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

Dave Hall wrote:
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


Why not?

--
A passing thought:

.... Dazed and confused...

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:18:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


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


Why not?


Because logic dictates that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs
of the few.

Dave

Because logic dictates that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs
of the few.

Dave


It's a matter of law, not logic.

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.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels, camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches. It is not appropriate for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the community.


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.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as John
Kerry? :-)

That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute, how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings, even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the law.
Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple), in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.

Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach
or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props
on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take
Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that
Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as
a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels,
camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space
or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches. It is not appropriate
for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or
faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the
community.


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.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as
John
Kerry? :-)

That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute,
how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope
to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law
exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish,
Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings,
even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another
almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the
teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific
religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the
law.
Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman
should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple),
in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.

Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

You mean like the big red & green lights that many cities have hung up
over street intersections? They look very festive.

DSK