On 10 Nov 2004 17:27:09 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

There is a difference between recognizing and allowing for the wishes
of the minority, and denying the rights of the majority in the
process.

The law equally protects the rights of the majority. It does not, and should
not, protect illegal or extra-legal privileges presumed by the majority- this
is where we disagree on this issue.

It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school. Their right should not be denied, even if a
few atheists find the concept "offensive". They can choose to remove
themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own
prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do
so.

If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the
majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to
do so. If someone who does not observe Christmas wishes to do
something different, then they are permitted to do so. They are NOT
(Or should not be) permitted to deny the rights of the majority who
wish to.

If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is
white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college
admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the
majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college
admission because of some slanted minority "quota"?

The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those
in the minority.

They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines,
start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the
game stop.

Dave

It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school.

Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem.

According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when that
prayer becomes an official part of the school day.

Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody
else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the kids
who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the gymnasium,
or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning of
the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so now.
No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin with
not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the
Lord's Prayer as well.

If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school day
begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only one
kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to do
so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer funded,
school day.

And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how you'd
feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the "majority"
of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody
handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then instructing
the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid could
make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will just
buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed?

Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is that the
responsibility of the family and the church.
Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your*
specific religious values rather than some others?

If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the
majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to
do so.

Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US, but
what do they know?

A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus,
candy canes, and even decorated trees.
The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point where
the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels, virgins,
and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity.

Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the
apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth in
any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are
recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention* an
incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a herd
of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other
precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe all
four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own right
as the crucifixion, had it occured?

(Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added to
the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A number of
Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be born
of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up. Potential
converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck, your
guy wasn't even born of a virgin...")

To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the manger
display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99% of
the Christians in town assume that it is.

You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely religious
to
dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the
expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to allow
this celebration to
use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing around
the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"? Should
you send your kids to school naked on May First?

From a legal perspective, in a nation where
we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the
loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more
acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing around a
pole or a fire?


If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is
white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college
admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the
majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college
admission because of some slanted minority "quota"?

College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the race of
an applicant. When an application is received,
the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to by a
number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove
Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel Hernandez
based on assumptions one might make based on name alone.



The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those
in the minority.

Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something it has
a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume a
right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the minority
from exercising any and all legal rights.



They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines,
start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the
game stop.

If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first place
and should be stopped.

How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the
"majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those who
oppose lynching just


remove
themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own
prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do
so.

"Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem." Not true. Locally the
valedictorian of a couple of years ago was censured for bringing up God in
his speech. He earned the right to give his speech by having the best
grades in the class. If another person had brought up HIndu's Shiva or
Mohammed in his speech, would he have been censured? This is graduation.
The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded
by the school or the government. What is your spin to this?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school.

Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem.

According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when
that
prayer becomes an official part of the school day.

Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody
else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the
kids
who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the
gymnasium,
or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning
of
the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so
now.
No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin
with
not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the
Lord's Prayer as well.

If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school
day
begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only
one
kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to
do
so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer
funded,
school day.

And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how
you'd
feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the
"majority"
of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody
handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then
instructing
the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid
could
make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will
just
buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed?

Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is
that the
responsibility of the family and the church.
Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your*
specific religious values rather than some others?

If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the
majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to
do so.

Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US,
but
what do they know?

A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus,
candy canes, and even decorated trees.
The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point
where
the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels,
virgins,
and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity.

Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the
apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth
in
any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are
recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention*
an
incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a
herd
of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other
precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe
all
four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own
right
as the crucifixion, had it occured?

(Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added
to
the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A
number of
Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be
born
of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up.
Potential
converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck,
your
guy wasn't even born of a virgin...")

To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the
manger
display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99%
of
the Christians in town assume that it is.

You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely
religious
to
dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the
expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to
allow
this celebration to
use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing
around
the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"?
Should
you send your kids to school naked on May First?

From a legal perspective, in a nation where
we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the
loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more
acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing
around a
pole or a fire?


If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is
white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college
admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the
majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college
admission because of some slanted minority "quota"?

College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the
race of
an applicant. When an application is received,
the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to
by a
number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove
Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel
Hernandez
based on assumptions one might make based on name alone.



The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those
in the minority.

Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something
it has
a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume
a
right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the
minority
from exercising any and all legal rights.



They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines,
start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the
game stop.

If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first
place
and should be stopped.

How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the
"majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those
who
oppose lynching just


remove
themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own
prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do
so.

The winner gets to make a speech. It is their work, not anything demanded
by the school or the government. What is your spin to this?

No spin at all. The school was wrong to punish a student for utilizing an
opportunity for free speech. The the student wanted to
say, "God. God. God......" 10,000 times- no problem.

The school would be just as wrong to demand that students pray, open the school
day with a standardized prayer that everyone was expected to say aloud, or
otherwise inject religion into publicly funded education.

Gould,

So true, I have never understood why that upsets some conservatives, they
can pray anywhere and anytime they want. In many school systems they could
start a bible study group and pray in their group.

Christians can pray in school already, the same way homosexuals can have a
civil contract between each other today. Christians want to have school
prayer included in school activities, as a way of confirming their beliefs,
the same as homosexuals want to be "married" so the public will confirm
lifestyle.

Neither group needs society to confirm their belief, they both already have
the rights they are seeking.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school.

Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem.

According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when
that
prayer becomes an official part of the school day.

Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody
else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the
kids
who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the
gymnasium,
or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning
of
the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so
now.
No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin
with
not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the
Lord's Prayer as well.

If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school
day
begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only
one
kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to
do
so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer
funded,
school day.

And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how
you'd
feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the
"majority"
of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody
handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then
instructing
the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid
could
make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will
just
buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed?

Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is
that the
responsibility of the family and the church.
Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your*
specific religious values rather than some others?

If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the
majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to
do so.

Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US,
but
what do they know?

A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus,
candy canes, and even decorated trees.
The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point
where
the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels,
virgins,
and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity.

Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the
apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth
in
any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are
recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention*
an
incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a
herd
of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other
precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe
all
four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own
right
as the crucifixion, had it occured?

(Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added
to
the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A
number of
Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be
born
of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up.
Potential
converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck,
your
guy wasn't even born of a virgin...")

To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the
manger
display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99%
of
the Christians in town assume that it is.

You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely
religious
to
dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the
expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to
allow
this celebration to
use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing
around
the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"?
Should
you send your kids to school naked on May First?

From a legal perspective, in a nation where
we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the
loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more
acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing
around a
pole or a fire?


If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is
white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college
admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the
majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college
admission because of some slanted minority "quota"?

College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the
race of
an applicant. When an application is received,
the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to
by a
number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove
Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel
Hernandez
based on assumptions one might make based on name alone.



The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those
in the minority.

Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something
it has
a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume
a
right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the
minority
from exercising any and all legal rights.



They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines,
start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the
game stop.

If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first
place
and should be stopped.

How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the
"majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those
who
oppose lynching just


remove
themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own
prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do
so.

On 11 Nov 2004 17:18:08 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It is not illegal if the majority of public school attendees want to
cite a prayer in school.

Anyone can pray in school, at any time. No problem.

According to the courts, (but what do they know?) it becomes illegal when that
prayer becomes an official part of the school day.

Why do you fundies think its necessary to throw your religion in everybody
else's face? Would God refuse to listen to you if you gathered all the kids
who felt they needed to pray, aloud, (and in the schoolhouse) in the gymnasium,
or the auditorium, or the lunchroom 15 or 20 minutes before the beginning of
the actual school day and prayed? Nothing stops your kids from doing so now.
No, what you guys all seem to want is for the official school day to begin with
not only the Flag Salute (which is appropriate in a public school) but the
Lord's Prayer as well.

If you think the majority of kids want to pray before the actual school day
begins, fine. Give them a palce and an opportunity to do so. Even if only one
kid wants to pray before school begins, give him or her an opportunity to do
so. Just don't make a religious ceremony part of the official, taxpayer funded,
school day.

And before you get all cranked on about the majority, ask yourself how you'd
feel if you were a Protestant Christian in a neighborhood where the "majority"
of residents were Catholic Christians. Would you be excited about somebody
handing your kid a rosary at the beginning of first period and then instructing
the class to repeat, "Hail, Mary, full of grace......."? Sure, your kid could
make a big nasty scene by refusing to go along.....but how many kids will just
buckle under to peer pressure and pray as instructed?

Do you feel its the job of the school to teach religious values, or is that the
responsibility of the family and the church.
Does the answer to that question change when the school is teaching *your*
specific religious values rather than some others?

If the local town wants to put up Christmas decorations and the
majority of the town is in agreement, then they should be allowed to
do so.

Once again, your opinion is different than the top legal minds in the US, but
what do they know?

A town can put up snowmen, Santa Claus,
candy canes, and even decorated trees.
The government cannot establish or promote a religion, and at the point where
the decorations begin broadcasting a religious message about angels, virgins,
and etc the decorations are promoting an offshoot of Christianity.

Christmas isn't really Christian. It was never celebrated by Jesus, the
apostles, or the early church. Jesus never referred to a miraculous birth in
any of his teachings. All other major incidents in the life of Jesus are
recorded in all four gospels, but two of the gospels don't even *mention* an
incident where an enormous star appeared, hordes of angels hovered over a herd
of sheep, three Arab soothsayers arrived on camels to give gold and other
precious treasures to a stranger's baby, born in a stable. You think maybe all
four books would have mentioned something almost as dramatic in its own right
as the crucifixion, had it occured?

(Many scholars agree that the stories of the Virgin birth, etc, were added to
the Christian religious literature sometime in the second century. A number of
Roman gods, and sometimes even the Roman Emporer himself would claim to be born
of a virgin and the early church tweaked the tradition to keep up. Potential
converts might otherwise ask, "Why should we adopt your religion? Heck, your
guy wasn't even born of a virgin...")

To the degree that Christmas isn't Christian, I could go along with the manger
display in city park. Unfortunately, Christmas becomes Christian when 99% of
the Christians in town assume that it is.

You probably have some people in your town who think it's extremely religious
to
dance naked around a pole on the First of May. Would you support the
expenditure of town funds to put up the pole? Would you say it's fine to allow
this celebration to
use up all the space in the public park? How about naked people dancing around
the pole for several weeks prior to May First, as it is the "season"? Should
you send your kids to school naked on May First?

From a legal perspective, in a nation where
we have equal rights under the law, what makes the manger display and the
loudspeakers blaring "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in City Park any more
acceptable than a bunch of naked people pounding on drums and dancing around a
pole or a fire?


If 80% of a graduating class of a typical suburban high school is
white, then it stands to reason that the top candidates for college
admission would follow this demographic. Should a portion of the
majority of this class be denied their earned place in the college
admission because of some slanted minority "quota"?

College admissions officers should not be allowed to inquire about the race of
an applicant. When an application is received,
the data should be transferred into a file where the sudent is referred to by a
number, so there could be no subconscious impulse to approve or disapprove
Tyrone Johnson, vs. Heather Goldstein, vs. Loc Nguyen Hoy or Miguel Hernandez
based on assumptions one might make based on name alone.



The law offers "equal" protection, not "special" protection for those
in the minority.

Yes, yes! The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing something it has
a legal right to do. By the same token, the majority cannot simply presume a
right that is unconstitutional, and the majority cannot prevent the minority
from exercising any and all legal rights.



They can choose to either play the game, watch from the sidelines,
start their own game, or go home. But they have no right to make the
game stop.

If the game is unconstitutional, it has no right to begin in the first place
and should be stopped.

How about a lynching, Dave? There have been plenty of instances where the
"majority" of citizens in a town have supported lynchings. Should those who
oppose lynching just


remove
themselves from the act, or they can choose to observe their own
prayer. But they CAN NOT deny those who wish to, the opportunity to do
so.


Who are you calling 'fundies'?

I hope you aren't putting anyone who has a conservative bent into the
'fundie' category. Most of us are not 'fundies' and have no problem
with the illegality of requiring prayer in a public school.

In my county the compromise is a 'moment of silence' during which a
person can pray, think about the last movie seen, worry about the
upcoming test, or anything else they wish to do silently. Works well.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

I hope you aren't putting anyone who has a conservative bent into the
'fundie' category. Most of us are not 'fundies' and have no problem
with the illegality of requiring prayer in a public school.

Then the shoe doesn't fit, so don't try to wear it.

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation.........(makes one
wonder whether professing Christianity will become a prerequisite for
citizenship or voting......)

2) an assumption that if the "majority" follows a certain faith then that
majority should be allowed to include formal religious ceremonies or
observations as part of secular government functions like public education-
without restriction from the constitution and without worrying about the equal
rights afforded to folks who believe differently.

3) a generous concession that those not willing to recite a prayer are
absolutely free to suffer the embarassing stigma of the "odd man out" while all
the good little girls and boys who will be going to heaven recite some
impersonal, memorized, dogmatic statement and consider it a prayer.

I know of some (Christian) folks who pray by handling live rattle snakes. They
theorize that if their faith is strong, they won't die from snakebite. Heck,
just think of the fabulous scene in your substitute math class when one of the
students pulls out a live rattler to get closer to God during the moment of
silence. Now that *would* get the school day off to a memorable start. :-)

On 12 Nov 2004 09:00:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I hope you aren't putting anyone who has a conservative bent into the
'fundie' category. Most of us are not 'fundies' and have no problem
with the illegality of requiring prayer in a public school.

Then the shoe doesn't fit, so don't try to wear it.

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation.........(makes one
wonder whether professing Christianity will become a prerequisite for
citizenship or voting......)

This country was founded by and became the predominate home to
Christian following people. That's a matter of fact, not a statement
of religious intent. Sort of like saying that this is a English
speaking country. The predominate language is English. You can speak
something else, but it's not our problem if you can't follow the
majority.


2) an assumption that if the "majority" follows a certain faith then that
majority should be allowed to include formal religious ceremonies or
observations as part of secular government functions like public education-
without restriction from the constitution and without worrying about the equal
rights afforded to folks who believe differently.

Majority rules should apply in all public ceremonies or traditions
religious or otherwise. No town's traditions should be held hostage to
whims of the minority.


3) a generous concession that those not willing to recite a prayer are
absolutely free to suffer the embarassing stigma of the "odd man out" while all
the good little girls and boys who will be going to heaven recite some
impersonal, memorized, dogmatic statement and consider it a prayer.

That is entirely a perception issue. So now you would have the strong
arm of government preventing the majority from practicing their faith,
so that the minority can avoid feeling "uncomfortable"?


I know of some (Christian) folks who pray by handling live rattle snakes. They
theorize that if their faith is strong, they won't die from snakebite. Heck,
just think of the fabulous scene in your substitute math class when one of the
students pulls out a live rattler to get closer to God during the moment of
silence. Now that *would* get the school day off to a memorable start. :-)

Once can cite extreme examples of practically anything to try to make
a point. Such is known as a strawman argument. But that point isn't
relevant. In no case has prayer been denied based on the handling of
snakes or other off-the-wall practices. It was simply a matter of the
minority silencing the majority against the principle of majority
rules.


Dave

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation........


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to
Christian following people.

Thanks for proving my point.



Sort of like saying that this is a English
speaking country

No, it isn't. A common language is different than a common religion. A common
language provides a means for sharing thoughts and ideas- a common religion
requires that all those thoughts and ideas will be essentially the same.



Majority rules should apply in all public ceremonies or traditions
religious or otherwise. No town's traditions should be held hostage to
whims of the minority.


Damn that pesky Consitution, anyway.
What were the founders thinking? Just because the colonial immigrants to
America came here to *escape* a society where the majority assumed religious
dominance, formalized relationships between church and state, and informally or
formally persecuted dissenters, what made them think the exact same system
wouldn't be a rousing success in another society?

That is entirely a perception issue. So now you would have the strong
arm of government preventing the majority from practicing their faith,
so that the minority can avoid feeling "uncomfortable"?

Does your faith require you to begin every gathering with a formal prayer, and
does your faith require you to pressure those who don't agree with your
doctrine to join in- or be ostracized by their silence? When you conduct a
sales or board meeting in the workplace, do you lead your fellow employees or
managers in prayer? When you take your family out to dinner in a restaurant, do
you all bow heads and say "grace" aloud for other diners to hear?

I wouldn't presume to know what sort of religion you personally observe, but
certain
Christian groups hold the personal teachings of Jesus to be just about the
final word in matters such as this. Were you a member of such a group, you
might be familiar with two passages from the sixth chapter of the book of
Matthew, where Jesus himself commented on "public" prayer. Here they are, in
case they are new to you:

"When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen
by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward."

[remember that "the synagogues" were the
primary place of public instruction in those days]

"But when you make your prayer, go into your private room, and, shutting the
door, say a prayer to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in
secret, will give you your reward."

Suppose Jesus meant to say go into "your public classroom", rather than "your
private room"? Did he misspeak?

Then there is the example of Jesus praying in the garden prior to his arrest.
Not only did he go to an empty garden, in the middle of the night with just a
few close followers, but withdrew even from them to be by himself during
prayer.

These passages may be meaningless to you, and I apologize if it was
presumtptive to bring them up. As you insist that this is a Christian nation
and that all citizens should accede to the will of the numerical majority in
spiritual matters, I believe you are recommending that our kids be coerced into
reciting Christian prayers rather than those of another religion. If that's the
case, then the opinion of your major religious figure, (as recorded in the
Bible), would have some relevance in this discussion, would it not?

On 12 Nov 2004 18:03:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation........


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to
Christian following people.

Thanks for proving my point.

The point that you can't accept the reality of the truth in history?


Sort of like saying that this is a English
speaking country

No, it isn't. A common language is different than a common religion.

The principle is the same.

A common
language provides a means for sharing thoughts and ideas- a common religion
requires that all those thoughts and ideas will be essentially the same.

A common religion does not "require" any such thing. It does provide a
common point of reference in principles and morals.


Majority rules should apply in all public ceremonies or traditions
religious or otherwise. No town's traditions should be held hostage to
whims of the minority.


Damn that pesky Consitution, anyway.
What were the founders thinking? Just because the colonial immigrants to
America came here to *escape* a society where the majority assumed religious
dominance, formalized relationships between church and state, and informally or
formally persecuted dissenters, what made them think the exact same system
wouldn't be a rousing success in another society?

Nobody is advocating a "state mandated" religion (The whole point of
the establishment clause), only that IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.


That is entirely a perception issue. So now you would have the strong
arm of government preventing the majority from practicing their faith,
so that the minority can avoid feeling "uncomfortable"?

Does your faith require you to begin every gathering with a formal prayer, and
does your faith require you to pressure those who don't agree with your
doctrine to join in- or be ostracized by their silence?

No.

When you conduct a
sales or board meeting in the workplace, do you lead your fellow employees or
managers in prayer?

No.


When you take your family out to dinner in a restaurant, do
you all bow heads and say "grace" aloud for other diners to hear?

No.

I wouldn't presume to know what sort of religion you personally observe, but
certain
Christian groups hold the personal teachings of Jesus to be just about the
final word in matters such as this. Were you a member of such a group, you
might be familiar with two passages from the sixth chapter of the book of
Matthew, where Jesus himself commented on "public" prayer. Here they are, in
case they are new to you:

"When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen
by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward."

"But when you make your prayer, go into your private room, and, shutting the
door, say a prayer to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in
secret, will give you your reward."

Suppose Jesus meant to say go into "your public classroom", rather than "your
private room"? Did he misspeak?

Then there is the example of Jesus praying in the garden prior to his arrest.
Not only did he go to an empty garden, in the middle of the night with just a
few close followers, but withdrew even from them to be by himself during
prayer.

These passages may be meaningless to you, and I apologize if it was
presumtptive to bring them up. As you insist that this is a Christian nation
and that all citizens should accede to the will of the numerical majority in
spiritual matters, I believe you are recommending that our kids be coerced into
reciting Christian prayers rather than those of another religion. If that's the
case, then the opinion of your major religious figure, (as recorded in the
Bible), would have some relevance in this discussion, would it not?

I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.

My only point is that (right or wrong), whatever religious practices
or traditions (Christmas) are commonly observed by the majority of the
people, they should not be denied by the statistical minority.


Dave