First Prayer in Congress 9/7/1774

[Saintaw]

...
But , this topic on this BBS will do no more than make you hit your head on the wall. If you say it's white there will be a 100 say it's black. Talking religeon with this bunch is useless.  

I think Jebus had the same problem, and the "useless bunch" were called the Romans or something... I'm not big in history classes though, so don't take my word for it.

Do whatever you want in your own home, but leave me the f*** out of it. That's all I'm askin'

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Raider,



Raines v. Cleveland Young (1994) Raymond Raines, an elementary school student in St. Louis, Missouri, was placed in a week-long detention for bowing his head over his lunch. School officials interrupted the fourth grader on at least three separate occasions when he attempted to say a private prayer over his lunch in the Waring School cafeteria. On each occasion, Raines was taken to the principal’s office and told to stop praying over his lunch.

I agree with most of those decisions and will be glad to discuss each individual case, but since you wanted to point out this one lets see the whole case...

From the Washington Post on December 6, 1994

The 10-year-old boy in St. Louis whom House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich said was put in detention for saying grace in a public school cafeteria was in fact disciplined for matters entirely unrelated to praying in school, according to the superintendent of St. Louis schools.

Gingrich highlighted the case on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday as evidence that public schools are repressing the rights of students who wish to pray. But the case of Raymond Raines is being contested in federal court in St. Louis, and the facts are far from clear.

"He was disciplined for some matters that were totally independent of silent praying,'' Superintendent David Mahan said. "We did a very thorough investigation. We talked to teachers, administrators and also to some students, and we could not find any evidence of the allegations that the parent and the student made.''


seems from what research I have done they say he was fighting.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Seagoon

Guidry v. Broussard (1990) A high school valedictorian planned to devote a portion of her graduation speech to the importance of Jesus Christ in her life. The principal ordered her to remove the offending portion; she refused and was eliminated from the graduation program. The district court and the court of appeals upheld the principal’s action.

Bishop v. Aronov (1991) A tenure-track professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama made occasional references in class to his religious beliefs and offered an optional, after-class lecture entitled “Evidences of God in Human Physiology.” The dean ordered him to cease these activities even though professors at the university were guaranteed academic freedom to make personal remarks during class so long as they were not excessive, disruptive, or coercive. The court of appeals affirmed the dean’s order.

Settle v. Dickson County School Board (1995) Students were asked to choose a topic for a research paper that was “interesting, researchable, and decent.” Among the subjects approved were “spiritualism,” “reincarnation,” and “magic throughout history.” One student, who asked to write on “the life of Jesus Christ,” was refused permission, however, and ultimately received a grade of “zero” on the paper. The teacher stated that “the law says we are not to deal with religious issues in the classroom.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the grade she awarded to the student.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) The principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island, invited Rabbi Leslie Gutterman to deliver non-sectarian prayers at its graduation ceremony. Student Deborah Weisman and her father Daniel filed suit, objecting to being subjected to any prayer as part of the public ceremony, even though Weisman did not have to attend the ceremony to receive her diploma, was not required to stand when the prayer was spoken, and was not even required to maintain respectful silence. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a close decision with numerous separate opinions, held that the Weismans’ constitutional rights under the First Amendment had been violated by the delivery of this prayer and that the school officials should be enjoined from sponsoring a prayer during future graduation ceremonies.

Perumal v. Saddleback Valley School District (1988) Students at a southern California public high school were forbidden to distribute leaflets inviting other students to their Bible study group, despite a California statute specifically permitting students to distribute petitions and other printed materials. The state appellate court upheld the school’s action.

Roberts v. Madigan (1990) A fifth-grade public school teacher was ordered by the assistant principal to remove a Bible from the surface of his desk, to refrain from reading the Bible during the class silent reading period, and to remove two illustrated books of Bible stories from a classroom library of over 350 volumes. The court of appeals upheld the principal’s action, holding that the teacher’s conduct violated the establishment clause.

Loehner v. O’Brien (1994) In Florida, a principal confiscated and destroyed invitations distributed by an elementary school student to her friends inviting them to a church-based alternative to a Halloween party. In this case the courts intervened on behalf of the student.

Garnett v. Renton School District (1993) After passage of the Equal Access Act in 1984, high school students in Renton, Washington, who wanted to form a prayer and Bible study club after school asked permission and were denied. The case took nine years and involved three trips to the district court, four trips to the court of appeals, and two trips to the Supreme Court before the students ultimately won vindication of their rights. At the end, the ACLU and the American Jewish Committee made the extraordinary argument that the school district should shut down its entire extracurricular program rather than allow the students to meet.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) To provide a public forum for their ideas, a group of Christian students at the University of Virginia founded a publication called Wide Awake. Although they met all eligibility requirements for school funding, they were excluded because their editorial perspective was “religious.” The university funds many publications expressing controversial viewpoints of a secular nature, including gay rights, racist, pro-choice, and Marxist journals, but disallows all publications addressing issues from a religious perspective. In a 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the university’s decision.

Witters v. Department of Services for the Blind (1989) The state of Washington had a voucher program to pay for vocational education of the blind. Larry Witters, an eligible individual, wished to use these benefits to study for a career in the clergy. Because of the religious nature of his proposed field of study, the Washington Supreme Court held that funding would violate the establishment clause. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected that position, holding that state assistance for religious training does not violate the First Amendment so long as the aid is made without sectarian preference.

Miller v. Benson (1995) A federal district court ruled that the state of Wisconsin may not extend its school choice plan to religious  schools. A student qualifying for the program in Milwaukee can attend progressive, Afrocentric, or other schools, but not one where the philosophical orientation is religious.

Daniel Lopez v. Tarrant County Junior College District (1994) Student Daniel Lopez was ordered by administrators of his junior college in Texas to stop distributing pamphlets containing Bible verses. College officials threatened him with disciplinary sanctions if he continued to hand out pamphlets on campus, stating that “the campuses of Tarrant County Junior College are not public fora for purposes of free speech activities.”

Raines v. Cleveland Young (1994) Raymond Raines, an elementary school student in St. Louis, Missouri, was placed in a week-long detention for bowing his head over his lunch. School officials interrupted the fourth grader on at least three separate occasions when he attempted to say a private prayer over his lunch in the Waring School cafeteria. On each occasion, Raines was taken to the principal’s office and told to stop praying over his lunch.

FEMA Disaster Aid (1995) After the Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal Emergency Management Agency refused to provide aid to damaged  churches (though they provided much aid during the crisis). Bars, restaurants, bookstores, and other privately owned buildings were eligible for funds, however.

1) religious speeches during graduation are not allowed

2)The teacher was using his classroom/institution to teach religion (that belongs in church not school)

3) Brittany Settle, a student in the class, originally signed up for a paper about drama, but later changed her topic to "The Life of Jesus" without approval. Teacher didnt approve of the change. Its her own fault for not following instructions.

4)Delivering prayer at graduation is not allowed

5)Using a public school to distribute religious material is not allowed.State law does not supercede federal law.

6) he was on the clock..what he does outside of class is one thing doing it in class is another...see establishment of religion verdicts.

7) couldn't find any info on this case but  I would say she should be allowed to invite people to her party.(although it is using the schools to spread religion)

8) The courts ruled in favor of the students.

9) again Supreme court ruled in favor of the students.

10) court ruled in favor of the student again.

11) The new law, which took effect on July 29, 1995, authorizes reimbursement of tuition at religious schools, provided the schools (and students) meet the other statutory criteria. The state legislature gave plaintiffs what they sought, and this case is therefore moot."Ruled in their favor"

12)Couldn't find any info on the case

13)discussed in above post...kid was disciplined for things other than prayer.

14)Again cant find any info but I am tired

Sorry but I disagree with using schools as a church. That is after all what a church is for. The only reason I see for having after-school clubs for religion is recruitment. How would you feel if Satanists opened up a little after school club, or passed out flyers? It would bother me as much as christians or catholics or jews doing it.

On another level how would you feel about that teacher reading the satanic bible during quiet time? Or do you just support your religion?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by RedTop
Talking religeon with this bunch is useless.  

 

Thats not a very good way to look at it. I thought christians were supposed to help people see the light not turn their back on them. But what do I know I only believe in a higher power not organized religion.

[Eagler]

SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Eagler
keep fighting the good fight sir
SEAGOON

Don't worry, you'll convert those heathens.  It's just a matter of time before they all feel the lick of the sulphurous fires of hell and come scrambling towards salvation.  With your dedication, you can help them reach that pinnacle of blessed veneration before the dark lord himself reaches up and puuuuulls them down to his lair!

Oh, the lord is a good lord...  and fierce!  But he thinks in terms of the long run.  When all of eternity reaches out before you like a never ending road, the passage of a few years is nothing but a drop in the bucket.  So you can plan, and you can plot, and with your help you can BRING SALVATION to the unbelievers!  

...but the dark one, he is crafty.  He can watch you perform your christian duties and he can play a counter move for every move you make if you are too hasty.  Satan has many agents, and not all of them are evil.  Some of them are just ignorant, and they do not know the path they walk is one that will lead them to damnation!  These agents, walk a path paved with their good intentions, but they are BLIND to the eventual destination of their travels!  He will throw them in your path and they will BLOCK your evangelistic duties!  He will direct them to halt you while you perform your christian duty, and they will argue with the passion of belief that their cause is just...  but it will be just.  Just WRONG!  

You must hold fast!  You must help the ignorant, these lost sheep!  You must strengthen your will and SHINE THE LIGHT of salvation!  They must stray from their path of darkness and into the light that shines from our shepherd Jesus, and he will lead us to our heavenly destiny...  but only if we are strong.

My brothers and sisters, these ignorant but well meaning atheists must be shown the light, but even the most stubborn mule can be persuaded if light pressure is invoked.  You must not obviously be seen to try and convert them.  You would sooner lead a horse to water by yanking the reins, but even if he is faced with the splendor of God's church, you cannot MAKE him drink.

So you must be subtle.

You must make small changes.  If the light of god shines too bright, the unbeliever will shield their eyes.  So you must gradually increase it.  The brave men and women of the Midwest who strive to replace the law of man with the rightful law of god are doing His work.  When the unbelievers object, sooth their concerns.  Say "it is just a private expression of belief" and not meant to exclude those who worship false idols.  Once they accept this small thing, find another opportunity to brighten the world by having the law posted in schools.  The current generation may not respond to the blinding truth of God, but the young are innocent and have not been hardened by the misdirected and strange beliefs of their parents.  If they can be exposed in the schools, the Truth will become apparent even to them and then Gods army will have more soldiers to spread his light across the land.

In public, make prayers of thanks whenever possible.  When the stubborn object, sooth them again, this time by reassuring them that you are simply expressing your personal thanks to the lord and that they are not obligated to follow.  If possible, shame them lightly by implying that they are trying to suppress you.  It is human nature to be apologetic for a perceived slight, and they will go out of their way to accommodate you as long as you assure them your prayers of for yourself.  ...but words to god should never be whispered.  While he can hear it, you can also do double duty and shine the light yourself by SHOUTING OUT with joy and EXULTING in his presence!  If you must pray privately, do not pray QUIETLY!  The more that hear your words of praise, the better the chances are that some misdirected soul will see the TRUTH and walk with you on the path of righteousness!  

As time passes, find more places to praise Him and, as the cold inevitability of time passes, the gates will admit more and more who have Seen the Truth.  

And you must remember to do your duty!  When that dark day of judgement comes, the Lord's army will rise up as is told in Revelations, and the army of Satan will rise, and there will be a great fight.  You must shine His light wherever possible so that the Lord's victory over evil is quick and certain.

All of eternity lays before you.  You must ask yourself, when your time comes, will you regret your inaction?  Will you think back and think "I could have done more?"  The Lord has given us free will, and we must CHOOSE to do that which is RIGHT.  Go forth and shine this bright light of righteousness into the many dark corners of our world.  Onward, Christian soldiers!  Your duty is clear!

How's that?

[Eagler]

.. the love you take is equal to the love you make

[SOB]

OK, you have a choice of spending eternity with Jesus or George W. Bush.  Who do you choose?  (to sweeten the deal with dubya, you get to bring along baby oil and lather him up on a regular basis)

[Sabre]

I always have to shake my head in wonder when I hear/read someone say, “Government shouldn’t legislate or dictate morality.”  This argument is made by someone in every one of these “separation of church and state” threads, and it is ludicrous.  What are laws, if not the legal codifying of morality?  Our laws are meant to reflect the collective morality of our society.  The problem we’re seeing now is that a relative handful of non-elected judges are systematically dismantling our morality.  Take the case of the Supreme Court over-ruling Texas’ anti-sodomy law a couple of years ago.  Those laws reflected the will of the people of Texas, who collectively decided that sodomy was immoral behavior.  How about the continued judicial assault on the Protection of Marriage Act, and the scores of laws at the state level that it was meant to strengthen?

Back to the subject at hand, Seagood has said it best : This is not about expanding the role of religion in the public domain, but of an ever-accelerating drive by relativists to reduce it.  Many here have pointed out there is evidence that a number of our founding fathers were not big supporters of organized religion.  However, nearly to a man they supported the idea that our rights were not a gift from government, but were ”endowed by their creator” with those rights.  They made no attempt to banish (indeed they supported the continued inclusion of) the mention of a divine creator in public institutions.

[Raider179]

Yeah tell you what they really are eroding away religion from public square huh? lol

Faith-based organizations like Good Samaritan won $1.2 billion in federal grants in 2003, including $61.3 million to Michigan organizations, according to a government tally given to the Associated Press.

1.2 billion and still complaining. jeez whats it gonna take? 5 billion? 10? The government under bush has been all about using faith based organizations and giving them grants some with huge payouts like the 61 million above. Maybe some of your previous rights are being not taken away but enforced. Lots of things step over the line of seperation of church and state.

On a side note The BTK killer was apparently very active in church. President of some council or other, 10 commandments and the bible didnt help there so why should we believe it promotes this good "morality" I keep hearing about. People are gonna be good, people are gonna be bad, the bible, religion and the 10 commandments are not  gonna influence people's behavior. Its just another way to deflect personally responsiblity from an individual.

No judge is dimantling my "morality". I could care less what 2 gay people do and I dont find it any of my business. I also dont care if they get married. That affects me zero.  I am much more concerned over the catholic cover-up of child molestation than anything I have seen mentioned about morality. I am sorry but organized religion is not so squeaky clean itself.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Raider179
Thats not a very good way to look at it. I thought christians were supposed to help people see the light not turn their back on them. But what do I know I only believe in a higher power not organized religion.

Not discussing it with certain people is not turning a back to them. IMO it's simply choosing not to argue a point that isn't going to go anywhere but in one ear and out the other.

Lead by example and prayer. Thats the best way to show your religeon and beliefs. You know what is really great about prayer? I can talk to God anytime I want. I don't have to pray outloud for him to hear me.

So , If I said a prayer for you , or anyone , for something as simple as "Watch over them", you have no idea and can't say nothing about it.

So I'm not turning my back on anyone. I ask for guidence daily. There are some people that are looking for that "Higher Power". To those that ask I try to explain it as best I can and how it pertains to MY life. I'm not a Bible scholar or minister so trying to quote things is not my deal. (My Brother is a minister , thats his job)

 There are some that no matter how you put it , show it , say it , they are simply not going to listen or care. They have their beliefs and nothing I say will change that.

 My job is not tro save the world but to simply be the best person I can be. Be a good husband to my wife. Be a good father to my children. Be a good Uncle to my nieces and nephews , great niece and nephew , and a good grandfather to my grandkids. And in the process of all this be a good christian and serve God in the best way I can. Be a good person in church and help where I can. Which I do in the Youth ministry. My wife and I both.

Religeon isn't a bad thing. So many people nowadays think that people who are christians are wierd. Yet they probably know some and don't even know it. We're not wierd. We just choose to live life and believe things differently.

What's troubling is , so many in todays world want religeon cut out of everything. Seems to me because it "Suits" there agenda. Yet christians want certain things as well.

IMHO there is no give and take anymore. Mention God or Christianity and someone is ready to call the ACLU or sue you. It's all very tiring to me. SO my choice is to simply let you be.

People don't want to hear about God from me...Hey thats fine. I'm cool with that. I'm not here to preach to you or "Show" you the light. Thats your job to find it IMO.

I wish you all the best. I'll also leave you to "Guess" whether some BBS guy whispered a prayer for you or not.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Eagler and Redtop:

Your rebukes are well taken as is your citation of Matthew 7:6. I can honestly answer that I have asked myself the same thing. The only thing I would say is that I was definitely on the other side of the fence at one time too, and these gents are positively mild, genteel, and well-behaved by comparison. Never view the lost as the enemy, but rather as captives of the real enemy. When I am tempted to give up or vent my spleen, I go back and remind myself of Paul's admonition in 2 Tim. 2:24-26.

I recall the story of a man who heard John Flavel preach the gospel as a youth, in Liverpool, England in the 17th century, almost 70 years later as an old man in Virginia the HS brought that sermon to mind while he was sitting under a tree, thinking about his dissipated and sinful life. The result was a miraculous conversion. Hey, maybe not today, not tomorrow, even ten years from now, but perhaps something gracious you or I say will be brought to mind someday.

- Seagoon

I'll simply say the same thing as Eagler. Keep up the good fight.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Tried to be humorous........

How's that?

Not funny

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by RedTop
Not funny

Tell me....  I had posted that from a screen name that said it was Christian, would you react the same?

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

Regarding the question which was asked "Why do Christians observe the first day of the week for their sabbath and not the seventh day?" One of the best and most succinct treatments of this question was done by Thomas Watson a 17th century English theologian in his seminal work on the Ten Commandments. Watson shows that this was a New Testament change, rather than a later innovation. This is also the doctrinal position affirmed by most orthodox Christian denominations.

How comes it to pass that we do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath as it was in the primitive institution, but have changed it to another day?

The old seventh-day Sabbath, which was the Jewish Sabbath, is abrogated, and in the place of it the first day of the week, which is the Christian Sabbath, succeeds. The morality or substance of the fourth commandment does not lie in keeping the seventh day precisely, but keeping one day in seven is what God has appointed.

But how comes the first day in the week to be substituted in the place of the seventh day?

Not by ecclesiastic [church] authority. “The church,” says Mr Perkins, “has no power to ordain a Sabbath.”
(1) The change of the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first was by Christ”s own appointment. He is “Lord of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28. And who shall appoint a day but he who is Lord of it? He made this day. “This is the day which the Lord has made.” Psalm 118:24. Arnobius and most expositors understand it of the Christian Sabbath, which is called the “Lord”s-day.” Rev. 1:10. Christ instituted the Sabbath, and thus it is called the Lord’s Day. Sunday is the day of resurrection; Christ rose on the first day of the week, out of the grave, and appeared twice on that day to his disciples, John 20:19, 26, which was to imply to them, as Augustine and Athanasius say, that he transferred the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord’s day.

(2) The keeping of the first day was the practice of the apostles. “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2. Here was both preaching and breaking of bread on this day. Augustine and Innocentius, and Isidore, make the keeping of our gospel Sabbath to be of apostolic sanction, and affirm, that by virtue of the apostles” practice, this day is to be set apart for divine worship. What the apostles did, they did by divine authority; for they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

(3) The ancient church had the Lord’s day, which we now celebrate, in high estimation. It was a great badge of their religion to observe this day. Ignatius, the most ancient father, who lived in the time of John the apostle, has these words, “Let every one that loveth Christ keep holy the first day of the week, the Lord”s-day.” This day has been observed by the church of Christ above sixteen hundred years [Watson is writing in the late 1660s], as the learned Bucer notes. Thus you see how the seventh-day Sabbath came to be changed to the first-day Sabbath.

The grand reason for changing the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord”s-day is that it puts us in mind of the “Mystery of our redemption by Christ.” The reason why God instituted the old Sabbath was to be a memorial of the creation; but he has now brought the first day of the week in its place in memory of a more glorious work than creation, which is redemption. Great was the work of creation, but greater was the work of redemption. As it was said, “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former.” Hag. 2:9. So the glory of the redemption was greater than the glory of the creation. Great wisdom was seen in making us, but more miraculous wisdom in saving us. Great power was seen in bringing us out of nothing, but greater power in helping us when we were worse than nothing. It cost more to redeem than to create us. In creation it was but speaking a word (Psalm 148:5); in redeeming there was shedding of blood. 1 Pet. 1:19. Creation was the work of God”s fingers, Psalm 8:3, redemption was the work of his arm. Luke 1:51. In creation, God gave us ourselves; in the redemption, he gave us himself. By creation, we have life in Adam; by redemption, we have life in Christ. Col. 3:3. By creation, we had a right to an earthly paradise: by redemption, we have a title to a heavenly kingdom. Christ might well change the seventh day of the week into the first, as it puts us in mind of our redemption, which is a more glorious work than creation."

- SEAGOON