[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Fncking theocrats. Go to church to worship God. Stop expecting prayer to be an official part of public functions.

Screw you, you live in Canuckistan anyway. In the USA, if a kid wants to get up and pray in front of their graduating class, it's their right. Can't wait for Roberts to get hold of this one.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Exactly how liberals think everything is supposed to be decided. (Or rather, ranted about incessantly.) See: every other debate about every other subject.

You obviously missed the sarcasm, but that's not surprising, in your black and white world.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, the founders (some of them, anyway; amazingly they weren't all in complete agreement about everything!) were quite explicit about keeping gods out of government. I've already provided two specific citations to this effect from Adams and Jefferson.

Great. You've found instances where a few disagreed.

However, the majority of the founders agreed. Our rights where passed down to us by God. Since it's a "free country" you are allowed to disagree. However, the official United States policy on the matter is in writing and on record.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously missed the sarcasm, but that's not surprising, in your black and white world.

You obviously missed the irony in posting your actual modus operandi as an attempt at sarcasm!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, ha ha. That's so funny and completely relevant to this conversation!

You making a big stink over mere words printed on something is exactly the point.

Or maybe, instead, I'll try and change things. Why are you so opposed to my point if view being voiced?

That's such a silly tactic. Why are you opposed to MY pointof view being voiced? Oh hey, I turned it around on you! Now quick, be clever and ask, "B-but why are you opposed to my point of view...blah de blah," and then I can fire back with "But why are you opposed to..." you get the idea. In other words a really lame tactic.

Get over yourself; as ebuddy addressed as well, your point of view doesn't trump other people's rights to practice their religion, and it doesn't grant you some authority to dictate everything be banned that you get your panties in a twist over, like words written on dollar bills.

Amazingly, the courts are not infallible, and we do not have to simply accept their rulings as divine writ.

We agree on that, but in this case, I happen to the think the courts are right, and people like you are trying to make mountains out of molehills. You're entitled to disagree of course, but that's pretty much the end of it. In God We Trust is written on our money, and most people, couldn't care less that it is, and/or don't want it changed. It doesn't really affect you either way. That's pretty much the end of it.

Also, the only ones making a scene here are the people that are so offended by the idea that some of us might not be completely happy with the status quo. We point out that we don't particularly like the way things are, and everyone else gets all uppity and offended.

As usual, it's whiny athiests getting upset over something that doesn't affect them in the least.

In other words, you only care about your own point of view and don't give a shit about what people who don't agree with you think.

In other words, you only care about your own point of view and don't give a shit about what people who don't agree with you think!
Now you can respond with...

"In other words, you only care about ..."

Such a great debate tactic! You're surely the very first to invent it!

You want an actual example? There are plenty. I've even got one that involves a high school graduation!

High School Student Stands Up Against Prayer at Public School and Is Ostracized, Demeaned and Threatened | Belief | AlterNet

Wow, stop the presses! A one-sided moonbats.org article about some kid "braaaaavely standing up"... to stop other people from doing something just because he disagreed with it.

So you mean once the jerkwads of life petition the freakin' ACLU to try and rain on everyone else's parade because they feel entitled to dictate what everyone else is allowed to do, high school kids might actually *gasp!* call the person names, threaten them, and make nasty comments about them? NO WAY! Say it isn't so! I thought high school kids were super-mature, and absolutely love it when busibodies try to make a federal case out of dictating the rules for everyone else's high school graduation ceremony.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Which is completely consistent with everything that I've said. I've explicitly stated that individual expression should not, and legally can not, be prohibited. What is prohibited, though the prohibition is so often ignored, is for people acting in official capacities on behalf of the government (such as teachers and administrators at public schools) leading prayers (among other, similar acts).

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about Judge Biery’s ruling that bans students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches including: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.” He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program. It's ridiculous and instead of calling it BS outright, you're on some crusade against school administrators.

Next up... REMOVE THAT WATCHFUL EYE OF OSIRIS FROM THE DOLLAR BILL and THE GODDESS JUSTITIA FROM THE HALLS OF THE SUPREME COURT!!!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You making a big stink over mere words printed on something is exactly the point.

Yes, I am making a big stink over mere words printed on something: the Bible (et al.). It's the religious who are elevating mere words to something more, and something that affects the lives of everyone.

That's such a silly tactic. Why are you opposed to MY pointof view being voiced? Oh hey, I turned it around on you! Now quick, be clever and ask, "B-but why are you opposed to my point of view...blah de blah," and then I can fire back with "But why are you opposed to..." you get the idea. In other words a really lame tactic.

Your point of view is consistently and constantly voiced by nearly everybody, especially the government. Your rights and opinions aren't constantly under attack. No one is trying to prevent your point of view from being expressed, only trying to ensure that the government respects the law.

Get over yourself; as ebuddy addressed as well, your point of view doesn't trump other people's rights to practice their religion, and it doesn't grant you some authority to dictate everything be banned that you get your panties in a twist over, like words written on dollar bills.

And as I've pointed out several times, I'm not saying that it does. The law, however, does say that there are times and places (such as in schools) when certain religious activities (such as praying) should be limited to purely personal behavior and should not be made a part of official (government) speech/actions.

I'm also saying that not only can it happen, but it does happen, that a community, or large subset thereof, will use their personal religious observations as a weapon of intimidation against those that they deem undesirable. For example (and I'm inventing this scenario, though for all I know it may have actually happened), if someone in a small town was openly atheist and, in reaction, everyone else in the town would loudly recite the Lord's Prayer at them whenever they were nearby, I would call that an inappropriate action, despite being personal religious observance. I don't, however, think that we have the right or legal power to stop people from doing that. Now if it were to take place in a school, we certainly have the right, power, and responsibility to forbid the faculty, administrators, and staff from participating in that sort of thing, and I think they would also have the responsibility of speaking and even acting out against such actions by students [I]that happen on school grounds while school is in session[/]. My only goal here is to ensure equal access to, and equal respect from, government facilities for all people regardless of belief.

We agree on that, but in this case, I happen to the think the courts are right, and people like you are trying to make mountains out of molehills. You're entitled to disagree of course, but that's pretty much the end of it. In God We Trust is written on our money, and most people, couldn't care less that it is, and/or don't want it changed. It doesn't really affect you either way. That's pretty much the end of it.

And you, of course, are entitled to your opinion. However I would suggest that the reason these issues seem so trivial to you is at you're on the winning side of it already. I hate to use such a ridiculous phrase, and such a liberal watchword, but you're operating from a position of priviledge. Having been on both sides of the privilege divide, I can tell you that it does actually exist, though when you're thie one with the privilege it can be nearly impossible to tell.

As usual, it's whiny athiests getting upset over something that doesn't affect them in the least.

And you're not willing to even consider the possibility that it does actually affect us to always be surrounded by reminders, explicit and implicit, that society at large reviles us and doesn't want us around?

In other words, you only care about your own point of view and don't give a shit about what people who don't agree with you think!
Now you can respond with...

"In other words, you only care about ..."

Such a great debate tactic! You're surely the very first to invent it!

Again, your position represents the status quo. I can't help but take it into account and give it due consideration. It's not in danger of being ignored and marginalized like the position of an unpopular minority is.

Wow, stop the presses! A one-sided moonbats.org article about some kid "braaaaavely standing up"... to stop other people from doing something just because he disagreed with it.

The source may be biased in their interpretation, but the facts are the same regardless of where you read them. This was the first good result that came up when I searched for is incident, feel free to find others reporting on the same.

So you mean once the jerkwads of life petition the freakin' ACLU to try and rain on everyone else's parade because they feel entitled to dictate what everyone else is allowed to do, high school kids might actually *gasp!* call the person names, threaten them, and make nasty comments about them? NO WAY! Say it isn't so! I thought high school kids were super-mature, and absolutely love it when busibodies try to make a federal case out of dictating the rules for everyone else's high school graduation ceremony.

Are you truly this much of an ass? This is one area where the law and cour rulings are quite clear and explicit. It is very much illegal for a public school to include prayer as part of an official ceremony. They could have had a moment of silence, and could even have told the students that they're welcome to pray if they wished, but that's not what they did: they chose to flagrantly and knowingly violate the law. And when someone actually pointed this out to them, and stated his willingness to stand up for the law, he was not only called name, he was threatened with bodily harm by both students AND teachers, he was thrown out of his home by his parents, he was completely ostracized from society not only by his peers but by the people who are tasked with the responsibility of protecting him.

If you actually think that this is acceptable or decent behavior, then we have nothing more to say to each other.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about Judge Biery’s ruling that bans students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches including: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.” He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program. It's ridiculous and instead of calling it BS outright, you're on some crusade against school administrators.

Next up... REMOVE THAT WATCHFUL EYE OF OSIRIS FROM THE DOLLAR BILL and THE GODDESS JUSTITIA FROM THE HALLS OF THE SUPREME COURT!!!

I have called it BS and said that it was wrong. I've then gone on to address other, related issues. This doesn't give you leeway to take a quote of mine and pretend that it means something that I've very explicitly said it doesn't mean.

(That said, benediction is a word that is meaningless when divorced from a religious context. There's no need for it in a secular ceremony. Invocation is arguable, it has a lot of religions connotations, but retains some secular meaning.)

[BadKosh]

How afraid are they of being judged by Christians?

Do they already KNOW they are sinning?

I wonder how Christians feel about being judged by Atheists?

What are they hiding?

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As to the first:

I couldn't agree more with the ruling.

Q.E.D.

The only way the phrase passes the litmus test is if you qualify it to hell and back.

Which speaks to why I discussed it in the first place. Seeing as how the court argues almost all religious significance has been drained from the phrase, it makes a bad example of where to draw the line with regards to the separation of church and state.

To be clear, I don't disagree with the decision, though I buy the insignificance argument far more than the ceremonial argument.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How afraid are they of being judged by Christians?

Do they already KNOW they are sinning?

I wonder how Christians feel about being judged by Atheists?

What are they hiding?

I can't determine the subject in three out of four of these sentences.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How afraid are they of being judged by Christians?

Do they already KNOW they are sinning?

Matthew 7:1-5

1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I wonder how Christians feel about being judged by Atheists?

What are they hiding?

1st Corinthians 4:1-5

1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I have called it BS and said that it was wrong. I've then gone on to address other, related issues. This doesn't give you leeway to take a quote of mine and pretend that it means something that I've very explicitly said it doesn't mean.

(That said, benediction is a word that is meaningless when divorced from a religious context. There's no need for it in a secular ceremony. Invocation is arguable, it has a lot of religions connotations, but retains some secular meaning.)

This is a tactic used all the time by christians in debate with atheists. They pick a point they can win while telling you to disregard other related points they can't. Then when you concede the point they chose, they claim victory over the whole shebang. Unlike most however, eBuddy openly admits to doing this (if I have not misunderstood). I've never noticed atheists using this tactic but I won't go so far as to claim they never have or never could.

In this case pretty much everyone seems to agree that restricting individuals from praying in public is wrong and much as I might like to ban that sort of thing personally I can't go along with it in good conscience. I do think that forcing anyone to sit through religious activity against their will is wrong though. I can recall being told off by teachers if I was caught not bowing my head while everyone else prayed in school assembly. That really isn't on.

If the judge in this case banned teachers and administrators or other staff from referencing anything with religious connotations during their speeches then fair enough. That seems to me to be in line with what everyone else says about the constitution. If a student wants to mention God during their own speech then that should be their choice too. I also wouldn't have banned 'amen' for anyone. Its just a way of agreeing with the sentiments of the speaker.
Ever notice how some speakers will say the word amen at the end of their own speeches? Thats kinda weird huh?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I have called it BS and said that it was wrong.

Apologies for having missed your response to Stupendousman in which you said the judge was over the line. I missed that and took up with you later on... the 99.9% of your posts against government or school-sanctioned prayer which was not at issue here and how difficult it is to be a kid atheist in school etc... I also took issue with your interpretation of the letter from Jefferson written to concerned Baptists assuring them of why the government was staying out of their religion. Jefferson's views on the importance of Scripture in the classroom somehow always get missed when quoting him for the "Separation of Church and State" argument. (which does not exist in the founding documents anywhere)

I've then gone on to address other, related issues. This doesn't give you leeway to take a quote of mine and pretend that it means something that I've very explicitly said it doesn't mean.

I was still under the impression that you were in favor of this judge's ruling on a student's individual expression in this scenario and missed where you had said that explicitly in a one-line statement to Stupendousman. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth and absolutely hate it when people do this to me. I apologize.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is a tactic used all the time by christians in debate with atheists. They pick a point they can win while telling you to disregard other related points they can't. Then when you concede the point they chose, they claim victory over the whole shebang. Unlike most however, eBuddy openly admits to doing this (if I have not misunderstood).

I'm not trying to claim victory over anything. I post here to challenge ideals and to have mine challenged. I couldn't resist opining on this judge's ruling and took issue with nonhuman's posting for several reasons up to and including what I mistakenly thought was support for the judge's ruling.

It's a public school and should not officially sanction any religion or faith/non-faith philosophy. That's what parochial schools and Christian home tutelage are for.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The rights of non-Christian students to the free exercise of religion are infringed when Christian prayer is an official part of a government sponsored event such as public school. If the administrators want to have a moment of silence in which anyone can pray or not as they please, great. But a student, who is required by law to go to school, should not be forced to be a part of any sort of religious activity. And to try and claim that they have the option of just sitting there and not participating is to miss the point completely: in a heavily Christian area it can be quite difficult for anyone who's anything but. And by quite difficult I mean things like bullying and intimidation, threats of physical violence, ostracization, insults, and all other sorts of social rejection (including being kicked out of your home by fanatical parents). These things happen every day, and aren't just a matter of Christian children being mean to non-Christian children, the adults participate in the same forms of discrimination against children too, parents, teachers, administrators, everyone. And how would you, as a Christian, feel if your public school just happened to have a Muslim principal who started of your high school graduation with a prayer in Arabic?

But those with a different religious OPINION are infringed when Atheists ruin everything due to their intolerance of others.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bravo for the ruling!

I think we should just practice tolerance & diversity the way that they do in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

Best thing: there'd be a lot fewer cars on the highway.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But those with a different religious OPINION are infringed when Atheists ruin everything due to their intolerance of others.

What intolerance of others? All we're asking is to not be forced to participate in your religious whatever, especially in instances where it's expressly forbidden by law.

It is not intolerance of religion or Christianity to want to stop prayers from being a part of official government functions. Be exactly as religious as you want. Pray 24/7 if you want. But I should not be forced to participate any more than you should be forced to renounce your religion.

This is the major issue: involving religion in government is to us what including denunciations of God and Jesus in government would be to Christians. If there's no mention of religion at all, we can both be happy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't determine the subject in three out of four of these sentences.

Par for the course, but I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not trying to claim victory over anything. I post here to challenge ideals and to have mine challenged. I couldn't resist opining on this judge's ruling and took issue with nonhuman's posting for several reasons up to and including what I mistakenly thought was support for the judge's ruling.

It's a public school and should not officially sanction any religion or faith/non-faith philosophy. That's what parochial schools and Christian home tutelage are for.

There was another thread where I thought you admitted arguing against minor points to undermine a main point of issue. Apologies if that was wrong.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What intolerance of others? All we're asking is to not be forced to participate in your religious whatever, especially in instances where it's expressly forbidden by law.

In none of these situations are anyone "forced" to do anything against their will, especially by a government representative. Simply being present when someone offers a religious expression does not make you a participant in that expression, or is there any requirement for you to join in the religious expression in question.

There are no Constitutional limitations intended by our founders to curb exposure to the religious expressions of others. None.

[Doofy]

Christians would do well to note the following:

Matt 6:5-6

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.

That's right. No praying in school, no praying in church. Do it in private. And that's The Boss telling you that.

[The Final Dakar]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Christians would do well to note the following:

Matt 6:5-6


That's right. No praying in school, no praying in church. Do it in private. And that's The Boss telling you that.

This.

My family are crazy devout RC (even other RCs think they're extreme), but it is 100% totally not anyone else's business.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In none of these situations are anyone "forced" to do anything against their will, especially by a government representative. Simply being present when someone offers a religious expression does not make you a participant in that expression, or is there any requirement for you to join in the religious expression in question.

There are no Constitutional limitations intended by our founders to curb exposure to the religious expressions of others. None.

And if sessions of Congress, public school graduations, Presidents' speeches all contained explicit statements about there being no gods, you would feel exactly the same way? That is the equivalent of what currently happens.

If it would be unacceptable for the government to be explicitly atheist, it is unacceptable for the government to be explicitly theist.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And if sessions of Congress, public school graduations, Presidents' speeches all contained explicit statements about there being no gods, you would feel exactly the same way? That is the equivalent of what currently happens.

Sort of.

I'd have no problems with any of these people making statements about their opinions on a higher power, either claiming an existence or not.

However, it would be odd for any kind of official statement be made which essentially makes our Constitution mean something it was never intended to. According to our founding fathers, our nation was formed based on the notion that the rights our Constitution seeks to protect where passed down by God. The founders intended for the nation to be a Christian nation that did not persecute those who choose not to participate in any religious expression or chose to participate in expression that did not reflect that of the majority. They never intended for those who choose another path to be protected from religious expression however.

If it would be unacceptable for the government to be explicitly atheist, it is unacceptable for the government to be explicitly theist.

It wouldn't be unacceptable, it would just be illogical given the fact that one of the founding principles of this nation is the fact that God does exist and he intended for us to have certain basic rights.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

However, it would be odd for any kind of official statement be made which essentially makes our Constitution mean something it was never intended to. According to our founding fathers, our nation was formed based on the notion that the rights our Constitution seeks to protect where passed down by God.
...
It wouldn't be unacceptable, it would just be illogical given the fact that one of the founding principles of this nation is the fact that God does exist and he intended for us to have certain basic rights.

You are simply wrong. You have once again confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, two documents written about 10 years apart that served completely different functions. Further, in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, the origin of these rights is secondary to their quality as unalienable. You could replace the word "Creator" in the sentence with "Master Space Alien Kodos" and it would mean pretty much the same thing: these rights are intrinsic to our being. In practical terms, that means that you can "believe in" all the unalienable rights that are the basic principles of the country and reflected in the Constitution without having to believe they came from God at all. They just are. If God's intent was so important to your facile "founders" construct, you would think it would have made a more prominent appearance in the Constitution (as you may know, it appears nowhere at all in the Constitution).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Has this train-wreck gotten around yet to atheists quoting scripture to Christians as an appeal to authority regarding free speech in a secular society? It's always good for a laugh when the illogic-pretzel inevitably gets twisted that far!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Has this train-wreck gotten around yet to atheists quoting scripture to Christians as an appeal to authority regarding free speech in a secular society? It's always good for a laugh when the illogic-pretzel inevitably gets twisted that far!

Yes, how terrible it is when Christians are shown to be hypocrites by their own scriptures.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's right. No praying in school, no praying in church. Do it in private. And that's The Boss telling you that.

Excellent stuff. Though why you would quote the lousy KJV I'll never understand.

[Waragainstsleep]

So how do we think christians would feel if during these public prayers the atheists present decided to dance around and sing loudly while the flock are bowing their heads?

Even if its just to put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" as loud as possible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You are simply wrong. You have once again confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, two documents written about 10 years apart that served completely different functions.

I understand that they are two different documents. I however can't find where the founders rescinded or changed the standard that God gave us these rights - the rights that the Constitution later enumerates.

Further, in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, the origin of these rights is secondary to their quality as unalienable. You could replace the word "Creator" in the sentence with "Master Space Alien Kodos" and it would mean pretty much the same thing: these rights are intrinsic to our being.

..and were passed down by a supreme being. Being secondary does not change the fact that the standard on record put into place at our founding is that there is officially a God.

In practical terms, that means that you can "believe in" all the unalienable rights that are the basic principles of the country and reflected in the Constitution without having to believe they came from God at all. They just are.

Right. There's no requirement that you personally believe the official standard of the US Government. The First Amendment guarantees that. That doesn't negate the fact that it IS a standard set forth in founding documents of our nation.

If God's intent was so important to your facile "founders" construct, you would think it would have made a more prominent appearance in the Constitution (as you may know, it appears nowhere at all in the Constitution).

Why restate what has already been written? How much else did they restate from the Declaration?

[ebuddy]

So... no praying in public, but by all means praise Him loudly. Bring your lutes, harps, tambourines, strings, and praise him with loud crashing cymbals. As long as you're in praise and worship to God, you are not doing what the hypocrites do in exploiting their faith for self-aggrandization.

He did not say to pray in private so as not to anger non-believers and self-righteous gnostics.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Excellent stuff. Though why you would quote the lousy KJV I'll never understand.

I quote for the target audience, who mostly seem to think that the KJV is where it's at. Personally, I only really take notice of the YLT.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... no praying in public, but by all means praise Him loudly. Bring your lutes, harps, tambourines, strings, and praise him with loud crashing cymbals. As long as you're in praise and worship to God, you are not doing what the hypocrites do in exploiting their faith for self-aggrandization.

He did not say to pray in private so as not to anger non-believers and self-righteous gnostics.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.
But then that's probably because I'm Christian, not Judaic.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sort of.

I'd have no problems with any of these people making statements about their opinions on a higher power, either claiming an existence or not.

However, it would be odd for any kind of official statement be made which essentially makes our Constitution mean something it was never intended to. According to our founding fathers, our nation was formed based on the notion that the rights our Constitution seeks to protect where passed down by God. The founders intended for the nation to be a Christian nation that did not persecute those who choose not to participate in any religious expression or chose to participate in expression that did not reflect that of the majority. They never intended for those who choose another path to be protected from religious expression however.



It wouldn't be unacceptable, it would just be illogical given the fact that one of the founding principles of this nation is the fact that God does exist and he intended for us to have certain basic rights.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that US law says specifically and explicitly that the US is not a Christian nation in any way, and has said so since 1797 whe the founders were still alive, kicking, and in charge (during John Adams' presidency).

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Right. There's no requirement that you personally believe the official standard of the US Government. The First Amendment guarantees that. That doesn't negate the fact that it IS a standard set forth in founding documents of our nation.

So am I to take this to mean that although there is no official religion in the United States, there is a preferred one?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ignoring, of course, the fact that US law says specifically and explicitly that the US is not a Christian nation in any way, and has said so since 1797 whe the founders were still alive, kicking, and in charge (during John Adams' presidency).

There's a difference between being "founded upon the Christian Religion" (assuming that Christianity is a required and the foundational rationale for the existence of the nation) and being founded by a Christian people with the assumption that God's law would be followed, respected and be allowed to be freely expressed. Christianity is not required. It is however was the norm and the standard that was used as a majority.

[Wiskedjak]

If you replaced "Christian" with "Homosexual" in this story, the social conservatives would be cheering this ruling and wouldn't be complaining about it being frivolous.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So am I to take this to mean that although there is no official religion in the United States, there is a preferred one?

Historical review doesn't support something that concrete. The government doesn't "prefer" one over the other as far as giving preference to those who pick one over another (or none at all). However, it seems clear that the founders intended for the country and it's laws to follow Christian principles and it's policies to reflect the fact that the vast majority of those in this new country where believers and people of this faith.

The first amendment however was put into place to ensure that those who didn't share that faith would not be persecuted over it and were free to do as they pleased, personally.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... no praying in public, but by all means praise Him loudly. Bring your lutes, harps, tambourines, strings, and praise him with loud crashing cymbals. As long as you're in praise and worship to God, you are not doing what the hypocrites do in exploiting their faith for self-aggrandization.

What ridiculous hair-splitting.

He did not say to pray in private so as not to anger non-believers and self-righteous gnostics.

Actually, I think that's exactly what the passage is about.

It's important to note that this saying is only found in Matthew, and Matthew was written to an audience of Christian Jews. The partial intent of the author here was probably to ensure their safety from accusations of heresy by conventional Jews.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a difference between being "founded upon the Christian Religion" (assuming that Christianity is a required and the foundational rationale for the existence of the nation) and being founded by a Christian people with the assumption that God's law would be followed, respected and be allowed to be freely expressed. Christianity is not required. It is however was the norm and the standard that was used as a majority.

Um, how exactly do you square that with 'the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion' (emphasis mine). An assumption that 'God's law would be followed [and] respected' would be a complete violation of that, and it carries the force of law being negotiated by an Ambassador Plenipotentiary who was granted the authority to make this treaty in the name of the US and even still also being ratified by the Senate (legally unnecessary in this case, so mostly a point of emphasis) and signed into law by the President.

The Christian religion is not 'in any sense' a part of our government, by law. Expecting our government to follow its dictates or enforce them upon the people simply does not jive with that.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The Christian religion is not 'in any sense' a part of our government, by law. Expecting our government to follow its dictates or enforce them upon the people simply does not jive with that.

Unfortunately, those who would like to see it become part of our law are very threatened by the growing number of non believers, and as such are very vocal. Much, if not most or all, of the debate over this has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with emotionalism, as evidenced by much of the discussion here, and that's a tough, but not insurmountable, hurdle to overcome. Those who cling to archaic beliefs don't give up, although eventually their numbers will lessen.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um, how exactly do you square that with 'the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion' (emphasis mine).

I already explained the difference as I see it between "founded on" (assuming primary rationale) and having a foundation of, based on the belief of the people who created this new country.

If it was "founded on" then there would be an "official" religion. There is none. There is a difference between being "founded on" and having a "foundation of."

Though, I think this is getting things off course and isn't relevant to the debate at hand. What can't really be debated is the fact that the official stand of the United States is that there is a God, and our rights are passed down by that God. Suggesting that any mention of this God or expression of belief in this God by Government officials is unconstitutional makes little sense, unless they are acting as part of a goal to persecute or intimidate others who do not share their faith.

This is especially case given the vast documentation that shows that while the majority of our founders wanted to make sure that people were not persecuted for not being Christian or having some faith, that there was no intent to shield those that believed otherwise from the religious expression of others who did.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I already explained the difference as I see it between "founded on" (assuming primary rationale) and having a foundation of, based on the belief of the people who created this new country.

If it was "founded on" then there would be an "official" religion. There is none. There is a difference between being "founded on" and having a "foundation of."

Though, I think this is getting things off course and isn't relevant to the debate at hand. What can't really be debated is the fact that the official stand of the United States is that there is a God, and our rights are passed down by that God. Suggesting that any mention of this God or expression of belief in this God by Government officials is unconstitutional makes little sense, unless they are acting as part of a goal to persecute or intimidate others who do not share their faith.

This is especially case given the vast documentation that shows that while the majority of our founders wanted to make sure that people were not persecuted for not being Christian or having some faith, that there was no intent to shield those that believed otherwise from the religious expression of others who did.

You notice how 'founded on' and 'foundation of' are very similar phrases? There's a reason for that: they mean the same thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I already explained the difference as I see it between "founded on" (assuming primary rationale) and having a foundation of, based on the belief of the people who created this new country.

If it was "founded on" then there would be an "official" religion. There is none. There is a difference between being "founded on" and having a "foundation of."

Though, I think this is getting things off course and isn't relevant to the debate at hand. What can't really be debated is the fact that the official stand of the United States is that there is a God, and our rights are passed down by that God. Suggesting that any mention of this God or expression of belief in this God by Government officials is unconstitutional makes little sense, unless they are acting as part of a goal to persecute or intimidate others who do not share their faith.

This is especially case given the vast documentation that shows that while the majority of our founders wanted to make sure that people were not persecuted for not being Christian or having some faith, that there was no intent to shield those that believed otherwise from the religious expression of others who did.

You're doing some impressive dancing in this post:
- "founded on" vs. "founded of"
- "no official religion" vs. "official stand of the United States is that there is a God"

[Doofy]

Your tax dollars are funding sex trafficking, your government signs off on warrantless searches legislation, your police departments are stealing all your stuff under the banner of "civil asset forfeiture" and you're all arguing about what some old dead dudes thought? Really?

I dare one of you fatties to grab a copy of your Constitution Manifesto and wipe your butt on it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Christians would do well to note the following:
Matt 6:5-6
That's right. No praying in school, no praying in church. Do it in private. And that's The Boss telling you that.

Thank you fro quoting from the Sermon on the Mount.
I like the RSV-CE

1 "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5 "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread;
12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Does Jesus say not to attend services?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's right. No praying in school, no praying in church. Do it in private. And that's The Boss telling you that.

Wait, hold on, I didn't notice the "no praying in church" bit, which is completely wrong.

Remember, the primitive church didn't have actual churches, the ecclesia were just religious events in believers' homes. The fact that actual buildings for religious services were later made doesn't change the essential meaning of practicing their piety in private, since both a house-church and a real church are private events out of the view of the public.

I think you are interpreting the passage in a completely subjective way, reading into it your own dismissive attitude towards church attendance in a way that is corrupting the real meaning.

And like I said to ebuddy, I think this passage is really reflective of the author of Matthew, and not the real teachings of Jesus. I have no doubt that the historical Jesus was in favour of public piety, and his ministry of preaching, "healings," and political acts were all overtly religious public behaviours. The early church continued this public preaching, both in Gentile forums and Jewish forums like synagogues, which earned them considerable scorn and recriminations. Jesus, Peter, Paul, James the Just, and the other earliest martyrs were killed because of their public behaviour, which definitely included overt acts of piety, which drew negative attention to them. "Matthew's" preference to private piety were partly in reaction to this recrimination.

If you don't agree with this theory, then ask yourself: why is "Matthew" alone on this issue?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're doing some impressive dancing in this post:
- "founded on" vs. "founded of"
- "no official religion" vs. "official stand of the United States is that there is a God"

Religion/church at the time the constitution was ratified meant denomination. The founders did not want an official denomination favored over others.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.[citation needed]) As of 2010 Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provides, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary American politics.
All current State constitutions do mention a Creator,[citation needed] but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment, but eight (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[6][7] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wait, hold on, I didn't notice the "no praying in church" bit, which is completely wrong.

Remember, the primitive church didn't have actual churches, the ecclesia were just religious events in believers' homes. The fact that actual buildings for religious services were later made doesn't change the essential meaning of practicing their piety in private, since both a house-church and a real church are private events out of the view of the public.

I think you are interpreting the passage in a completely subjective way, reading into it your own dismissive attitude towards church attendance in a way that is corrupting the real meaning.

Matthew 6 is the discourse on ostentation.