• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I am 100% behind Paul Harvey on this one

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Paul Harvey and Prayer


Paul Harvey says: 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. 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, 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 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! God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God. May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
;)
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,919
Reaction score
6,031
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
:applaud

INDEED!!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Poor Paul Harvey. How long will it be before the ACLU commences its attack? They'll find some lefty-liberal judge and explain to him how to show Mr. Harvey that the first amendment right to free speech doesn't apply in his case.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jack Dawson said:
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
Neither will it be endangered if they don't. It's really quite simple. The government has no business being in the religion business. And it's that principle that ensures our freedom of religion. And freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Neither will it be endangered if they don't. It's really quite simple. The government has no business being in the religion business. And it's that principle that ensures our freedom of religion. And freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
A check of Merriam-websters defines 'of' and 'from' quite differently. It would seem that the 200 year acceptance of 'freedom of religion' has absolutely nothing to do with the recent invention, 'freedom from religion'.

Main Entry: [1]of
Pronunciation: &v, before consonants also &; '&v, 'äv
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, off, of, from Old English, adverb & preposition; akin to Old High German aba off, away, Latin ab from, away, Greek apo
Date: before 12th century
1 : — used as a function word to indicate a point of reckoning <north of the lake>
2 a : — used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation <a man of noble birth> b : — used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason <died of flu> c : BY <plays of Shakespeare> d : on the part of <very kind of you>
3 : — used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents <throne of gold> <cup of water>
4 a : — used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word <most of the army> b : — used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended <gave of his time>
5 a : relating to : ABOUT <stories of her travels> b : in respect to <slow of speech>
6 a : — used as a function word to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship <king of England> b : — used as a function word to indicate relationship between a result determined by a function or operation and a basic entity (as an independent variable) <a function of x> <the product of two numbers>
7 : — used as a function word to indicate something from which a person or thing is delivered <eased of her pain> or with respect to which someone or something is made destitute <robbed of all their belongings>
8 a : — used as a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to the class denoted by the preceding noun <the city of Rome> b : — used as a function word to indicate apposition <that fool of a husband>
9 a : — used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun <love of nature> b : — used as a function word to indicate the application of a verb <cheats him of a dollar> or of an adjective <fond of candy>
10 : — used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession <a woman of courage>
11 a : — used as a function word to indicate the position in time of an action or occurrence <died of a Monday> b : BEFORE <quarter of ten>
12 : archaic : ON <a plague of all cowards —Shakespeare>


Main Entry: from
Pronunciation: 'fr&m, 'främ also f&m
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English from, fram; akin to Old High German fram, adverb, forth, away, Old English faran to go —more at FARE
Date: before 12th century
1 : — used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits <came here from the city> <a week from today> <cost from $5 to $10>
2 : — used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation <protection from the sun> <relief from anxiety>
3 : — used as a function word to indicate the source, cause, agent, or basis <we conclude from this> <a call from my lawyer> <inherited a love of music from his father> <worked hard from necessity>
 

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
argepext - a word with you

:applaud You are so out of touch with reality. It is freedom OF religion not FROM religion. The problems in the school today with the kids is that they really DON'T have a prayer. If the actual 10 commandments or the commandment that of 'these love is the greatest', schools would be in a lot better shape, there would be more discipline and they might actually be able to be taught.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: argepext - a word with you

There are schools with officially sanctioned prayer and Biblical teaching...they're called private religious schools, and any parent who wants to shield their child from science and enlightenment can send them there.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
A check of Merriam-websters defines 'of' and 'from' quite differently.
This is a pedantic red herring, hopelessly mired in the minutia of the letter of the law while completely missing its spirit. Resorting to presenting dictionary definitions of common prepositions is clear evidence that one is clutching at straws.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Re: argepext - a word with you

Jack Dawson said:
:applaud You are so out of touch with reality. It is freedom OF religion not FROM religion. The problems in the school today with the kids is that they really DON'T have a prayer. If the actual 10 commandments or the commandment that of 'these love is the greatest', schools would be in a lot better shape, there would be more discipline and they might actually be able to be taught.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You think I shouldn't free from religion? If it's my choice not to be invloved in religion, you think it should be forced on me? By the government?
 

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
:duel It, nor did I, say that. But then you will do your best to 'twist' it to say what you want it to say. The Constitution talks about not establishing a "state" religion, which indeed you have freedom from as we all should, but it also states that we have the freedom OF religion. I don't think you or argpxt or whatever his athiest handle is have a right to ban us from it. This is STILL a country of MAJORITY votes win. The VAST majority of people in this country believe in God and for you whinney butted little liberals to try to cast your BIGOTED beliefs down are throat is wrong. I have never, will never tell you you have to believe in ANYTHING, just leave me an my beliefs alone. If you don't like what you hear, walk away, cover your ears, pray to your beer can or what ever you want to do, but don't try to stuff your BIGOTTED THINKING AGAINST CHRISTIANS come across my path. If you want to have meaninful conversations FINE, but if you simply want to be an anti-Christ BIGOT that will never happen. There is a scripture about not 'casting your pearls befor the SWINE", and trying to talk to you would fit in that category. Sorry but the truth is the truh.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Jack Dawson said:
:duel It, nor did I, say that. But then you will do your best to 'twist' it to say what you want it to say. The Constitution talks about not establishing a "state" religion, which indeed you have freedom from as we all should, but it also states that we have the freedom OF religion. I don't think you or argpxt or whatever his athiest handle is have a right to ban us from it. This is STILL a country of MAJORITY votes win. The VAST majority of people in this country believe in God and for you whinney butted little liberals to try to cast your BIGOTED beliefs down are throat is wrong. I have never, will never tell you you have to believe in ANYTHING, just leave me an my beliefs alone. If you don't like what you hear, walk away, cover your ears, pray to your beer can or what ever you want to do, but don't try to stuff your BIGOTTED THINKING AGAINST CHRISTIANS come across my path. If you want to have meaninful conversations FINE, but if you simply want to be an anti-Christ BIGOT that will never happen. There is a scripture about not 'casting your pearls befor the SWINE", and trying to talk to you would fit in that category. Sorry but the truth is the truh.
You know, I simply asked you to clarify what you were saying. It sounded to me as if you were saying that I should not expect freedon from religion. I never suggested anyone "ban" you from anything. Rather than just clarifing your position you resorted to name calling. Real nice. I fail to see how you bolster your argument by calling myself or anyone else a "Bigot" or "Whinny Butted." But if you honestly think this makes you or your argument look better- knock yourself out my good Christian. But be careful of the stones that you throw.

"Judge Not, That Ye Be Not Judged.
For With What Judgement Ye Judge,
Ye Shall Be Judged....."
Matthew: 7-2

BTW- just so you know- I prefer bottled beer. And I'm certain I've never prayed to any bottles.​
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jack Dawson said:
I don't think you or argpxt or whatever his athiest handle is have a right to ban us from it.
Please provide an example of this supposed banning of your religion.

Jack Dawson said:
...for you whinney butted little liberals to try to cast your BIGOTED beliefs down are throat is wrong.
Please provide an example of this, as well.

Jack Dawson said:
...but if you simply want to be an anti-Christ BIGOT that will never happen.
But Christian bigotry toward gays is OK?

Jack Dawson said:
There is a scripture about not 'casting your pearls befor the SWINE", and trying to talk to you would fit in that category.
"Let he who is without swine cast the first stone."

P.S. Amen Pacridge!

P.P.S. For the record, I'm a secular humanist agnostic Buddhist deist pantheist.


__________________________

JESUS SAVE ME
...from your followers!
 
Last edited:

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Be what you want to be. Just let us be what we want to be. When I hear agnostic, diest crap I simply don't listen. I don't file lawsuits to prevent evolution from being taught, I simply want creation to have the same opportunity. If you think Christianity is crap, don't listen. If you ever closely rightfully divided the Bible you would find the destruction fell on the non-believers. The judge not scripture you athiest are good at throwing up of course is taken out of context, like 'thou shalt not kill'. Doesn't bother you to kill innocent babies and defend the right of those doing the killing (the mother and the doctor) but forbid the fact you would executie (as punsishment, NOT a deterrent) a convicted felon. And don't get into the 'oh those poor innocent criminals that were ACCIDENTALLY executed, when you MURDERED MILLIONS of innocent babies". You people are like the pharasees, you quote scripture and are clueless to what it means or really says. Grow up. :applaud :applaud :applaud
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Jack Dawson said:
Be what you want to be. Just let us be what we want to be. When I hear agnostic, diest crap I simply don't listen. I don't file lawsuits to prevent evolution from being taught, I simply want creation to have the same opportunity. If you think Christianity is crap, don't listen. If you ever closely rightfully divided the Bible you would find the destruction fell on the non-believers. The judge not scripture you athiest are good at throwing up of course is taken out of context, like 'thou shalt not kill'. Doesn't bother you to kill innocent babies and defend the right of those doing the killing (the mother and the doctor) but forbid the fact you would executie (as punsishment, NOT a deterrent) a convicted felon. And don't get into the 'oh those poor innocent criminals that were ACCIDENTALLY executed, when you MURDERED MILLIONS of innocent babies". You people are like the pharasees, you quote scripture and are clueless to what it means or really says. Grow up. :applaud :applaud :applaud
Wow! you almost got through an enitre post without name calling. So now I'm not bothered by the death of innocent babies. I'm clueless as to the meaning of the scriptures I read. And I'm an atheist. I can see from your post why you would think I'm the one that needs to grow up.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jack Dawson said:
Be what you want to be. Just let us be what we want to be.
Now who's whining? Please provide some examples of this supposed Christian repression.

Jack Dawson said:
When I hear agnostic, diest crap I simply don't listen.
So in the same breadth that you ask---no, demand!--- tolerance of your beliefs, you belittle the beliefs of others? There's a word for this, and it rhymes with pypocrit.

Jack Dawson said:
I don't file lawsuits to prevent evolution from being taught, I simply want creation to have the same opportunity.
If by not given an opportunity you mean teaching it in a science class, yes, fairy tales have no business in a science class. (Before we get hurled down this tangent, please see my post The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism" , where I went 15 rounds with a Christian and covered every possible argument there is for and against.)

Jack Dawson said:
If you think Christianity is crap, don't listen.
On the contrary, I'm a big fan of Christ. It's his followers I think are full of crap.


Jack Dawson said:
If you ever closely rightfully divided the Bible you would find the destruction fell on the non-believers. The judge not scripture you athiest are good at throwing up of course is taken out of context, like 'thou shalt not kill'. Doesn't bother you to kill innocent babies and defend the right of those doing the killing (the mother and the doctor) but forbid the fact you would executie (as punsishment, NOT a deterrent) a convicted felon.
And you Christians will violate this most sacred of commandments simply because your president tells you to.
 

KBeta

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Location
Seattle, WA
Meanwhile... Back on topic.

Jack Dawson said:
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
I agree. As long as the prayer is NOT recited over the public address system which was paid for out of my tax dollars. If the game is between two private, Christian schools then they can deliver an entire sermon over the loud speaker if they want to.

Jack Dawson said:
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.
If you want to pray for the well being of the players and the fans heading home, go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. If you are too lazy or too busy buying beer to do it yourself and want someone to do it for you, then you're out of luck.

Jack Dawson said:
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Nobody ever said 'turning the other cheek' would be easy. Now who is whining? BTW, nobody has the 'right' to use a publicly owned PA system to foment your own religious perspective even if it the announcement is well intentioned.

Jack Dawson said:
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
No, a handful people and their lawyers are telling you to stop using the publicly owned PA system for your prayers.

Jack Dawson said:
It is time the majority rules!
Does the phrase, “tyranny of the majority” mean anything to anyone?

Jack Dawson said:
But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back ... and we WILL WIN! God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.
I used to enjoyed listening to Paul Harvey when I was growing up in Michigan, but I haven’t heard him in a long time. Are all of his commentaries now so utterly bloated with this kind of jingoistic ranting?

Jack Dawson said:
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
OH! THAT’S what they are fighting for. And here I was thinking it was because we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people… or was it because Saddam had WMDs? Or was that links to terrorism… What’s the reason de jour?

Jack Dawson said:
May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
Okay, now we get to it. At least Harvey has the spine to say it outright. Let’s break down the wall of separation between the church and the state. That’s what that argument boils down to. Sorry. You’re not getting us started down that slippery slope with your myth of Christian persecution.

Say a prayer to yourself or amongst your friends, enjoy the game, and quit your whining.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
And you Christians will violate this most sacred of commandments simply because your president tells you to.
Perhaps you can tell us how your statement squares with:

"Greater love hath no man, than that he lay down his life for another."

There are quite a few Americans of all faiths, and I'm sure, some athiests, too, who have done just that in the valiant military success that set fifty million people free from oppression.

It is quite possible, too, that with all of the US airborne activity in the tsunami effected areas, an accident, or two, may result in additional American service personnel laying down their lives for others.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Perhaps you can tell us how your statement squares with:

"Greater love hath no man, than that he lay down his life for another."
Our troops in Iraq are laying down their lives for George W. Bush and Haliburton.

Fantasea said:
There are quite a few Americans of all faiths, and I'm sure, some athiests, too, who have done just that in the valiant military success that set fifty million people free from oppression.
If you're talkning about WWII, it was the Russians that won that war. The Americans just took all the credit.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
So they want to pray, let 'em do it in the locker room. No problem. Whatever became of the biblical injunction to pray privately?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Our troops in Iraq are laying down their lives for George W. Bush and Haliburton.

If you're talkning about WWII, it was the Russians that won that war. The Americans just took all the credit.
Still getting your info from the ACLU, I see. I guess you haven't gotten around to googling them yet.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
This is sort of an add-on that I didn't think of before when I posted my last. You chided me for not googling, so I did. Here is Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. KJV

Care to comment?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
The ACLU wrote the bible? Wow!
Welcome to the discussion. However, the sarcastic tenor of your response causes one to wonder whether you have a point to express and whether you have some factual basis with which to support your position.

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to make that known.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
This is sort of an add-on that I didn't think of before when I posted my last. You chided me for not googling, so I did. Here is Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. KJV

Care to comment?
Sure.

I was not chiding you. The post to which you responded, #22 in this thread, began with a quote from a post by 'argexpat'. My post was intended as a response to that quote.

The reference was to one of my prior posts relating to the publicly admitted communist affiliation of founders of the ACLU, which thus far has not been acknowledged by that writer. Nor has it been refuted.

With respect to your biblical quote, I have no disagreement with the passage. However, I seem to remember a passage relating to 'Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, I am in their midst."

I am not offended when a Jewish boy wears a yarmulke during class. Nor am I offended when children of the Islamic faith are permitted, during class, several times a day, to face the East and pray silently. Nor am I offended when a public high school football team huddles and offers a prayer for victory and no injuries. Nor am I offended when their supporters in the stands, understanding what is going on in the huddle, joins in. Nor am I offended when a Menorah, Nativity scene, or other form of recognition of a holiday celebration is publicly displayed. Nor am I offended when the words "Under God" are spoken in a classroom. Nor am I offended when words from the Declaration of Independence,such as, "endowed by their Creator" are cited.

One cannot be offended by another. However, one may choose to take offense. It's a deliberate action. A throwback to the days of the duel, when one had the option of claiming offense and demanding satisfaction. Have we not advanced beyond that?

These are but a few of the instances in which Americans, individually, or in groups, are exercising their right of free speech, under the First Amendment. I believe that the founding fathers showed exceptional brilliance when they included both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the same sentence.

The requirement of the First Amendment is that Congress neither infringe on speech, nor establish a national religion. Both of these concerns were valid because of their experience with the actions of the former Mother Country where unpopular opinion and thought as well as failure to support the Church of England could, and in many instances did, lead to the loss of one's head.

So, here in the US, we have the freedom to speak our minds without fear, and we do not have a Church of the United States.

The First Amendment, although twisted and tortured in an attempt to do so by some, never contemplated the cleansing of government from recognition or all vestiges of religion. If the reverse were true, why did the founding fathers establish certain acknowledgments that continue in practice to this day?

Among them, the words "In God We Trust" on coinage and currency; the opening of every session of the US Congress with a prayer for Divine guidance offered by its salaried chaplain or a guest chaplain; US combat forces, about to do battle, participating in religious services conducted by Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, or Protestant chaplains; the emblazoning of Biblical passages on and in governmental buildings; national holidays of equal stature to celebrate the birth of this nation and the birth of Christ.

The founding fathers, some of whom were deists, and some of whom were not, had no intention or desire to divorce religion from government; only the will to permit others to enjoy as they did, the choice to worship as they wished, or not at all, if that was their wish.

So long as it does not establish a national religion, Congress has fulfilled its obligation under the First Amendment.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
"I was not chiding you. The post to which you responded, #22 in this thread, began with a quote from a post by 'argexpat'. My post was intended as a response to that quote."

Sorry, this is an unfamiliar setup. I took it as a direct response to what I had written.

"The reference was to one of my prior posts relating to the publicly admitted communist affiliation of founders of the ACLU, which thus far has not been acknowledged by that writer. Nor has it been refuted."

Let me offer you a revolutionary thought: All things Capitalist are not necessarily good, and all things Communist are not necessarily bad. Communism as the effective religion of a proselytizing imperial USSR was scary. As an economic theory, which is all it is right now, it’s just another political philosophy and, like wearing a yarmulke, should offend no one. To many, anything that is not laissez faire capitalism, and the ACLU is certainly far from that, smacks of communism. Put it another way, anything that opposes the way things are going is automatically communistic.

“With respect to your biblical quote, I have no disagreement with the passage. However, I seem to remember a passage relating to ' Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, I am in their midst.’"

This has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer, has it? However, with sufficient semantic gymnastics it could doubtless be used to persuade the already convinced of the obligation to pray publicly. It’s interesting how reluctant the advocates of public prayer are to come to grips with completely unambiguous Matthew 6:6, though.

” I am not offended when a Jewish boy wears a yarmulke during class. Nor am I offended when children of the Islamic faith are permitted, during class, several times a day, to face the East and pray silently. Nor am I offended when a public high school football team huddles and offers a prayer for victory and no injuries. Nor am I offended when their supporters in the stands, understanding what is going on in the huddle, joins in. Nor am I offended when a Menorah, Nativity scene, or other form of recognition of a holiday celebration is publicly displayed. Nor am I offended when the words "Under God" are spoken in a classroom. Nor am I offended when words from the Declaration of Independence, such as, "endowed by their Creator" are cited.”

There is a critical distinct between two classes of events that seems to completely elude you. Yarmulkes, head scarves, small crosses and stars of David are personal items and they require no particular response or recognition. France is overreacting here, I think. Having several kids interrupt class while they parade out and do their thing and then come back again several times a days is a bit much. It takes time from the classes, it takes time and thought from the teachers, and it requires the school to devote resources to a select group for religious purposes. I suspect you wouldn’t be terribly happy with a similar group interrupting class to go to the john several times a day. I am not offended when the words “Under God” are uttered, either. It’s just when they’re crammed into the Pledge to the flag that I get annoyed. I have two grounds of this or maybe three: it is totally out of context, it destroys the rhythm, and it displays government sponsorship of religion, which you’ve admitted here shouldn’t happen.

“One cannot be offended by another. However, one may choose to take offense. It's a deliberate action. A throwback to the days of the duel, when one had the option of claiming offense and demanding satisfaction. Have we not advanced beyond that?”

That is a quibble. I can be and have been offended by others.
 
Top Bottom