I commented recently over at Brainville, saying this about my beer > religion post:
Wait till I post the catalyst for me doing a search for the Ten Commandments of Beer.Hoo-boy. And here I was wondering when religion and the state would get discussed on the employee newsgroup!
*sigh*
Exactly one week ago, Susanna* posted the following message unsolicited in the Miscellaneous newsgroup, one of three newsgroups employees at TASB have to discuss things. One newsgroup is for technology questions only, one is a For Sale forum, and the third is Miscellaneous. It is where everything else goes, general discussion and things like that.
Samuel Thompson wrote:I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome...
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me..
The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want.. it is time the majority rules!
It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly you are no longer going to take our rights away .. we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN! After all the God you have the right to denounce is on our side!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him...
God bless America, despite all her faults.. still the greatest nation of all.....
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God...
May 2003 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up...... In God WE Trust
If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not, delete it!!
*I've removed everyone's last names out of respect for their privacy. My name is repeated in full. The thread follows below with the first comment.
UPDATE(10:17pm)
Cleaned up some stuff. All text formatting appears as it does in the original thread.
This is Wonderful
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
That doesn't sound like a government founded on Christian principles. It sounds more secular in nature to me.
I don't know of any group of people, atheist or otherwise who say that any other group of people should not be allowed to pray when and where they want, but to have the U.S. government support any one religion over another, or religion in general over atheist IS unconstitutional.
Anyone can pray anywhere and anytime, however, public schools are meant for everyone, both Christian and non-Christian alike.
Should we therefore allow all religions to say their particular prayers, or pray in their own manner at that time?
You can pray all day long, without having to subject other people to your traditions.
Neither the U.S. government nor any other group of people has said at that a person can not pray or worship as you believe. You can do this, but it's not correct to subject/enforce this on people of other religions, or atheists/agnostics who do not pray, or believe as you do.
What makes this possible? The American governement is a secular government that allows all religions (ideally) to flourish, as well as atheists/agnostics - but at the same time shows no preference for one or another.
If anyone would like to debate this with me further in a more appropriate place, please come to my desk after 5:00 pm and I'd be happy to disucss politics and religion for hours on end.
Cheers
I will definitely pray for those who do not believe in GOD.
-Susanna
I'd like to point out that Jesus was a Jew.
-Michelle #1
One of TASB's primary purposes is to represent school boards when lawmakers make decisions affecting Texas school districts. The Association's Governmental Relations Division monitors legislative developments, keeps members up to date on activities, and promotes TASB's Advocacy Agenda face-to-face with state and federal lawmakers, the State Board of Education, and other agencies.
The following paragraph about the advocacy agenda explains part of the process.
The Advocacy Agenda of the Texas Association of School Boards is developed through a comprehensive Grassroots Process and adopted by the Association's Delegate Assembly. Cornerstone Principles have uniform support of school board members. Priorities are high-profile, high-commitment legislative objectives. Positions are stances guiding TASB's response to issues that might come before the Legislature or other governmental agencies, such as the State Board of Education.
In case you are curious, the two declarations that follow are both positions stated in the TASB Advocacy Agenda
TASB shall support the voluntary posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of every classroom.
TASB shall support allowing student-initiated and student-sponsored prayer at school events and efforts by districts to provide moments of silence at school events.
Just in case you forgot the question, here it is again. What should you do if you disagree with your employer?
Glad I work for a Great Company
-Marilyn
What should you do if you disagree with your employer?
Personally, I do not see a problem with TASB's support of voluntary posting of the 10 C's in every classroom, they are 'Rules' to live by for a civilized society, maybe it should be re-worded as
"10 Rules To Live By", therefore taking away any religious context that might offend some.
As for TASB's position of supporting student-initiated and student-sponsored prayer at school events and moments of silence;
Who would be offended by that? Don't Atheist find the need to take a moment of internal reflection before proceeding unto a difficult task? Don't WE all do this?
I think that as long as this prayer is not advertised as a 'Christian' prayer, and it is spontaneous, who's business is it if students want to pray before going into class or onto the football field before a game? It's their parent's business; if they taught their children to pray before eating, taking a test, or playing a game, then, who are we to tell them they are wrong?
I just don't see where religion belongs in a public school. It is run by a government; BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, not: BY THE (your religious affiliation), etc.
I feel that praying is a personal and deeply private affair, but, a moment of silence? Who would object to a group of students that want to participate in this before any activity? Would you rather see them not caring whether their team played well, not caring whether they pass a major test?
Religion belongs in our homes, churches, and our hearts. The school belongs to everyone, not just Christians.
One thing Christians understand is how to tolerate differences in others, also, to share their beliefs with others, but that does NOT mean forcing their beliefs on others!
America is a great melting pot, has been since it's beginning, and we should hope (and pray) it remains that way. The oppressed of the world need a shining light to come to.
Learn to accept other's differences and they will accept or respect yours.
America will not fall if YOUR religion does not rule over all.
It WILL fall if one religion, or, no religion, rules all.
We are destined to repeat the past if we do not learn from the past.
That's my 2 cents. (stepping off my soap box now)
-Natalie
The Ten Commandments cannot be transformed into "Ten Rules to Live By." The first commandment concerns having no strange gods before God. The second commandment, among other things, concerns making no graven images of anything on heaven or earth or underwater. The first commandment makes no sense when interpreted in secular fashion, and the second commandment would mean the end of art education in public schools.
In fact, when you get down to it, only 5 through 10 could reasonably be applicable in the secular world. 10, however, seems a trifle unrealistic, since if we never coveted the goods of our neighbors, the entire country (which depends on consumer spending) would grind to a halt.
However, I agree about having a moment of silence, which seems fair enough.
-Joseph
TASB is an advocate of those two issues only because its members voted that TASB should be.
Had the vote gone the other way, TASB would not be supporting them.-David
And, we Christians are still enduring and overcoming a lot to this very day. But if it were not for the strength of our Faith we would've surely fallen many years ago. We are definitely a "helping" and "compassionate" people.
We are indeed a "melting pot" for all peoples from all places...we will love each and every one of you that come to our country and help you in any way that we possibly can.
I, too am very glad to be working for a company that has a handle on what this great country of ours
was founded on...Christianity!
-Susanna
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the "Christians" that settled this country the very same one's that burned women & children at the stake? This country was not founded on Christianity-it was founded for freedom of religion.
-Patricia
The Christianty the Europeans brought with them to New England is one hardly anyone today would enjoy living under. Capital punishment for adultery & lying, expulsion and humiliation for not believing in their religious code, a determination to drive people towards ascetic lives, etc. They were called "Puritans" for a reason. :)
Not everyone believed and supported the same things back then...but they were, in general, intensely more strict and harsh than anything we've got today. I'm glad what evolved from them eventually became a nation where the government plays as little role as possible in religious affairs.
-Charles Hueter
best i can recollect the puritans disliked the church of england because they believe the king (forgot his name) corrupted it in some manner by marrying 50 wives or somethin, anyway they fled to the dutch and the dutch were afraid of england and so sent them back. they then came to america to create a "pure" church of england free from the corruption of the state and king. and of course you were not allowed to live in their little communities unless you were a puritan because you would corrupt the new church. a william penn thing... anyway as the communities evolved and began to realize the freedom they truly had in the new world they wandered from those original standings and quit drowning people as "tests of innocense" and became very good safehavens for anyone arriving in the new world.
Some argue that those puritans founded this country since they were the first here with any kind of organization beyond the penal colonies and so no, freedom of religion is quite opposite to our original foundings... in fact you had to be puritan or live outside the puritan communities (hence jamestown) but its very hard to pinpoint our founding... the first people over here were Europes criminals. Both us and Australia were penal colonies for Europe. America seemed to really take off though because it was closer to get to, better land, richer "riches", and what not than australia and unbeknowest England as well... So once we decided no representation without taxation we took off!!!
Most people consider our original foundings to be after the declaration because the declaration still has most of the idealologies Americans stand by today in it such as freedom of religion, public education, etc... Which for the most part we were not united until that point. We were still very "not united" as we detested a central government and wanted the states to have self representing power (which is something we might should have continued thru to today - ASHCROFT [not to name names...])
It all depends on when you consider America founded.-Joshua
Some pretty good discussion going here.My 2 cents:
Regardless of how you feel, there must be a separation of church and state in order for our government to have unbiased legislature. If we favor one religion/set of beliefs over another - it will affect how our laws govern society. As stated earlier - our nation IS a melting pot - we have all sorts of religions and belief systems. That's part of what makes us such a diverse nation. Part of the FREEDOM of living in the United States is having the freedom to choose what you believe. Along with that, I think that we must be tolerant of other belief systems, even if we do not agree with them. I believe we must approach everything with an open-mind; if we don't, how are we to learn anything?
I do not believe the Ten Commandments have any place in our court houses or capitol. Nor do I believe that prayer at football games or any other public school or government supported event. A moment of silence is perfectly fine - students may do what they wish - be it prayer, pondering something, whatever. It just is not fair to assume that everyone has the same belief system - or that everyone wants to partake in mass prayer.
-Kelli
(CNSNews.com) - A judicial panel Thursday ruled that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore be removed from his position for disobeying a judge's orders to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state courthouse.
"In this case, the chief justice exhausted all of his legal remedies and was unsuccessful to stay the injunction issued by the federal district court. In defying that court order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Presiding Judge William Thompson.
In reaction to the ruling, Moore said he was removed from his job for acknowledging God. Moore pointed to Attorney General Bill Pryor's questions in his cross-examination of Moore.
Pryor asked Moore: "Your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?" Moore answered: "Yes."
Pryor then asked: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?" Moore replied: "That's right."
"No matter what any official says?" Pryor asked Moore.
"Absolutely," Moore answered. "Without - let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read."
"The only point I'm trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?" Pryor asked Moore.
"Well, I'll do the same thing this court did with starting a prayer; that's an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,'" Moore answered.
"It's an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opened with: 'God save the State and this Honorable Court.' It's an acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source - a moral source of law. I think you must," Moore added.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State applauded the panel's decision to remove Moore from office.
"Moore flagrantly announced his intention to violate a federal court order, made a mockery of the legal system and created an unseemly media circus," said Americans United Executive Director Barry Lynn in a statement.
"Today, he learned the results of that defiance. The Court of the Judiciary has served the cause of justice," Lynn said.
Moore said he plans to discuss with his attorneys "what course to pursue in this action." He said he consulted with many state political and religious leaders and plans to make "an announcement next week which could alter the course of this country and the course of our state and our nation."
******** and one more article:
Here's another interesting "happening." When you read this one, take time to reflect on the direction this country is going.
This was read by the Principal at a recent High School football game in Tennessee:
Article-
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.
Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.
I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.
I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem.
I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology."
I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."
However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.
This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments.
Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.
For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.
However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and ask Him, in the name of Jesus, to bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet.
One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.
They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box!
The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America - the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under God."
Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise God that His remnant remains!
Celebrate Jesus in 2003!
Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of Me before men, then I will be ashamed of you before My Father."
Yes, I do Love God. He is my source of existence and Savior. He keeps me functioning each and every day. Without Him, I will be nothing, but with Him, I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me.
Philippians 4:13 "
***************
I found that to be an interesting article as well. Obviously there are going to be ongoing disagreements/points of view/perceptions, or whatever else you want to call them.
Those of us who have been called by Christ, love Christ. And those that have not been called by Him cannot truly understand why we follow Him in fellowship. So, as in history, we are ridiculed, judged, held in contempt and sometimes ostracized for our beliefs by non-believers.
I have no doubt in my mind what our constitution was founded upon. But we can all see the direction our country is going. Anything goes, right?
So we begin to see.
The article you posted helps bring forth why this sort of issue can never be resolved, but also why there is such a thing as separation of church and state.
A religious believer reads the story about Judge Roy Moore and sees intolerance and persecution. The non-believer reads the story and sees a judge who is inappropriately mixing personal religion with state power. Perhaps, however, there is a way to explore the situation to help clarify it.
As a Christian, how would you feel about the state sponsorship of Paganism, complete with statues of Zeus and Aphrodite and Bacchus? Or suppose that, instead of acknowledging the Almighty that Tennesseans know and love, the judge had fought to get the court to recite a Zen koan at the beginning of each day?
You might respond that this would never happen, because America is essentially Christian. I disagree, but let's accept the premise for a moment: America is a Christian nation. Even if we accept this premise, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case in the future. The main reason that Christianity spread far and wide was because of Emperor Constantine's conversion, which effectively spelled the end of Paganism. Thus a minority became the majority. Or look at the situation in Iraq, in which a minority of Sunnis ruled over a Shiite majority, until very recently. For now, the Shiites and Sunnis cooperate in a joint effort aimed at the American occupation, but if that ever ends, they will have to find a way to forge a cooperative rule — one that will likely end the years of Sunni power.
Political winds change. Once the doors are opened to state-sponsored religion, there is the possibility that at some future occasion "America's religion" may not be Christianity. Christians should be prepared for this possibility. Separation of church and state is a defense not only for the unbelievers, but for the believers as well.
Additionally, church rule has occurred in the past, and the results have not been encouraging. Christianity has been used to excuse conquest during the Crusades, torture during the Inquisition, slavery in the American south, and was cited by Spanish Anabaptists who baptized Indian infants before killing them, so that they would immediately ascend into Heaven. Anyone who is familiar with the rise of National Catholicism under Franco Spain will have misgivings about religion and state intermingling.
The situation as it stands now in America may strike Christians as an evil. That's what has been, in the past, the great thing about America; we are free to disagree as we choose. We are not free to impose our will, or to enforce a moral code based on a 2000-year-old book which is not itself internally consistent.
-Joseph
You prove my point that as a non-believer you cannot understand why I follow Christ. As a non-believer, you don't look to the "2000 year old book," as you put it, for God's word, because you choose not to believe in God. Instead, you look for flaws in it to disprove God.
So why are non-believers so threatened by Christians saying a prayer or having the Ten Commandments displayed? Or maybe I should preface that question with "Why all of a sudden." After all, God's name has always been used in many of our public systems and still is today, (as in the opening of the Alabama court hearing). Is that considered imposing free will or enforcing moral code on anyone. Do you feel violated when you pick up currency that says "IN GOD WE TRUST" If so, you can pass all your currency to me, I'll put it to good use for you friend. We're not exactly dragging you to Church with us on Sunday. That is your free will brother.
We definitely agree that this issue will never be resolved. It will ongoing as it is written. Yet we can still be friends. That's a gift from God in my perception.
-Gregory
The fact that, in the past, state and church have intermingled before (as in the example of "In God We Trust") is in no way an argument for or against their separation. If separation of church and state is the best thing for the republic, then pointing to our currency is just to call attention to past mistakes. One could just as likely argue that, because there are Rosicrucian and/or Freemasonry symbols on our currency, we should continue to promote these symbols in public institutions. If, however, separation of church and state is an evil, then arguments should be marshaled to that end. The prior pro-separation arguments, as given by Jeremy and others, remain unmoved.
Saying that one reads the Bible in order to look for flaws is putting the cart before the horse. People do not typically choose to become atheists ex nihilo. What happens is that a serious critical study of the Bible, irrespective of whether one looks for flaws or not, tends to reveal that the book is not always 100% coherent. There are good historical reasons for this, of course, but that's another topic.
-Joseph
You're assuming that Joseph is a non believer. I don't think he said that in his post. I believe in God, but I also question things that are not addressed in The Bible (which is my right), and Biblical scholars admit that not every word has been translated correctly. After all, the Dead Sea Scrolls were just discovered in the 20th Century. (If you've ever played the game Telephone, where you sit around in a group and someone whispers something to the person next to him or her, who whispers what he or she heard to his or her neighbor, and so forth, you know that how the whisper ends up is never how it began, so why is it hard to believe that not everything in The Bible was handed down correctly word for word before Gutenburg printed the first copy?)
I'm not threatened by people praying, but in a sense of fairness to people who are perfectly justified in believing in some other higher power, I think a moment of prayer should be a moment of silence.-Michelle #1
Targeting two sub-topics with one stone, might I add something else:
Chuck asked what we should do if we disagree with our employer. Well, as a fundamentalist libertarian, I don't support the public funding of education. I enjoy the work and the people here and I enjoy helping our members, but obviously this is antithetical to just about everything TASB stands for.
One of the reasons why I believe this is because education is such a personal and important choice. The article Greg posted about the Tennessee principal's speech (which actually happened, by the way) illustrates why. People who want a religious tone to their children's education have the right to seek out those institutions that are willing to do that. People who want their children to receive a more secular education have the right to do that as well.
However, when you have public educational instutions, you get the clashing of diverging sets of desires. Any child can attend a public school, and by doing so, they bring their family's culture and their beliefs with them. In the long run, since schools are supported with tax money, everyone in the community ends up paying for this constant balancing act of one set of desires (usually the majority's) verses the other. Desires isn't the best word; values would be more appropriate. The values in contest, if they are important enough, shouldn't have to be watered down to incorporate new people into the system. But given the nature of our government and public schools, they have to be in order for the system to remain non-discriminatory. The result is a slow long-term muddying of the whole system, bringing it to a common denominator status averaged over the community, squeezing out the individual and minority value systems.
My larger point is that the best way to solve the problem is to stop attempting to mix water and oil like determined scientists staying up all hours of the night, fraying our nerves, ignoring logic during moments of strong emotion, and offending scores of bystanders in the process. It would be better to stop asking and expecting the government and it's agents to promote your philosophy, whatever it may be.
-Charles Hueter
Good point made by Charles.
I think the schoolchildren would be better served by their parents, teachers, principals, school board members, judges, politicians, and everyone else involved with THEIR education, if everyone would focus on EDUCATING these children in mathematics, reading/writing, the sciences, history, and social studies, and stop wasting time and OUR money on political discussions about prayer in school!
I think every parent will agree that their children's religious teaching should be taught at home and their church. No one (I assume) wants another person's religious beliefs taught to their children, without the parent's consent.-Natalie
We are told it is the Word of God approximately 2,500 times.
WHAT IS GOING ON?
People have said the end was near many times in the past—true. But did you know the Bible shows us no prophecy of the latter days meant anything until Israel was reborn into a nation? Did you know God’s Word indicates to us a generation would not pass from Israel’s rebirth, till all be fulfilled (which includes the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Jesus Christ’s return)? A Jewish generation can be figured from the age of 20. We are in that time period now. We are not setting any dates, but are giving you a warning sign to watch and be ready.
Many people have been preaching about the latter days of the end times in churches, on radio, TV, and through books. Even people who do not know the Bible can sense something is about to happen. To them that understand the Bible, no explanation is needed. To them that are prideful, self-centered, that love this world, that despise God’s correction, that are contentious and seeking the praise of men rather than of God, no explanation is possible-ref Dan 12:4,10; Mt 24:37, 39.
A dying declaration is considered proof in a court of law. Why is this? When you are dying, it is the one time you don’t lie. Christ’s words as He was dying on the cross for your sins are evidence. Jesus said, FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO-Lk 23:34. Just before being hung on the cross, He said He was the Son of God-ref Mt 27:43; Mk 14:62.
It has been said that it is virtually impossible for anyone to make 11 straight predictions, 2000 years into the future. There is only one chance in 8 x 10 to the 63rd power, or 80 with 63 zeros after it that such a thing could be done. If such a set of predictions existed, it would have to be the Word of God.
I really dont want to upset anyone when I say the bible was historically not written by God. The bible was an undertaking of the newly founded Church as a PR stunt to get new members. They commissioned hundreds of journalists to go around asking people, preferably old disciples for accuracy, about whats goin on. Those journalists then came back to the Church and sold their findings and a group of old men that headed the church went through the books deciding on what sounded "Godly" and what didn't. There were actually HUNDREDS of books to the bible... just the ones in it today is all that made the "cut" and of course the Church destroyed the rest (least in theory) That is also why there is no consistancy between the books, none of these journalists worked together as they went in all sorts of directions and countries for their information. The bible is also very indicitive of the time in which it was written, very anti-female, very "know your place in life," and certainly does not promote free thinking from outside Church doctrine. In fact it talks about cursing you, killing you, and all kinds of things if you "mess up."
To compound the problem with the bible is that it was originally written in a dialect of ancient greek (i forgot the actual language name but it was a mix of another language) Anyway after King James forced his scholars to translate it into english most of the bible was lost. For example there is no way to say "I go to the store" in greek. There is no "I" in that sense, there is no "go", there is no "the", but there is a store though. It would come out something akin to "accomplish (I) place of goods (store) traverse (go)" The scholors did not even know the greek language existed much less how to translate it....and so it most likely became a tool for the English church.
But to comment on believers and non-believers arguing religion.... In order to fully understand an argument one must know all the basics and foundations of that argument. There is no religion with any factual value. That is why non-believers of "X" religion find it so easy to defeat the believers. That is also why believers are only able to use shaky (at best) arguments about their religion. Its based on a belief structure and those who believe can argue their own because they assume certain assumptions... have you ever tried to convince a Muslim that a man named Jesus walked on water?
But religion does not encompass everyone, hence there are many religions and it should stay out of government. It is a device of personal achievement, spiritual enrichment, and perhaps a code to live by for the betterment of everyone around not a tool for control and forced agreement. But by the same token not all tools within a religion are for the best either... the individual must decide on what he/she needs in order to fullfill that need. Really kinda makes religion quite beautiful actually.
-Joshua
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread of conversation. There are obviously some very smart and enlightened people working here at TASB.
I personally enjoy that all of us can express our different viewpoints and theories without the threat of repercussion. That is what our society is all about. America is one of the only places in the world whose people can say whatever they want whenever they want and not have to worry about being murdered for their beliefs. The saddest part of it is that there are the few who don't want America to be that way, they want America to change and they are involved in efforts to do that very thing one step at a time. First they sue because they don't want prayer in school, then they sue because they don't want their kids to say "one nation under God" then they sue again because God is mentioned on the cash in their wallet. It must be nice to have so much free time that you can manipulate the entire world and convince them that the mention of God is going to pollute our government and destroy our children. Believer or not, Christian or atheist, Muslim or Jehovah's witness we all have to understand that just because the money says God, or the allegiance is one nation under God or because some children want to pray in school it's not going to ruin the very foundation upon which America or her people stand on and it's not what's supporting it either. The people are what support America, our vastly different beliefs and associations keep the heart of America pumping and if we were all the same, this would be a very boring place.
With all the good also comes the bad and over the past 50 years or so this country has become one of great crimes and violations. Our president has been assassinated, our children killed in wars that the government made them fight and our corporations polluting the earth and the people. People are tired, we are either unemployed, under-employed, homeless, struggling to survive or just eeking out a life worth living. We watch the TV and the entertainment business and see people who are making too much money, live in too big houses and who justice never seems to touch. We see our employers laying off hundreds of employees, but the CEO still gets his million dollar bonus. In this day and age we need something or someone to believe in, something that doesn't make us feel so small and worthless, some reason to get out of bed every morning. For some people that is God, for others it is themselves and for others they still haven't found anything and just sleep walk through life. All of this is okay though because we live in a society where we are not forced to chew up and swallow the beliefs of others, but instead can stand independent and voice what we believe in. The horror comes in that there are those few who think that everyone should believe what they believe and they go to a courthouse and file a frivolous lawsuit and claim their state and church (which they don't go to and don't believe in) should be separated. If you don't believe in God then why do you fight so hard? Laugh about it, let it go, don't force all the people who do believe in God to have to erase His name from every public place where it has stood for more years than you have been alive.
This debate is not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. We can all attain these things without killing each other, without putting each other down and without suing everyone in creation. Now let's take a moment of silence and ponder all the good points that have been made over the past few days. If this moment of silence offends you, then please, go do something else.
-Michelle #2
nice speech Michelle.
What will really IRK people is that the Eye of Osiris is on the back of the one dollar bill... you know the same one that says in God we Trust... that was once a satanic symbol of a group of watchers that use to watch their followers and kill them when they did such things as speak out. Means "We are Watching"
Makes sense though, the Egyptian God Osiris was a god of life, fertility, and the Nile. He also had powers over death when the nile receded.
-Joshua
Please do your research before you post something like that....see below what the eye REALLY means and stands for on the dollar bill...and by the way, Osiris was an Egyptian god of the underworld and vegetation!
Great Seal Mottoes
Annuit Coeptis
Providence Has Favored Our Undertakings
In the zenith of an unfinished pyramid on the reverse side of the Great Seal is "an Eye in a triangle, surrounded with a glory... Over the Eye these words 'Annuit Coeptis'."
The Latin phrase annuit coeptis has been traced to Virgil, the renowned Roman poet who lived in the first century B.C. His epic masterpiece, the Aeneid, contains the phrase: Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue coeptis. (All-powerful Jupiter, favor [my] daring undertakings.)Also, in Virgil's Georgics are the words: Da facilem cursum, atque audacibus annue coeptis. (Give [me] an easy course, and favor [my] daring undertakings.)
Charles Thomson changed the first person imperative annue to the third person annuit. In the motto Annuit Coeptis, the subject of the verb must be supplied, and the translator must also choose the tense. Thomson explained:
"The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: the Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."
The Eye is therefore the missing subject.
According to the U.S. State Department, the translation is:
"It [the eye of providence] has favored our undertakings"
Variations include:
Providence is favorable to our undertakings.
God has favored our undertakings.
He favors our undertakings.
NOTE: Annuit does not mean "to announce" (annuntio).
The Great Seal
Symbolic Elements | Latin Mottoes
Preliminary Design Committees
©2003 GreatSeal.com
-Susanna
I was simply stating one instance, that was another. Yet another is the Unseeing Eye referenced in both egyptian mythology and The lord of the Rings as the Eye of Sauron. I was just trying to keep it in american history. The mongols believed it to be a cursed eye from the east (probably china) Either way its always evil.
One must remember there are always many truths that make up the single truth.
-Joshua
We're all someone's daughter,
We're all someone's son
Yet we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun
You're the voice try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
We're not gonna sit in silence,
We're not gonna live with fear
In this time, we know we often stand together
We give power to the powerful
Even we can make it better
We're all someone's daughter,
We're all someone's son
yet we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun
You're the voice try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
We're not gonna sit in silence,
We're not gonna live with fear
If we consider TASB to be a miniature model of the nation, then I direct your attention to the areas where religious discussion is appropriate: in meeting rooms where clubs gather on break to conduct matters that aren't endorsed or mandated by TASB; in the misc newsgroup.
This discussion is not appropriate in all common areas and in All Users email broadcasts. TASB policy specifies against such behavior. This is wise because the topic of religion is one that is rarely treated with respect or rationality. So it best to speak of these things in safe company, family, friends, community members, and counsel givers. Otherwise, you don't know who will overhear your opinion and challenge you, sometimes in an embarassing way for one or both parties. And it is just these emotional issues that cause us to say things that sometimes are difficult to undo.
In a way, TASB's policy of separating religion from work is a solution similar to the national policy. We can see how opinion-venting can quickly lead to foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to this topic (at least by the examples of those who oppose our own opinions, but some of us sense our own folly).
But imagine, an alternate world where this great country is ruled by theocrats. Congress members debate over exacting trade tariffs on textiles that blend cotton and linen because these things are forbidden in Leviticus. A convicted murderer appeals his sentence to the Supreme Court because, despite his affront to society, it did not turn the other cheek. A president bases his desire to drill oil in Alaska on God's mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"; according to his personal interpretation, any human cultivation of natural resources is a righteous cause. How long do you thing this country would remain great?
To be fair, we should clarify what's the issue here and who is supporting what. There's a lot of reducto ad absurdum being thrown around here and it's clouding the topic.
I really doubt anyone on the (for lack of a better term) "pro-prayer" side wants a theocracy in America with a rotating Council of Clergy writing our laws. They want to be allowed to practice their faith in places where it is no longer assumed to be safe and alright to do so.
And I also doubt just as much that the (for lack of a better term) "anti-prayer" side wants this nation to completely wipe religion from daily life, with all signs of spiritual worship restricted to your home and your church. We want a government that doesn't favor, in any way, one religion over another.
So do Christians have rights? Absolutely. Everyone does. Do those rights extend to having a public school sponsor a prayer during [insert event here] or having local/state/federal governments perform some sort of supporting function for [insert religion here]? I don't believe so, because if we are to have government performing some service, it should do so without bias...even if that bias is merely the tip of a hat towards the majority's religious views. That hat tip may not be Public Law 777, "An Act That Requires Attendence In Church," but it is a step towards endorsing one view over another. Such an endorsement isn't part of the government's job description. The government works on behalf of us all
A right is something that can't be taken away; something, as some folks far older than I wrote a while back, that is inalienable. Christians have the right to practice their religion because that falls under the inalienable right to live their life in pursuit of their interests. So if they want to go to events and institutions that honor their value system, they should be free to do so. But using the government and it's agents as a way to promote their views isn't a right, it's a service, and one that is more appropriate for private agencies to engage in.
If I went to a private football game in Israel, I wouldn't be surprised to hear elements of Judaism around me. I wouldn't be offended.
If I went to a private soccer game in Iran, I wouldn't be surprised to hear elements of Islam around me. I wouldn't raise a stink.
But if I go to a basketball game being held in facilities paid through tax money, used by public school coaches and players, and benefitting the people in a government subdivision invoke the name of Qui-Gon Jinn during ceremonies, I would be unhappy. It's a small and relatively unimportant eddy in the giant river of things to complain about in life, but it does exist. There are bigger things to get angry with.
Like stupid license plate laws. ;)
-Charles Hueter
Yea, off the subject...but speaking of license plate laws...can everyone who has a license plate cover that they can't use anymore please mail them to the Capitol???
-Michelle #2
I have no idea, i just took mine off and threw it away. I wasn't aware we could send them somewhere. But I bet your on to something, they usually have a place to send them when they pass laws like that. (I'm thinking about the not letting car oil leak onto the ground - they have disposal places - maybe something similar for this)
-Joshua
I suggested mailing them to the capitol to make a point, not for recycling or because the "government" asked us to. heehee...
Imagine it....a grand influx of mail at the capitol....tons of license plate holders coming in envelopes, boxes and inter-office mail...it would be a riot! It would be on the news and everything....they pass these silly laws and we just sit around and say, "darn, that's stupid"...well??? DO something about it...If a police officer can't tell a Texas license plate (which has the Texas emblem in the middle of it) from another states, then they have more problems than they admit to.
Speaking of news and the capitol...did you see on Channel 36 news where they videotaped a Sherriff who is "guarding" the capitol watching DVDs in her car? My tax dollars at work...I feel so safe.
-Michelle #2
*LAUGHING*
did you read about the Homeland Security guy that was fishing for like days while on duty instead of doin whatever those people were enacted to do?
-Joshua
I'd mail them to the person responsible for writing the law...Senator Jon Lindsay.
-Charles Hueter
ooooooo that is such a good idea. its like mailing back all those advertisements the bank and credit card people send you when they send you your bill.....-Joshua
Now that you have cleared that up, then the focus is really what political framework accommodates our pluralistic society. To that end, what about a government that administers its functions without favoring a religious standard or using religious tones/symbols/language? This won't make us an atheistic society--it will protect every individual's right to pursue a religious life on his or her own terms. This will also comfort communities of all creeds and improve relations between them.Cesar
Well I think we are all adults here and no one has become offensive or derogatory. In fact everyone has quite beautifully demonstrated our American Freedoms by laying their points and beliefs and discussing them with much civility. We do not live in this nation to huddle in secret corners of our homes and talk about issues. We are here to create a society where everyone can live peacefully together and to accomplish that we need to know what each other think.
TASB is a huge organization designed around the public education of Texas children and what kind of example would we be if we ourselves hide to discuss real issues. Now of course if we started beating each other over the head....well then the powers that be may put us all in D-Hall *laughing* but i am in agreement with everyones comments about being able to even talk about this in such a manner and hope we never have to hide in corners to talk about anything.
Plus the great thing about the cooler is that if you do not want to be a part of the discussion then you don't open the posting and viola! no one is offended!
I really do love this country :)
-Joshua
Taking a look at the First Amendment once more, I would like to point out that the words "separation", "church" and "state" do not appear in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. The widely held belief that the First Amendment keeps the institutions of government and religion completely apart is false. The First Amendment serves to protect religion from the State, not the State from religion. Where did this myth that the Constitution places a complete "wall of separation between church and state" originate? That commonly referenced phrase is taken out of a letter by Thomas Jefferson written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. As time has progressed that phrase, removed from the larger context of that letter, has been grossly misinterpreted. Jefferson, despite his own personal feelings on religion, would NEVER have advocated a policy stripping American society of its Christian values, the freedom to express those values, or praised a Constitutional amendment that did so...especially not in a letter to a religious organization. Jefferson's "wall" is one directional only, and was understood to be so by the recipients of his letter.
The body of Jefferson's letter says the following:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
It is clear to me that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers had the Church of England in mind when the topic of religious freedom arose. The Founding Fathers feared a government that would dictate to individuals how they worshiped, where they worshiped, and whom the worshiped. The Church of England, a creature of the State, had robbed Englishmen of their freedom of religion by requiring mandatory attendance, banning the formation of churches, and prohibiting private worship in homes. Failure to abide by the rules of the Church of England would result in imprisonment, torture, and often death. It is from this religious persecution that the Pilgrims, and many groups like them, fled to North America where their religious beliefs and practices would not be attacked.
To conclude, the Constitution is VERY pro-religion. The Founding Fathers understood the valuable contribution religion makes to the overall well-being of a society, and sought to protect religion from any interference by secular government. The First Amendment is indeed a wall...a porous wall allowing religion to seep out to society, but preventing State from choking religion on the other side.
*whew*
Coding this shit sucked hard rear end, mano.
So, as I read through the thread as it got sort of shrill near the middle, I searched for something sardonic and slightly blasphemous to post in case things got entirely out of hand and I wanted to get a few funny words in before an administrator came in and locked things down. Thus, my beer is better than religion post.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.