| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2007 07:43:00 PM · #226 |
 Karmat, your post was absolutely wonderful. You epitomize what is good about the Christian faith (or any faith, for that matter). Thank you for restoring my faith - in humanity.
Message edited by author 2007-10-30 19:44:13. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 08:17:59 PM · #227 |
| Hawkeye, you would do well to listen to karmat. You would do well to listen to Milo655321. You would do well to recognize that the principles of science and those of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the greatest minds in science have been believers. Open your mind. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 09:08:45 PM · #228 |
I think Karmat covered what i wanted to say on Christianity, so i'm going to go back to the whole "separation of church and state" deal. That is never stated in the Constitution. Most people dont bother to read the Constitution for themselves, they just believe whatever the media has told them. The Constitution isn't saying that church and state can't be together, it is saying that the government is not allowed to make a law saying that only one religion is allowed or that one religion is not allowed. Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 09:46:38 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Every Rasta I have met can quote scripture better than any preacher I have heard and they are more devout then most "Christians" I have met. But they don't discount me for what I believe. |
Based on the perception of a non-Christian they are more "devout", and I'm not discounting you for your beliefs. I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
|
I have just re-read this thread and I need to clear one thing up. In the above statement you assume I am non-Christian. I have yet to declare what my faith is in this thread as I don't see the relevance to the issue. One should be more careful to mind the facts. You know the old saying about assuming. :-) |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 09:48:03 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 09:51:05 PM · #231 |
There is a simple solution to all of this. SCHOOL CHOICE & VOUCHERS
Every parent could then send their kids to a school that educates those in the way that the parents desire. Different strokes for different folks. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 09:59:05 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 10:17:16 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by muckpond:
karmat just single-handedly restored my faith in people. and for that, i truly thank her. |
Same here. |
And another cheer here.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 10:28:27 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon. |
Just because our country was supposedly founded on one religion does not give the followers of that religion any more rights than members of any other any other. Even the founding fathers would agree with that.
There are two clauses in the 1st amendment regarding the freedom of religion, the first clause, known as the "Establishment Clause" says that the government will not establish a state religion. The courts have long interpreted this as "separation of church and state". Specifically in regards to schools, since the public school is a government entity, endorsement of any religious activity by the school is, in effect, endorsing (establishing) an official religion.
The other clause is known as the "Free Exercise Clause". In short, it means that every person is free to worship in the way they choose. That doesn't open the gates to do anything you wish in the name of religion however, the government can limit religious rituals and actions. (think polygamy, human sacrifice etc.)
I don't have a problem with reading the bible, or any other religious text, privately. If you're talking about this case, then I agree that the school officials went too far.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 10:32:37 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon. |
Just because our country was supposedly founded on one religion does not give the followers of that religion any more rights than members of any other any other. Even the founding fathers would agree with that.
There are two clauses in the 1st amendment regarding the freedom of religion, the first clause, known as the "Establishment Clause" says that the government will not establish a state religion. The courts have long interpreted this as "separation of church and state". Specifically in regards to schools, since the public school is a government entity, endorsement of any religious activity by the school is, in effect, endorsing (establishing) an official religion.
The other clause is known as the "Free Exercise Clause". In short, it means that every person is free to worship in the way they choose. That doesn't open the gates to do anything you wish in the name of religion however, the government can limit religious rituals and actions. (think polygamy, human sacrifice etc.)
I don't have a problem with reading the bible, or any other religious text, privately. If you're talking about this case, then I agree that the school officials went too far. |
I never said Christians should have more freedom than anyone else, i just said that they should have the same freedom. and the government didn't endorse Christianity by allowing prayer, they just permitted it.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 10:56:23 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon. |
Just because our country was supposedly founded on one religion does not give the followers of that religion any more rights than members of any other any other. Even the founding fathers would agree with that.
There are two clauses in the 1st amendment regarding the freedom of religion, the first clause, known as the "Establishment Clause" says that the government will not establish a state religion. The courts have long interpreted this as "separation of church and state". Specifically in regards to schools, since the public school is a government entity, endorsement of any religious activity by the school is, in effect, endorsing (establishing) an official religion.
The other clause is known as the "Free Exercise Clause". In short, it means that every person is free to worship in the way they choose. That doesn't open the gates to do anything you wish in the name of religion however, the government can limit religious rituals and actions. (think polygamy, human sacrifice etc.)
I don't have a problem with reading the bible, or any other religious text, privately. If you're talking about this case, then I agree that the school officials went too far. |
I never said Christians should have more freedom than anyone else, i just said that they should have the same freedom. and the government didn't endorse Christianity by allowing prayer, they just permitted it. |
The problem is not one of allowing prayer in school, it's when schools go beyond simply allowing prayer and start leading prayer, say at a graduation ceremony, a school assembly or even a teacher leading prayer before giving an exam. Then it becomes a state sponsored religious activity.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:01:28 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon. |
Just because our country was supposedly founded on one religion does not give the followers of that religion any more rights than members of any other any other. Even the founding fathers would agree with that.
There are two clauses in the 1st amendment regarding the freedom of religion, the first clause, known as the "Establishment Clause" says that the government will not establish a state religion. The courts have long interpreted this as "separation of church and state". Specifically in regards to schools, since the public school is a government entity, endorsement of any religious activity by the school is, in effect, endorsing (establishing) an official religion.
The other clause is known as the "Free Exercise Clause". In short, it means that every person is free to worship in the way they choose. That doesn't open the gates to do anything you wish in the name of religion however, the government can limit religious rituals and actions. (think polygamy, human sacrifice etc.)
I don't have a problem with reading the bible, or any other religious text, privately. If you're talking about this case, then I agree that the school officials went too far. |
I never said Christians should have more freedom than anyone else, i just said that they should have the same freedom. and the government didn't endorse Christianity by allowing prayer, they just permitted it. |
The problem is not one of allowing prayer in school, it's when schools go beyond simply allowing prayer and start leading prayer, say at a graduation ceremony, a school assembly or even a teacher leading prayer before giving an exam. Then it becomes a state sponsored religious activity. |
I see where you are coming from but i disagree. Sponsoring and allowing are quite different things. If they allow a teacher to do that, then the teacher takes full responsibility for it. Sponsoring would be telling the teacher that that is how it must be done.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:03:14 PM · #238 |
Man, you turn off Rant for a month or two and then you miss out on this beautiful thread...
Hawkeye I recommend you check out a book called "A Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren. It's a good read. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:06:55 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Our founders didn't want our children to not be able to pray in school, or read the Bible in school, they wanted us to be accepting to all religions. |
Not that I believe that religious education has any place in public school, but there are over 100 different modern versions of the Bible in English alone. Which one do you propose as the school Bible? No matter which one you pick, you will exclude and offend someone.
What about the Koran? the Talmud? the Book of Mormon? the Satanic Bible? the Sacred Buddhist Scriptures? the Wiccan Bible? would you also pick an official version of and offer education in those text and the texts of all other possible beliefs as well?
Acceptance of all religions is very different from including them in a public school. |
I see your point, but what religion was our country founded upon? and I didn't say they had to teach the Bible in school. I said that they should be allowed to read the Bible. No one gets in trouble for reading a Koran at school, but people do get in trouble for reading from the Bible which our country was founded on. How does that work? We are so caught up in being politically correct that we can't tell someone that they can't read their Koran or Mormon or Wiccan Bible, because we might offend them, but somehow we feel just fine telling someone that they can't read the one Book that our country was founded upon. |
Just because our country was supposedly founded on one religion does not give the followers of that religion any more rights than members of any other any other. Even the founding fathers would agree with that.
There are two clauses in the 1st amendment regarding the freedom of religion, the first clause, known as the "Establishment Clause" says that the government will not establish a state religion. The courts have long interpreted this as "separation of church and state". Specifically in regards to schools, since the public school is a government entity, endorsement of any religious activity by the school is, in effect, endorsing (establishing) an official religion.
The other clause is known as the "Free Exercise Clause". In short, it means that every person is free to worship in the way they choose. That doesn't open the gates to do anything you wish in the name of religion however, the government can limit religious rituals and actions. (think polygamy, human sacrifice etc.)
I don't have a problem with reading the bible, or any other religious text, privately. If you're talking about this case, then I agree that the school officials went too far. |
I never said Christians should have more freedom than anyone else, i just said that they should have the same freedom. and the government didn't endorse Christianity by allowing prayer, they just permitted it. |
The problem is not one of allowing prayer in school, it's when schools go beyond simply allowing prayer and start leading prayer, say at a graduation ceremony, a school assembly or even a teacher leading prayer before giving an exam. Then it becomes a state sponsored religious activity. |
I see where you are coming from but i disagree. Sponsoring and allowing are quite different things. If they allow a teacher to do that, then the teacher takes full responsibility for it. Sponsoring would be telling the teacher that that is how it must be done. |
In the classroom, the teacher represents, not him/herself, but the school.
Any employee, when at work, represents their employer and the employer is largely responsible for their actions. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:12:01 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I see where you are coming from but i disagree. Sponsoring and allowing are quite different things. If they allow a teacher to do that, then the teacher takes full responsibility for it. Sponsoring would be telling the teacher that that is how it must be done. |
Ryan. Overall I agree with your position & points made on this topic. With regards to the teacher taking responsibility - the teacher is an employee of the school system and ultimately the school is still in charge and held accountable for teachers' actions. Another consideration is that the students are a captive audience in the scenarios that you responded to.
I'm glad we have a solid Sunday School program at our church! :-)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:12:33 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
In the classroom, the teacher represents, not him/herself, but the school.
Any employee, when at work, represents their employer and the employer is largely responsible for their actions. |
In that case, i have no problem with the employer not allowing prayer in his/her school, because that one person is not government affecting the entire country.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:15:52 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm glad we have a solid Sunday School program at our church! :-) |
Which, is where religious education belongs. Unless, of course, one attends a religious school. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:23:38 PM · #243 |
I still think teachers and/or schools shouldn’t use 6 year olds to advertise, unless it's school related.
And... I don’t understand what you all are arguing about??? Duh, only mormons in good standing that know the secret handshake and password can get into heaven. The rest of you are just flat out wrong!
|
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:30:23 PM · #244 |
| Only things worse than religious fanactics are kids. |
|
|
|
10/30/2007 11:34:49 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
... Duh, only mormons in good standing that know the secret handshake and password can get into heaven. The rest of you are just flat out wrong! |
For a brief moment there was a glimmer of hope... I misread it... I thought it said morons... oh well.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/31/2007 12:31:05 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by ryand:
... what religion was our country founded upon? |
Most of the important Founding Fathers were more Deists* than "Christians," at least as the latter word is being used in this thread.
*An exerpt:
Deism in America
In America, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by Deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Although these men were members of traditional Christian denominations (Hugh Williamson was a Presbyterian and the rest were Episcopalians), their political speeches show distinct Deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly Deist. These include Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize Deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American Deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize Deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York." |
|
|
|
10/31/2007 01:08:10 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by karmat:
GeneralE and I agree on NOTHING politically ... |
I think we can agree that if more people lived their lives according to Jesus' teachings* and spent less time debating his divinity the world would be a lot better off.
Add my thanks to those already expressed for your post.
*Coincidentally, these are almost exactly the same as the teachings of Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Confucious, and almost everyone else who's organized and written down a set of rules for conduct in the format of divine revelation. There's really very little difference in the content of the rules, only in the name of the revelator ... :-(
"It must be really hard to stand up in a coffehouse or college auditorium and come out in favor of peace and justice and brotherhood and all the other things the audience is against."
"I know there are people who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that."
--Tom Lehrer
Message edited by author 2007-10-31 01:09:00. |
|
|
|
10/31/2007 01:32:04 AM · #248 |
|
|
|
10/31/2007 06:56:05 AM · #249 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"I know there are people who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that."
--Tom Lehrer |
Didn't he once say
"All extremists should be shot!" |
|
|
|
10/31/2007 08:47:06 AM · #250 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I suggest //answersingenesis.org for some great reading for those open-minded enough to dismiss junk science (like flat earth, evolution, and global warming) |
haha, great! Why not give 'em a Chick Tract while you're at it?
|
|
