clause itself, another
constitutional scholar makes the important observation that 'a
conclusive argument against the incorporation theory, at least as
respects the religious provisions of the First Amendment is the Blaine
Amendment proposed in 1875.' James Blaine of Maine, we find,
introduced a resolution in the Senate that year upon the
recommendation of President Grant, which read accordingly, 'No State
shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Significantly, the Congress
which considered the Blaine amendment included twenty-three
members of the Thirty-ninth Congress, which passed the Fourteenth
Amendment."
McClellan quotes O'Brien, "Justice Reed and the First Amendment":
Not one of the several Representatives and Senators who
spoke on the proposal even suggested that its provisions were implicit
in the amendment ratified just seven years earlier. Congressman
Banks, a member of the Thirty-ninth Congress, observed, "If the
Constitution is amended so as to secure the object embraced in the
principal part of this proposed amendment, it prohibits the States from
exercising a power they now exercise." Senator Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey urged the passage of the "House article," which "prohibits the
States for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from
prohibiting its free exercize." ... Remarks of Randolph, Christiancy,
Kernan, Whyte, Bogy, Eaton, and Morton give confirmation to the
belief that none of the legislators in 1875 thought the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporated the religious provisions of the First."
The current understanding of the establishment clause is a
judicial invention. It may seem like a good one to some, but it is
nevertheless a creation of the judges, and is not consistent with the
larger history and meaning of the Constitution.
John Rickert
rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
EYLERJS
>In article <20NOV199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> eyl...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (EYLERJS) writes:
>>>good policy. It does not prohibit other kinds of arrangements.
>>>These are to be worked out -- just like all our other political
>>>problems -- locality by locality, state by state.
>>>
>>>
>>>John Rickert
>>>rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
>>>
>>>
>>
>>public coercive prayer -- rather than, say moments of silence to start the day
>>and the right to pray privately -- are those who wish to inflict their beliefs
>>on other people's children.
>
>board -- inflicting your own sceptism on everyone else. Deciding to
>be "neutral" is deciding!
>
>
>John Rickert
>rick...@math.vanderbilt.edu
>
>
Well, yes. Deciding to have a secular society rather than a theocracy IS
deciding. It is what the founders decided and what the courts have protected
by enforcing the separation of church and state. State is about fallible
humans; church is about infallible God. The two don't mix very well, and
fallible humans are very good at persecuting those they disagree with on
religious issues as if they were infallible God. We ought to be able to have
a strong religious community without using the state to lead us in prayer; we
also ought to be able to work out compromises such as moments of silence at the
start of a school day that acknowledge that spiritual commitments are valuable
but diverse and that it is good to respect that.