|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2004 : 17:37:29 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by jmcginn
to use a body of the government to force their religion down the throats of the minority
jmc, what body of government is or was used in forcing religion down anyone's throat? Is the class room a "body of government" to you? And is the act of praying, that is, listening to someone pray in respectful quiet, a religious act? When I go to a hockey game and stand for the national anthem of Canada, am I being "a Canadian", or just showing respect for Canadians. I suppose you would probably stand for the Canadian anthem, or any other anthem in respect for the other nation, wouldn't you? In like manner was the case in '63 regarding the Murry boy. Only the Murry boy didn't even have to be present when the prayer was made. And more to the point, would you be offended at being requested to be silent as others prayed to their God in a public forum? Would you think you were becoming a "Christian" or "Moslem" simply by being present as they prayed? I don't think you are that simplistic in your mind. If anyone could have brought an argument to the courts about the prayer issue, it was a teacher, as they were the one's who were actually doing the praying. As far as I know, none ever did. However, I know many cases since '63 where teachers are terminated because of religious convictions. Just stating one's religious beliefs in a public school classroom has been known to cause the termination of that teacher's job. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 18:01:17 [Permalink]
|
Teachers are in a position of authority. They teach children, therefore, children are instructed by their parents to listen to the teacher. If a teacher teaches religion, because the government says it's ok, should your child be taught Buddhism, because your childs teacher is a Buddhist? Or is it your responsibility as a parent to teach your child your religion? It is not the responsibility of the school as an agent of the government, as in being support by federal, state, and local taxes and being run by governing bodies, either elected or appointed by said authorities to teach religion. It is the responsibility of the school to teach that which is necessary for a child to become a productive member of society within the narrowly defined margine of what does the child need to know, in general, to function in the work place or continue on through private means, an education, that is beyond what is required by the laws of the land. (whew, what a runon...)
Anyway, no child is told they can not pray while in school, they are told they can not use tax funded equipment and time to lead others in prayer. If they choose to pray publicly that is their decision, however, it is or can be considered detrimental, to the rest of the class, to force time away from education to require everyone else to wait for them to pray. See, the thing here, isn't supporting special rights for those that want to pray, and use the 'moment of silence' thing to force everyone else to recognize their prayer time, it's to support the rights of all to a fair and equal education. You see it as an attack against you and those that want to pray, no one is saying you can not pray while in school, only that you can not force anyone else into prayer, nor can you cause everyone else into waiting on your special time for prayer. If you trully see prayer as necessary, why not a simply a silent, 'God help me here.' Trusting that your version of god understands what you need. It doesn't even take a second, you don't have to make everyone else wait on you.
Why can you not see that preventing you from imposing your will on everyone else is not imposing upon your rights as an individual? Instead, by not having to force everyone else to wait on you, is you showing respect for the differences of everyone as an individual, separate and different from you. Prayer belongs to the church, education belongs to the schools. If it is important to you to include religion in education, most major religions offer schools that tend to do an adequate job and combining religion and education, at no cost to the general public, only at a cost to you, since you do not want to accept the state funded education that public schools offer. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 18:13:20 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
jmc, what body of government is or was used in forcing religion down anyone's throat? Is the class room a "body of government" to you?
It absolutely is, as the government determines what goes on within the public-school classrooms, by approving cirricula and paying the teachers. The legislatures passed laws which decreed that prayers would be read. Could they have done so if the classrooms weren't under their control?quote:
And is the act of praying, that is, listening to someone pray in respectful quiet, a religious act? When I go to a hockey game and stand for the national anthem of Canada, am I being "a Canadian", or just showing respect for Canadians. I suppose you would probably stand for the Canadian anthem, or any other anthem in respect for the other nation, wouldn't you? In like manner was the case in '63 regarding the Murry boy. Only the Murry boy didn't even have to be present when the prayer was made. And more to the point, would you be offended at being requested to be silent as others prayed to their God in a public forum? Would you think you were becoming a "Christian" or "Moslem" simply by being present as they prayed? I don't think you are that simplistic in your mind.
It's hard to believe that you cannot see the difference between the free exercise of religion and a state-mandated prayer within a state-mandated school. "Freedom of religion" assuredly implies "freedom from religion." That the Murrays were atheists is of little import, because the suit could have just as easily been brought by the parents who were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or any of a number of other religions. That the state determined that prayers from the Bible would be read elevated one sect (Christianity) above all others, in direct opposition to not only the Court's opinion of the First Amendment, but also the twisted interpretation that you have of it.quote:
If anyone could have brought an argument to the courts about the prayer issue, it was a teacher, as they were the one's who were actually doing the praying. As far as I know, none ever did. However, I know many cases since '63 where teachers are terminated because of religious convictions. Just stating one's religious beliefs in a public school classroom has been known to cause the termination of that teacher's job.
Where is there evidence for this simplistic view? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 20:10:43 [Permalink]
|
JMC
Thus your argument that some forms of religious recognition by the founding fathers equates to their support for church and state integration is quite erroneous.
This was never my supposition, only that they supported religion in general as good for society. They were not anti-religious in their idea of opposing a religion/state connection, only anti state supported religion. The two are by no means the same. Today, people seem to think that anything related to religion in government is a state establishment of religion, when in fact, it is not. One must understand what a state established religion is in order to discern what it is not. Study the Anglican church in England or the Catholic church in Italy during centuries past to really gain an understanding of this true church/state connection. After doing so it is difficult to see how "prayer in public" is in any way "establishing" anything. Prayer in public is part of religious freedom, even within public or government institurions. To outlaw it would be to deny religious freedom. That is what has happened in public schools. Sure, students and teachers can pray in private, but put the two together or allow prayer in public and you quickly see how an anti-religious posture has developed in our society. Such was not the case in early America. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 03/09/2004 23:04:15 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 20:24:36 [Permalink]
|
Trish said,
If a teacher teaches religion, because the government says it's ok, should your child be taught Buddhism, because your childs teacher is a Buddhist?
Trish, the teaching of religion is not what is being questioned here. That is only allowed in private schools as far as I know and is just not the subject of debate here. We are talking about simple public prayer or teachers and students discussing one's beliefs in a public school setting where such discussion is relevant. Actually, the latter is not even on the docket, but I'll throw it in as it relates to religious freedom. Say prayer was allowed by teachers and a teacher was Buddhist. The teacher would be allowed to have prayer, say at the beginning of the day. Students would pray to their God, if they prayed at all. Others would just listen with tolerance. No one would be forced to recite a prayer, no one ever was. Even Jehovah Witnesses, who don't believe in giving an oath, such as the Pledge of Alligence, are not required to do so. This is a matter of conscience, and I agree, that one's conscience should be free to choose in these matters. The freedom of conscience of believers in prayer, however, is being hurt at this time when prayer is not allowed. An athiest's freedom is not hindered by hearing a person pray, teacher or otherwise. Part of learning in life, is learning tolerance of other's beliefs and practices, insofar as those practices do not violate common law (human sacrifice as an example). |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 20:59:51 [Permalink]
|
Trish said, If you trully see prayer as necessary, why not a simply a silent, 'God help me here.' Trusting that your version of god understands what you need.
Trish, it is not a matter of our discretion, but a matter of freedom vs. prohibition. There is much more involved in this Supreme Court interdiction than meets the eye. Consider that religion is considered a positive and beneficial thing in society and prayer is a good thing and not harmful to people. In public schools, because of this decision, prayer is now judged to be a harmful activity because of the prohibition against it. Just as smoking not being allowed gives a negative connotation of that action. In the decision of '63 the majority opinion stated how the boy was affected simply by the situtation of not participating in the public activity of being present when prayer was offered early in the morning. They considered it a "negative" effect. How much more is the prohibition of such prayer putting the activity of prayer and those that do it in a negative light. The fact is, that this was done before school began. It was very short, perhaps no more than a minute. The boy came into class afterwards. He practiced his non-religious belief and others practiced tolerance or their own religious belief during this time within the classroom. No one's rights were harmed by this practice. When prayer was disallowed, then people's rights were harmed and the second clause of prohibition was broken by the court. Remember, no teaching of a particular sect had any thing to do with this prayer. It was a prayer invoking God's blessing upon the children and their learning. Prayer, in and of itself establishes no particular sect. When a teacher prays it is understood that this is their religious belief. A teacher who would attempt to teach their particular beliefs during an Algebra class is not what is in question. That would certainly not be tolerated by most parents or schools even if prayer is freely allowed. Freedom within context is understood. If a boy or girl is shot the day before in school, is it appropriate for teacher's and students to discuss the matter and even speak of God or religion in such a situation? I think it is. In fact, it would be inappropriate to avoid discussion. There is a time and place for liberty. I am arguing that the courts have taken away the liberty of public prayer and public discussion of religion within schools at appropriate times. Now, the only appropriate time for teacher's to break this "law" is when some crazed student is shooting up the school and people's lives are at stake. Maybe such traumatic events would occur less and less if prayer was a regular part of the school day. Before '63, such events were unheard of. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 21:03:01 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, What if I agreed with you and said the state should not impose any prayer, only teachers were free to pray at the beginning of the day with their class if they so desired. Would that be an acceptable compromise? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 21:05:08 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
Where is there evidence for this simplistic view?
Dave, I'm not sure I follow what you meant here. Can you elaborate? Which simplistic view?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 21:39:03 [Permalink]
|
(I'm addressing five different posts here, scroll to the bottom to see just my answers to your questions, Doomar.)
Doomar wrote:quote:
Prayer in public is part of religious freedom, even within public or government institurions. To outlaw it would be to deny religious freedom. That is what has happened in public schools. Sure, students and teachers can pray in private, but put the two together or allow prayer in public and you quickly see how an anti-religious posture has developed in our society.
False. Completely false. Students and teachers may both pray publicly in school, as they choose to (attempting to ban people from saying Grace in the school cafeteria would be every bit ridiculous as you suggest). But, teachers may not lead students in prayer, nor may prayers be said over a public-address system during class time or at school-sanctioned events.
Your attempts to paint the scenario as if any prayer by anyone in any government-owned building is (or might be) outlawed is nothing but hyperbole, and thus further damages your argument (if it isn't already fatally flawed).quote:
Such was not the case in early America.
Not everything about early America was good. Take surgery, for example. We've learned a lot since then, and there's no good reason to believe that we should turn back the clock over 200 years.quote:
We are talking about simple public prayer...
No, we are not. Neither Murray nor any other case you've brought up has been about simple public prayer, but instead about prayers mandated by the state, or prayers in which state-sanctioned events have been used for prayer.quote:
...or teachers and students discussing one's beliefs in a public school setting where such discussion is relevant. Actually, the latter is not even on the docket, but I'll throw it in as it relates to religious freedom.
Actually, you have yet to put forth a case in which the simple discussion of religion has presented a problem.quote:
Say prayer was allowed by teachers and a teacher was Buddhist. The teacher would be allowed to have prayer, say at the beginning of the day.
Prayer is allowed by teachers, and Buddhist teachers can pray any time they like. They just can't lead the students in praying (to anyone).quote:
Students would pray to their God, if they prayed at all. Others would just listen with tolerance.
Why should other students be forced to listen?quote:
No one would be forced to recite a prayer, no one ever was.
Right, the issue in the Murray case was a child was forced to either listen to prayers, or be treated as a second-class citizen. Those were his choices, because you'll note that the Christian kids weren't required to bring a note from home allowing them to hear prayers. The non-Christian kids were given a burden the Christian kids weren't: either listen to prayers you don't agree with, or get a note from home. It is that inequality between sects which is prohibited by the First Amendment.quote:
Even Jehovah Witnesses, who don't believe in giving an oath, such as the Pledge of Alligence, are not required to do so.
And they shouldn't be forced into such a choice, either.quote:
This is a matter of conscience, and I agree, that one's conscience should be free to choose in these matters. The freedom of conscience of believers in prayer, however, is being hurt at this time when prayer is not allowed.
No, only the ability of the majority to infringe the rights of the minority is being hurt. You have yet to demonstrate that the inability of teachers to read passages from the Bible during school time is more damaging to the rights of the students than the burden placed upon the unbelievers is damaging to their rights.quote:
An athiest's freedom is not hindered by hearing a person pray, teacher or otherwise.
Yes, it is. As a citizen, I have a right to ensure that my tax dollars are not spent on religious acts which benefit one sect over others. Paying teachers to recite from the Bible in school (the issue in Murray) infringes upon that right.quote:
Part of learning in life, is learning tolerance of other's beliefs and practices, insofar as those practices do not violate common law (human sacrifice as an example).
And you have yet to address the question of whether or not animal sacrifices should be allowed in schools.quote:
In the decision of '63 the majority opinion stated how the boy was affected simply by the situtation of not participating in the public activity of being present when prayer was offered early in the morning. They considered it a "negative" effect.
No, they did not. I linked to the decision earlier in this thread. You claimed you'd studied it. You have not.quote:
How much more is the prohibition of such prayer putting the activity of prayer and those that do it in a negative light.
It only puts a negative light on those who would mandate school prayer.quote:
The fact is, that this was done before school began. It was very short, perhaps no more than a minute. The boy came into class afterwards. He practiced his non-religious belief and others practiced tolerance or their own religious belief during this time within the |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2004 : 07:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave rocks, as ever.
But to add, Doomar...
A teacher leading the class in prayer IS a government endorsement of religion. Not any specific religion, but RELIGION itself. And if the government appears to you to be hostile to religion, why do you care? You believe what you believe ANYWAY.
Honestly, when will you Christians quit whining about how oppressed and persecuted you are? You're free to practice your religion in thousands of ways. Be grateful and leave the rest of us alone. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2004 : 12:05:25 [Permalink]
|
You rock, too, Renae:quote:
Honestly, when will you Christians quit whining about how oppressed and persecuted you are? You're free to practice your religion in thousands of ways. Be grateful and leave the rest of us alone.
When I, an atheist, could start raking in lots of tax-free dough by doing a little preaching and fake faith-healing (after a little practice, of course), without fear of governmental censure, I must conclude we truly do live in the Land of the Free, already. That Doomar can see people freely praying in their churches, homes and schools; invoking the Christian God all over TV, radio, and in newspapers and magazines; with missionaries going door-to-door all over this "Christian" nation, but still finds fault with people who see state-approved prayer as an unnecessary intrusion upon everyone's rights (including Doomar's), says quite a lot.
And that parenthetical bit is important. You, Doomar, might be convinced right now that you'll die a Christian, but stranger conversions have happened. Say the Murray decision went the other way, and that ten years from now, you convert to Dobbsism. If your grandkids live where the Murrays did, you might be understandably upset at your family being forced to sit through Bible readings, or having to file paperwork to avoid such. Luckily, the SCOTUS, since at least 1943, has defended your right to change your mind about which religion you practice, if any. You can even join the Religion-of-the-Month Club, and you'd never have to notify the government at all, not even to get the kids excused from the non-existant morning prayers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 22:46:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave you said,
Complaints that judges have overruled the majority, or have "ruled for death over life," are little more than appeals to emotion. You will find many people who will agree that these are "injustices," but if millions of people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing (to paraphrase someone whose name I can never remember). The popularity of an idea does not make it a correct idea.
In a democracy the power comes from the consent of the majority. If one undermines that by saying, "if the majority is foolish, we should give the power to the courts" you take away the freedom of the people and change our form of govt. from a democracy to an aristocracy. Nine people ruling and forcing their belief down the throat of the majority who disagree with them. I would by far trust the common man's view of right and wrong over an elite, wealthy group of aristocrats and their concept of morality. Ok, Dave, what if this court that you so strongly support makes a decision against you that you hate and forces it upon you, even though the majority may agree with you in this case, would you still feel as strong in supporting this court, as it takes away the power and freedom of the people to rule the country? (comments from my friend Pastor Steve) |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 23:03:08 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prayer in public is part of religious freedom, even within public or government institurions. To outlaw it would be to deny religious freedom. That is what has happened in public schools. Sure, students and teachers can pray in private, but put the two together or allow prayer in public and you quickly see how an anti-religious posture has developed in our society.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave replies
False. Completely false. Students and teachers may both pray publicly in school, as they choose to (attempting to ban people from saying Grace in the school cafeteria would be every bit ridiculous as you suggest). But, teachers may not lead students in prayer, nor may prayers be said over a public-address system during class time or at school-sanctioned events.
Dave, let me rephrase the word public as opposed to private. By public, I don't mean quiet prayer in a public building, I mean out-loud prayer for others to hear as praying in a group setting. Therefore, by public, I am meaning to say, out-loud multiple person participation type prayer in a state or federal govt. sponsered institution. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 23:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave says
Right, the issue in the Murray case was a child was forced to either listen to prayers, or be treated as a second-class citizen.
Should we make 29 students get permission to attend or just have the one who objects get permission to not attend? The latter is much more efficient. This idea of being forced to "listen" to a prayer...wow...we are talking extreme intolerance here, Dave. So, in respect for the one, we negate the rights of the many and all lose. Except the freedom to "not" exercise a religion is not listed in the bill of rights, Dave, as the freedom to do nothing just isn't needed, people do that without any permission all the time. It's the right to "do" some things that many of bill of rights list out, one of which is freedom to freely exercise one's religion. If somebody doesn't like that, then move to Korea and enjoy the freedom to be nothing, but let those who want to pray, do so. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2004 : 23:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave said,
Actually, you have yet to put forth a case in which the simple discussion of religion has presented a problem.
So, you want examples? Oh, by the way, I'm not talking about discussion of religion, but discussion of one's faith...personal faith, personal religion, like a teacher sharing their faith with the class the Friday before Easter, letting their class know what Easter is really about and why it is listed as a holiday on the calendars. Are you meaning cases, like court cases, Dave? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
