February 14, 2012

"To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family..."

"... and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.... To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves...."

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, writing an order approving a settlement in a school prayer case.

85 comments:

chickenlittle said...

"Venomous vomit" sounds savage.

Shame on them.

Mark O said...

Touchy.

vet66 said...

How about - toxic hurling?

Well written Judge.

Dave said...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

Bad Christian behavior damages the brand

traditionalguy said...

Cursing the Court family seems to work.

Maybe the Court family needs to quit cursing government school students who dare to speak their Christian faith in public.

And why can this arrogant Judge talk down to religious opponents in Court Orders without being expelled from Government Court.

What about the separation of church and Federal Court? That's exactly what the First Amendment actually commands.

It is more comfortable for Federal judges to pretend agreement with their own manifestly false holding from the Federal Supreme Court they made up 50 years ago when they discovered that Christian religious themes cannot be spoken of on government territory.

But comfort for Federal Judges is not the reason why our founders formed a Constitutional Republic here 223 years ago.

Thorley Winston said...

Passive aggressive much?

EDH said...

How could anyone ever think that this judge's personal biases might enter one of his written decisions?

Thorley Winston said...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

Whenever someone quotes Gandhi as a moral authority, I’m reminded that he told the Jews and Poles that it was better to commit mass suicide rather than use violence to resist the Nazis.

Fortunately the Christians who fought the Axis had other ideas.

Dave said...

Even if the judge is biased here, if Christians threatened his life they aren't worthy of the name. Why give him ammunition?

Dave said...

Thorely

I dislike Gandhi too , for the same reasons , but the point is that bad Christian behavior provides fuel for the fire.

How about St Francis instead: Preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary.

Dave said...

Let's just assume the judge was wrong and anti-christian for the sake of argument. Giving him the threats to use as an excuse and to gain sympathy is a poor tactic. that's all I'm really saying here

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastafarian said...

"In His name, I forgive you..."

Wow, the judiciary has even more power than I thought.

traditionalguy said...

The Christians probably did not threaten his life, or they would have been arrested and charged with Terroristic Threats.

But perhaps they went so far as to ask his opinion on Delayed Abortions or on current categories of useless old people appearing before Federal Death Panels. Now those are real threats to life.

MSG said...

His protest against the death threats seems appropriate, but would have sounded better had it not named the source as "Christians." But as for the attack on the politicians who supposedly demagogued the case, that in itself is akin to demagoguery. Politicians are entitled to disagree with judges, even if the politicians are nasty about it. The judge is not telepathic and his suggestion that the criticism is insincere or corrupt ("for their own political goals") is arrogant and itself objectionably political.

Dave said...

If the claims of threats are false then the judge has no defense.

Thorley Winston said...

Let's just assume the judge was wrong and anti-christian for the sake of argument. Giving him the threats to use as an excuse and to gain sympathy is a poor tactic. that's all I'm really saying here.

What makes you think any Christians made any death threats*? If someone actually did make a death threat against a federal judge and they know who it was, there would be no need to make generalizations. If the threats were anonymous, then it could be anybody making them – including a Moby hoping to discredit Christians and elicit sympathy for the judge.

The judge’s comments seem more like a passive-aggressive smear against his critics of the “oh I don’t mean ALL Christians, I just mean SOME and not necessarily YOU” variety. It was a stunt on his part, pure and simple, and has no place on the bench or in a published legal opinion.

* Assuming any were made.

Paddy O said...

Methinks the judge forgets what Jesus himself said to the courts:

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? "

Dave said...

I see your point Thorely.

If these threats are false, then the judge should be impeached

Bryan C said...

"To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Yeah, because it's only those shameful elected officials in the other two branches who engage in such demagoguery. Courts are tranquil retreats of pure reason, overseen by wise philosopher kings who would never allow politics or personal opinion to color their decisions.

Death threats are wrong, but they're obviously fringe elements. When the state proposes restricting the rights of its citizens the process should be controversial, rancorous, and painful. And most of the time it should fail. Otherwise it's just too easy.

edutcher said...

I wasn't aware courts married and procreated.

Dave said...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

Bad Christian behavior damages the brand


The world is full of idiots. Unfortunately, a few are on the side of the good guys.

PS One of the reasons Newt might be a tough sell in an election.

Thorley Winston said...

I see your point Thorely.

If these threats are false, then the judge should be impeached


That was meant as an aside and not a central point. It seemed odd that there didn’t appear to be any stories of him receiving death threats until they were improperly mentioned in his opinion but I did find this story so I think it’s safe to assume he did receive some threats but no way of determining from who.

Thorley Winston said...

Death threats are wrong, but they're obviously fringe elements. When the state proposes restricting the rights of its citizens the process should be controversial, rancorous, and painful. And most of the time it should fail. Otherwise it's just too easy.

I agree with your larger point and while I tend to think that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence is a mess (in part because the Establishment Clause is so poorly constructed), after reading about how the judge tried to suggest ways of keeping the proposed prayer within what was already allowed and also the fact that as a district judge he was constrained by the rulings of higher courts which he appears to have dutifully followed, the rancor about his decision was misplaced. And by “rancor,” I do not mean anonymous threats that anyone could have made and should not be tolerated but Speaker Gingrich’s comments which while protected and (unfortunately) well within the bounds of political discourse were IMO wrong.

victoria said...

I love this guy!!!

Vicki from Pasadena

DADvocate said...

Sounds like Biery's doing a little demagoguing himself.

Jim S. said...

Any large group of people will have its asshole element, people who will use the group to accomplish their own, disreputable goals. You'd think you could get around this by defining the group with the criterion, "If you say you love God but don't love your fellow human being who is created in God's image, you're lying," but people have a remarkable capacity for deception and self-deception.

Oclarki said...

Well the judicial branch is basically insulated from any accountability to we the people. I'm not in agreement with threatening anyone, but with every other branch the voters have the ability to rid themselves of government officials who don't share their values. Why does the jusicial branch get to skate on that? Why does the press never call out judges and make them explain their rulings to the public?

kimsch said...

Biery approved a settlement that allows students to pray at graduation, but bars school employees from initiating or joining prayers in the presence of students

How can barring school employees from joining prayers in the presence of students be constitutional? I can understand the not initiating part, but shouldn't anyone be allowed to join in or not as they wish?

BarrySanders20 said...

I wonder if Obama felt any shame about demagoguing Citizens United for his own personal goals.

I wonder if Alito et al have forgiven him.

Damon said...

Great comments... moving along... more great comments. Vicki says "I love this guy." In my head, "Oh geez, should have stopped reading the comments earlier."

The comments were clearly inappropriate and unnecessary.

"Who have demagogued this case for political goals..." really an arrogant bastard for someone shot down by the appellate court.

Salamandyr said...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

I have always found this to be an astoundingly stupid comment.

Michael said...

No prayers in public. And as we have been warned by Warren, the very roads we drive on are public property and you drive on them without praying. You hear? Ditto sidewalks except in so-called private neighborhoods and soon them too. No prayer, get it? None. Zip prayer. Prayer is hate speech to the ears of the state.

Thorley Winston said...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

I have always found this to be an astoundingly stupid comment.


Ditto, although generally I agree with Orwell on Gandhi. I don’t think that Gandhi has anything useful to say about our society and don’t quoting him as some moral authority figure to be particularly persuasive.

ricpic said...

"In His name, I forgive you..."

The judge is invoking Barry?

ricpic said...

It was okay for Gandhi to be a bigot because he was on the right side of history.

Oclarki said...

Ghandi can rag on Christians when Indians stop trating their lower castes as sub-humans who deserve to suffer because they are being punished for sins in a previous life. Christians like Mother Theresa dedicated their lives to caring for people the average Indian like Ghandi regarded as trash.

36fsfiend said...

Why are Christians so hell-bent on getting prayer into public schools? Why don't they following the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding prayer?

kimsch said...

Why are Christians so hell-bent on getting prayer into public schools?

Starting with Madalyn Ohair - why are you so insitent on keeping it out? Even for people who would like to pray?

36fsfiend said...

kimsch said...

“Starting with Madalyn Ohair - why are you so insitent on keeping it out? Even for people who would like to pray?”

kimsch,

Well, first of all, not everyone at a public gathering may be Christian. So why should they be exposed to a practice of a religion that they may not believe in?

Second, in regards to Christians, from Christ’s own teachings:

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

That seems pretty clear. To do otherwise seems to be ostentatious.

Oclarki said...

I love how these athiests become such biblical scholars when parsing verses to beat Christians into submission. What other verses can you give us a lesson on?

chickenlittle said...

fiend posits: That seems pretty clear. To do otherwise seems to be ostentatious.

Poser or heartfelt: link?

You decide, since you're the self-appointed arbiter.

36fsfiend said...

Oclarki said...

"I love how these athiests become such biblical scholars when parsing verses to beat Christians into submission. What other verses can you give us a lesson on?"

Where did I state that I was an atheist?

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

"fiend posits: That seems pretty clear. To do otherwise seems to be ostentatious.

Poser or heartfelt: link?

You decide, since you're the self-appointed arbiter."

What does Obama praying have to do with my question about why Christians want to force prayer in public settings.

Given that Obama is doing it, I surprised that you aren't against prayer in public.

Oclarki said...

Ok 36fsfiend, whats your deal?

chickenlittle said...

@fiend: Going after public prayer is a bipartisan lose-lose proposition.

It's something that only atheists seem to do.

chickenlittle said...

@fiend: Your "question" is designed to disparage public prayer is it not?

chickenlittle said...

@fiend: Or is it only public prayer by people you choose to dislike which you disaprove of?

I think the latter.

chickenlittle said...

@fiend: Perhaps you should try savaging the President for praying in public.

36fsfiend said...

Oclarki said...

"Ok 36fsfiend, whats your deal?"

Oclarki,

In all seriousness, I'm asking why Christians want to push for public prayer when Christ specifically instructed his followers to pray in secret.

I don't understand the apparent disconnect between His teachings and the actions of his followers.

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

"@fiend: Your "question" is designed to disparage public prayer is it not?"

As I responded to Oclarki, I don't understand the apparent disconnect between Christ's teachings and the actions of his followers.

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

"@fiend: Perhaps you should try savaging the President for praying in public."

I didn't state that I agreed with Obama praying in public.

Oclarki said...

Read matthew 5:13-5:15, there is the notion that Christians are called to be salt and light to the world.

chickenlittle said...

36fsfiend said...

I didn't state that I agreed with Obama praying in public.

I'm sorry fiend. I mistook you for a partisan. I shall try to keep a better eye on you so not to mistake you for one.

_________
wv = vomic [a revolting comic?]

36fsfiend said...

Oclarki said...

"Read matthew 5:13-5:15, there is the notion that Christians are called to be salt and light to the world."

Thank you for the reference. How does that relate to Matthew 6:5-6:8

Paddy O said...

I think prayer in schools is silly. All about the show and the rule, not about the actual prayer.

There are few things that go farther to undermine a thriving religion than making it a civil show. All the wrong sorts of people with the wrong sorts of motives become leaders and influences.

The No Establishment approach is about saving the religion even more than saving the state.

It's like gay marriage for Christians. A big deal that's more about legitimization than about the actual practice itself, about institutionalizing some act that then is robbed of its original meaning.

36fsfiend said...

Paddy O said...

"I think prayer in schools is silly. All about the show and the rule, not about the actual prayer."

I agree with that sentiment.

kimsch said...

Well, first of all, not everyone at a public gathering may be Christian. So why should they be exposed to a practice of a religion that they may not believe in?

Exposed? You can't "catch" Christianity like Chicken Pox. You have to adopt it.

Phil 3:14 said...

Venomous Vomit

hombre said...

Very judicial and also Christ-like. Certainly consistent with the self image of most judges today.

I clerked for a brilliant US District Judge who was the essence of humility - a lost breed.

36fsfiend said...

kimsch said...

“Exposed? You can't "catch" Christianity like Chicken Pox. You have to adopt it.”

kimsch,

Well, you can parse the wording of my question but that doesn’t answer the question.

I’m assuming you are Christian. If so, how would you feel if you were at a gathering in a public setting and the leader of the gathering stated that before commencing the function all at the gathering will turn to face Mecca and give thanks to Allah? Would you be comfortable with participating in that ceremony?

How about if the function was conducted in a facility subsidized with taxpayer funding? Would you be OK with that?

Lastly, I still haven’t received an answer to the question of why Christians don’t seem to follow the words of Christ as stated in Matthew 6:5-6:8?

Michael said...

Do the secularists enjoy thumbing the internets for bible quotes to support their positions or do they find it distasteful knowing they are cutting and pasting the equivalent of a foreign language they do not speak? Fascinating to watch. No mystery in their lives. Certainty and a taste like bile, the ticking of the clock, death waiting. Will it like irony?

Michael said...

36. " If so, how would you feel if you were at a gathering in a public setting and the leader of the gathering stated that before commencing the function all at the gathering will turn to face Mecca and give thanks to Allah? Would you be comfortable with participating in that ceremony?"

Why yes, i would and was in Saudi Arabia where the religion is and has been Islam. And why not? Why would I expect the Saudis to not worship their God in the way they always have? I did not lose my Christian faith. I was not offended. Why would i be? I was not uncomfortable. I dont get you sily thin skinned secularists. So afraid.

kimsch said...

36, I don't have to participate. Those that follow Islam would participate or not as they wish and those of us that aren't Muslim would also participate or not as each individual wishes.

I've been to Synagogue to be present at a Bar Mitzvah for a friend's son. I've been to Mass at Catholic churches for weddings and funerals, I've been to different Baptist and Methodist and Lutheran and Non-denominational churches for different events.

I live in an area with a large Hindu population. If I were at a public event and there was a Hindu prayer, that would be fine with me. If someone asked me to go to an event at the Hindu church I would be happy to attend.

Someone else practicing their religion doesn't somehow make me participate in their beliefs. I am simply observing.

I would think that "exposure" to other belief systems would be a good thing - encouraging diversity and tolerance and all that...

The mere sight of a Cross, Star of David, Crescent and Star, statue of some religious figure, or any other symbol doesn't make people adherents of that belief system.

If a prayer is said, there is no need for a non-believer to participate. Just hearing it isn't going to change anyone.

36fsfiend said...

Michael said...

"Do the secularists enjoy thumbing the internets for bible quotes to support their positions or do they find it distasteful knowing they are cutting and pasting the equivalent of a foreign language they do not speak? Fascinating to watch. No mystery in their lives. Certainty and a taste like bile, the ticking of the clock, death waiting. Will it like irony?"

That still doesn't answer the question of why Christians don’t seem to follow the words of Christ as stated in Matthew 6:5-6:8?

36fsfiend said...

Michael said...

"Why yes, i would and was in Saudi Arabia where the religion is and has been Islam. And why not? Why would I expect the Saudis to not worship their God in the way they always have? I did not lose my Christian faith. I was not offended. Why would i be? I was not uncomfortable. I dont get you sily thin skinned secularists. So afraid."

I'm referring to a situation in the United States, obviously. Being in a theocracy is another matter.

36fsfiend said...

kimsch said...

“36, I don't have to participate. Those that follow Islam would participate or not as they wish and those of us that aren't Muslim would also participate or not as each individual wishes.”

Would you feel discriminated against if you were pressured to participate?

“I've been to Synagogue to be present at a Bar Mitzvah for a friend's son. I've been to Mass at Catholic churches for weddings and funerals, I've been to different Baptist and Methodist and Lutheran and Non-denominational churches for different events.”

These are not ceremonies in public facilities. You willingly accepted to enter these houses of worship and participate in these ceremonies. Not exactly the same as the situation in question at a public, taxpayer funded facility.

“I live in an area with a large Hindu population. If I were at a public event and there was a Hindu prayer, that would be fine with me. If someone asked me to go to an event at the Hindu church I would be happy to attend.”

OK.

“Someone else practicing their religion doesn't somehow make me participate in their beliefs. I am simply observing.”

And you have no problem with a public facility that is funded by the taxpayers deciding which religious service they are going to promote?

“I would think that "exposure" to other belief systems would be a good thing - encouraging diversity and tolerance and all that...”

If one wishes to do so freely, of course. But some may not be interested or comfortable being exposed to the practices of another religion. One of the reasons of the First Amendment.

“The mere sight of a Cross, Star of David, Crescent and Star, statue of some religious figure, or any other symbol doesn't make people adherents of that belief system.”

True, but unless all religions are represented, I don’t think a particular one or two should only be represented at a public facility.

“If a prayer is said, there is no need for a non-believer to participate. Just hearing it isn't going to change anyone.”

OK.

Last question. Again, why don’t Christians seem to follow the words of Christ as stated in Matthew 6:5-6:8?

chickenlittle said...

36sffiend wrote: Lastly, I still haven’t received an answer to the question of why Christians don’t seem to follow the words of Christ as stated in Matthew 6:5-6:8?

I'd answer that in two ways. First, I think the sorts of prayers that go on in public are communual in the sense that people are praying with a common subject. This is distinct from personal prayer in which people partake individually. Nobody wants to see that and it belongs private.

Secondly, I suppose that under your narrow interpretation Matthew 6:5-6:8, people shouldn't pray in churches either because it's not closeted and is quasi-public. Good luck pulling your hypocrisy card on that one.

Lastly, I'm not certain what Jesus meant by Matthew 6:5-6:8, but I do know that he went on to even dictate the words one should use: (The Lord's Prayer). Christians have deviated from that too--is that wrong in your book?

kimsch said...

36, You keep asking about Matthew 6:5-6:8. Jesus didn't want us to be hypocritical in prayer, praying in public just to be seen doing so - to show what "good" people we are...

Jesus Himself prayed in public. He gave public thanks to His Father for food. He prayed publicly with Lazarus' family, that they would believe God sent him to them. John 11: 41 Then they took the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe thou hast sent me. 43 And when he had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.

Prayer can happen anywhere and any time. It can happen in private and in public, inside or outside. It can happen alone or in a group. All is right and none is wrong.

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

“I'd answer that in two ways. First, I think the sorts of prayers that go on in public are communual in the sense that people are praying with a common subject. This is distinct from personal prayer in which people partake individually. Nobody wants to see that and it belongs private.

Secondly, I suppose that under your narrow interpretation Matthew 6:5-6:8, people shouldn't pray in churches either because it's not closeted and is quasi-public. Good luck pulling your hypocrisy card on that one.

Lastly, I'm not certain what Jesus meant by Matthew 6:5-6:8, but I do know that he went on to even dictate the words one should use: (The Lord's Prayer). Christians have deviated from that too--is that wrong in your book?”

chickenlittle,

My thoughts regarding Christ’s words in Matthew 6:5-6:8 is that He was teaching that prayer should be a private and personal experience with God. The Lords Prayer was the example to use while praying in secret to God. To make prayer public, lessens it and it becomes more of a show rather than an actual attempt to communicate with God.

As far as churches, Christ seems to address that in Matthew 6:2 where He references the hypocrites in the synagogues.

Do I need to be in a church to worship God?

36fsfiend said...

kimsch said...

“36, You keep asking about Matthew 6:5-6:8. Jesus didn't want us to be hypocritical in prayer, praying in public just to be seen doing so - to show what "good" people we are...

Jesus Himself prayed in public. He gave public thanks to His Father for food. He prayed publicly with Lazarus' family, that they would believe God sent him to them. John 11: 41 Then they took the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe thou hast sent me. 43 And when he had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.

Prayer can happen anywhere and any time. It can happen in private and in public, inside or outside. It can happen alone or in a group. All is right and none is wrong.”

kimsch,

Thank you for your response.

As I responded to chickenlittle, I think Christ in Matthew 6:5-6:8 is teaching that prayer should be a private and personal experience with God. To make prayer public, lessens it and it becomes more of a show rather than an actual attempt to communicate with God.

As far as your reference to John, you have a valid point. However, we always seem to run into a potential conflict when one religious group wishes to conduct religious ceremonies at a public, taxpayer funded facility.

chickenlittle said...

As far as churches, Christ seems to address that in Matthew 6:2 where He references the hypocrites in the synagogues.

So are you or are you saying that people shouldn't pray in churches?

Do I need to be in a church to worship God?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

36fsfiend said...

kimsch,

In reading over the passage from John, this section struck me:

"Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe thou hast sent me."

Christ says He is beseeching the Father in public to prove to the nonbelievers that He was in fact sent by God.

May by not the exact same situation where a believer is praying to God which, according to Christ, should be done in secret.

chickenlittle said...

@36fsfiend:

Again, so are you saying that according to Matthew 6:2-6:8, people shouldn't pray in churches?

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

“So are you or are you saying that people shouldn't pray in churches?”

Again, I’m referring to the words of Christ. He seems to be implying that there can be ostentatiousness associated with a church. Do I need to be physically in a grand and extravagant structure to celebrate the braking of the bread? I don’t think so.

Think of all the money that could be used to support noble causes if it wasn’t necessary to build and maintain these grand edifices to God.

chickenlittle said...

@36fsfiend:

Or are you just implying that according to Matthew 6:2-6:8, people shouldn't pray in churches?

Please clarify your important point.

_________
I had a funny wv, but even Titus would be embarassed.

chickenlittle said...

Thank for your candor, 36fsfiend

Think too, what Caesar could do if Caesar didn't squander money. Make a quantitative comparison, and get back to us.

kimsch said...

Then as Chickenlittle said: what about in a House of God? People aren't in secret there. Matthew 6:5-6:8 is talking about showing off, pretending (the hypocrisy), praying for show without meaning it.

Much prayer can be done "in secret", private prayer between a person and his/her deity. Some prayer lends itself to small or large groups. Praying with family and friends for a person who is ill. Thanking God for blessings in one's life. Grace before meals.

Jesus didn't want us to say words for words' sake, but to pray from the heart.

It doesn't matter if prayer occurs at a publicly funded event or venue either. Public funding does not equate to Congress making a law establishing a religion. Any prayer, any religion.

The establishment clause was made to ensure that the US Government would not "pull a Henry VIII" and establish a state religion whilst effectively banning another.

In fact, early states actually had established state churches. Sovereign states were not Congress. Granted that the following cite is from Wikipedia but it details state churches:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

"Think too, what Caesar could do if Caesar didn't squander money. Make a quantitative comparison, and get back to us."

Why should I compare the words and actions of Christ to Caesar?

Again, I'm asking why it seems Christians are not truly following the words of the founder of their religion.

chickenlittle said...

Why should I compare the words and actions of Christ to Caesar?

You're tiresome, but seem earnest. It's because you said at 8:59 that churches were a waste of money. I challenged you by implying that government wastes much much more money. That's why fiend.


Now what's your real point here besides just beating around the bush? Get to it. Let me guess:

You hate Santorum. Please save us all the bother.

chickenlittle said...

[bookmark for future reference]

36fsfiend said...

kimsch said...

“Then as Chickenlittle said: what about in a House of God? People aren't in secret there. Matthew 6:5-6:8 is talking about showing off, pretending (the hypocrisy), praying for show without meaning it.”

As I responded to Chickenlittle, Christ seems to be implying that there can be ostentatiousness associated with a church. You don’t need to be physically in a grand and extravagant structure to celebrate the braking of the bread.

“Much prayer can be done "in secret", private prayer between a person and his/her deity. Some prayer lends itself to small or large groups. Praying with family and friends for a person who is ill. Thanking God for blessings in one's life. Grace before meals.”

Again, I’m referring to the words of Christ. They're not my words.

“Jesus didn't want us to say words for words' sake, but to pray from the heart.”

I agree. And it seems that it should be a private and personal experience done in seclusion with God.

“It doesn't matter if prayer occurs at a publicly funded event or venue either. Public funding does not equate to Congress making a law establishing a religion. Any prayer, any religion.”

I disagree. I’m not interested in having my tax dollars subsidize a religious belief that I don’t necessarily agree with. Multiply that feeling by numerous taxpayers and you have a problem.

“The establishment clause was made to ensure that the US Government would not "pull a Henry VIII" and establish a state religion whilst effectively banning another.”

Why did Henry VIII and establish a state religion and ban other religions? Could it have something to do with control and power?

“In fact, early states actually had established state churches. Sovereign states were not Congress. Granted that the following cite is from Wikipedia but it details state churches:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

The First Amendment now applies to the states in accordance with the concept of incorporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

36fsfiend said...

chickenlittle said...

“You're tiresome, but seem earnest. It's because you said at 8:59 that churches were a waste of money. I challenged you by implying that government wastes much much more money. That's why fiend.”

I’m not talking about the man made institution of government. I’m talking about the commands of Christ and how it appears in some cases that His followers are not always striving to follow those commands.

“Now what's your real point here besides just beating around the bush? Get to it. Let me guess:

You hate Santorum. Please save us all the bother.”

I don’t hate Santorum. I don’t agree with him on much but that’s not germane to the discussion.

Dave said...

As long as there are math tests there will be prayer in schools.


I disagree with your thesis that prayer is schools is all about the show. For some certainly it's all about the show, but you can't know their interior life and therefore you can't judge properly.


As for the prayer in private Christ also sends his apostles out expressly to preach. Further He states that He will deny those that deny Him in public. Public witness is sometimes called for, your scriptural excerpt is called "proof texting". Its picking only those texts that support your favorite point and ignoring those that don't.

Brom said...

I know that formal writing has traditionally frowned on the use of the 1st person, but I really think that judges should be open to using it when clarity would be served by using it. Especially in a personal statement that appears after the order of the court.

36fsfiend said...

Dave said...

“As long as there are math tests there will be prayer in schools.”

Yes, silent prayers to one’s respective God unless the individual is comfortable with math.

“I disagree with your thesis that prayer is schools is all about the show. For some certainly it's all about the show, but you can't know their interior life and therefore you can't judge properly.”

Well, the teachings of Christ in Matthew 6:5-6:8 are pretty clear. Now if these were Muslim students, that would be a different matter as Mohammad specifically commanded his followers to pray in public as a group.

“As for the prayer in private Christ also sends his apostles out expressly to preach. Further He states that He will deny those that deny Him in public. Public witness is sometimes called for, your scriptural excerpt is called "proof texting". Its picking only those texts that support your favorite point and ignoring those that don't.”

I think there is a confusion between preaching the word of God and prayer. Up thread, kimsch brought up the example of Christ’s prayer in public prior to raising Lazarus from the dead. However, in that prayer, Christ specifically states that He is invoking the Father in public to prove to the nonbelievers around Him that He was in fact sent by God.

This is not the same situation where a believer is praying to God which, according to Christ in Matthew 6:5-6:8, should be done in secret.