|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 17:21:05 GMT -5
It is about who gets marginalized. As dimmichgood said, "the tyranny of the majority." It's also about it taking place on public school grounds. Matisse & DMG ~ Sorry, but I don't see people being marginalized by peaceful assembly and a group prayer before a game, whether it be on a public school ground or elsewhere? It's more like the minority exercising tyranny over the majority who didn't approve of this Supreme Court decision in the first place and made it well known within the media! Just check back in history and you will see what I mean? Madalyn Murray O'Hair became one of the most hated atheists in America due to her actions and created quite a stir in the media for years to come! Tyranny of the majority. It is not at all surprising that a tyrannical majority would be disgruntled by such a Supreme Court decision! A private prayer group is fine...the prayer exhibition is quite another thing. I don't understand your focus on Madalyn Murray O'Hair. So what. The Supreme Court ruling was an important one that I am personally glad they made.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 17:27:30 GMT -5
DMG Do you really believe you are in the minority? So you are complaing becase you feel you are paying for it. I just don't understand some of the things you say! ken Ken, It doesn't matter whether I am the one in the minority, or someone else who is of some other religion than the Christian majority is in the minority
People in the "minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority."
Maybe this can help you understand some of the things I say! Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.
For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. "
For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament member.
One concept that many Americans cannot accept is that civil rights is not a matter of majority rule. This is why so many people have a problem with democracy -- the majority thinks it has the right to mandate exceptions to civil rights.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 17:34:33 GMT -5
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody to have a moment of silent prayer or peaceful gathering before a game by invoking God's protection over the players?
Faune, Why do you think that it became a such a divisive issue?
Why do you believe there was "no actual harm to anybody" of the others in the community, when a public school function funded by that same community has to silently listen as if they were condoning any kind of religious prayer, silent or otherwise?
Just try to think how you would feel if in your school district you had to remain silent while a "silent" Muslim prayer was being preformed?
Try to think how you would feel seeing those women & men (separated of course) kneeling & prostrating themselves all the while realizing that you as the devoted Christian that you are, was a part of that public school community paying for it?
Can you just for once walk in another person's shoes?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 21, 2014 17:46:27 GMT -5
Intercession is better done privately. Why does prayer need to be public? When i went to school we sang hymns in assembly. Most families attended church in those days. Society was less lawless violent and aggressive. There were no murders.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 17:49:58 GMT -5
It is about who gets marginalized. As dimmichgood said, "the tyranny of the majority." It's also about it taking place on public school grounds. Matisse & DMG ~ Sorry, but I don't see people being marginalized by peaceful assembly and a group prayer before a game, whether it be on a public school ground or elsewhere? It's more like the minority exercising tyranny over the majority who didn't approve of this Supreme Court decision in the first place and made it well known within the media! Just check back in history and you will see what I mean? Madalyn Murray O'Hair became one of the most hated atheists in America due to her actions and created quite a stir in the media for years to come! Faune, If you must continue to bring up Madalyn Murray O'Hair, then lets' talk about her and Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court knew that the basis of her argument was right according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Period!
Of course she became a "hated atheist" amongst all the self righteous Christians who didn't understand or didn't want to understand, what Constitution and Bill of Rights meant!
Now, do you think that you can separate her personal life from the Supreme Court decision and see the decision as the Supreme Court saw it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 17:54:44 GMT -5
Intercession is better done privately. Why does prayer need to be public? When i went to school we sang hymns in assembly. Most families attended church in those days. Society was less lawless violent and aggressive. There were no murders. OH bubbles! How can you be so naive?
No murders? No rape? No lawlessness? No spousal abuse? No lynching of blacks?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 21, 2014 18:00:41 GMT -5
Faune. You're entirely right. The ONLY reason they wanted the microphone was to impose it on everyone present. We had the same discussion at the high school I taught at. I was the one who convinced them that they had the right to pray at school (surprise to most people who know how I feel about praying in public), but I told them how to do it without getting in trouble. Two days later I arrived at school to see a large prayer circle in front of the school, doing their thing. Not one person paid any attention to them, and the vice principal (who by the way had listened in on my whole 105 minute lesson on the matter in Political Science class) was standing there making sure it all went correctly. Interesting thing was, they never had another such prayer circle again. If it was so necessary for them personally, what happened that they didn't continue it? Everyone else had the option of ignoring them, that's why. It was all for attention. This seems obvious to me! Exhibitionistic Christianity....and when non-Christians object, the Christians can cry "persecution." It's not about prayer, it's about having an overblown sense of entitlement and dominating a public space.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 21, 2014 18:01:40 GMT -5
I lived in the NZ. The first murder in many yrs was The Arthur Allen Thomas case in 1970. It occured on our honeymoon. Rape would have happened but was kept quiet for the most part. No lynching of blacks there. NZ was not a racist I country There were a few gangs. Generally Nz was a safe country. You could walk the streets at night.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 18:14:09 GMT -5
Here is the famous landmark decision by the Supreme Court. from wiki The Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came just one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale.
Now try to put the shoe on the other foot for a change and imagine that if it were still ok for public schools to have the bible read in public schools or prayer in public schools,
WHICH bible would you want read?
King James Version (KJV) New International Version (NIV) New American Standard Bible (NASB) New King James Version (NKJV) English Standard Version (ESV) New Living Translation (NLT) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) New Century Version (NCV) New English Bible (NEB) American Standard Version (ASV) Good News Bible (GNB) / Today’s English Version (TEV) Amplified Bible (AMP) Today’s New International Version (TNIV) New English Translation (NET) Revised Standard Version (RSV) Contemporary English Version (CEV) God’s Word Translation (GW) Common English Bible (CEB) New International Readers Version (NIrV)
This is only half of the ones that are list.
Which one would you insist be used in your public school, faune?
Which one is used in your church?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Sept 21, 2014 18:39:42 GMT -5
DMG Do you really believe you are in the minority? So you are complaing becase you feel you are paying for it. I just don't understand some of the things you say! ken Ken, It doesn't matter whether I am the one in the minority, or someone else who is of some other religion than the Christian majority is in the minority
People in the "minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority."
Maybe this can help you understand some of the things I say! Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.
For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. "
For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament member.
Wow DMG tyranny?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 18:51:36 GMT -5
Ken, It doesn't matter whether I am the one in the minority, or someone else who is of some other religion than the Christian majority is in the minority
People in the "minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority."
Maybe this can help you understand some of the things I say! Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.
For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. "
For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament member.
Wow DMG tyranny? Ken, "tyranny of the majority" is a very common expression in the discussion of civil rights. It wasn't invented for this discussion, though it is entirely appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 18:52:07 GMT -5
Wally ~ Ditto! Honestly, I can see no problem in young folks joining hand in hand in circle in private prayer before a game. Perhaps over the loud speaker was not in order due to the ban in effect under the laws of the land, but I can see no problem with private prayer as an individual or in a small group before a game. Obviously, the people who joined in from the crowd at the game felt the same way, too? Honestly, whatever happened to "freedom of speech" within this country to the point that anybody invoking God's blessing in prayer, whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, before a game on school property is considered offensive these days?
All I can say is that some people need to just get over themselves when they take things to such extremes and institute such bans on "freedom of expression" today! How would they like it if the tables were turned on their own freedom to voice their opinion as atheists in a negative way against theists and such became the law of the land? Just wondering how they might respond in kind to such a ridiculous ruling in reverse?
Do you really find our Constitution and Bill of Rights a "ridiculous ruling?"
no its not the constitution or bill of rights we think are ridiculous but rather the various interpretations of those documents...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 20:45:17 GMT -5
Honestly, when did prayer in school because such a divisive issue anyway ~ what actual harm did it do to anybody to have a moment of silent prayer or peaceful gathering before a game by invoking God's protection over the players?
Faune, Why do you think that it became a such a divisive issue?
Why do you believe there was "no actual harm to anybody" of the others in the community, when a public school function funded by that same community has to silently listen as if they were condoning any kind of religious prayer, silent or otherwise?
Just try to think how you would feel if in your school district you had to remain silent while a "silent" Muslim prayer was being preformed?
Try to think how you would feel seeing those women & men (separated of course) kneeling & prostrating themselves all the while realizing that you as the devoted Christian that you are, was a part of that public school community paying for it?
Can you just for once walk in another person's shoes?
DMG ~ We all pay taxes for a variety of services within the community involving public schools. However, making an issue over one's freedom to pray, either silently or in a small group of cheerleaders before a game seems just a little over the top in my book. O_oI grew up when prayer was a part of school along with the pledge of allegiance with "under God" as part of the pledge, and it didn't do any visible harm emotionally to me or anybody else until Madalyn Murray O'Hair decided to make it an issue because of her hatred for God and Christians in general. That's one of the reasons, by the way, I continue to bring up her name ~ she was the primary force behind the move to undermine any reference to God in schools or public buildings and she took pleasure in putting down Christians any way she could, including by petitioning the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, people didn't take her serious and never fought back to protect their rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and religious freedom. As a result we have all these laws limiting our ability to communicate in public due to this woman's divisive tactics back in the 1960's. It's no wonder she was considered one of the most hated women in America back in time and her legacy lives on!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 20:57:00 GMT -5
Do you really find our Constitution and Bill of Rights a "ridiculous ruling?"
no its not the constitution or bill of rights we think are ridiculous but rather the various interpretations of those documents... Wally ~ I agree! It's the various interpretations of people's rights under the Constitution that come across as ridiculous and lacking in justification. Also, it wasn't the first time that Supreme Court justices passed decisions that appeared in content as infringing on people's freedom of speech or other rights guaranteed under our Bill of Rights, found within the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Perhaps that's one good reason why the group I referenced earlier was established to protect our religious freedoms from further undermining by groups with an anti-God agenda.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 21:18:44 GMT -5
Here is the famous landmark decision by the Supreme Court. from wiki The Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came just one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale.
Now try to put the shoe on the other foot for a change and imagine that if it were still ok for public schools to have the bible read in public schools or prayer in public schools,
WHICH bible would you want read?
King James Version (KJV) New International Version (NIV) New American Standard Bible (NASB) New King James Version (NKJV) English Standard Version (ESV) New Living Translation (NLT) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) New Century Version (NCV) New English Bible (NEB) American Standard Version (ASV) Good News Bible (GNB) / Today’s English Version (TEV) Amplified Bible (AMP) Today’s New International Version (TNIV) New English Translation (NET) Revised Standard Version (RSV) Contemporary English Version (CEV) God’s Word Translation (GW) Common English Bible (CEB) New International Readers Version (NIrV)
This is only half of the ones that are list.
Which one would you insist be used in your public school, faune?
Which one is used in your church?
DMG ~ Exactly what harm do you think was done by reading a couple Bible verses back in time or having a moment of silence before school starts for kids to meditate on whatsoever they want ~ be it God, Allah, or Jehovah, depending upon your preference? Also, do you think it really offended anybody to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag using "one nation, under God..." What you are talking about was never any major issue within the schools until Madalyn Murray O'Hair decided to make it into one, and the rest is history.
However, another issue that the Supreme Court dealt with was segregation within schools in order to provide equal opportunity for all to get a decent education, which I feel was beneficial for all concerned. However, in some states it caused racial wars to break out due to the mistreatment of people of color and left a violent aftermath. Looking back, which issue do you think was more pressing for need of change in producing equality for all concerned? Since removing prayer and/or any Bible reading from schools along with references to God from Federal Buildings, do you actually think we are better off today than 50 years ago as a result of this change? I think not! Instead I feel our society has spiraled downward from such an anti-God focus within the schools and has manifested increased immorality in many ways since then among our youth.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 21:46:53 GMT -5
Bob ~ Personally, I don't believe that a moment of silence within school, whether used for prayer or whatever, does any degree of harm to an individual. Neither does a small huddle of cheerleaders saying prayers for the protection of the team players during a game. However, what I do take exception to is broadcasting the Lord's Prayer over the PA system or trying to force your beliefs upon others within a school setting. Some of the things that were taken to the extreme in the past obviously influenced the Supreme Court decision, too, as you brought out in your posts. If they had been cool about the whole thing and didn't try to impose their views in the past, perhaps things would have remained untouched. In brief, I feel a school is a place to gain a well rounded education and church is the place where prayer and worship and Bible instruction should be given. I don't feel it's necessary to impose one's religious views upon another within a school setting, as that would also be an infringement on their rights. It's just the extreme that people take things today within the Supreme Court that really bothers me the most. Also, in regards to Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her motive for her actions, I feel it had nothing to do with one's personal freedoms and everything to do with her own personal prejudices against God and religion in general. Even her own estranged son from the past testified to this fact in an interview on TV not long ago. Here's an excerpt from that conversation on national TV regarding her over-all character and lifestyle. As you can see from her son's description of her, she was not a very likeable person and had her own selfish agenda in life and was very controlling and demeaning of family members who perished with her in the end.
www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Sept 21, 2014 22:00:34 GMT -5
Ken, "tyranny of the majority" is a very common expression in the discussion of civil rights. It wasn't invented for this discussion, though it is entirely appropriate. Guess I am still in the minor league. Appropriate for those who discuss others offending them I guess.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 21, 2014 22:29:50 GMT -5
Ken, "tyranny of the majority" is a very common expression in the discussion of civil rights. It wasn't invented for this discussion, though it is entirely appropriate. Guess I am still in the minor league. Appropriate for those who discuss others offending them I guess. My guess is that you have never been a minority.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 22:33:36 GMT -5
Sorry, Ken. It wasn't I who first used the word tyranny as in "tyranny of the majority"
If you have a problem with the word, you will have to take it up with a few other people.
from wiki A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). Tyranny meant absolute monarchy of an undesirable kind.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788.[3] The phrase gained prominence after its appearance in 1835 in Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, where it is the title of a section.[4] It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill, who cites Tocqueville, in On Liberty (1859). The Federalist Papers refer to the broad concept, as in Federalist 10, first published in 1787, which speaks of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
The term was widely employed in mid-nineteenth-century America in conjunction with a series of moral questions (Sabbath, temperance, racial equality) that gave rise to organized minority groups in American political life.[5]
Lord Acton also used this term, saying: "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." —The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877
The concept itself was popular with Friedrich Nietzsche and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879).[6] Ayn Rand, Objectivist philosopher and novelist, wrote against such tyranny, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).[7]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 22:46:30 GMT -5
Guess I am still in the minor league. Appropriate for those who discuss others offending them I guess. My guess is that you have never been a minority. I also rather doubt Ken has ever been in a minority.
No doubt he is a "WASP," a Male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
Not a "female," not of another color than "white", not any ethnic heritage other "than Northern European," and of course not a "Catholic."
Does that describe you, Ken?
Origin of the COOLIDGE surname is uncertain, but possibly derived from the Old English coll, meaning "hill" and ecg, meaning "rocky ridge or escarpment."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 23:19:46 GMT -5
DMG ~ Exactly what harm do you think was done by reading a couple Bible verses back in time or having a moment of silence before school starts for kids to meditate on whatsoever they want ~ be it God, Allah, or Jehovah, depending upon your preference?
The harm is the fact that they are a "couple Bible verses."
Faun, in all due respect, I simply can't believe that a " 'couple of verses' from the Koran" read every day in the public school where your own grandchildren might be attending would be actually be acceptable with you! I can just see the headlines in the news next day! You and your fellow Christians would be hollering to high heaven!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 23:27:26 GMT -5
DMG ~ Exactly what harm do you think was done by reading a couple Bible verses back in time or having a moment of silence before school starts for kids to meditate on whatsoever they want ~ be it God, Allah, or Jehovah, depending upon your preference? Also, do you think it really offended anybody to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag using "one nation, under God..." What you are talking about was never any major issue within the schools until Madalyn Murray O'Hair decided to make it into one, and the rest is history.
However, another issue that the Supreme Court dealt with was segregation within schools in order to provide equal opportunity for all to get a decent education, which I feel was beneficial for all concerned. However, in some states it caused racial wars to break out due to the mistreatment of people of color and left a violent aftermath. Looking back, which issue do you think was more pressing for need of change in producing equality for all concerned? Since removing prayer and/or any Bible reading from schools along with references to God from Federal Buildings, do you actually think we are better off today than 50 years ago as a result of this change? I think not! Instead I feel our society has spiraled downward from such an anti-God focus within the schools and has manifested increased immorality in many ways since then among our youth.
Having to say "under god " in the pledge wasn't in the Pledge of Allegiance when I went to school. Those two words weren't even in the Pledge prior to February 1954. That came from George MacPherson Docherty, a Presbyterian President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. Eisenhower acted on Docherty's suggestion and on February 8, 1954 Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.
Those words "under god" were added at that time. So, do you think adding those words to the pledge has helped make society better?
You must not, since you "believe that feel our society has spiraled downward from such an anti-God focus within the schools and has manifested increased immorality in many ways since then among our youth."
Guess adding those extra words didn't help much?
Maybe god didn't like his name 'used in vain'
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 23:31:49 GMT -5
DMG ~ You do know I was referring back to when I was a young kid in grade school and not after all the banning of prayer in schools and anything else in reference to God. Also, you're right about President Eisenhower adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance to the flag in 1954. So, what big harm did that do to our society?
However, today they have armed guards in school, bars on windows and all kind of security measures to keep our kids safe from harm, due to the increase of automatic weapons being accessible to the mentally unstable. That incident in Newtown, CT, is a typical example of what we are dealing with today which is far worse than prayer in schools being a major concern among a few atheists in the 1960's. And what is the Supreme Court doing about this injustice ~ absolutely nothing due to the NRA influence in this country and political clout in Congress and the Courts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 23:45:39 GMT -5
DMG ~ You do know I was referring back to when I was a young kid in grade school and not after all the banning of prayer in schools and anything else in reference to God. Also, you're right about President Eisenhower adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance to the flag in 1954. So, what big harm did that do to our society?
However, today they have armed guards in school, bars on windows and all kind of security measures to keep our kids safe from harm, due to the increase of automatic weapons being accessible to the mentally unstable. That incident in Newtown, CT, is a typical example of what we are dealing with today which is far worse than prayer in schools being a major concern among a few atheists in the 1960's. And what is the Supreme Court doing about this injustice ~ absolutely nothing due to the NRA influence in this country and political clout in Congress and the Courts. So, what big harm did that do to our society?
Did you just answer that question yourself?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 21, 2014 23:50:47 GMT -5
faune, can you honestly answer my question?
Would you object to a 'couple of verses' from the Koran" read every day in the public school where your own grandchildren might be attending?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 23:52:53 GMT -5
DMG ~ You do know I was referring back to when I was a young kid in grade school and not after all the banning of prayer in schools and anything else in reference to God. Also, you're right about President Eisenhower adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance to the flag in 1954. So, what big harm did that do to our society?
However, today they have armed guards in school, bars on windows and all kind of security measures to keep our kids safe from harm, due to the increase of automatic weapons being accessible to the mentally unstable. That incident in Newtown, CT, is a typical example of what we are dealing with today which is far worse than prayer in schools being a major concern among a few atheists in the 1960's. And what is the Supreme Court doing about this injustice ~ absolutely nothing due to the NRA influence in this country and political clout in Congress and the Courts. So, what big harm did that do to our society?
Did you just answer that question yourself?
DMG ~ Perhaps I did in the second paragraph, which just goes to show exactly how warped priorities are within government today.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 21, 2014 23:58:53 GMT -5
faune, can you honestly answer my question?
Would you object to a 'couple of verses' from the Koran" read every day in the public school where your own grandchildren might be attending?
DMG ~ I was simply referring to a "moment of silence" for prayer or reflection could do no harm within schools today and would not be offensive in any way to one's religious beliefs, being a period of silence. What students reflected upon during that time would be entirely up to them. Besides, under today's laws, it seems any mention of God is breaking some cardinal rule under the laws of the land, thanks to the Supreme Court's rulings of the past.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 22, 2014 0:40:12 GMT -5
faune, can you honestly answer my question?
Would you object to a 'couple of verses' from the Koran" read every day in the public school where your own grandchildren might be attending?
DMG ~ I was simply referring to a "moment of silence" for prayer or reflection could do no harm within schools today and would not be offensive in any way to one's religious beliefs, being a period of silence. What students reflected upon during that time would be entirely up to them. Besides, under today's laws, it seems any mention of God is breaking some cardinal rule under the laws of the land, thanks to the Supreme Court's rulings of the past.
I was asking you if can you honestly answer my question from this quote of yours, faune. I quoted directly from your post. "DMG ~ Exactly what harm do you think was done by reading a a couple Bible verses.."8 hours ago faune said:
"DMG ~ Exactly what harm do you think was done by reading a couple Bible verses back in time or having a moment of silence before school starts for kids to meditate on whatsoever they want ~ be it God, Allah, or Jehovah, depending upon your preference? " I was asking you, faune, can you honestly answer my question?
Would you object to a 'couple of verses' from the Koran" in the place of a a 'couple Bible verses' read every day in the public school where your own grandchildren might be attending?
|
|