I've seen people called liars because they said schools had prayer. I've seen christians argue and lie about it saying they don't. It goes on all the time, all over, but yet not a lot is done, it's mostly tolerated. So churches should have to pay taxes, and ALL denominations/religions/beliefs should be allowed to have their prayers, or time to speak to the crowd, before school events.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The school didn't fight it because they don't have the funds to do so, you're right about that. However, their decision is based on money not on whether they did something illegal. They did nothing illegal.

 

======================================================================

 

If they did nothing illegal what would there be to fight?

A lawsuit doesn't mean they did anything illegal. It means they are accused of doing something illegal. Very different.

 

The school was forced to stop their tradition because a group with more money, that does not live in the community, bullied them into stopping. It has nothing to do with rights or what is legal. It's about silencing religion and free expression.

 

I'm not offended by other religions or when someone says they are an atheist. Doesn't bother me in the least. Yet, one of the most vile things a group of students and parents can do is pray with a single atheist present.

****

You say, "Yet, one of the most vile things a group of students and parents can do is pray with a single atheist present."  Well, then, to be certain not to participate in such a "vile" exercise, would it not be best NOT to have ANY public prayers where hundreds, or even thousands, of persons are present and where it is highly probable that at least one of them is an atheist?  Should those believing  parents and students at football games at Arab, Alabama  canvass the crowd to be sure there is not an atheist there, lest their pre-game prayer become some kind of abomination?

****

You took my sentence out of context. I was attempting to point out how trivial the situation is.

 

I'm not offended when I'm exposed to beliefs that differ from my own. I don't get upset when I see Muslim women wearing their head scarfs around town. It doesn't bother me when I pass the Buddhist Temple just outside of town. I'm not offended when I see someone refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance because they are Jehovah's Witness.  

 

So for someone to become so offended and outraged at a group of people expressing their beliefs is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the first amendment, it's a way of trying to eliminate religion and any religious expression.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I've seen people called liars because they said schools had prayer. I've seen christians argue and lie about it saying they don't. It goes on all the time, all over, but yet not a lot is done, it's mostly tolerated. So churches should have to pay taxes, and ALL denominations/religions/beliefs should be allowed to have their prayers, or time to speak to the crowd, before school events.

You shouldn't have to buy your constitutional rights.

 

I'd like to think we live in a country where communities can speak and express themselves freely without having to pay the government for the privilege first.

NB,

It's not about personal offense. It's about a violation of the laws of our country. And the outrage you describe belongs instead to the privileged religious majority in these communities. Apparently you and they believe is that it's ok to break the law and violate the our Constitution because it disagrees with your theocratic whims. The schools were not forced or bullied. The schools simply received one letter informing them that they were breaking the law and the schools agreed. It's ridiculous to suggest with any seriousness that informing a school that they are breaking the law is an attempt to "eliminate religion and any religious expression" LOL. Somehow, you and yours are oppressed for not being able to force a captive audience at a government function to endure a specific religious prayer through the PA even though it's completely against the law and Constitutional protections.

You shouldn't have to buy your constitutional rights.

 

I'd like to think we live in a country where communities can speak and express themselves freely without having to pay the government for the privilege first.

 

================================================================

 

 We have to pay taxes so I guess we're buying our and the churches "rights". What communities don't express themselves freely?  Does anyone on this forum live anywhere that they can't do that? You can talk about the bible belt all you want, run down Alabama all you want, but the truth is anywhere you go in this country you're going to find the same people as you have here, and you're going to see all sorts of signs and religious symbols in their yards, on their cars and businesses. (I even have a statue of St Francis of Assisi in my yard but that's a whole "nother" story.)  
St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and ecology.

 

But no one has the "right" to tell me I HAVE to put those things in my yard or that I have to sit and listen to prayers in public (taxpayer's) buildings, stadiums etc, and if I don't "like" it I can leave.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

NB,

It's not about personal offense. It's about a violation of the laws of our country. And the outrage you describe belongs instead to the privileged religious majority in these communities. Apparently you and they believe is that it's ok to break the law and violate the our Constitution because it disagrees with your theocratic whims. The schools were not forced or bullied. The schools simply received one letter informing them that they were breaking the law and the schools agreed. It's ridiculous to suggest with any seriousness that informing a school that they are breaking the law is an attempt to "eliminate religion and any religious expression" LOL. Somehow, you and yours are oppressed for not being able to force a captive audience at a government function to endure a specific religious prayer through the PA even though it's completely against the law and Constitutional protections.

The school was not breaking the law.

 

Yes, the Supreme Court made a ruling citing separation of church and state which is not found anywhere in the constitution.

 

The Supreme Court also once ruled that a man could own another man as legal property. That is also not in the constitution. Was that the correct ruling or were they wrong?

 

The constitution simply says that Congress will not endorse nor prohibit religious expression. It doesn't say that people cannot voluntarily pray in public buildings. At one time, the U.S. Capitol was also used as a church building, hosting church services weekly. Just because the Supreme Court says separation of church and state is constitutional doesn't mean it is.

 

The school received a letter threatening a lawsuit. They do not have the money to fight it, so they had to stop even though they did nothing wrong or illegal.

 

I don't believe in forcing religious beliefs on to others against their will. However, I believe very strongly in free expression and the tolerance of others' right to express themselves. If one is intolerant of another person praying, then it's not the fault of the one saying the prayer.

 

Originally Posted by NashBama:
I don't believe in forcing religious beliefs on to others against their will. However, I believe very strongly in free expression and the tolerance of others' right to express themselves. If one is intolerant of another person praying, then it's not the fault of the one saying the prayer.

 

____________________________

Excellent comment.

I don't believe in forcing religious beliefs on to others against their will. However, I believe very strongly in free expression and the tolerance of others' right to express themselves. If one is intolerant of another person praying, then it's not the fault of the one saying the prayer.

=======================================================================

 

Strong contradiction there. How do you figure the one saying the prayer isn't the intolerate one? How about this, the one that isn't praying gets in the others face and screams the entire time they're praying? What would be the difference? They'd only be expressing themselves. There are plenty of places to "express" yourself and then there are some where it isn't proper. And again, if they weren't breaking the law they would go ahead with their prayers no matter what anyone said. Churches are worth billions of dollars and they could well afford to fight something like that.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 How about this, the one that isn't praying gets in the others face and screams the entire time they're praying? What would be the difference?

 

It's very different. Screaming in someone's face is an aggressive gesture. Doing so because that person is praying is not personal self expression, but an aggressive way of silencing expression.

 

If someone walked up to you and started screaming in your face, would you dismiss it as their personal expression?

 

Someone choosing to pray and inviting those who wish to join in is very different. No one is forced to pray. No one is punished for not praying. It's not breaking any laws. It's not an aggressive gesture.

 

It's no different than sitting down during the National Anthem. You're welcomed to join in, but you don't have to. Singing the National Anthem before a game is the community expressing themselves. Saying a prayer is the same type of expression and to prevent someone's right to freely express themselves is wrong.

I see no difference at all. If someone insists on praying "in my face" I should be free to scream in theirs. No aggression at all, just one form of "expression". They can pray at home or in silence. What difference does it make to them? Why the need to subject others to their prayers?

quote:   Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

I see no difference at all. If someone insists on praying "in my face" I should be free to scream in theirs. No aggression at all, just one form of "expression". They can pray at home or in silence. What difference does it make to them? Why the need to subject others to their prayers?


Hi all,

 

And, THIS clearly defines the difference between a TYPICAL ATHEIST and a TYPICAL CHRISTIAN.

 

The atheist will declare, "I have rights!  You have none!"

 

Only an atheist could equate quiet prayer -- with screaming in another's face.

 

Thank you, Jennifer, for the very revealing clarification.  But, I believe we can equate this more with a young, militant atheist -- instead of a more mature one who just chooses to live as though there is no God.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Thank you bill, for proving once more that you are a militant christian willing to lie and twist posts. Now I know you won't do it because you're just a bag of hot air that likes to post untruths and then run,  but show me where I equated praying to screaming in someone's face. The discussion was on "expressing" one's self and tolerance of that. Nash claimed that prayer was self expression. I said that screaming into the face of the one praying could just as easily be considered "expressing" one's self and that I should be just as free to do that as they are to pray. No where did I say praying was like screaming in anyone's face. Now, got any more lies you'd like to post?

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 

But no one has the "right" to tell me I HAVE to put those things in my yard or that I have to sit and listen to prayers in public (taxpayer's) buildings, stadiums etc, and if I don't "like" it I can leave.

  No one will try and force you to put crap in your yard cept for those trying to sneak political signs there and you are free to remove those. As for whether or not someone can pray in a public place such as stadiums, public buildings, parks, sidewalks, bus stop, etc, they can and actually the remedy is that if you don't like it then you can get out of earshot as you have no legal right to try and stop them from doing so..

As for what you said about screaming in the praying person's face, that would not be advisable as that is a form of assault and getting "in someone's face" can be deemed as a threatening act where the person would have the right to use physical force to remove you from their personal space. Anyway, that's one of those things that could get a person a tail whoopin and sent to jail all in the same day so it's better to leave the person alone and mind your own business or simply go somewhere that you don't hear it if it's too bad. I assume if you wanna scream but stay out of the person's face while screaming that it would be OK to do in most instances.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

 

Its illegal NB. The SCOTUS has ruled on this issue a few times now and keep coming back with the same answer. Also it is usually NOT atheist that sue the schools for doing this. I believe they are just good American citizens that don't want to see what we stand for and our democracy destroyed. So they stand up for what is right, even if it means ****ing the Christians off.

 

Read this from a CNN article in 2000.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that prayer does not belong in public schools, even if students initiate and lead the prayers.

The court ruled 6-3 in a Texas case that public schools cannot allow student-led prayer before high school football games, a decision that reinforces the wall between church and state erected by the First Amendment.

The ruling came in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, a case involving the Sante Fe Independent School District in Galveston, Texas, which allowed student-initiated and student-led prayer to be broadcast over the public address system before high school football games.

 
 

The central question was whether allowing prayer violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.""We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority."But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment," he added.

Two students and their mothers filed suit in 1995 and were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union. The students, one Mormon and one Catholic, and their mothers were not named in court papers.

 

continue reading....

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-0...lic-prayer?_s=PM:LAW

 

*************

 

As further information, a sumary of the case in Wikipoedia includes the following:

 

"The Court held that the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman.[2]It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, 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" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

 

This case was not one that was a purely student-led activity.   The school ( hence the government) had its fingers all over it. Here is some education on the matter.

 

From the Supreme Court's decision:

 

"The actual or perceived endorsement of the message, moreover, is established by factors beyond just the text of the policy. Once the student speaker is selected and the message composed, the invocation is then delivered to a large audience assembled as part of a regularly scheduled, school-sponsored function conducted on school property. The message is broadcast over the school's public address system, which remains subject to the control of school officials. It is fair to assume that the pregame ceremony is clothed in the traditional indicia of school sporting events, which generally include not just the team, but also cheerleaders and band members dressed in uniforms sporting the school name and mascot. The school's name is likely written in large print across the field and on banners and flags. The crowd will certainly include many who display the school colors and insignia on their school T-shirts, jackets, or hats and who may also be waving signs displaying the school name. It is in a setting such as this that "the board has chosen to permit" the elected student to rise and give the "statement or invocation."

In this context the members of the listening audience must perceive the pregame message as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration. In cases involving state participation in a religious activity, one of the relevant questions is "whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as a state endorsement of prayer in public schools."  Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval.

 

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants 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."

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

No fred, that would only be expressing myself. Who'd "whup" me? One of you tuff old christians? You might be surprised.

Sorry Jen, no matter how much you wish to believe it, you can't go around assaulting and harrasing people to stop them from praying. It's a simple fact that you cannot legally do that and yes, getting in someone's face and screaming at them does give the victim the legal right to use physical force. If you were to do that and a person did use physical force and you fought back and harmed them then that is going past a simple assault or harrasment and is something that could land you in jail for a long time. A person praying in public is not breaking any law and has the right to do so, assault is breaking the law.

I'm a little astonished, under your old name you used to make intelligent arguments (even though most were wrong)  But now you are making no sense at all.

Well fred as much as YOU'D like to believe it I've never said squat to a praying godbot. You are doing what bill tried to do, twist the post, and it's stupid. Once more and try to keep up. Nash said praying in public was a person expressing themselves and anyone that objected was intolerant. Got that part? I said what IF I screamed in their face, that would be ME expressing myself. So now what part of that doesn't make sense to you? Land me in jail for a long time? Keep dreaming. As much as you godbots would love to send atheists to jail, I seriously doubt I'd go to jail for that. And for you to claim that if someone hit me first I wouldn't have the right to hit them back is crazy. You might want to check the law on that one. Wanna talk about someone not making any sense, check yourself.

Bfred said earlier that he did not want other religions to be able to lead a prayer at the games. I agree with him. I don't want there to be a prayer lead by an Imam, or a wiccan high priestess, or VooDoo Doctor either. This is not about Christianity, this is about the Constitution.

 

If one is allowed then they all have to be allowed. Actually they would be required.

Originally Posted by NashBama:
The school was not breaking the law.

 

Yes, the Supreme Court made a ruling citing separation of church and state which is not found anywhere in the constitution.

 

The Supreme Court also once ruled that a man could own another man as legal property. That is also not in the constitution. Was that the correct ruling or were they wrong?

 

The constitution simply says that Congress will not endorse nor prohibit religious expression. It doesn't say that people cannot voluntarily pray in public buildings. At one time, the U.S. Capitol was also used as a church building, hosting church services weekly. Just because the Supreme Court says separation of church and state is constitutional doesn't mean it is.

 

The school received a letter threatening a lawsuit. They do not have the money to fight it, so they had to stop even though they did nothing wrong or illegal.

 

I don't believe in forcing religious beliefs on to others against their will. However, I believe very strongly in free expression and the tolerance of others' right to express themselves. If one is intolerant of another person praying, then it's not the fault of the one saying the prayer.

 

==

NB,
The schools (multiple) clearly were breaking the law. I guess you failed to see the video link I provided with the school principal saying that they knew what they were doing was illegal. You keep repeating yourself about the legality of mass school prayers but have yet to cite any case law to support your claim, so I will.

The Supreme Court has so far made EIGHT separate rulings from 1952 to 2004 affirming that school-sponsored prayers (a religious activity) in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause and constitutionally impermissible. In fact, it gets worse for theocrats every time they choose to fight against what is now 60 years of Supreme Court precedents on school prayer, that basically says that religion can only have a sharply limited role in our public schools.

Look up: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 2000
(in a 6-3 decision) The Court held that the policy allowing the student-led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion held that the pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, 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" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval." - Justice Stevens (a Christian, nominated by Gerald Ford)

Look up: Lee v. Weisman, 1992
"As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." - Justice Kennedy (a Christian, nominated by Ronald Reagan) writing for the majority

 

Regardless of your opinions and interpretations on these matters NB, what the schools were/are doing is against US law. Period. I ask you again to please prove otherwise, with something more than your opinions or beliefs.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well fred as much as YOU'D like to believe it I've never said squat to a praying godbot. You are doing what bill tried to do, twist the post, and it's stupid. Once more and try to keep up. Nash said praying in public was a person expressing themselves and anyone that objected was intolerant. Got that part? I said what IF I screamed in their face, that would be ME expressing myself. So now what part of that doesn't make sense to you? Land me in jail for a long time? Keep dreaming. As much as you godbots would love to send atheists to jail, I seriously doubt I'd go to jail for that. And for you to claim that if someone hit me first I wouldn't have the right to hit them back is crazy. You might want to check the law on that one. Wanna talk about someone not making any sense, check yourself.

 

I clearly didn't twist anything, you used your example of what you felt was freedom of expression and I just laid out the facts that you were wrong and were not comparing apples to apples.

If you really believe that aggressively approaching someone to as you said "scream in their face" is simple freedom of expression and does not give a person the legal right to use physical force to defend themselves if they feel threatened then you are simply wrong. If you believe that if the victim used physical force that the aggressor has a legal right to either continue with or start using physical force too then you are wrong and yes if the aggressor used physical force back then it could land them in jail for a long time. Ask an attorney, they can tell you how the legal system views such violent attacks.

I really didn’t think that you personally would do such a thing as even though you seem feisty, you don't seem like the crazed maniac type so accuse me of a lack of creativity in not being to think of anyone else to use as an EXAMPLE. Contrary to your belief, I would never want for anyone to wind up in jail for their religious beliefs or lack thereof,  jail should be reserved for criminals such as the nut jobs that you described who would be so threatening & trying to use intimidation towards a person to stop them from praying.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

Bfred said earlier that he did not want other religions to be able to lead a prayer at the games. I agree with him. I don't want there to be a prayer lead by an Imam, or a wiccan high priestess, or VooDoo Doctor either. This is not about Christianity, this is about the Constitution.

 

If one is allowed then they all have to be allowed. Actually they would be required.


You are pretty much correct about my point of view. I have no objection to Christian prayer at any of the games over the PA but would rather give that up than for any other religion to be able to do it too. But if people want to pray on their own or as a group that is not backed by school officials then I have no problem with that at all, if I see or hear something offensive then I would just remove myself from the area or say my own prayer.

Last time and I'm going to bed. IF they can pray to "express" themselves, others can scream at them to "express" themselves. Has nothing to do with trying to intimidate, threaten, or stop them from praying, it's just how they "express" themselves. I guess they would just have to pray louder.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Last time and I'm going to bed. IF they can pray to "express" themselves, others can scream at them to "express" themselves. Has nothing to do with trying to intimidate, threaten, or stop them from praying, it's just how they "express" themselves. I guess they would just have to pray louder.

As long as they leave the "in their face" part out then it's all OK. I even said in one of the earlier posts that "I assume if you wanna scream but stay out of the person's face while screaming that it would be OK to do in most instances". It's the part where one enters a person's personal space to intimidate that the law frowns on.

Robustus, check out Dred Scott v Sandford. Did the Supreme Court make the right decision in that case?

 

Bestworking, If someone decides they want to scream during a prayer before a football game, sure they can do it. It would be childish, disrespectful, and rude, but they can do it.

 

However, that isn't the example you gave. Screaming in someone's face is different than screaming in the stands at a football game.

 

Like I said before. Muslim prayers, Jewish prayers, or whatever doesn't offend me. So why is a Christian prayer so offensive?

Bestworking, If someone decides they want to scream during a prayer before a football game, sure they can do it. It would be childish, disrespectful, and rude, but they can do it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To me the wanna pray out loud crowd are the ones being rude and disrespectful, and yes, even childish by ignoring the law.

How is praying out loud being disrespectful to you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Showing contempt for the law, being determined to do what you want no matter what others think is being disrespectful. The question I ask and that is never answered is why they feel they have to pray out loud. For some reason that has always seemed like "show boating" and done trying to impress others instead of being sincere. Simple solution-announce before the game, "let's all either pray or hold good thoughts for the welfare of the players and all attending". Simply means if you pray do it, if you don't pray send out good wishes. Short and sweet and non-offensive.

Praying out loud in public is not illegal according to the constitution.

 

Most of the time, group prayers are led by someone. That's just the traditional way it's done. It's not forcing anyone to pray. It's not punishing anyone who chooses not to pray.

 

It's simply the community as a whole choosing to be led in a brief prayer. Even when I wasn't a believer, seeing people pray didn't bother me. I usually just stood there and waited for it to end. So I'm still not getting how a simple prayer is so offensive that others must be prevented from engaging in it.

Well there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether or not praying before a football game is illegal. I stand there and wait for it to end too. Everybody stands there and waits for it to end. They shouldn't have to. Let's flip this, what's so offensive about being ask to do it in silence? We have friends that pray before eating. We sit there until they're finished, others in the restaurant go about their business. Should they stand up, pray out loud, and expect everyone in the entire restaurant to stop talking, eating, working and listen to them pray? And if they didn't stop you know as well as I do it would be-"did you SEE those people keep eating, talking, laughing, working while so and so was praying?! How rude and disrespectful can people be? What is this world coming to"!

NB, I don't find it offensive at all when I am in a place that it is appropriate. Weddings, Funerals, if I went to a church service, I would just stand there till it was over as you said you once did. A school sponsored/sanctioned event on school grounds is not the appropriate place to lead a group prayer to ANY God.

 

To some here it seems that they think this is a small and petty thing. If so then why are you and others making such a big deal about it? To continue to do so would break the law. That is why when schools are called out on this type of thing they stop without an argument. They know they are wrong, but have been doing it as long as they can get away with it.

 

You will not hear prayer at any of the local games here in Lauderdale County by next week....it might take a couple of weeks, but I am guessing it will be sooner than that. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether or not praying before a football game is illegal.

 

 

Only by those who don't understand the law or by those that refuse to accept that this has already been tried many times in the past and the SCOTUS has ruled it unconstitutional every time. It is illegal. There is no question about it. Some just don't like that it is illegal. That is a different story.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Well there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether or not praying before a football game is illegal. I stand there and wait for it to end too. Everybody stands there and waits for it to end. They shouldn't have to. Let's flip this, what's so offensive about being ask to do it in silence? We have friends that pray before eating. We sit there until they're finished, others in the restaurant go about their business. Should they stand up, pray out loud, and expect everyone in the entire restaurant to stop talking, eating, working and listen to them pray? And if they didn't stop you know as well as I do it would be-"did you SEE those people keep eating, talking, laughing, working while so and so was praying?! How rude and disrespectful can people be? What is this world coming to"!

____________________________

Any question I ask you or any opinion I give is respectively given or ask, please know that. Never would I put you down for how you feel or believe because that is your right.

 

I’m actually surprised that you would sit quietly thru a prayer with friends before a meal. If my family or friends pray while I’m in attendance, I quietly walk away before the prayer because I feel I would be a hypocrite to sit thru something that makes me uncomfortable & because I don’t believe prayers are answered.

Most of the time, I feel like people pray before a meal because it’s habit. It doesn’t come from the heart, it’s just something they do.

 

As far as your question of should an entire restaurant stop talking, eating, working while someone is praying is sort of out there. A prayer at another table is for those seated at the table, not the entire restaurant. I’ve seen waitresses & waiters headed to a table with drinks or whatever & if the people at that table is praying, they will stop & respectfully wait until the prayer is over.

 

Most people are not going to stop what they are doing if they see someone at another table praying. It’s not rude or disrespectful if the prayer is being said at someone else’s table. I don’t think anyone would expect the whole restaurant to stop while a prayer is being said.

 

I’m actually surprised that you would sit quietly thru a prayer with friends before a meal. If my family or friends pray while I’m in attendance, I quietly walk away before the prayer because I feel I would be a hypocrite to sit thru something that makes me uncomfortable & because I don’t believe prayers are answered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's respect for them, they don't ask us to bow our heads with them and pray with them and they don't do it out loud. If they ask us to join in and we did, that would be hypocritical.

NB,

I take your repeated lack of response to mean you concede that school prayer, as cited above, is indeed illegal. You just don't agree with it.

 

So far you've repeated two things, that it's NOT illegal and 'what about Dred Scott'? The Dred Scott decision (1857) is a bad example multiple reasons least of which is because it was basically overruled automatically by the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). I encourage you to work to enact a new amendment to the Constitution so that schools can sponsor prayers before football games. Until then it's plain illegal.

Hi Jennifer,

You tell us, "Well there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether or not praying before a football game is illegal.  I stand there and wait for it to end too.  Everybody stands there and waits for it to end. They shouldn't have to.  Let's flip this, what's so offensive about being ask to do it in silence?  We have friends that pray before eating.  We sit there until they're finished, others in the restaurant go about their business."

At a sporting event, if there is public prayer for 15 or 30 seconds -- are you REALLY harmed to stand silently and wait for them to  finish?  What has this cost you -- other than 10 to 30 seconds of time.

It seems that your objection is the fact that you can hear them speaking to the God they worship -- for you said you have no problem standing quietly to wait for them to finish.  You just do not want to hear them?  Why?  Does it really do you any harm if I say aloud, "Thank you, Lord"

 

You see me write it all the time.  Has that done any real physical or psychological harm to you?  Then, why  should a short prayer, spoken aloud, do any harm to you?

Or, is it that you want to demand your religion of atheism be respected and NO ONE should pray?  You are offended because the majority chooses to pray.  Yet, you do not find it offensive when a small minority, atheists, DEMANDS that the majority, accede to their desires.

As I said, what has it cost you -- other than 15 to 30 seconds?  And it shows a spirit of cooperation and friendship.  Is that really asking too much of you?

You ask about praying in a restaurant.  I do this all the time and I see others doing the same.  We, as a group at our table, bow and someone will quietly and discreetly pray.  We may or may not hold hands while praying; but not always.  This is, in no way, disruptive to others in the restaurant.

 

Why should this be offensive to you -- seeing people at another table bowing and quietly offering a prayer of thanks to God?


As a matter of fact, I find it comforting when I see others at another table praying.  I have had people come up later and introduce themselves because they saw as giving thanks before our meal.  Once, some years ago, Dory and I were at a restaurant and notice an older couple sitting across the room giving thanks.

After our meal, as we were walking out, I stopped to say hello and to tell them that I was edified by seeing them bow and give thanks before their meal.  The woman told us, "We noticed you also and it warmed our hearts to see the two of you holding hands and praying."   Do we do this to be noticed?  No, we do it to join in fellowship while giving thanks to our God for the blessing of food He  has given us.  But, I do enjoy seeing others do the same.

Then, Jennifer, you declare, "Should they stand up, pray out loud, and expect everyone in the entire restaurant to stop talking, eating, working and listen to them pray?  And if they didn't stop you know as well as I do it would be, "Did you SEE those people keep eating, talking, laughing, working while so and so was praying?!  How rude and disrespectful can people be? What is this world  coming to"!"

Jennifer, I am 74 years old, have been a Christian for 24 years, have eaten in many restaurants across America and in a few other countries -- and, I have NEVER seen anyone do that in a restaurant.

Have YOU really ever seen this -- or is this just more atheist posturing, huffing, and puffing? 

 

Never mind, I believe we know the  answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Not sure what you mean by lack of response, I gave a direct response which you cited in your reply.

 

My point of using the Dred Scott case is simple. It was a bad decision even before the 14th amendment.

 

The SC's job is to simply interpret the Constitution. As we've seen with the Dred Scott case, they can get things wrong.

 

Same as the case with recent rulings about public prayer. The phrase separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Therefore, it should not have been included in rulings as if it were. Just as in the Dred Scott case, the judges made a bad decision.

 

I do not agree with schools or any public entity forcing people to pray. I do believe that public buildings, schools, and such belong to the community.

 

Example, the airwaves are considered to be a public resource. Radio and TV stations are required to serve the public interest and at one time allow time for public opinion. Remember the editorials that used to air on WOWL?

 

I used to work city council meetings where the floor would be given to a member of the public. Usually, a council member would offer time to a local pastor or church leader. They would use their time to pray. Anyone who wanted to join could, but no one had to. Sometimes a council member would ask for a moment and they would use their time to pray. Other times they would simply use their time for a moment of silence. All of this was done in a public meeting held in a public building.

 

So there has to be a balance between allowing the public to freely express themselves, but preventing religion forced on others. A teacher making the students pray is wrong. Allowing a local pastor three minutes to speak on a public address system at a publicly funded stadium is not. It is also not illegal according to the Constitution.

quote:  Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
I’m actually surprised that you would sit quietly thru a prayer with friends before a meal.  If my family or friends pray while I’m in attendance, I quietly walk away before the prayer because I feel I would be a hypocrite to sit thru something that makes me uncomfortable & because I don’t believe prayers are answered.

Hi Chick,

 

Just curious.  Why does hearing someone pray make you uncomfortable? 

 

I know why it used to make me uncomfortable at times.  I was convicted by the Holy Spirit and did not want to face the fact that my lifestyle was not in accord with God.  I have shared before that, for many years, I attended church, most often the Roman Catholic church because they, unlike the Baptist, did not teach about hell. 

 

But, over time, my partying every night began to conflict with my attending church on Sunday morning -- for they were not compatible.   So, I had to face a choice:  give up my party-hearty lifestyle -- or give up church. 

 

At that time, because I was not really a Christian, I gave up church.  Why?  Because I was convicted.  Their preaching and praying made me uncomfortable.  In other words, I was convicted -- and that made me uncomfortable.  So, I did the reasonable thing, in my mind, and ran from God and His church.

 

Are you doing the same?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Jennifer, I am 74 years old, have been a Christian for 24 years, have eaten in many restaurants across America and in a few other countries -- and, I have NEVER seen anyone do that in a restaurant.

Have YOU really ever seen this-- or is this just more atheist posturing, huffing, and puffing? 

 

Never mind, I believe we know the  answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Have I ever seen what? What in the world are you babbling about? 

 

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×