The Founding of America

I never claimed that it was morally acceptable for an imposition of beliefs.  I'm just saying that the concept of Sep. of Church/STate as imposed by the Courts and the ACLU is not what is defined in the Constitution.

Now, about the quote, that is a very suspect assumption.  The Fifth Amendment has specifics about Due Process.

Due Process from a US POV, is defined as "how and why laws are enforced" and it generally guarantees the following:
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

The Fifth Amendment, which gives the right of Due Process was a federal grant.   The first article (which you are discussing in that quote) repeats the same text as the Fifth Amendment, but applies the rules to the state as well (though it could be argued that county/municipal governments could still deny Due Process).

What the 14th Amendment was for, was as a way to stop "Black Codes", used by the States to keep former slaves under control.  At no point in time does it reference the rights of free speach, gun ownership, or religion.  Each of which are specifically stated that "Congress shall make no law concerning...", rather than an explicit grant of 'Due Process' as in the Fifth Amendment.
 
Oh, I'm of the firm belief that beliefs should not be imposed (which ironically is imposing a belief).  Yet at the same time, if a community wishes for certain things (such as prayer at football games/commencments) then it should be the communitie's decision.  Not something forced upon them by the ACLU and a Judge because 1 person complains (because then it is that 1 person enforcing his beliefs upon the majority of the community).

Government's role in things, should be enforcing the majority's will and morality on all the population.  A majority of people believe it is wrong to murder someone, then so be it.  A Majority of people believe it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you, then so be it.  Now things such as prayers, that sort of thing.  It should be a local decision, made by a majority of the voting population. If the consitutents of a school district wants to allow prayer at football games, put it up to the constituents to vote yea or nay on.  and have that same vote come up every two-four years.

So basically, it's a matter of scope.  The higher the level of government, the broader in scope the morality should be (Fed: No killing. No Stealing; State: Don't speed, Don't drink and drive;  Local:  Allow/Don't Allow prayer at graduations/football games, Be a dry county).
 
Doesn't that kinda bite for everyone that's not a Christian since the majority of America is Christian?

If you turn this around, how would you, as a Christian, feel about having Hindu prayer at a football game or in school if your community was primarily Hindu?

I think this sets a bad precedent and would only encourage segregation.
 
middle ground implies a consensus. If a consensus of the people wish for prayer to be held at football games, should one person be able to deny them that?
 
Not at all, but is it just one person?

There is a time and a place for all things.

I agree that there is a fine line here. I detest all the PC crap.

There is absolutely no reason for someone to feel uncomfortable at a public event. Whether that be a sporting event or a public school.

Is it possible for communities to vote on things like this?

Let's say that it is. Where do we draw the line? When is enough enough? How many hard feelings is this going to create?

Don't you think you'd feel different if you weren't in the majority?
 
It was one person that got prayer removed from schools.

It was one person that got 'Under God' removed from the pledge.


Yet, what if I feel uncomfortable at a football game that does not begin with a prayer. Is that ok, just because I happen to agree with the majority?

The only hard feelings would be generated would be from those people, who do not realize that government is an extension of the will of the majority of the people.
 
That "one person" actually represented many people, not just their own feelings. There are literaly millions of nontheists living in the United States.

And when was "under God" officially removed from the pledge? As far as I know, it's still in there.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Yet, what if I feel uncomfortable at a football game that does not begin with a prayer. Is that ok, just because I happen to agree with the majority?
Click to expand...

No one is stopping you from praying to yourself are they? Your rights aren't being infringed at all.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The only hard feelings would be generated would be from those people, who do not realize that government is an extension of the will of the majority of the people.
Click to expand...

Weren't African Americans a minority that had their rights infringed upon? Oh, excuse me, they had NO rights to begin with. The majority wasn't necessarily right were they?

I don't see how the removal of things of this nature hurt Christians in any way, shape or form.
 
While there may be millions of nontheists in America, it was just one that whined and sued to have prayer removed. AS for 'Under God It was removed, the removal just got overruled.

of course, I fail to see how prayer harms a nontheist who believes we're all just deluding ourselves.  How are the rights of a nontheist being infringed upon by something that does not harm them?  Does a public prayer at a football game hurt your life?  Does it hurt your liberty? Does it force you to accept Christianity as your religion?


And are you seriously comparing a minute half prayer with slavery?
No, asking nontheists for a minute an a half, to humour theists does not hurt anything at all.  Yet it is treated by nontheists like we're flogging them.
 
Hmmm, why all the hostility?

What makes this offended person a whiner?

Prayer doesn't do any harm at all. It does, however, make some people (namely non-Christians) uncomfortable. Again, why is it necessary to impose your religion on others during a football game? Why should we have to "humor" you? Because you outnumber us?

Are you forgetting, or perhaps ignoring these verses?

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
 
I'm not being hostile. Yet you perceive it as an attack. Could not theists perceive the nontheist's movement to remove all references to God as an attack as well? As for humouring us, basically yes. That's how a democratic republic is supposed to work. The government works the will of the majority. You, yourself acknowledge that a majority of the population are some flavor of theist. As such, should not the public functions (such as a football game) cater to the majority?

So again, my question is why is it necessary to impose your lack of religion on others at the football game?



Now those verses (and a few others) are for a topic of corporate prayer. We can have a discussion on corporate prayer, but that is a seperate topic. As well we can have a discussion on the varied types of prayers, and there appropriate places in chruch and society, but again a seperate topic.
 
Who called who a whiner, and why?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So again, my question is why is it necessary to impose your lack of religion on others at the football game?
Click to expand...

Because it's a SPORTING EVENT! It isn't necessary in the slightest. According to you, I should be willing to be subjected to Christanity wherever I go...restaurants, movie theaters, the mall. Simply because you are in the majority.

I am not denying you your right to worship. Instead I question WHERE AND WHEN you worship. If I want to hear prayer I will go to chuch.

Do I not have ANY rights when religion is imposed on me? Or should I just grin and bear it? Humor the Christians as you say.

So again, I ask you, since you ignored the question, why is it necessary to impose Christianity on others during a football game?

I would LOVE to hear your definition of corporate prayer and why it doesn't apply here.
 
Ok, I did some research on corporate prayer. Honestly, I've never heard this term before.

As best as I can see, this looks like an adequate definition. "Corporate Prayer Expresses audibly (by participating brothers and jointly supported by the assembly gathered), the needs of the assembly and dependence on Him. This establishes the close relationship and fellowship between a local assembly"

I looked at several sites and they all came to the same conclusion. This is used for WORSHIP, therefore it is out of place at a secular football game.

I couldn't even see a proper use of "corporate prayer" in a Christian football game, since it is not a moment of worship.

So how do you validate its use in a regular football game?

In Matthew 14, Jesus had the perfect time and place for public (corporate) prayer when he fed the 5,000. Did he? NO, he did not. He DID bless the meal, but afterwards, what did he do?

Matthew 14:23
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

He prayed ALONE, as he taught.

Other examples:

Matthew 26:36
36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.

Mark 1:35
35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.

Mark 6:46
46 And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray.

Luke 5:16
16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.

Luke 9:18
18. And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?

Luke 22:45
45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow

The following is from a self described Christian, Veteran and American:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So do the clergy feel that our worshipping God in church is inadequate? Our homes, also? Considering the privacy of prayer and worship about which Jesus spoke, why do the clergy or politicians insist upon school prayer as well? Do we as a nation need to court other Constitutional conflicts that give Jews and Hindus and other faith based students reason to feel conflicted in the classroom on issues that are not even related to school? Must they feel uncomfortable just because they are there, and the majority religious group of Americans insists on trumping Constitutional rights to freedom of religion and having everybody pray or have to listen to prayers, whether they choose to or not? Is that freedom of religion?

I often have wondered if say, okay, we agreed to have prayer in schools. So would those Christians in the majority, after Christian prayers were finished, then agree to allow Hindu prayers, where all the Christian students had to pause and listen to those prayers in all fairness? Then the Muslim prayers where many bow to Mecca? Then so on. So would those who want prayer in schools allow the free worship of all religion in our schools by allowing equal time for religions other than Christianity? I have doubts that they would. Aside from being satisfied in our own hearts with our own personal worship of our God in our hearts, in our private places of the spirit, do we need to act like it's always "showtime" where we need to have others watch us pray? Is that what Jesus would do?
Click to expand...
LINK

From another site:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It would appear that Jesus promoted private prayer, and condemned public prayer. A Bible-believing Christian would logically oppose prayer in school and other public places.
Click to expand...

LINK

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If Jesus sees prayer as private, personal communication, and not a public ritual, how can Christians legitimately disagree?

Well not everyone subscribes to Christianity, which brings up the point our founders had in mind when they crafted the First Amendment. Looking at the history of strife in the Old World on religious grounds, they resolved to avoid the pitfalls which come with intolerance by removing the state from questions of religion.
Click to expand...
LINK

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Predictably, the Supreme Court decision appealed to the so-called "separation of church and state." By a majority of 6-3, the justices ruled that student-led, student-initiated public prayer before a sporting event is not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. On the contrary, such prayer is unconstitutional because it represents the establishment of religion.

Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. The delivery of such a message-over the school's public address system by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer-is not properly characterized as 'private' speech." Stevens also claimed that "The religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer."

Another problem with the pre-game prayer is that it turns prayer into a public spectacle....Jesus emphasized private intercession because he understood how easy it is for prayer to lead to hypocrisy, especially when it is offered to make someone else take notice....True prayer is never offered to get in someone's way, or to make a political point, but to enter the presence of God with praises and petitions. If God is our true audience, we will not find it necessary to pray at the fifty-yard line.
Click to expand...
LINK

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
 
oh I know all that, and I happen to agree with the concept of no corporate prayer.

unfortunately that is not the discussion. The discussion is should a minority be allowed to impose its will upon the majority?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 22 2004,6:48)]oh I know all that, and I happen to agree with the concept of no corporate prayer.  

unfortunately that is not the discussion.  The discussion is should a minority be allowed to impose its will upon the majority?
Click to expand...
That's a tricky question, because while majority rules is one of the key components to democracy, the majority is not always right. We have seen this over and over again throughout history, from slavery to Hitler's Germany. But how do we know who is right and who is wrong? That's where the Constitution comes in, because everyone is working from the same set of rules. Even so though, as I'm sure you know, this is not always good enough. Anyways, as for prayer at sporting events, I have no problem at all with private prayer, but if you are referring to larger, communal scale prayer then I do. I think a better policy would be to merely allow people to pray by themselves if they wish, rather than forcing everyone to partake. That's my 2 or 3 cents.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 22 2004,6:48)]oh I know all that, and I happen to agree with the concept of no corporate prayer.

unfortunately that is not the discussion. The discussion is should a minority be allowed to impose its will upon the majority?
Click to expand...
So you just disregard everything I said?

If you agree with no corporate prayer doesn't this make this a moot point?

Why are you defending actions you find spritually reprehensible?
 
Mr. Bill - so you would be perfectly fine with a minute of silence prior to a football game? Also the Constitution applies to the federal level on things such as Free Speach, gun ownership and freedom of religion.  Local and state levels are different, and judged by their respective State Constitutions and laws.  While the 14th amendment overrides the State's sovereignty and enforces Due Rights as defined in the Constitution upon the States, this does not apply to the first 2 amendments, as they are specifically speaking on Congress, rather than Due Process.


DV - Because the majority of people do not find it spiritually rephrenshible.  I am in the minority, in that I do not believe in corporate prayer, in either society at large or in the church itself.  Yet I am willing to forgo my personal beliefs in deference to the majority.  So basically, I am not defending a spiritual action, I am defending the will of the majority while you are defending the will of the minority.

As well, I am not disregarding what you say, but I am stating that I happen to agree with you in that prayer at a football game is out of place.  It's a social event not a religious one.  I have even told my pastors, and those I teach, that I don't beleive it should be used within the chruch itself.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 22 2004,9:12)]Mr. Bill - so you would be perfectly fine with a minute of silence prior to a football game? Also the Constitution applies to the federal level on things such as Free Speach, gun ownership and freedom of religion.  Local and state levels are different, and judged by their respective State Constitutions and laws.  While the 14th amendment overrides the State's sovereignty and enforces Due Rights as defined in the Constitution upon the States, this does not apply to the first 2 amendments, as they are specifically speaking on Congress, rather than Due Process.
Click to expand...
A minute silence for prayer would be something that everyone, regardless of religious belief, would have to partake in, so no. Those that want to pray can certainly do so privately, but I don't think it's right to impose upon the entire population of the sporting event. State law is different from the national Constitution yes, I was just making the point that it is the law in general that we base our legislative decisions on, not necessarily the majority, though they usually coincide. If states want to allow a minute silence for prayer at sporting events though that is their own business I suppose, but I do not agree with it. That flirts with breaking the freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. Are there states that do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top