This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2  |
Author Topic:   School Praying:)
Sage
Member
posted April 19, 2002 12:59 AM            
Hey guys, I was wondering if you would perhaps prey for me and my friends. Ya see, my friends were at school having a little prayer group session in the lunch room befor class when one of the teachers "I believe" told them to get up and leave. So it seems that were have a partition and need all the help we can get. Ya see, I and I'm the others feel, that it wouldn't do much to tell the Principal what happened and whats going on. And its not just this incident-but many other, perhaps unlike this one. Thx

------------------
A clear blue sky, as we start the day, burning metal shows us are way. Screaming nukes pass are ears, as we protect he ones we hold dear. It is not a game we play, so real and hard, as I frag your tank it becomes charred. For the love of this, I will show, blasting my opponents, the only way I know. To live, is not to be fragged, but I still hate that darn lag. For it may seem easy to some and hard to others, with all my love, I call you my brothers.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 19, 2002 01:05 AM            
There are reasons why there is a spereration of church and state.

::moved to General forum::

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 02:44 AM            
Done Sage.

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 03:15 AM            
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So Coax,
Please show me where it says that the government should inhibit the practice of religion. That's funny. It appears to say that government shouldn't prohibit its practice. Where does it say that you can't pray on school grounds? It doesn't. In fact, modern court rulings have upheld a student's right to do so voluntarily. That group was doing something of their free will on their free time on public school grounds. It has been established beyond any debate in the courts that that is permissable. Apparently a liberal facist walked in and broke it up. On every level imaginable that teacher was wrong. Morally AND legally that teacher violated The Constitution.

What the first amendment does say is that congress shall not establish a religion. Now I can't think of any recent government sponsored religions. Can you? And as you probably know, that separation of church and state business is no where to be found in The Constitution. The ONLY place it is to be found is in a letter Jefferson wrote where he promised there would be no official government religion. The "reasons" for the false doctrine you quoted are liberal judges legislating from the bench skewing Jefferson's meaning and turning it into a defacto Constitutional amendment. Anyone with two eyes and a few open history books knows that the government was involved with religion from the word go. They're inseparable.

I'm betting you know all this stuff. But it's been so long since I've had this debate that I can't remember the other sides' logic for dismissing the Constitution... or lack their of it . I guess I'll soon find out. Also, it seems that as an admin performing an admin duty you might have taken the high ground and remained neutral on such a hot non-TM topic. You could have moved the thread without comment - or saved the comment as a reply here. Instead you chose to get your quip in for everyone to see in the main TM area where no one could reply. Not good.

BTW, There is something that could be done about it. Provided there were enough witnesses and an angry parent with enough money, they could sue the school and win easily. It's not even debateable. Public government facilities, like public schools, belong to the people. There is clear legal precedent that the people can practice religion peaceably in their public places. To deny that is to prohibit free practice of religion. Could you even imagine if it was a group of Muslims doing it? Not only would nothing be said. But there would be celebration of the diversity. That's NOT a comment on Muslims. That's a comment on liberal hypocrisy.

[This message has been edited by Irascible (edited April 19, 2002).]

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 19, 2002 06:09 AM            
I agree with you Ras. Do I think it's okay for individuals to prey at school? I do. And if Jefferson said that, I'm now completely sold on your points since I'm an avid Jefferson hater. I'm not as eloquent a speaker as you, but I don't think I have to be. It's easy for me to see the other point of view.

If I had a hard day of classes and wanted some grub. I wouldn't want a bunch of people preying in the cafeteria sitting at my favorite bench, and then have to tip-toe around them while they prey. Whether they be Muslims or not.

I've thought about the admin thing but disagree with you. Although I'm an admin, I was a player for 2 years!!! If I choose to ride on a higher moral ground, I wouldn't be the same(in your face) person who was choosen for the job. It might of been in bad taste posting and then closing the thread, but I didn't do it to get my "quip" in. Your obviously over sensitive on the subject and inferred to much from my actions. Plus, I've never been one thats taken the higher ground.

Sometimes it's better to know why the first amendment exists, rather then just saying the constitution says it so it must be right.
Why have religious toleration in the first place? If I have the right religion and everyone else doesn't then I must be right and everyone else is going to H@ll anyways and I'll just help them along. Ideals such as the first amendment were incorporated from France's laws of Religious Toleration. They were made to keep the two major religions in France from their continued cycle of violence and death. It was meant as a way to keep the two sides seperate(you have to get along with each other now and just accept that people will have different ideas then you). I kind of think that public school preying creates more conflict between faiths then not having it, by throwing one religion in someone elses face.

P.S. The last national religion I can think of is The Church of England. Even the Roman Catholics among us was the state religion for Rome anyways. But, I'm sure theres been more recent ones.

coax quote "Thank God for letting me be born into a country with freedom of speech, thank my parents for teaching me to keep my mouth shut."

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 11:12 AM            
I appreciate you agreeing with me on their right to prey despite your discomfort with it. And at least you hate ALL religious prayers... LOL... that's consistency.

The French history lesson was interesting, and yes our laws are based on Western values that existed long before we did. But I disagree about your conclusion. The founding father's worries were based primarily on their experience with Britain. As an example, they made treason exceedingly hard to prove because the royal government used it as an excuse to kill. Take the king's deer to feed you family and it was treason... yada yada. There experience with Britain and religion was one where the state sponsored religion was persecuting their own... which is funny by today's standards because now they'd all be grouped as Christian with few people seeing enough differences to war over. So hence they dictated that the government shall not establish a religion, a state religion.

We are not France. We don't have class, ethnic, etc feuds and wars dating back thousands of years. Our various religions get along very well and don't need separation from each other or the government. Besides that, true separation is a logistical impossibility and will never happen. What is happening is left leaning secular humanists and their ilk are attempting to drive Christianity out of the public sector.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 19, 2002 03:12 PM            
Since I agree with you, I guess this is all pointless anyways.

But, lets not forget that the same puritans escaping religious intolerance in England, had no qualms burning non-beleivers and witches. So although they left religious intolerance in England, they only came to America to set up their own religious intolerances.

Luckily so many different faiths eventually came to America. Trying to kill everone else became impractical.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 07:46 PM            
Arguing is never pointless! The arguing IS the point.

While every single nation, tribe and creed has had it's evil doers, that was and is not my argument. Bringing their evil deeds up in this context is like bringing up the alleged affairs Jefferson had to denegrate the Declaration of Independence (being a Jefferson hater yourself I figured you could relate to that one). It's a diversionary tactic to refocus the argument on something else. Good try though .

My point was first to blast the notion of separation of church and state. And secondly to uphold The Constitution as one of the most perfect documents man has ever created. You'll notice that even though most of the world was into slavery at that time, no where in The Constitution is it condoned. Even though protestant Christainity was by far the dominant religion of the founders, no where did they mandate any of its practices. The list goes on.

And attributing the ability of our varied religions to get along to the fact that there's too many to kill?!?!?! Now that is a new one on me. We get along because Americans have been and basically are a good and tolerant people. With all your college education I think you know by now how intolerant most of the world is... including those enlightened Europeans. The USA is now the most tolerant nation on Earth... and not because we weren't able to kill them all!!!

I know this could go on forever. So you don't have to reply. I'm content to get the last word.


IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 19, 2002 08:11 PM            
You live in an ideal world friend. I'm more of a pragmatist. It just simply isn't practical to kill off all the other faiths and thats why the document is as it is.

Plus I view it more as a "don't ask don't tell" right anyways not an overall generalization.

I don't really care what anyone does as long as they don't ask for my money

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 09:07 PM            
My family is choking on their dinner right now after hearing that I'm an idealist! I'm as pragmatic as they get. Looking back on history with some desire to see it for what it was is not idealism. Denegrating our founding fathers is not pragmatism, it's revisionist history. In fact, there is nothing pragmatic about a philosophical/historical debate. So why even bother if you're so freaking pragmatic!?!?!?

I can't believe that you think this, but it sort of sounds like you're saying they had this sort of reasoning:
"Well, we can't kill all of them... seeing how they breed like rabbits and all. So we may as well not put it into law since it ain't gonna happen anyway... dang it!"
Incredible! Unbelievable! Besides that, back then other faiths were in such a minority that it would have been eminently practical to persecute them. And some small sectors did and still do as you pointed out. So how was it that The Constitution is in complete contradiction to such actions? The character of its writers!

Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe the founders were a bit above average in the decency department?!? Obviously not. No, in fact you're saying that it became a good document by default... as if they had no other choice!!!!!!!! Who in their right mind would believe that a document of justice and virtue, eloquently worded, filled with a virtual library of Western civilization's finest values just happened by default because there was no other choice?

Jeez Coax. I'm beginning to think you're one of those closet America haters. You know the ones. They think that America is the source of evil in the world. They think our society is racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah. All those elements exist world wide, including here. But we are without question the most tolerant, giving nation that has ever existed in the history of the planet. Period. The fact that we have so many short comings anyway is a testament to man's inherently evil nature. The US has done more than anyone to overcome that nature.

Moving this thread to this area was brilliant if you wanted to keep this a secret. It would be 3 pages long by now otherwise... But don't worry, I can still fill 3 pages myself.

[This message has been edited by Irascible (edited April 19, 2002).]

IP:

Sage
Member
posted April 19, 2002 09:26 PM            
Ok, Now i'm wondering if This thread sould stop in the direction thats it's going? Anyway, theres not going to be a protest after all, hehe Also, all I asked "Coax" is that you guys would pray for me and my friends. And why did you move the thread. I posted it there because I new that it would get more traffic. You know, its because of us players "voting" that your an Administrator, or have you forgotten that.

Now listen "Coax", What you should do is delete more guido post, because it seems whenever I or someone else makes a post, he "HAS" to make some smart response, and its getting old and annoying. Now thats something you should work on.

[This message has been edited by Sage (edited April 19, 2002).]

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 19, 2002 10:59 PM            
Direction it's going? It's already gone.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 19, 2002 11:39 PM            
First off, I know how dear to you this subject is. But it had no place in the Tread Marks bboard. The Tread Marks bboard is not meant to be an arena where you advertise non TM subjects. Although, I know it happens. Also, it's hard to have moral authority saying I shouldn't move your post but insist I move/delete an other persons’ post.

Ras, you have me wrong I love America and its ideals. But, yes I do think they sprang up because of conditions out of their control. Not directly mind you. I can't really picture Washington saying we might as well let these Quakers live here since it's just more practical to do so. But can I see his ancestors doing that, quite easily. I do think American society is racist, sexist, and homophobic I see it all the time. I see it daily. It's not to a big extent but its prevalent and noticeable.

Maybe I'm just thinking this way since I've been reading to much Machiavelli, and his take on society in general. In any case I do agree this topic has gone way over the edge, passing Sage's request we prey for him which I did on campus today anyways, at lunch time even.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 20, 2002 03:05 AM            
Coax:
Ah, so we agree. You say conditions out of their control indirectly affected them. I can buy that. We're all affected by circumstance. But ultimately that's secondary to what we do have control of.

As far as the rest goes, you'll see what you look for. I personally see little of that in my day to day life. But being in college I would expect you to see it all the time. The leftists that populate those places are very hateful .

Sage:
Don't worry about where this thread is going. Any sort of exclamatory language I may write is an exclamation of disbelief or friendly frustration. I can trade quips with Coax in a friendly way because I think he's a reasonable person... most of the time... . There's no "Guido-esque" arguments here... hehe... and as he would say... "fun".

IP:

Dreamer
Member
posted April 20, 2002 12:34 PM         
[nonsense deleted]

[This message has been edited by Dreamer (edited April 21, 2002).]

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 20, 2002 04:01 PM            
-

Hey Grind, no worries. Coax and I were having a gentlemanly discussion. Not to mention the fact that the thread has been virtually ignored due to it's location.

[This message has been edited by Irascible (edited April 21, 2002).]

IP:

Grind_and_Click
Member
posted April 21, 2002 03:20 PM            
coax and all other people

didnt you lern from the beer thred?!?!
arguing about religion is s big bad thing to get into

avoid at all costs!

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 21, 2002 08:47 PM            
nah!!!

Since we weren't arguing about religion but on the context and meaning of the 1st amendment. Ras, sees it as a generalization applicable to all situations. I see it more as a guide, flexible and adabtable for change. Plus I stil consider the 1st amendment in regards to religion as a "don't ask don't tell policy" anyways.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

-DNX-Ni
Member
posted April 22, 2002 08:56 AM            
You almost sound upset it's apparently being ignored in this part of the BB, Ras! In fact I've been reading some of this but I myself have never had any input on religious topics.

Religion tends to start a few things as does politics so I stay out of both as much as possible, and I don't know as much as coax and Ras here, but when all this crazy stuff started out and was written, don't you think it was written for you to interpret in your own way and not to preach it onto others in the vain of making them thinking they're wrong?

Just a matter of understanding it and giving different opinions. But anyhoo, i'm not going to say anymore cos I'm usually trounced when it comes to this stuff.

See what ya started Sage?! lol

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 22, 2002 10:06 AM            
Uh, NO. The Constitution is rather explicit and straight forward. It's not this flexible thing everyone tries to say it is. It says simply: The Government has certain powers. Those powers are explicitly and specifically stated one by one. Then it goes on to say that ANYTHING no listed deliberately automatically goes to the states.

The founders understood as well as anyone the power of evil people (I'm not referring to anyone here!) to skew interpretations for their own purpose. They tried to avoid that problem. But alas, liberal judges are a crafty lot.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 23, 2002 05:25 AM            
The Constitution is meant to flexible. It's meant for members of society to debate it's merits to re-evaluate it's ideas and to ammend it as neccessary.

Do I think a document that was written 200 years ago is still 100% applicable to todays life? Absoluetly not. Do I think it will be even more applicable in the next 200 years, of course not.

Oh-God it hurts my brain to hear you say that the constitution isn't open to interpretation and is not open to a redefinition of it's key ideologies. It is such a catastrophic philosophy in reasoning it is currently astounding me

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 23, 2002 10:53 AM            
It is called "Rule of Law". The flexibility you promote is why OJ Simpson is a free man. The relativism you seek is why people with good lawyers can get off while the poorer among us go to jail. There is no justice when laws can be bent or interpreted in different ways. A law that isn't absolute for all will be twisted by many. Varying interpretations are, of course, inevitable. But they are to be avoided at all costs or there is anarchy. Judges are suppose to only interpret to the extent that they are seeking the intended meaning of the law writer. The law writer is the one who has the consent of the governed to create the law in the first place, not the judge. A law maker is the one accountable to the people. Many judges are accountable to no one. A judge who finds meaning where there is none or twists a law's intent to suit his purpose is nothing more than a dictator.

There is a exaclty one valid form of change available to The Constitution. It called an amendment, as you mentioned. But the abridgement of our rights by the liberal facists has come about through judges legislating from the bench. The Constitution is REAL clear on speech and religion. There shall be no hindering it. Leave that open to the flexibility you desire and we shall lose our freedom indeed.

The values expressed in The Constitution have been a part of Western Civilization for a couple thousand years. I think they'll last a few hundred more at least. Oh dear Lord it hurts my mind to hear you think otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Irascible (edited April 23, 2002).]

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 23, 2002 12:46 PM            
Western civilization a few thousand years ago were mostly savages that sacrificed people to their Gods. Don't confuse the time period of the enlightenment which was only several hundred years ago which founded most of those ideals, as something that existed for a prolong prior period. It is only a recent change in the thinking of men.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

Irascible
Member
posted April 23, 2002 07:35 PM            
Sure, there was a lot of paganism. I'm just saying that the ideas go way back and are tried and true. Some argue that the three branched government model is based on the following 2000+ year old text:

Isaiah 33:22 "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king..."

BTW, I'm always happy when my opponent in debate gives up on the main issue and takes it in another direction... such as when western civilization really took root. I'll concede that argument since you've dropped the rest.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted April 24, 2002 12:47 AM            
I don't think I dropped it we just stalemated

You think the constitution is immutable, I think it's open and meant to be debated. Since both are opinions they can't be debated with any clear direction, plus I always agreed with you about school praying . Although, you'll probably debate that it is possible to debate about a sub-topic of a debate that we both agreed on.

It's hard to say what true influence that scripture has with 2 millennia of European monarchies in my opinion. Most of those ideas you say are fundamental eternal beliefs were first "well-formulated" by Locke, and that wasn't that long ago(of course before the formation of the Republic though).

I'm just surprised I've been able to have a light-hearted debate with you since I am a Chemist and have no knowledge of such things.

I don't know if you have read Locke, but his writings are beloved by conservatives and you should look into reading him.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders


IP:

This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2