It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

page: 24
113
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I would not be opposed to such a thing either. Most everyone makes some sort of prayer/plea when they want something to go well. Essentially, putting out vibes into the universe, at the very least. Some chose to go as far as to pray to a specific entity. Making it a generic "prayer" or "hopeful wish" would not be bad. It's would simply be hoping that the players remain safe, that their team wins, that everyone has a good time, etc.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

For the believers in Christ, I think an excellent guide would be to ask
yourself WWJD (or say) in such situations as this. Would he
be tolerant of other people and their beliefs or their way of life.
Recall he preached love and tolerance, understanding, compassion.
Use some empathy here for those who may have strongly held
beliefs that differ from yours. We are all different, we are all unique
and we all deserve some tolerance and compassion from time to time.


As near as I can recall, and I may be wrong about this, But I believe he had some disagreements with a group or two that had strongly held beliefs, different from his. They seem to have been fairly judgemental and intolerant, and were called 'Pharisees'.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You have not just been snidely attacking religion, far worse you have been snidely attacking freedom and nenothtu's obvious efforts of actually quoting you only goes to show what a waste of time that is. You think that all you have to do is call others a liar, and this will some how hide your own equivocations. That principal is protected by both a federal and state Constitution that say's he can say whatever the hell he wants over the PA, as long as he isn't causing anyone harm, and there is no evidence that his comments caused anyone harm.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Gosh, my apologies, I did not mean to offend you by calling you Christian. I was wrong in assuming your odd defense of Christianity flouting the rules meant you were one. Please forgive me.


No, I wasn't offended by that, I was just pointing out that you are basing your diatribes on assumptions.

What is offensive is your attacks on other religions. It seems you have that in common with some christians.


Show me one attack on any religion in this thread. I am no going to get into the same circular BS match Jean Paul tried to pull. If you want to misconstrue what I have said, then you will get the same treatment. Back it up or admit you are wrong and we can move forward.

Of the many details you missed about my problem with the lies is for one, the were about me and what I have said. If you wan to lie about you, go for it.

So...show me these offensive attacks.


I think I've already covered the circular jumping through hoops issue.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think rival was making the point that, if one were to ask "what would Jesus do?", they would realize that Jesus did not force anyone to listen to his preaching/beliefs. He tended to preach from a certain locale and let people come to him IF they wanted to listen.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by nenothtu
First mention was on page 1, in this post: post by nunya13


Thanks, I have to go back and read how that evolved again.


You're welcome.




Were it not for the Constitutional argument, I wouldn't be here at all.


Are you sure about that? You have spent a great deal of time with me and I am not discussing the constitution at all. In fact, that is one of the quotes mistakenly attributed to me that Jean Paul refused to admit was a mistake.


Yeah, I'm sure of it. I jumped into the thread initially over constitutional issues. It's just been a whole lot of fun discussion everything else with you.


This was my first post here, for verification of what I just said:
post by nenothtu

Edit: to fix my own link. Dammit. It's been a long couple of days.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


If that's the case, I stand corrected.

Second line, in case that's really, really necessary in order to bolster my apology.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Jesus traveled all of Palestine, and attracted followers wherever he went. This principal did not force anyone to come to the game, and all who were there, were there of their own volition. He did not force anyone to pray, merely invited anyone who chose to, to do so. The irony, and the clear parallel is that Jesus faced crafty Pharisees who attempted to pervert the law in order to stop Jesus, and in the end, it was not Jewish law that condemned Jesus, but Roman law. All roads lead to Rome.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
dp

[edit on 26-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe

Since the other poster TOTALLY sidestepped my point, maybe you could address it.

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW or MANDATE the government to run schools?

Are you going to sidestep this issue also?


You seem a little confused on the issue here...or at least trying to contort an argument painfully.

lets try some simple logic.

You are right..the constitution does not tell the government to "RUN schools".

Logical sidenote--the constitution does not tell the government to do a lot of things that the government does...The constitution does not stand alone as our singular reference of law or principle...it is a foundation - not a structure in it's entirity.

The "Where does it say in the constitution XXX !!!!!!" is an exhausting and silly argument.

to constantly scream "Where in the constitution does it say I can't ...murder my nieghbors dog, marry my sister, pee on the city streets"...That "where in the constituion!!!" rhetoric is just getting DUMB.

You can rather argue if something is "constitutional" or "unconstitional" based on how given circumstances might apply to ideals and principles outlined in the constitution...But you can't keep taking specific examples of modern life and saying where is that specifically stated in the constitution.


SCHOOLS CAN TEACH RELIGION...as long as they are not PUBLIC SCHOOLS, recieving tax dollars and PUBLIC funding.

Ever hear of Catholic School????? Private schools? Private Catholic Schools etc?

PUBLIC schools however....how would you like your tax dollars going toward a PUBLIC school whose administration decides that the students should practice Islam and conduct a morning, noon and evening prayer to Mecca each day?

IF A SCHOOL IS RUN ON TAX DOLLARS and it is PUBLICLY FUNDED...LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF IT BECAUSE NOT EVERY STUDENT OR EVERY TAXPAYER HAS THE SAME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What is complicated about that?



[edit on 26-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


There we go again, comparing apples to aardvarks.

This guy was not teaching anything, nor requiring anything. He was talking. That is it. In, what i might add, is a traditional manner.

Trying to equate that to 5 time a day prayers and such is a strawman. If you want to use analogy, compare like for like.

It is a school related activity, outside of the school, with paid admission that is voluntary, where adults are the primary audience.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I think I've already covered the circular jumping through hoops issue.


None of you can admit when you are wrong? Seriously? You resort to making up things I have said and then refuse to provide proof or explanation. If that is how you want to play, go play with Jean Paul. I have not once lie about anyone in this thread or miss-represented anyone. If I had, they have not called me on it and I always provide quotes of what I am attacking to prove it was said.

Sorry you have to make things up about me in order to even have this discussion.

If you ever find any proof of me attacking religion in this thread, let me know. Until then, go talk to JP.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08



My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?



I hope you're not actually a U.S. citizen and if you are I almost come to tears. If you don't like prayer we agree to disagree, but saying the national anthem plays no part at sporting events sickens me. Please I beg of you go out and find a marine and tell him that the national anthem has no place in a public setting. You disgust me please put up your address maybe some of us proud Americans can pool together and give you a first class ticket to china, oh or maybe Korea yeah that sounds like a great place to live.



No one likes a drama queen. Ah, typical hypocrite. You freedom this and freedom that but someone uses their freedom of speech and they need to go to China.

Kind of reminds me of when after 9/11 and the war in Iraq started that I was told to get out of the country for not supporting the war.


Sporting events have nothing to do with the Marines or any other branch of the military for that matter. They are here to protect us and protect our freedoms. Football has nothing to do with that. In fact, everyone gathering to pray for Jim who is probably pumping steroids, drinking on the weekends and sleeping with every cheerleader is kind of absurd. Not that all football players are that way, but just like the rest of the population, there are all walks of life. So why the special consideration because they are playing a sport?

obviously you have trouble seperating patriotism from religion? Many do. Which proves my point.

Do I personally have a problem with the Anthem being sung at sporting events? No. But I don't see why a sporting event in particular warrants everyone singing the National Anthem.

Do I have a problem with prayer at sporting events? Absolutely. Again, there is nothing special that warrants it. And it makes it a state sanctioned religion.

Why anyone of any religion would want any government entity conducting any type of religious services is beyond me.



Now lets have everyone be honest here and answer the questions that have been avoided.

If a Muslim or Atheist prayer was given at a school prior to a game, would there be any issues with this?

Or is this really about wanting a public sanction of Christianity? And if so, why do you need a public sanction of Christianity?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by nixie_nox]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by nenothtu

I think I've already covered the circular jumping through hoops issue.


None of you can admit when you are wrong? Seriously?


I have no problem with publicly admitting when I'm wrong. See my last post above this one.



You resort to making up things I have said and then refuse to provide proof or explanation. If that is how you want to play, go play with Jean Paul. I have not once lie about anyone in this thread or miss-represented anyone. If I had, they have not called me on it and I always provide quotes of what I am attacking to prove it was said.

Sorry you have to make things up about me in order to even have this discussion.

If you ever find any proof of me attacking religion in this thread, let me know. Until then, go talk to JP.


Fair enough. I stand by what I said, and I still won't jump through hoops at your command.

Been nice debating with you. Have a nice day.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Free speech has never and never will give people the right to say whatever they want. A high school football game is an event of the state. EVERYONE pays taxes and his salary. He has an obligation during a state event, like a football game, to refrain from subjecting EVERYONE to his religious practice. He can do and say whatever he wants at a private event, but not at a state sponsored event no matter how many people in the community support him.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


What is complicated by it is the FACT that those that espouse big government and the control parameters that engenders JUST DO NOT GET IT.

The Constitution was for the VERY PURPOSE of restricting the government, PERIOD.

Life, Liberty and Property.

Now that the government takes our labor and property for the PUBLIC WELFARE they stick their nose in EVERYTHING, hence infringing on our unalienable rights.

Why the hell do we even have a damn Constitution if the very PURPOSE of that said Constitution is trampled on?

I know you do not get it, it is obvious the inability of some to use logic or even the semblance of logic, is a frightening thing.

Go kiss your Patriot Act, go kiss your Federal Reserve, go kiss your government's hand for surely it is your master.

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

I believe Caesar is an ass and too many have fallen under Caesar's enchantment.

Let me see, what exactly is government? Government by the people for the people. Still not seeing it?

We do not live in a damn democracy (mob rules), we live under a Republic. Where the RULE OF LAW is the basis of our society.

Any legislation that goes against the Constitution (a restriction on the power of government) is not law, it is a fallacy, color of law or in other words only the appearance of law.

Let us say I am standing on a sidewalk that is part of the city property, can I speak my mind? Can I say what I want?

In your view that would be against the law because it is in Public. Pffft.

Time for people to use some logic and reasoning instead of the limited box you place yourself into.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 





to constantly scream "Where in the constitution does it say I can't ...murder my nieghbors dog, marry my sister, pee on the city streets"...That "where in the constituion!!!" rhetoric is just getting DUMB.


You clearly have no understanding of what the purpose of the Constitution is. It is a document establishing government, and it most certainly matters what that document grants authority for government to do and what it prohibits government from doing. You are merely deflecting with your above quote, and it is bad deflection. Only those who wish to pervert the language of the Constitution rely on such fallacy. How ironic then, that you declare endisnighe is a little confused.

Your so called "logical side note" only further obfuscates. The government can only do what is either expressly permitted, or implicitly permitted. Any legislation beyond that is nothing more than an usurpation of government and expansion of power not expressly, nor implicitly granted. The doctrine of judicial review, for example, is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is implicitly so.

The only possible way the federal government can justify spending federal funds on public education, would be to promote the general welfare, and given the large divide on so many issues regarding public education, it should be clear that draining public funds on public education has not even come close to promoting the general welfare.

The fact of the matter is that schools CAN teach religion even if they are public. Public schools are either state funded, or more local, and it is on that local level that the community can come together and decide what is best for them, and if they overwhelmingly approve religious teaching in that school, there is nothing the federal government can do about it, and attempting to use the 14th Amendment in order to justify this federal intrusion only brings the 14th Amendment into a light where it can be better examined. The fact of the matter is that the 14th Amendment doesn't do anything other than re-iterate what is all ready mentioned by the Bill of Rights, and the last Amendment of the Bill of Rights, makes clear that the states have their own authority, and there are state constitutions, that protect rights as well.




PUBLIC schools however....how would you like you tax dollars going toward a PUBLIC school whose administration decides that the students should practice Islam and conduct a morning, noon and evening prayer to Mecca each day?


If a public school is funded largely by tax dollars that come from a Muslim community, then what would be so wrong with that public school teach, not enforce, of which you clearly hope to bait and switch, the principles of Islam, but even more importantly, and what is endisnighe's point, is that it is not government's responsibility to fund education. Your argument above only underscores why it should seriously be considered to just end the public school systems all together, and let education be handled by the private sector.




IF A SCHOOL IS RUN ON TAX DOLLARS and it is PUBLICLY FUNDED...LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF IT BECAUSE NOT EVERY STUDENT OR EVERY TAXPAYER HAS THE SAME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.


Not everyone has the same sexual preferences, but such things as sexual preference is being taught in publicly funded schools anyway. Not everyone has the same sense of history, but a specific bias in history is being taught anyway. Not everyone has the same political ideologies, but political ideologies are taught in a biased way nonetheless. Civil rights are taught ad nauseum in public schools, and inalienable rights either given short shrift or not even taught at all. Your point ignores all this just to make a stand about religion, and again only underscores why the institution of public education should seriously be considered as not a good idea.




What is complicated about that?


I would ask the same of you.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I think that had the principal explained that the law prevented the saying of a prayer, and instead just allowed for a moment of silence instead, this wouldn't be a thread. He was P.O.'d, and it was a rant. I wouldn't call him a "fanatic", but a "family-values Christian conservative" - willing to bet this was a small town in a red-state. Whether or not you agree with his views on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, the point is that he was using those hot-buttons to make a rhetorical point. He was preaching to the choir anyway.

I would love to see what that crowd would have done had the principal been a Muslim.

As a Christian, I feel that inducing people to pray publicly, especially in situations involving public pressure, doesn't produce genuine prayer. That is merely my opinion.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





Free speech has never and never will give people the right to say whatever they want.


You have purposely taken what I said, which was that people are free to say what they want, as long as that cause no harm to others, and by harm it is implicit that a victim is presented. People are free to say what ever they want and even if it presents a victim and the numerous slander suits in courts across the nation, serves as evidence of this. If there is a victim due to free speech, then their right to free speech is not protected, as this is the way rights work, one right can not disparage another right.




EVERYONE pays taxes and his salary. He has an obligation during a state event, like a football game, to refrain from subjecting EVERYONE to his religious practice.


The fact that a person is paid by tax dollars does not mean that person relinquishes his or her rights. Rights are not something that can willy nilly be taken away, by either government or the people. Rights are inalienable, which means they are non transferable.




He can do and say whatever he wants at a private event, but not at a state sponsored event no matter how many people in the community support him.


He can say or do whatever he wants, as long as those actions do not violate others rights, in public as well.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have no problem with publicly admitting when I'm wrong. See my last post above this one.


Yet you cannot admit you are wrong in claiming that I have been attacking religion? Why assert something you know to be false and then stand by it with pride? Just like with JP, you have the chance to realize you were wrong and admit it but standing by something that is demonstrably false is lying. Why do you need to lie about what I say? Why do you even have to go there? Why can you not admit to me that you made a mistake accusing me of something I HAVE NOT DONE ONCE? Why can you not admit that??


Fair enough. I stand by what I said, and I still won't jump through hoops at your command.

Been nice debating with you. Have a nice day.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]


Asking you to be honest is asking you to jump through hoops? That is just about the saddest excuse I have ever seen on here. Was nice with you until you started making up things I said just like that other wonderful poster who did it in the name of Jesus.


I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN HONEST DEBATE with one of you but the only people that keep coming forward turn out to pull this crap.

Imagine that, in defense of Christianity, the only way to win is to make things up. That pretty much sums up why you people should not be teaching children anything.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join