It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Touche. But I should not have to miss the first part of the game and not take part in a public prayer to give good will to the players. I should be able to take part in this just as much as everyone else does, but I don't think it's appropriate that one religion has more leeway than any other when it comes to which prayer is said over the loud speaker. Why should I keep my prayer to myself and others get to have theirs heard by everyone?

This is why I think a moment of silence is perfectly acceptable and fair to all. This is what the principle was complaining about. The supreme court saying that a moment of silence should suffice in place of a prayer that everyone has no choice but to listen to if they are present. Why would anyone have a problem with this? In my opinion, the only time this would be a problem is if you had a problem with everyone being able to take part in their own form of worship for a moment's time.

Please understand this is just my perception. I'm not saying it is so.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Once again, he is not assuming that Congress is GOING to establish Christianity, he is assuming it already IS established.

Praying and preaching are both a form of him practicing his religion. A state rep at a state event PRACTICING his religion publicly as part of the event. If you allow him to do this, then you have allow public school teachers to lead the class in prayer, judges to pray to the courtroom at a trial, and police officers to quote scripture while arresting someone. This is not as trivial as you make it out to be.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Once again, he is not assuming that Congress is GOING to establish Christianity, he is assuming it already IS established.

Praying and preaching are both a form of him practicing his religion. A state rep at a state event PRACTICING his religion publicly as part of the event. If you allow him to do this, then you have allow public school teachers to lead the class in prayer, judges to pray to the courtroom at a trial, and police officers to quote scripture while arresting someone. This is not as trivial as you make it out to be.

Or Congress praying before their sessions?


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Anti-Evil
You had it almost right... Jesus said nothing about being "ashamed" of Him.

Jesus said "If you DENY me before men, so will I DENY you before my Father in heaven."

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

The Supreme Court ruling (MARSH v. CHAMBERS in 1983) is extremely controversial and BS in my opinion. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact it was Regan's Supreme Court.

This is part of the summary of the ruling.

"This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view." Rather, the Founding Fathers looked at invocations as "conduct whose . . . effect . . . harmonize[d] with the tenets of some or all religions.

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history (unbroken history? Slavery?) of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. (you mean like slavery?) To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment (then what exactly would qualify as a step towards establishing a religion?); it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. "

I completely disagree with this. Just because it's tradition and the majority of the citizens are Christian doesn't mean the state should be practicing Christianity. It would also have to be a pretty vague prayer for it to be in harmony with other religions.

This is what the principal said..

"I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology.."

"For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.

" However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM,in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so.. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."

Would you say that is in harmony with other religions? And I'm sure his prayer would have been in similar taste as his preaching.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by Reflection

First off, you twisted my words. I didn't qualify the first amendment to mean separation of church and state. I said it should be a LAW that comes before the 1st amendment. Just like the trespassing and harassment ANALOGY I used. It's not bait and switch. It's an analogy to make a point. Some laws come before our rights.

A law that comes before the First Amendment? Since you are accusing me of twisting your words, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by a law that comes before the First Amendment. Are you aware that everything that come before that Amendment is the establishment of a federal government that in no way places any prohibitions on the people? Are you suggesting that the Founders who wrote the Constitution screwed up and should have placed a prohibition on the people?

Your trespass and harassment "analogies" are crimes, and they were crimes before the Constitution was written, and remain crimes today. Explain how worshiping freely in public is a crime. Would you have such a thing declared a crime in The Constitution before the First Amendment so as to render the First Amendments prohibition on Congress to make any laws regarding the free exercise of religion moot? If it is law, it is self evident. What is so self evident about the crime of worshiping religion in public?

You have said a lot on here, but you don't seem to grasp this most basic concept. The principal has every right to practice his religion outside of his job while he is representing the state. While he is on the clock, representing the state, he should refrain from practicing his religion. The second he gets off that podium, he can pray in PRIVATE by himself or with a group. That's his first amendment right. He just shouldn't do it while he is representing the state.

You don't seem to grasp that this principal is not an elected, nor even an appointed government official, he is a school administrator, nothing more. Further, while you speak to the volume of posting I have made in this thread, you clearly have ignored most of it, especially the sections of the Tennessee Constitution, and the link I provided to that Constitution. Why is that? Is it because you are not saying that the Tennessee Constitution doesn't protect his rights to speak as he did but that it should make it a crime instead? Let's be honest, you haven't bothered to read what I posted from the Tennessee Constitution, nor have you bothered to check out the link provided to find out this information yourself, and you certainly haven't bothered to research the law yourself.

Allow me to post some sections from the Tennessee Constitution one more time:

§ 1. Powers of people

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

This is posted here to make certain it is understood, that people have inalienable rights that can not be legally diminished or taken away. Unless you have some interpretation that offers a more sophisticated interpretation.

§ 2. Doctrine of non-resistance

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Perhaps, in your modern sophistication of interpretation you would read this differently than I have, but this seems to say that passivity and general acceptance of arbitrary power, (that would be the form of tyranny I am accusing you of with your lazy whims), are absurd and slavish, which is quite an indictment on this doctrine. Certainly what the principal did at that game was clear resistance, done so in the most respectful of ways, and in accordance to his own teachings, to an intrusive federal government, one you seem to be advocating should have the authority to drive all who worship freely into the privacy of their own homes, and denied public access to do so. Am I twisting your words again, or would this be a fair summation of your argument?

§ 3. Freedom of worship

That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

Would you argue that this section really means that "according to the dictates of their own conscience" means in private? Perhaps you are arguing that when it is stated; "that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent" that what the principal did before that game some how was he compelling everyone who attended that game to attend, to support his personal beliefs, and to maintain his religious beliefs without their consent? If this is your argument, then state it clearly and then show us how it is so. Or perhaps you are arguing that this principal declared law by fiat and imposed religion on the people attending that game? I wouldn't want to twist your words, so you should speak more clearly to what you are arguing.

§ 4. Political or religious test

That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall never be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.

This is posted simply to show that this Constitution is in harmony with the federal Constitution that makes the same demand, however, where the federal Constitution, and this Constitution differ is in this Article, and section:

§ 2. Atheists holding office

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

So, where no religious tests can be administered to qualify a government official, Article IX, Section 2 of the Tennesse Constitution that atheism is not a religion, and that such a belief is a disqualification for office in the state of Tennessee. Regardless of what you may think of such an Article, it is law, and any atheism can not impose itself upon that law.

Private worship doesn't mean you can only worship in your home. You can do it anywhere and with anyone. Hence the idea that everyone in the stands can pray on their own, with a private group. It's just that the STATE should not be leading the prayer. The LAW of separation of church and state should be in place, so that anyone representing the state must abide by that law BEFORE their first amendment rights.

And again, the State did not compel anyone to pray by order of decree, and once again, that principal is not a government official but merely a school administrator. The "law" as you arrogantly wrote in capitalized letters as if to underscore its self evident nature, of "separation of church and state", then continue with "should be in place", as if the law operates to yours or any other persons dictates. The law is the law, and cares not what you think about it, nor what others think about it, and stands as the law whether it is codified by legislation or not. The law is universal and applies to all people, a reality you seem to want to ignore in order to argue who can say and do what they wish in public. Your whimsical nature about the law, is most certainly why I am compelled to call you a tyrant, and I suspect as long as you continue to argue such whimsical nonsense about who can do what and where, others will come to call you a tyrant as well.

Teachers shouldn't lead each class with a prayer, judges shouldn't say a prayer before a trial, police officers shouldn't quote scripture while arresting someone, and public school principals shouldn't lead the crowd in a prayer before a football game. They are all free, even while on the job, to pray PRIVATELY on their own or with a group of WILLING participants. They just shouldn't be able lead a group, unwillingly, while they are representing the state. That is in no way taking away their first amendment rights. It is them abiding by a law while representing the state. If they have a problem with that law, then don't represent the state.

Your list of all people shouldn't do again reveals your tyrannical nature. If a judge wants to say a prayer before a trial, who are you to tell that judge they can't? Oh that's the right, you are the one who keeps presenting the "law of separation of church and state that should be in place", but isn't as support for your tyranny. The more you keep arguing this the more it is clear that you could care less for the facts of the O.P. and wish to alter those facts in order to support your tyranny. You claim that all who chose to pray upon that principal's invitation to do so have the right to do so privately, (of which you insist on capitalizing as if you are clear on what you mean by that), and that privately means that they can do it right there where they did, and by willingly, you mean that those who took up that principal's invitation, you just don't want the principal to have his right, and to support this you will declare the principal the state government, of which he is not. Please.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Reflection

So now praying equates to slavery.

I am done with you. Your reaches in logic are quite amazing.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:10 PM
I read through a few pages of this thread and felt compelled to post. I think the OP started with good intentions...Obviously, this was some sort of email sent to rally Christians to not be silent even when people tell you to shut up (it actually reminded me of something that my mom would send me as an "encouraging message"). Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that at all; simple good intent. Enter the "free thinking," "educated," "tolerant" ilk that frequently toss their two cents into the proverbial fountain. I find it incredibly ironic how this type of person gets such pleasure through abasing Christianity, but turn around and demand respect toward other world views.

They (Anti-Christians [be it athiests, agnostics, gnostics, whomever]) always complain that "Christians force their religion down my throat and I have a right to dress them down as often as I am able." If saying a prayer is an example of "force," you're out of your mind. How can something so simple be such a hotbed issue?

I realize that nothing I type will make an iota of difference with all of you open-minded, scientific types, but y'all had your turn up at the dais, now I get mine. I'm one of these superstitious, mumbo-jumbo-ing, "Bible-thumping (I do own a couple of Bibles, so I guess I do qualify for that)," hate-speech spewing idiot Christians that many of you hate so much (for whatever reason). I apologize for not having my eyes opened to the infinite knowledge of the universe, like many of you, I didn't have a life-changing epiphany during my first semester of collegeor while watching the masterpiece that is Zeitgeist. I didn't renouce God because I got dumped when I was 15 and I'm not mad at my parents for requiring me go to church when I was little, but I digress.

If a Christian says a prayer with containing the name "Jesus," how does that harm you in the slightest? You people act like its something awful and get all up in arms because of 2 syllables. As far as the 1st Amendment goes, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof...". Maybe it's just my closed mind, but I don't see anything in those 15 words regarding public prayer. Here's a hint, if you really want to sound smart, cite case law. That's where all the prohibitions come from. I guess it's not as easy to reasearch as it is to click on the infallible almighty Wikipedia.

I feel like much of the disdain towards Christians is borderline hate-speech. Wait, I forgot, all of you true intellectuals are merely pointing out the absurdity that someone would actually believe that some magic guy in space created everything, some dude and his wife ate some fruit and sent every subsequent generation to hell, the magic guy's son came down, lived a few years and died only to magically rise from the dead and fly back up to space. It's so much more difficult to believe than a series of random events and mutations over a span of time that is utterly incomprehensible happened to occur and because of all of that I am typing on my computer right now. I guess because I'm such a simpleton, I rely on some kind of explanation, albeit a far-fetched one.

Back to the OP, while I don't doubt that the scenario has occured at some level, I highly doubt that it went down the way the tale told. Like I said at first, I think it was probably an email, but as a Christian, I can see how it would kinda rally the troops, even if they are all old women.

And to the ruhtard who said that Christianity doesn't always believe in Christ or some such...That's the most asinine comment on this thread. Christianity without Christ is ichabod. There can be no such creature. That's like saying not all Buddhists believe in Buddha. I don't know, but whatever you're high on, you probably need to cut back a bit.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Le Colonel
Im surprised good people are in positions of power also.. Well it was good for the principal to speak his mind.

I find nothing wrong with a prayer.

In fact if there is no more prayers, then sorry you cant play the national athem either. ever. And we should ban farting in public too, i mean cause why should we all hear and smell fart.. Oh oh, i thought of another one. lets ban breathing, cause dont you just hate that guy next to you in line with the heavy breathing, good god, lets just ban living.
They didn't ban prayer, they banned public prayer. And not playing the national anthem makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you not play the country's anthem, in the country that anthem is about? I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not (I would hope not).

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

I referred to slavery because they claimed America had an unbroken history over 200 years. If you don't think slavery is part of a broken history then you have a problem. I could have used many other examples. Slavery was the first that came to mind.

Besides, that's not the main point I was trying to get across. My main point is that just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. At a certain point, you have to look at tradition for what it is. And in my opinion, a Christian prayer before Congress is the state practicing Christianity. If that's not establishing Christianity then I don't know what is.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by Reflection

So I will ask you again. If some Guy gets up in front of Congress saying that the sky is green, does that make it officially sanctioned? Does that make it law?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by SeditiousDissent

This isn't about people being offended by a prayer. It's about the state practicing Christianity. It is a state event and a Christian prayer as part of the event. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with the roles of government. Practicing a religion is not a role of the government, in my opinion, and most laws back me up on that. Just like the law that prohibits this principal from praying at a state event. Instead, he chose to preach and he should be fired for that.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Reflection

You really really do not understand the Constitution, do you?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by Reflection

This isn't about people being offended by a prayer. It's about the state practicing Christianity. It is a state event and a Christian prayer as part of the event. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with the roles of government. Practicing a religion is not a role of the government, in my opinion, and most laws back me up on that.

Simply put & clear. Hopefully they will get it this time... it is page 31 after all.

Just like the law that prohibits this principal from praying at a state event. Instead, he chose to preach and he should be fired for that.

Couldn't agree more.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

I already said I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling for a prayer in Congress that is in harmony with all religions.

As far as the op, the principal calling the sky green would not make it a law, it would mean he is breaking a law by saying the sky is green as part of a state sponsored event and would be fired.

If you don't believe in the separation of church and state, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. But in this case, the stipulation was he must keep church and state separate by not praying as part of the event. So, he chose to preach instead and should be fired for THAT.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

NOPE. That is a lie as well. Apparently that is the only hook you got. I never asked you to jump through any hoops. I am not asking you to find this, that, or the other thing.

Yeah, you are, and I ain't gonna do it, a fact which I'm tired of repeating, so that'll be the last time. Maybe it IS the 'only hook I got', maybe it ain't. Similarly, the only hook YOU have is: "FINDTHEQUOTEFINDTHEQUOTEFINDTHEQUOTE..." when you're getting bested, and can't reply. S'ok, I can live with that.

JPZ posted a rather lengthy post, pointing out only SOME of your faux pas, which he ended with this statement (bold mine):

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

These are just the quotes from one page of three pages of your incessant crying and whining and demanding I quote you. I have now done so, and what do you want to bet you just keep demanding more? Give a tyrant an inch and they want it all.

to which you replied with:

Originally posted by K J Gunderson



I am not sure why you think I am going to acknowledge any of what you are trying to argue while a blatant lie about me told by you still hangs there.


So it looks like he was right, and so am I.

Here's another quote from ya, which pretty clearly demonstrates your agenda, and thanks for that:

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I just cannot help but be entertained by religious types using lies and deceit to try and defend a religion where lying is one of the top ten rules.

I'm not your trained monkey, as I've been continually repeating.

You have a nice life now, y'hear?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by Reflection

Granted, the Constitution does not specifically say there should be separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean we can't learn and progress from a document written in the 18th century. Can't we learn from over 200 years of applying this document?

Here you go with that presumed sophistication of yours, declaring a document written long before your time as lacking the understanding of government and its purpose, where you in your modern day sophistication have a better understanding. Where the Founders sought to prevent the arbitrary power of majorities and the whimsical nature of future sophisticates, you declare they were not as progressive as you are, and indeed, as radical as they were in their time, and certainly progressive, they came from the Age of Reason, a time long since abandoned and dismissed for Kantian notions of duty, and Marxist notions of plunder. What is it precisely you think you've learned?

The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The First Amendment says much more than that, and regarding religion, it goes further:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have made the choice to consciously omit the prohibiting of free exercise of religion in order to support your argument that your view is more sophisticated. Your view, as is all tyrants, is one that must rely upon such obfuscation in order to appear as if what they are saying is correct. Only fools, and ambitious sycophants buy into that nonsense.

Now, does it specifically say that church and state shall be separate. No, not in so many words, but think about it for a minute. If a public school principal is leading a group in prayer at a state sponsored event, the state is practicing a particular religion. It is a state representative assuming the Christian religion established at a state event. He didn't even wait for a law allowing him to practice his religion as a state rep, he just assumed it. That's even worse.

Not in so many words? Not in any words does it say that church and state shall be separate. There is nothing implicit in the First Amendment to support your hypothetical, and that hypothetical has nothing at all to do with the reality of what happened at that game in Tennessee, which is why you must rely upon hypothetical scenarios to make your case, because the facts are working against you. Your hypothetical has taken a principal and now turned him into a "state representative", and you make no effort to distinguish that term from the Constitutionally defined meaning of "representative", implicitly placing that principal in the legislative branch of government while asserting that "representative" didn't wait for a law "allowing" him to practice his religion as a "state rep", and just assumed authority. Wow!

§ 3. Vesting of legislative authority; terms of office

The Legislative authority of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, both dependent on the people. Representatives shall hold office for two years and Senators for four years from the day of the general election, except that the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each shall hold his office as Speaker for two years or until his successor is elected and qualified, provided however, that in the first general election after adoption of this amendment Senators elected in districts designated by even numbers shall be elected for four years and those elected in districts designated by odd numbers shall be elected for two years. In a county having more than one senatorial district, the districts shall be numbered consecutively.

~Article II, Section 3; Tennessee Constitution~

You are relying upon ambiguity for a reason, and have failed to define precisely which branch of government this unelected official is a part of:

§ 1. Separation of powers; branches of government

The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct departments: the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

§ 2. Separation of powers; persons belonging to different branches

No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.

~Article II, Sections 1 & 2, Tennessee Constitution~

The nature of your whimsy is such that you are not concerned with what is, but instead preach what should be, and argue this is not tyranny what you preach, only progressive sophistication that has "learned" more than those who wrote these ancient Constitutions.

That's why intelligent people, and most law makers, apply the separation of church and state. With out it, people like this principal will assume their religion as established with in the state. It's potentially dangerous and not one of the roles of the government. I don't care if it's not in the Constitution. It's called learning from our history and progressing. If the state assumes a religion is established with out a law in place to allow for that, then how could anyone have freedom of religion? Separation of church and state is just common sense.

Yep, here you yammer on about "intelligence" as if you have such a thing in abundance. Rather than apply the law of the land, you argue that law makers instead, without ever bothering to amend the Constitution or abolish it, (for surely that is just too difficult and would only anger much of their constituency that elected them to uphold the Constitution), apply a concept vague in its meaning as applied here in this thread, and certainly not codified into legislation, but apply it nonetheless, because they are "intelligent".

You support your argument by deigning to know what is in the mind of a single principal of whom you have clearly misrepresented facts in order to portray as someone else. Your tyranny is evident when you assert that you don't care if it is not in the Constitution, that which is the Law of the Land, and of which these "law makers" you speak of have taken an oath to uphold and defend. You don't care what is in the Constitution because it works against your arguments, and you are not concerned with the rights of the people, you have all ready made clear that you think prohibitions on the people should come before any acknowledgments of their inalienable rights. You call this "learning" yet it is increasingly clear that what you have learned has been through indoctrination, most likely from what you were taught in a public school.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by nunya13

Okay, but people don't go to a football game to take part in religious prayer and political speeches. There's nothing wrong with public prayer as long as it's not in a venue that people attend without the expectation of being caught up in one.

People go to a football game for all sorts of reasons, and your presumption of what they don't go to a football game can only be fairly applied to you, and what the principal did at that particular game in now way abrogated or derogated your rights.

Like I said, Jesus made public speeches and people were invited to listen or they could ignore it. But he didn't go into places where people would be forced to listen to him preach the gospel or else leave and miss out on what they were originally there for that had nothing to do with religion.

The same is true of this principal, and your insistence that those at the game were forced to listen is fallacious. No one forced those people to listen to that principal, and no law forced those people to attend, nor did it force them to leave or prevent them from simply sticking their fingers in their ear and shout La-La-La-La-La I can't hear you, or even booing that principal.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by nunya13

The difference being that this thread is about debating this guys ranting at a high school football game. There's going to be rants here. A high school football game is not a place I go to to hear people rant about the injustices the think are being done to them.

There are many people who come to this site, not to read the many rants in it, but to gain a perspective. Your assumption that people come here to read your rants is just that, merely an assumption and in no way reflects truth in general. There are going to be rants where ever we go, and where this site, being privately owned has the complete and plenary power to moderate rants, and indeed it does, such ranting can not legally be moderated in public.

This guy took the mic and ranted, over a loud speaker so that everyone could hear, about this and that. Was anyone given the chance to get up and contradict him? What do you think would have happened had someone taken the mic from him after he had his chance to speak and they said how they disagreed with him and "here's why"? I strongly suspect this would be an entirely different discussion we are having.

As I have all ready stated, people had the freedom to contradict that principal if they wanted to, the could have booed him off the stage, they could have left in droves, they could have made perfectly clear that they were in strong disagreement with what he was saying, but instead chose to agree. This is the problem you have with that, not that those people attending the game were denied their fundamental rights, but that they clearly don't agree with you. You hope to support your argument by stressing the use of a microphone, which is patently absurd.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:48 PM
This has been an exhausting thread, but that tends to happen when there is a heated topic involving religion. I appreciate ALL comments because it makes me think. That's why I joined this site. To be mentally challenged and stimulated.

I'm gonna end with this.

Just because I believe that state and church should be separate doesn't mean I don't believe in the first amendment. I think separation of church and state should be a law. Not because it oppresses people, but because it protects people from a government run by a religion. I believe government should have certain roles. Protecting the people is one of them, practicing religion is not.

The individuals with in the state should have the same rights as everyone, but they should know when and when not to exercise those rights. For instance, a judge could have deep religious views, but it is his duty to put those biases aside because, as a representative of the state, he must be objective or the integrity of the state breaks down. The same should apply for public school teachers. There is a difference between exercising their rights as the state and as an individual. It's a fine line and sometimes it's hard to see, but that's part of the deal when you work or volunteer for the state.

This is not a threat to Christianity. It just means that the state should not be religious. How can one have freedom of religion when the very government that supports them is biased towards one particular religion?

I'm sure most Christians won't agree with this because they believe their religion is the only true religion. I know this because I used to be an Evangelical Christian. Up until I realized that morality does not filter through Christianity. Morality comes from the heart that we are all inherently born with. As opposed to the Christian idea that we are inherently born immoral. If anything that is my "religion" and I want to live in a state that supports me as equally as it supports Christians.

new topics

top topics

<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in