Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on March 02, 2005, 11:22:37 AM
-
Hi all,
Just an interesting historical footnote that one of the petitions offered up in the first prayer of the continental congress was that "truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst The people" and yet now 231 years later we find ourselves on the verge of institutionaly extinguishing religion and piety in the public square.
As a friend commented, we seem to have reached a point as a society where pornography enjoys the protections Christian expression once did, while Christianity is being relegated to the public position pornography once held. Ah well, I shouldn't complain as that was the norm in the first through third centuries as well, and this is nothing compared to say, Sudan or Indonesia. I must daily remember Eph. 6:12.
"First Prayer in Congress
September 7, 1774
O - Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved bands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst The people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come.
All this we ask In the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen"
-
Batton down the hatches, secure the unsecured and hold on tight. Thars rough seas ahead.
-SW
-
The 10 commandments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4310273.stm)
-
Perhaps I suffer from a failure of imagination, but I fail to see how a christian government can adequetly represent my secular rights.
Our predictive models are shaped by knowledge of the extremes. The large scale Coriolis force of a weather pattern can most clearly be seen in the fierce action of a hurricane. As an immediate correlary, the characteristics of a moderate religious government can be more clearly seen in institutions such as the Taliban, Iran, and the Crusades.
The weather pattern (like the moderate religious government) may (and probably will) not flare into the destructive fury of a hurricane, but the same large scale characteristics will be evident.
As an atheist in our society, I am concerned that my christian neighbors will enjoy a position of more privilege in the years to come, and that such privilege will not be based on merit, but on a shared belief structure.
-
Chair,
What one of the ten comandments is bad?
I am not a christian, but I can see most of our current laws are based on "christian morals"
Why is that bad as long as it is not taken any further? You do not think have a christian government now do you?
-
Well put Chairboy. I agree completely.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why is that bad as long as it is not taken any further? You do not think have a christian government now do you?
I fear that I do not share your faith that it will not be taken any further.
All of these large scale changes start small. It's akin to boiling a frog. Wisdom dictates that throwing a frog into boiling water might not be succesful, because the frog might jump out. But if instead you put the frog in cold water and slowly increase the temperature, it will expire before realizing the gradual change.
The anti-gun crowd uses the same technique. They make small, 'reasonable' changes to the laws here and there, but their stated purpose is to remove every firearm from the hands of private citizens. Whether or not you agree with those goals, you should be able to see the method being used.
If you know, or suspect, that the long term goals of an organization will impact you adversely, isn't it your duty to stand fast? It's not long before an inch here and an inch there add up to miles.
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Can't play favorites.
-
Is someone trying to sneak in some god laws now that I do not know about?
I all see is the fights to remove silly **** like the 10 comandments statue?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Chair,
What one of the ten comandments is bad?
I'll damn well covet whichevers neighbor's wife I like, thanks. And there's one about false idols too, isn't there? I'll worship whichever false idol I like, thank you very much.
Just sayin.
-
Chairboy,
You've exactly flipped the situation and the issue. First off, we aren't talking about moving from a anti-theistic to a theistic society, the situation, as even the quote I gave is exactly the opposite - we are moving from being what President John Adams called "a moral and religious" people to an explicitly "anti-moral and irreligious" nation.
The problem with that, apart from the fact that our current society can't survive the transition (again to quote Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other") is that it also means that the rights of Christians are being eroded and ultimately eliminated. This isn't about establishing a theocracy, or recognizing and establishing one denomination over others - both the US Constitution, and for that matter even the confession of faith of my denomination rule that out*. We are getting to the point where any kind of Christian speech in the public square is legally prevented, while specifically anti-religious, irreligious, or pornographic speech is protected. Most of us forsee a day approaching when merely preaching what Romans 1:18-32 says about "alternate lifestyles" will be termed as illegal hate-speech in this country as it already is in many European nations. From upholding Religion and Piety, we have come to the point where there is a defacto legal jihad being waged against them.
- SEAGOON
*From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23.3 (American Revision, 1788) - "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance."
-
Originally posted by Engine
I'll damn well covet whichevers neighbor's wife I like, thanks.
Engine,
And I get to deal on an almost weekly basis with the wreckage that coveting produces, which is of course especially fun when it involves children whose homes have just been effectively nuked. That is I get to deal with them if both parties involved are still breathing after the consequences work themselves out... Funny how breaking the 10th seems to lead so often to breaking the 6th commandment eh?* For military families like ours, its even more fun, because of the added pressures.
But still growing up displaced without a dad in a broken home is just a small price we will have to pay in order to advance our more perfect, covetous, and enlightened order, eh?
Just Sayin...
* (10th coveting, 6th murder)
-
Engine
Sorry, I didn't mean to get mad and sarcastic in the above, wasn't exactly a sanctified way of expressing myself. Just a visceral reaction probably due to the fact that in the past year I've had to do a lot of pastoral work/counseling dealing with one murder and several horrible break-ups directly related to adultery.
Again, my bad. Please forgive me.
- SEAGOON
-
S'ok Seagoon, I was being flippant anyway. :)
I do realize that affairs can have disastrous consequences, but I still don't believe it's the government's place to intervene. What can they do, anyway, force someone to forgive their cheating spouse? Force them to stay together in a dead relationship?
I was trying to point out to GtoRA2 that while some of the commandments, like murder, should be illegal, there are some the government has no right to enforce, i.e. false idols.
-
I don't see things swinging too far one way or the other any time in the near future. I don't think the government will get too religiously whacko, and I certainly don't think they'll interfere with what churches do under their roofs (ya know, provided they aren't sacrificing virgin albinos and stuff).
I wouldn't mind seeing the tax-exempt status for churches go away though, unless they conform to the rules governing other non-profit organizations.
-
I was once a clerk for Tower Records in Manhattan. One day a priest comes in, collar and all, and rings up over $300 worth of porn DVDs to send to people in the Philippines.
We had to call over a manager to ring it up using his religious tax-exemption.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Perhaps I suffer from a failure of imagination, but I fail to see how a christian government can adequetly represent my secular rights.
Our predictive models are shaped by knowledge of the extremes. The large scale Coriolis force of a weather pattern can most clearly be seen in the fierce action of a hurricane. As an immediate correlary, the characteristics of a moderate religious government can be more clearly seen in institutions such as the Taliban, Iran, and the Crusades.
The weather pattern (like the moderate religious government) may (and probably will) not flare into the destructive fury of a hurricane, but the same large scale characteristics will be evident.
As an atheist in our society, I am concerned that my christian neighbors will enjoy a position of more privilege in the years to come, and that such privilege will not be based on merit, but on a shared belief structure.
How on earth could you come to that conclusion? Do you constantly look up to make sure the sky is still in it's proper place?
On a side note how are you progressing with your weight reduction program?
-
Originally posted by storch
How on earth could you come to that conclusion? Do you constantly look up to make sure the sky is still in it's proper place?
I think my post speaks for itself. If you have a specific point to contest, I'll give a more specific answer.
Originally posted by storch
On a side note how are you progressing with your weight reduction program?
Doing great, thanks.
-
Sorry Seagoon, I know you have to hold up the faith and all, but Morality and Religion are 2 very different things.
If we become a less religious society it does not follow that we become less moral. Unless you have to believe in a religious doctrine that says we will. But you can chase that tail all you want.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
") is that it also means that the rights of Christians are being eroded and ultimately eliminated. We are getting to the point where any kind of Christian speech in the public square is legally prevented, while specifically anti-religious, irreligious, or pornographic speech is protected.
So christians get special rights? What rights are being eroded? Christians can speak in the public square freely but yeah I think its way over the top to post the ten commandments there. Thats a little different than just having your say. Heck I turn the tv on and there's hundreds of christians raising hell outside of a courthouse about not being able to raise hell. Pornographic speech in public area's is expressely prohibted by decency laws.
Anti-religious people enjoy the same freedoms as you. They can go into the town square and shout they hate god at the top of their lungs if they want, the same way you can go say how much you love him.
Hey as long as we are using the bible for a guide on how to live our lives lets use some other parts to. This one is a particular favorite of mine.
Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy [4] to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Yeah lets kill people for working on sunday. lol Just because the bible says something doesnt mean it's a good idea, but I know religious people like to quote the bible on some things and then say its not meant literally when it doesnt fit their argument.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
So christians get special rights? What rights are being eroded? Christians can speak in the public square freely but yeah I think its way over the top to post the ten commandments there. Thats a little different than just having your say. Heck I turn the tv on and there's hundreds of christians raising hell outside of a courthouse about not being able to raise hell. Pornographic speech in public area's is expressely prohibted by decency laws.
Anti-religious people enjoy the same freedoms as you. They can go into the town square and shout they hate god at the top of their lungs if they want, the same way you can go say how much you love him.
Hey as long as we are using the bible for a guide on how to live our lives lets use some other parts to. This one is a particular favorite of mine.
Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy [4] to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Yeah lets kill people for working on sunday. lol Just because the bible says something doesnt mean it's a good idea, but I know religious people like to quote the bible on some things and then say its not meant literally when it doesnt fit their argument.
so ummmm, what cha doin' this sunday?
-
I bowl on sundays. lol
-
What about crazy ole George Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq? As an American and an atheist, I am outraged by this.
-
Cripes why?! I wish our Prime Minister had God advising him on what to do! :eek:
Martin: Will Brazil concede this embrae/bombardier negotiating point. :confused:
God: Yep. :aok
Martin: Sweet, take that Silva. :cool:
I mean, damn omniscience as a resource...wait a minute, why didn't God tell him that Iraq actually didn't have any WMD?
-
DONT QUESTION GOD THRAWN! CHRISTIANITY IS INFALLIBLE!
-
heh
-
christians and athiests are both fine with me so long as neither has a say in my life.
lazs
-
like anyone is out in gangs trying to press you guys into a worship service. :rolleyes:
-
Actually, there are gangs of Christian ladies roaming the NYC subway system, trying to convert people.
-
It's better then that, they go after our children. First the 10 Commandments show up in court, then they show up in school. My kid asks the teacher "What's that mean?" Teacher says "These are commandments from God". Kid says "My dad said there isn't a god." Teacher suggests that there is because the tiny little steps that started here have brought us to the point a few years from now where evangalism is considered appropriate.
Chairboy, what do you object to in the 10 commandments? What's the harm in posting them in court?
Later: Chairboy, all they're doing is posting them in our violence torn schools. What's the big deal? They're already in the courthouse, the school is hardly anything that different.
Later: Chairboy, what do you expect the teachers to say when asked? If you're really worried about what your children learn, teach them at home! Of course, I'm not sure how an atheist would teach values... but that's ok, God loves all his children!
Later: Chairboy, the teachers are people too, all they're doing is sharing their beliefs and the Lord's blessing with your children in school. What's the harm in that? You should feel blessed that our great country allows, nay, encourages people to spread the word of god. After all, our founding fathers were christian, it just goes to show you that christ has a strong role in the life of our nation. Telling me that your children should not be indoctrinated at a young age by teachers, why, you're robbing them of the blessings of the lord. Do you really want your children to grow up with an empty feeling in their soul where Jesus lives? Or do you love your children enough to allow their teachers to save their souls?
It always starts small, but that doesn't change where things go. It's a slippery slope, and since you're a christian, you don't see the same threat that I do. In fact, I suspect that you might tacitly approve of in-school indoctrination of christianity because you privately think that everyone SHOULD follow your religion. I'll go as far as to suggest that you are not seperating your beliefs from the issue at hand.
If the item in question was the posting of laws from the Quran, eg, a list that says things to the effect of 'no woman may show her face in public' or 'there is no god but allah' or some of the harder core stuff the various mullah's enforce in some countries, would you be as accepting?
-
The only thing with a soul darker than Satan himself is a born-again Christian.
-SW
-
10 commandments didn't keep the founding fathers from owning slaves.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy [4] to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Yeah lets kill people for working on sunday.
I've been reading this board for six years and have managed to stay out of every political and religious post so far, but this one gets my goat every time. Since when did Sunday become the seventh day of the week? The Jews have been selebrating Saturday long before Christianity came along and believe me, they have never missed a week or gotten the days mixed up.
Just sayin...
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I've been reading this board for six years and have managed to stay out of every political and religious post so far, but this one gets my goat every time. Since when did Sunday become the seventh day of the week? The Jews have been selebrating Saturday long before Christianity came along and believe me, they have never missed a week or gotten the days mixed up.
Just sayin...
Then you know that the reason some groups ( I didnt know jews did) celebrate/go to church on saturday so they dont violate the above rule about the sabbath.
http://www.topraise.net/pages/torah/sat-sun.htm
It is generally known and accepted that the early Christians observed the seventh day Sabbath, that is Saturday. It is also a matter of record that the Roman Catholic Church made the decision to change the Christian day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
A passage in The Cathechismus Romanus, printed in 1566 by order of Pope Pius V reads, "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's Day.'" The reader should know that there are multiple sources, which verify this fact. In short, the Catholic Church freely admits that, based on the same authority by which the doctrine of Purgatory was conceived, and "by virtue of her divine mission, substituted the observance of Sunday…… for the observance of Saturday, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority" (A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174).
seems that at the root of this decision was the desire to distance the predominately gentile church from anything resembling Judaism. In 365 A.D., the Council of Laodicea convened to settle, among other things, the Sabbath question. The Council stated that, "Christians must not Judaize on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather, honoring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema [accursed] from Christ (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. XIV, p. 184). In short, they forbade any Christian from resting on the day they readily agreed was the Sabbath, and established Sunday as the day of worship. At first glance, the logic behind this seems to be born out of the will to acknowledge "the Lord's Day." Yet, once again history brings this belief into question.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
christians and athiests are both fine with me so long as neither has a say in my life.
Lazs wins again.
-
The following is a random stream of replies. Sincere apologies to the uninterested.
1) Regarding tax exempt status It is true many churches and clergy misuse this status, but then again as we've seen even at the highest levels, so do NGOs and Non-profits. Regardless of your political point of view, the burgeoning Oil for Food scandal shows that even the world's largest NGO is riddled with corruption. People always will misuse benefits as long as there is a corrupt human nature at work. Additionally, businessmen frequently cheat on their expenses, and file false tax deductions. Is abuse an argument for ending the practice of tax deductions unilaterally? Take away tax-exemptions and our church would go under within a year, it would also force us to end all diaconal (charitable) assistance. Also, please keep in mind that the tax exemption only applies to the institution, I still pay income tax, soc. security, etc. and that on a salary that is much smaller than when I was a Systems Administrator in the corporate world. Most of the guys I know in the ministry have made huge sacrifices in time, money, and family, and generally we are the lowest paid workers with graduate degrees in America. The answer lies in greater accountability, and not donating to NGOs and NPs that aren't members of voluntary externally audited accountabilty organizations like ECFA. I myself am independently audited, and would be subject to church discipline and quite possibly permanent removal from office if I cooked my meagre books.
2) The presupposition seems to be that what we are fighting for is the introduction of Christianity into places where it historically didn't exist. The explicitly Christian prayer from the first congress at the beginning of the thread and countless other examples one could cite from the 18th-19th century show that opposite is true, that generic Christianity has been systematically removed from the public square.
This has reached the point where students are forbidden to pray prior to a football game, prior to eating in a school cafeteria, or at their graduation.
In Sweden pastors have already been successfully prosecuted simply for preaching on subjects like homosexuality. In Canada, a man who ran newspaper ads against same sex marriage was successfully prosecuted and heavily fined, while in Australia 2 ex-muslim pastors (both refugees from Muslim countries) were successfully prosecuted for "hate crimes" for teaching a seminar on Islam and quoting from the Koran. Generally speaking, America albeit slowly follows the cultural lead of the Western world, and there the signs for freedom of religion for Christians are not encouraging.
Also, please remember that there is no such thing as a truly neutral worldview, if we remove any mention of what the bible teaches about human sexuality from a forum, and instead invite homosexual advocates come in to teach their worldview (which is for instance the case in Bay Area and NYC Public Schools), we have made a positive decision to remove one philosophy and endorse another.
Most of us are simply advocating freedom of religion in the midst of growing campaign to create "freedom from Christian religion."
3) What makes these discussions generally impossible is that as a culture we have largely abandoned any notion of absolute truth. We have gone from endorsing Christ's "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6) to being far happier with Pilate's cynical "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
But if there is no final truth, no absolutes, and no final arbiter, then discussions of morals are ultimately meaningless. One cannot describe a point without another fixed and unchanging point of reference. It is as impossible as plotting your position on the sea from driftwood. Therefore, if all we have is "preferences" then as the existentialists pointed out "everything is ultimately meaningless" and who cares who rides the back of the bus?
Without an absolute standard, the actions of a Pol Pot or a Stalin are no better or worse than those of the greatest philanthropists. We may personally "prefer" the actions of the philanthropist, but we cannot call them "better," and then ultimately it devolves into a will-to-power to determine whose preferences win the day.
4) This may seem surprising, but I too was once militantly opposed to the Christian faith, I hated it and opposed its tennets and adherents as much as I could. I selfishly lived my life doing what seemed right in my own eyes and was grateful to no one and nothing. Had I continued on that line, I have no doubt that today I would be divorced, my children would be completely rudderless, and my life would be nothing but a nihilistic and selfish quest to get all I could before "winking out of existence." So yes Midnight, while I do have a calling to be always "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15) I'm not preaching anything I haven't personally experienced the power of myself.
Anyway... Sorry for being so dang longwinded. I've always held that for every complex question there is short answer, and its wrong.
- Seagoon
-
Egads, did I write all that? :eek:
When am I going to learn that these boards are for short, pithy, zingers designed to score quick points?
Bad Seagoon. Mea Maxima Moron. Must go finish sermon prep.
-
Regarding the tax exempt status, my comment has nothing to do with abuses of the tax exempt status. I just feel any religious organization wanting tax exempt status, should have to conform to the rules that any other tax-exempt organization has to follow.
-
SOB is specifically speaking about abuses of tax-exempt status.
-
I like pizza.
-
burritos are way better though
-
But what about taco pizza?! The kind with spicy red sauce to replace the pizza sauce, not the kind with refried beans.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But if there is no final truth, no absolutes, and no final arbiter, then discussions of morals are ultimately meaningless.
This statement is, IMO, patently false.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
[B
This has reached the point where students are forbidden to pray prior to a football game, prior to eating in a school cafeteria, or at their graduation.
[/B]
Yeah right. What you mean is they want to pray and make the rest of the stadium, cafeteria, graduation listen to it. No one has a problem with anyone praying its when they force others to have to sit through it that people are saying isn't allowed.
Let me ask you this, do you have to pray out loud?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Regarding the tax exempt status, my comment has nothing to do with abuses of the tax exempt status. I just feel any religious organization wanting tax exempt status, should have to conform to the rules that any other tax-exempt organization has to follow.
I'm curious as to what unfair benefits you feel that churches have under the tax code that other NPs don't? A summary of the requirements and restrictions on federal tax for churches is available at:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html (http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html)
Also, Engine state tax exemption laws make using your tax exempt id to purchase personal items a crime. Certain items, such as alcohol and tobacco, cannot be purchased on a tax exempt basis, and you cannot write them off as business expenses. I must admit that I am unsure about the status of pornography, but the false professor in your example was at least breaking one tax law.
- SEAGOON
-
Essentially, I feel there should be no distinction between a church and a non-profit. You're either for profit, or you're not. Drop the religious tax exemption, and if you want to be a charitable non-profit org, then abide by the rules that govern them, and all is good.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah right. What you mean is they want to pray and make the rest of the stadium, cafeteria, graduation listen to it. No one has a problem with anyone praying its when they force others to have to sit through it that people are saying isn't allowed.
Let me ask you this, do you have to pray out loud?
No Raider, we've already got court cases where a child was forbidden to say grace by himself before eating in the cafeteria, where students where forbidden to form an after-school bible club despite the presence of other political/philiosophical clubs including a Bi-gay-transgender club, where schools have mandated a no-bibles brought to school policy, and situations where students can wear T-shirts with all sorts of messages, political and otherwise, but not Christian ones.
But the issue strikes at the heart of the free speech issue. At my HS graduation way back in 1987, I was forced to sit through the valedectorian lecturing me about how combustion engines are destroying the planet, and how we all had to go out and work for the whales, to protect our "mother" Gaia, and to end corporate greed. The audience sat through what basically boiled down to an introduction to teenage Earth worship and Ecco-Marxism. Now why should the girl in question have a fundamental right to encourage her fellow students to "smash the machine" and worship the earth, while an other has no right to say word one about Christianity or even to pray out loud?
If you say, because we judge her religion to be preferable, and we despise yours, then so be it. But let us then at least have an end to appeals to equality, etc.
- SEAGOON
-
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - KJV
see above
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
No Raider, we've already got court cases where a child was forbidden to say grace by himself before eating in the cafeteria, where students where forbidden to form an after-school bible club despite the presence of other political/philiosophical clubs including a Bi-gay-transgender club, where schools have mandated a no-bibles brought to school policy, and situations where students can wear T-shirts with all sorts of messages, political and otherwise, but not Christian ones.
But the issue strikes at the heart of the free speech issue. At my HS graduation way back in 1987, I was forced to sit through the valedectorian lecturing me about how combustion engines are destroying the planet, and how we all had to go out and work for the whales, to protect our "mother" Gaia, and to end corporate greed. The audience sat through what basically boiled down to an introduction to teenage Earth worship and Ecco-Marxism. Now why should the girl in question have a fundamental right to encourage her fellow students to "smash the machine" and worship the earth, while an other has no right to say word one about Christianity or even to pray out loud?
If you say, because we judge her religion to be preferable, and we despise yours, then so be it. But let us then at least have an end to appeals to equality, etc.
- SEAGOON
Sorry but I doubt your cases authenticity. Perhaps you have a news link to it? The only case I found of it the courts gave the girl the right to pray and sided with her rights to pray privately.
Here is a quote from the ACLU
Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.
CAN MY SCHOOL HAVE PRAYERS AT GRADUATION?
No. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided in Lee v. Weisman that graduation prayers are unconstitutional in public schools. Think about it: graduation prayers would give nonbelievers or kids of other faiths the feeling that their participation in prayer is required. It doesn't matter who leads the prayer a minister, a priest, a rabbi, whoever, or whether the prayer is nondenominational some kids would feel left out.
WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS CLUBS OR BIBLE DISTRIBUTION?
Studentorganized Bible clubs are OK as long as three conditions are met: (1) the activity must take place during nonschool hours; (2) school officials can't be involved in organizing or running the club, and (3) the school must make its facilities available to all student groups on an equal basis. So your Bible club couldn't be the only group allowed access to the school grounds. Neither could your school let other student groups use the building for meetings and events and deny your Bible club the same opportunity.
The organized distribution of Bibles or any other holy book during the school day is unconstitutional, even if teachers aren't the ones actually handing out the Bibles, and even if they're not used as a part of the school's educational program. That's because the school building or grounds are still being used to spread a religious doctrine at a time when students are required to be there.
Maybe you need to contact the ACLU for help if these cases you are citing are real. But I would be willing to bet they are not following the rules and thats why they are in trouble.
I see what you want though and you want to use schools to spread the word of God as you see it. Children are very susceptible to external influences such as religion and by taking it into the schools is a cheap way to get a few more converters. Link me to those cases cause I cant find them. I doubt they are true or if they are there is more behind them then just some little kid saying his little grace, Or some group that sits in school after its over and reads the bible.In the one case I found the teacher was wrong and the courts fixed it.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
No Raider, we've already got court cases where a child was forbidden to say grace by himself before eating in the cafeteria, where students where forbidden to form an after-school bible club despite the presence of other political/philiosophical clubs including a Bi-gay-transgender club, where schools have mandated a no-bibles brought to school policy, and situations where students can wear T-shirts with all sorts of messages, political and otherwise, but not Christian ones.
I'd be curious to see a link to the story about the child who was forbidden to say grace by himself, and the end result of that.
Schools do plenty of stupid things, and in my opinion, banning bibles, religious clubs, t-shirts with Jebus on 'em, ect is no exception.
-
Seagoon, the priest buying $300+ of porn with his tax-exempt card, I threw it in as a funny story, nothing more. Of course it was wrong, and of course it was illegal, and of course he was a ******* for doing it. At least it was porn, though, and not something stupid like a Golden Girls collectors DVD boxed set.
-
Golden Girls is finally out on DVD?! Woohoooo!!!
-
MiniD bought the last copy.... sorry.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
Since when did Sunday become the seventh day of the week? The Jews have been selebrating Saturday long before Christianity came along and believe me, they have never missed a week or gotten the days mixed up.
Just sayin...
Sunday become the Sabbath day for Christians when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion of the Empire: it was already the day of rest in the roman pantheon and wasn't worth changing apparently.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Essentially, I feel there should be no distinction between a church and a non-profit. You're either for profit, or you're not. Drop the religious tax exemption, and if you want to be a charitable non-profit org, then abide by the rules that govern them, and all is good.
Ahh religious institutions losing their tax exempt status. That came about from an unvoted upon piece of.........legislation authored by none other than (then) Senator Lyndon Baynes Johnson in an attempt to squelch mounting opposition to his senatorial re-election campaign in 1954. It seems that the pathological liar and all around coward LBJ was being exposed from the Texan pulpits. Lawd knows we cain't hay-ve
op-osit-sheyun to the likes of LBJ. A classic piece of democratic party demagogory and bogus legislation. A pastor cannot speak his mind on political issues from the pulpit, eg. our 1st amendment rights are denied us.
say it ain't so.
:D
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'd be curious to see a link to the story about the child who was forbidden to say grace by himself, and the end result of that.
Sexist.
-
It could be that I as a christian , am weak in certain areas. I'm not ashamed by any means. Quite proud of the changes in my life really.
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.
:(
-
Raider,
The following brief review of actual cases was drawn up in 1995 when the Religious Liberty ammendment was being debated. The one I mentioned specifically was Raines vs. Cleveland Young in bold below. I've cut some cases for the sake of space You'll find the larger article at:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16467/article_detail.asp (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16467/article_detail.asp)
The Case for A Religious Liberty Amendment
Conservative spokesman William Bennett describes religious discrimination as “the last respectable form of bigotry in America.” Yale law professor and self-described liberal Stephen Carter says religious people are unfairly excluded from public affairs today. Both blame twisted interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment was drafted to protect religious liberties by forbidding government interference in religion. Many modern politicians and judges have used it to forbid public expressions of faith, however. This, warns Stephen Carter, is exactly backwards: “The danger the separation of church and state guards against is not religion,” he says. “It is the state.”
Below are some recent examples of how the state now interferes with American religious practice. Many observers believe cases like these collectively call for strengthened Constitutional protections for religious freedoms.
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Never view the lost as the enemy, but rather as captives of the real enemy.
Lost. LOL.
-
...
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'
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
SEAGOON
-
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?
-
.. the love you take is equal to the love you make
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Tried to be humorous........
How's that?
Not funny
-
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?
-
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
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Tell me.... I had posted that from a screen name that said it was Christian, would you react the same?
Yep
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Yep
Skeptical.
-
Seagoon, it was not the intent of my original post to bring up the argument of which day to worship on. I simply wanted to say that Sunday was the first day of the week. But after your last post, I feel obligated to respond.
First let me say that I have enjoyed reading your posts and have agreed with most of them up until now. They have been eloquent and well thought out, but have a few issues with your last.
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.
This is an opinion and not bible based. To say that the substance is in the keeping of one day and not the day appointed by God is to rewrite the law.
Christ said in Matthew Chapter 5 verse 18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. And in Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Not by ecclesiastic [church] authority. “The church,” says Mr Perkins, “has no power to ordain a Sabbath.”
But the church did just that. It’s a well documented fact that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day of worship to Sunday around 300AD as was mentioned twice in this thread already. Ask any Bishop. It is not a secret.
(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.
Non of these texts say the day was changed to Sunday. Christ died on Friday, rested in his grave on Saturday and was raised on Sunday. Never once did He say that the Sabbath was changed to honor his resurrection.
Mark 16:1: And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
(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.
Jesus and his disciples were Jews. To say that they did not keep the Seventh day as the Sabbath is silly. The apostles preached the Word every day of the week. It is not surprising that they did it on Sunday in the above text, they also did it on other days of the week. Again, nowhere does it say they were keeping the day holy.
Acts 18:4 And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
(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.
This is hearsay. I don’t see anything from the Bible here.
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.
There is no arguing that redemption was the greatest gift to mankind, but that has little to do with changing the Sabbath day. The Sabbath is forever.
Isaiah 66:22, 23. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord."
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."
He could have, but He didn’t. It’s dangerous to tamper with God’s law.
Deuteronomy 4:2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God.
Proverbs 30:5, 6. Every word of God is pure. ... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
What is boils down to is, the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is not biblical. You can read the Bible from the first word to the last and not find one verse that says the Sabbath day was changed. It is a matter of history that a Roman emperor changed it.
I believe that people from all denominations will be saved. Your walk with God is between you and Him. But I also believe that when you meet your maker and he asks if you have kept His commandments, you had better have a good answer.
This post is not meant to offend anyone (although I’m quite sure it has,) I just thought I should show the readers the other side of the coin.
Being that you’re a minister and have quite remarkable credentials, I know that your already firmly entrenched in you belief. Let us agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. As I have said, I enjoy reading your posts and look forward to seeing a good deal more of your wisdom.
-
Me ho mah... Ding bok choi.
Whatever.
Love one another. That's all.
I'd like to give a shout out to my crew; Careening Satellites of the Apocalypse, word.
-
I am by no means a biblical scholar, but my old man has spent a lifetime studying the bible and some of his findings have managed to stick in my dense ol' head.
It has been my understanding that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by a Roman emperor to accomodate his subjects that worshiped the sun. Unifying the empire was his primary objective, and the people that had worshiped the sun (a large percentage of the Roman Empire) wanted nothing to do with Christianity. The switch from Saturday to Sunday was made to accommodate the members of the Roman Empire that wouldn't observe the Sabbath, Saturday, but worshiped their deity on Sunday.
By switching the official day of worship he effectively eliminated the animosity and strife that existed between the two factions of his empire.
Almost 2000 years later our culture still observes the Sabbath on the wrong day.
If it matters, worship and devotion to God, whomever He may be for you, is a daily practice, not a weekly obligation.
If you don't believe in a God, then the daily practice of the example of Christ, generosity, humbleness, kindness etc. is still a ruler to live your life by.
All this detris is IMHO of course.
5am here, my O aint so H right now :D
-
Doctus cum libro.
When in her cyclopean sex I pushed in my stake, such Homer's Ulysses, I had it straight, rather bitter; tis I, great God, whom saw no more.
-
What he^^ said!!
??:confused:??
bah, read it again, it's clear as milk now.
-
Chickenhawk,
Thank you for your kind words, I personally consider my credentials to be unremarkable, albeit expensive in more ways than one. ;)
I agree that this is not the best forum for internecine arguments amongst bible-believing Christians. An old proverb about laundry comes to mind. So I'll close out my contributions to the "Why Sunday?" sub-thread with the following.
I have always been a great lover of history and one of my favorite areas of historical study is the documents of the early church - i.e. the writings that were produced just after the close of the apostolic age (somewhere about 90AD when John died) and the written dialogue amongst the Romans who were initially trying to figure out and actively suppress the early church. To date, nothing I have read in these documents indicates that the early church met for worship on Saturday, in fact "the Lord's day" seems to have been the normal day for the gathered worship of the church. Let me give you just a couple of examples:
1) From the First Apology of Justin Martyr (a.d. 110-165)
This was addressed to the Emperor in an attempt to prove that the practices and beliefs of Christians were lawful and their persecution an injustice, apparently his work did not have the desired effect as he was martyred under Emperor Marcus Aurelius:
"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration"
[Justin Martyr, First Apology, CHAP. LXVII.--WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS]
From the Didache (Circa Early 100s):
"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." [The Didache, Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day.]
Now it is possible that the practice of the early church changed very quickly in this respect following the death of the apostles, but unlikely. Also, keep in mind that the only day of the week that the church is spoken of as gathering to worship is on the Lord's Day - (Acts 20:7, Also compare Justin's comments about the collection on the Lord's Day to Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 16:1-2)
Regarding the immutability of the Law, that God's moral is eternal, I will readily agree. But keep in mind that the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that the Ceremonial Laws (see especially Hebrews 10) were shadows - specifically foreshadowing or pointing forward to the reality which came with Christ. The Decalogue (which is the substance of the Moral Law) specifies that one day in Seven is to be the Lord's Day devoted to rest and the worship of the Lord, originally that day was Saturday, and commemorated the conclusion of God's creating work. Most Christians feel that now that the Lord's Day is to be celebrated on the "Lord's Day" and commemorates the conclusion of his work in redeeming creation
Regardless, I agree that when you observe the one day in seven is not an essential of salvation, and I have enjoyed fruitfull fellowship with many seventh day adventists. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.
Hoping you had an edifying Lord's Day I remain your servant,
SEAGOON
-
Its because the Christians wanted to seperate completely from the Jews. So it got changed to Sunday.
-
I think the whole point is that when you combine religion with money then ultimately money becomes the religion.
And politics baby, is all about money.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Its because the Christians wanted to seperate completely from the Jews. So it got changed to Sunday.
I'm curious where you got this information. I've been well versed in this subject for some time and have never heard this before. By most accounts I've read, Las has the right of it. I'm open minded though and would love to see a historical reference.
Seagoon, I know we both have enough information supporting our own views to keep this thread alive for weeks, if not months. This debate predates both of us and of course won't not be settled here, so I too will make this my last post on the subject.
I see that from your fellowship you already know that I hold the Commandments apart from the Ceremonial Laws that were nailed to the cross, but I will spare the board another long list of texts.
Regardless, it has been fun matching wits with you. I know that we hold many of the same values and look forward to backing you up on other subjects.
Your brother in Christ,
ChickenHawk
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I'm curious where you got this information. I've been well versed in this subject for some time and have never heard this before. By most accounts I've read, Las has the right of it. I'm open minded though and would love to see a historical reference.
B]
You never heard that christians split off from the jews? Anyway my point was that Christians, after persecution by the Romans, which the Jews had also faced (although earlier) wanted to have nothing to tie them to Judaism. I base it off the Theodosian Code. Written by the emperor Theodosius II 408-450 which contains all the edicts from Constantine I till his time. But if you want me to point out 1 certain quote I cannot. I base it on the lengths they went to to seperate themselves from judaism.
Here is one though
Theodosian Code XVI.1.2
We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict.
Here is how christianity became a recognized religion.
311 Emperor Galeriu in the grips of a frightening disease, decided to strike a bargain with the Christian God. His edict of toleration granted Christians freedom of worship, in exchange for their prayers for him. A few days after issuing the edict, Galerius was dead.
The following year Constantine I 306-337, a claimant to the imperial throne, was campaigning in Italy against a rival. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, prior to battle Constantine had a vision in which the christian god promised him victory, and shortly thereafter he won a decisive victory, therby becoming the uncontested emperor in the west. In gratitude, Constantine and the Emperor of the eastern half of the empire met in 313 in Milan where they reached an agreement regarding freedom of worship for all persons in the empire and recognition of the full legal status of each local christian church.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Christians, after persecution by the Romans, which the Jews had also faced (although earlier) wanted to have nothing to tie them to Judaism.
I stand corrected. After you brought it to my attention I did some checking and I now see that this was also a contributing factor.