91% of America Believes in God

[5stringJeff]

I suppose things aren't quite as bad as they may seem. It sure shows groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State to be in the distinct minority.

--------------
The latest Newsweek poll found 91 percent of American adults say they believe in God and nearly half rejects the scientific theory of evolution.

Despite concerns over rising secularism in the country, Christians still far outnumber any other faith group. According to the poll, released on Friday, 82 percent of American adults identify themselves as Christian. Religious non-Christians make up only 5 percent of the public.

Poll results come months after Time magazine reported 66 percent of American have no doubts God exists while 11 percent believe in God but has some doubts. The Time report also revealed more than 85 percent of Americans follow a Christian faith.

Link (http://christianpost.com/article/20070402/26658_Poll%3A_9_of_10_Americans_Believe_in_God%3B_ Nearly_Half_Rejects_Evolution.htm)

[The ClayTaurus]

I suppose things aren't quite as bad as they may seem. It sure shows groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State to be in the distinct minority.

--------------
The latest Newsweek poll found 91 percent of American adults say they believe in God and nearly half rejects the scientific theory of evolution.

Despite concerns over rising secularism in the country, Christians still far outnumber any other faith group. According to the poll, released on Friday, 82 percent of American adults identify themselves as Christian. Religious non-Christians make up only 5 percent of the public.

Poll results come months after Time magazine reported 66 percent of American have no doubts God exists while 11 percent believe in God but has some doubts. The Time report also revealed more than 85 percent of Americans follow a Christian faith.

Link (http://christianpost.com/article/20070402/26658_Poll%3A_9_of_10_Americans_Believe_in_God%3B_ Nearly_Half_Rejects_Evolution.htm)I'm taking a WAG as to what the Americans for Separation of Church and State are for, but assuming it is derived from their name, how does even a 100% belief in a God correlate to not wanting the separation of church and state?

[Missileman]

I suppose things aren't quite as bad as they may seem. It sure shows groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State to be in the distinct minority.

I don't see any correlation between a belief or disbelief in a deity and a desire to maintain a separation of religion and government.

[5stringJeff]

I believe that the percentage of atheists/agnostics in such an organization is significantly higher than the percentage of atheists/agnostics in the general population. But you are correct, it's not made up only of atheists and agnostics.

[The ClayTaurus]

I believe that the percentage of atheists/agnostics in such an organization is significantly higher than the percentage of atheists/agnostics in the general population. But you are correct, it's not made up only of atheists and agnostics.Many agnostics would argue they believe in a God, FWIW.

[theHawk]

Unfortunately just saying one believes in God doesn't mean they want to promote God's will according to the Bible. There are probably a lot of people that believe in God but don't believe in much of the bible, much less Jesus's teachings. Just look at all the people that call themselves Christians yet push for abortion-on-demand and promote/accept homosexuality in our culture.

[grunt]

Unfortunately just saying one believes in God doesn't mean they want to promote God's will according to the Bible. There are probably a lot of people that believe in God but don't believe in much of the bible, much less Jesus's teachings. Just look at all the people that call themselves Christians yet push for abortion-on-demand and promote/accept homosexuality in our culture.


It's not that I "promote/accept" homosexuality..it's just that I could care less about it. I do, however, support any and all legislation that keeps that type of lifestyle out of schools, military etc. I don't want my daughter to think that "homosexuality" is a natural thing because that's what she learns in school. I want her to realize that homosexualilty is a perverse act that was considered to be a mental affliction, grouped with pedophilia (not that they were classified as one in the same, but rather both are sexual mental disorders) until the 1970's. And if it weren't for the PC lapdogs of this country worried about getting every single vote they can, homosexuality would still be labeled as perverse and not accepted.

I do not condone gay bashing or anything like that, I just don't want to be told that I'm "wrong" because I disagree with it.

[Abbey Marie]

I took Jeff's point to be that when we 90% of us are forced to change our behaviors because of threatened or real lawsuits by groups such as these, we are suffering from the tyranny of the few. And with that point, I totally agree. Whether or not the particular group he cited is made up of all atheists is a related, but somewhat tangential issue.

[5stringJeff]

Many agnostics would argue they believe in a God, FWIW.

My understanding is that agnostics find it impossible to know whether there is a God, and so the question becomes irrelevant.

[Missileman]

I took Jeff's point to be that when we 90% of us are forced to change our behaviors because of threatened or real lawsuits by groups such as these, we are suffering from the tyranny of the few. And with that point, I totally agree. Whether or not the particular group he cited is made up of all atheists is a related, but somewhat tangential issue.

How exactly does the maintenance of the separation of church and state force you to change your behavior?

[Abbey Marie]

How exactly does the maintenance of the separation of church and state force you to change your behavior?

If it didn't, there would be no lawsuits.

[Missileman]

If it didn't, there would be no lawsuits.

That doesn't come even close to answering my question.

[avatar4321]

How exactly does the maintenance of the separation of church and state force you to change your behavior?

The problem isnt the separation of Church and state. The problem is there are hostile athiests/agnostics who are out there using the claim of "Separation of Church and State" to infringe on the Free exercise of religion.

Problem is the establishment is a limited provision which is exclusion design to prevent there from being a state Church. There is no state church. There never has been. There never will be. Those using the establishment clause are using it in a way that it was never intended.

Oh and the establishment clause and free exercise clause were designed to limit government, not religion. It was designed to keep government from interfering in religion.

[Missileman]

The problem isnt the separation of Church and state. The problem is there are hostile athiests/agnostics who are out there using the claim of "Separation of Church and State" to infringe on the Free exercise of religion.

An often touted claim, but one that is weightless unless you can show where anyone's church has been closed, Bible seized, forced conversion, etc. by way of any of these law suits.

The real problem lies with the pushy thumpers who aren't satisfied to live their own lives and feel compelled to dictate their morality to everyone else. Those are the people who define free exercise of religion as license to subject even the unwilling to their mythological hogwash.



Problem is the establishment is a limited provision which is exclusion design to prevent there from being a state Church. There is no state church. There never has been. There never will be. Those using the establishment clause are using it in a way that it was never intended.

Oh and the establishment clause and free exercise clause were designed to limit government, not religion. It was designed to keep government from interfering in religion.

It only makes sense that the intent was to prevent either from interfering with the other.

[grunt]

An often touted claim, but one that is weightless unless you can show where anyone's church has been closed, Bible seized, forced conversion, etc. by way of any of these law suits.

The real problem lies with the pushy thumpers who aren't satisfied to live their own lives and feel compelled to dictate their morality to everyone else. Those are the people who define free exercise of religion as license to subject even the unwilling to their mythological hogwash.




It only makes sense that the intent was to prevent either from interfering with the other.

I do agree that there are those who wish to make everybody believe in Christianity. I dare say, however, that there are an equal number who would like to force people not to believe in Christianity. Calling someone's religion "mythology" is not only rude, it's showing yourself to be one of the latter I speak of.

It amazes me that people still argue "seperation of church and state". What does that mean? Does that mean I can't pray while I'm at school? Why not? Of course I wouldn't expect to be able to pray out loud, neither would I say I should be able to disrupt class with talking at anytime. But who is it to tell me that I can't pray silently each morning before class? Who's to tell me that I CAN'T pray, as a judge, lawyer etc before a case just because I'm in a courthouse? THIS is what "Seperation of Church and State" means. It does NOT mean I can't do these things, it means I can worship any way I feel as long as i'm not forcing it on others.

[Abbey Marie]

That doesn't come even close to answering my question.

Actually, I totally answered the question. Do you think lawsuits such as these are brought on theoretical issues? Like, "Hey they might someday pray in that school, so we'd better sue now. And we don't want anyone to change what they are doing, either. We just want to sue."

It you have examples of of suits brought by these kinds of groups not intended to change some group's or individual's behavior, let's see 'em. I'll bet the overwhelming majority, if not all, fit my description.

[avatar4321]

An often touted claim, but one that is weightless unless you can show where anyone's church has been closed, Bible seized, forced conversion, etc. by way of any of these law suits.

The real problem lies with the pushy thumpers who aren't satisfied to live their own lives and feel compelled to dictate their morality to everyone else. Those are the people who define free exercise of religion as license to subject even the unwilling to their mythological hogwash.




It only makes sense that the intent was to prevent either from interfering with the other.

You dont need a church closed to infringe on peoples right to exercise their religion in the public.

[theHawk]

The real problem lies with the pushy thumpers who aren't satisfied to live their own lives and feel compelled to dictate their morality to everyone else. Those are the people who define free exercise of religion as license to subject even the unwilling to their mythological hogwash.


Religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. And everyone, "religious" or not, tries to push their beliefs on everyone else. Where people get these beliefs, whether it be from an organized religious group, Darwin, or from Karl Marx, is irrelivant. The point of the matter is the substance of the idealogy, not from where it stems from.
The Bible says murder is wrong, so are our laws against murder an example of dictating religious beliefs onto all of society?

[Missileman]

I do agree that there are those who wish to make everybody believe in Christianity. I dare say, however, that there are an equal number who would like to force people not to believe in Christianity. Calling someone's religion "mythology" is not only rude, it's showing yourself to be one of the latter I speak of.

Demonstrate how the Bible, particularly the OT is anything other than mythology. While you're at it, feel free to point out where I've endorsed the eradication of Christianity or any other religion for that matter.


It amazes me that people still argue "seperation of church and state". What does that mean? Does that mean I can't pray while I'm at school? Why not? Of course I wouldn't expect to be able to pray out loud, neither would I say I should be able to disrupt class with talking at anytime. But who is it to tell me that I can't pray silently each morning before class? Who's to tell me that I CAN'T pray, as a judge, lawyer etc before a case just because I'm in a courthouse? THIS is what "Seperation of Church and State" means. It does NOT mean I can't do these things, it means I can worship any way I feel as long as i'm not forcing it on others.

The question is moot. How can anyone stop someone from praying silently whenever they choose? What is being objected to is the mandatory moment of silence during school time. Perhaps you might explain why it's necessary and why the kids who wish to offer a morning prayer can't do so before they leave home or on the bus on the way to school?

[Missileman]

Religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. And everyone, "religious" or not, tries to push their beliefs on everyone else. Where people get these beliefs, whether it be from an organized religious group, Darwin, or from Karl Marx, is irrelivant. The point of the matter is the substance of the idealogy, not from where it stems from.
The Bible says murder is wrong, so are our laws against murder an example of dictating religious beliefs onto all of society?

If the Bible were the only document ever in which murder was established to be wrong you might have a point.

[Missileman]

You dont need a church closed to infringe on peoples right to exercise their religion in the public.

So are you one of those who define your right of free exercise as being able to push your message on those who don't want to hear it?

[grunt]

Demonstrate how the Bible, particularly the OT is anything other than mythology. While you're at it, feel free to point out where I've endorsed the eradication of Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

Prove to me that there is no God. Prove Evolution. Prove WHAT gravity is. Prove that the Sun is going to come up tomorrow. Prove that you're even here. You can't. You can have FAITH that the sun will come up tomorrow based on YOUR life experiences. You can have FAITH that gravity will pull that baseball you just threw in the air back down to the ground. Again, because of your life experiences, but you can't prove it before it happens. My life experiences lead me to believe that there is indeed a God. That there is indeed a Creator. And you, nor anyone else can make me believe otherwise. I feel sorry for you in that you have never experienced The Loving God the way I have. You ask me to prove it? I ask you to prove my experiences.

I never said that you endorse the eradication of Christianity. I simply stated that by your choice of phrases/words about Christianity you portray yourself as someone who would rather not have Christianity around.




The question is moot. How can anyone stop someone from praying silently whenever they choose? What is being objected to is the mandatory moment of silence during school time. Perhaps you might explain why it's necessary and why the kids who wish to offer a morning prayer can't do so before they leave home or on the bus on the way to school?

The question is not moot. When people like you don't want to allow a "moment of silence" in public schools, this is infringing on my right to pray. Nobody else has to pray if they don't want. File your nails. Go over some homework. Read a book. It doesn't matter to me. Yet, it matters to you what I do with my silent time. The reason it matters is because there are many people who like to have a silent prayer in a group setting. Where in the Constitution does it say that that is illegal? Again, NOT ALLOWING silent prayer in school is totally against what the founders of this country wanted. And that is, a right to worship without fear of being punished or ridiculed at anytime, anywhere as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's right not to.

[grunt]

So are you one of those who define your right of free exercise as being able to push your message on those who don't want to hear it?

If you really don't want to hear things you don't like, you better find a cave and wall yourself up. That's the beauty about living in a free society. I can go to any public place and preach the Bible if i so please. As long as I'm not impeading your progress. I wouldn't do that because I think it just turns more people away from Chritianity than pull them to it, but I would never protest to someone doing it. The same way I would never infringe on someone's right to preach anti-American rhetoric.

[Kathianne]

Yep, far and away the US is the most religious of all developed states, even towards the top, globally. Hasn't actually changed all that much since the Revolution.

[avatar4321]

So are you one of those who define your right of free exercise as being able to push your message on those who don't want to hear it?

i define it as being about to express your views in public without any branch of the government saying otherwise.

[Missileman]

Prove to me that there is no God. Prove Evolution. Prove WHAT gravity is. Prove that the Sun is going to come up tomorrow. Prove that you're even here. You can't. You can have FAITH that the sun will come up tomorrow based on YOUR life experiences. You can have FAITH that gravity will pull that baseball you just threw in the air back down to the ground. Again, because of your life experiences, but you can't prove it before it happens. My life experiences lead me to believe that there is indeed a God. That there is indeed a Creator. And you, nor anyone else can make me believe otherwise. I feel sorry for you in that you have never experienced The Loving God the way I have. You ask me to prove it? I ask you to prove my experiences.

Again, ALL of the mythology from the same time period has been determined to be nothing more than that...why is the OT any different? I'll give you a hint...it isn't.



The question is not moot. When people like you don't want to allow a "moment of silence" in public schools, this is infringing on my right to pray. Nobody else has to pray if they don't want. File your nails. Go over some homework. Read a book. It doesn't matter to me. Yet, it matters to you what I do with my silent time. The reason it matters is because there are many people who like to have a silent prayer in a group setting. Where in the Constitution does it say that that is illegal? Again, NOT ALLOWING silent prayer in school is totally against what the founders of this country wanted. And that is, a right to worship without fear of being punished or ridiculed at anytime, anywhere as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's right not to.

The bolded statement is pure bullshit and you know it. It's like trying to claim that schools infringe upon your right to eat breakfast because they don't serve it. If the student wants to pray silently what's to stop them? And you still haven't answered why these morning prayers HAVE to be performed in school. Why not at home or on the way to school? WTF do these poor kids do on weekends with no school to pray in?

[Missileman]

If you really don't want to hear things you don't like, you better find a cave and wall yourself up. That's the beauty about living in a free society. I can go to any public place and preach the Bible if i so please. As long as I'm not impeading your progress. I wouldn't do that because I think it just turns more people away from Chritianity than pull them to it, but I would never protest to someone doing it. The same way I would never infringe on someone's right to preach anti-American rhetoric.

If you feel compelled to stand on a street corner and preach, that's your prerogative, I have the ability to walk across the street to avoid your nonsense. I've never claimed that such exhibitions should be banned, but what really strikes me funny is some Christian's inability to understand the simple concept of appropriate time and place.

[grunt]

Again, ALL of the mythology from the same time period has been determined to be nothing more than that...why is the OT any different? I'll give you a hint...it isn't.




The bolded statement is pure bullshit and you know it. It's like trying to claim that schools infringe upon your right to eat breakfast because they don't serve it. If the student wants to pray silently what's to stop them? And you still haven't answered why these morning prayers HAVE to be performed in school. Why not at home or on the way to school? WTF do these poor kids do on weekends with no school to pray in?


Bad analogy. Not allowing SILENT prayer in schools is akin to not allowing me to THINK. Period. Nothing's stopping them from doing it. But why do you find it necessary to make it ILLEGAL for kids to be quiet for half a minute?
Prayer doesn't HAVE to be performed in school, but who are you to tell me that I CAN'T pray when and where i want?

[grunt]

If you feel compelled to stand on a street corner and preach, that's your prerogative, I have the ability to walk across the street to avoid your nonsense. I've never claimed that such exhibitions should be banned, but what really strikes me funny is some Christian's inability to understand the simple concept of appropriate time and place.

I've already stated that I think it's counter-productive...but who are you to tell me what to say in public?

[Gunny]

Again, ALL of the mythology from the same time period has been determined to be nothing more than that...why is the OT any different? I'll give you a hint...it isn't.




The bolded statement is pure bullshit and you know it. It's like trying to claim that schools infringe upon your right to eat breakfast because they don't serve it. If the student wants to pray silently what's to stop them? And you still haven't answered why these morning prayers HAVE to be performed in school. Why not at home or on the way to school? WTF do these poor kids do on weekends with no school to pray in?

Who cares why they want to do it in school? The fact is, they do, and can't. That is infringement of their right to freedom of religious expression.

If 91% of the taxpayers in a school district vote that they want a moment of prayer in school, they should get it. Instead, the big mouth representing the 9% gets catered to and the Constitution purposefully misinterpretted to do so.

It's called tyranny of the minority, nothing more nor less.

The Exclusionary Clause does not state religion cannot exist within government facilities. It states that the government itself cannot endorse a specific religion.

[Missileman]

Bad analogy. Not allowing SILENT prayer in schools is akin to not allowing me to THINK. Period. Nothing's stopping them from doing it. But why do you find it necessary to make it ILLEGAL for kids to be quiet for half a minute?
Prayer doesn't HAVE to be performed in school, but who are you to tell me that I CAN'T pray when and where i want?

I find it hard to believe that you think kids are being prevented from praying silently because the school doesn't designate the prayer time. Your argument is illogical. If a kid is sitting quietly, who's to know if he or she is praying or not.

[Missileman]

I've already stated that I think it's counter-productive...but who are you to tell me what to say in public?

Where did I say you can't say whatever you wish? All I said was I don't have to listen to it.

[Missileman]

Who cares why they want to do it in school? The fact is, they do, and can't. That is infringement of their right to freedom of religious expression.

This is as untrue as when Grunt said it. Children are not being prevented from praying silently in school, it's as impossible as preventing someone from daydreaming.

[grunt]

I find it hard to believe that you think kids are being prevented from praying silently because the school doesn't designate the prayer time. Your argument is illogical. If a kid is sitting quietly, who's to know if he or she is praying or not.

I don't. I just don't think it should be up to the Government to decide if a school should have "silent time" or not. It should be left up to a vote of the parents and students of that school. (Students if it's High School, just parents if younger)

[Missileman]

I don't. I just don't think it should be up to the Government to decide if a school should have "silent time" or not. It should be left up to a vote of the parents and students of that school. (Students if it's High School, just parents if younger)

So your hangup is on the lack of a designated "moment of silence". Since we agree that this lack in no way effects the kids ability to have their silent prayer, the purpose of the moment is what exactly?

[grunt]

So your hangup is on the lack of a designated "moment of silence". Since we agree that this lack in no way effects the kids ability to have their silent prayer, the purpose of the moment is what exactly?


No, my problem is the Government TRYING to prevent kids from praying silently in school. I mean, for hwat other reasons would they not want a "silent time". Can you give me some other reason, legitimate reason, why you think they shouldn't have a silent time?

[Missileman]

No, my problem is the Government TRYING to prevent kids from praying silently in school. I mean, for hwat other reasons would they not want a "silent time". Can you give me some other reason, legitimate reason, why you think they shouldn't have a silent time?

You didn't answer my question. If kids are indeed NOT being prevented from praying by the lack of a designated moment of silence, why is this designated moment required? I'd like to hear a legitimate reason why a religious practice (ceremony?) should be included in the public school schedule if it has no impact on kid's ability to pray silently while in school.

[Nuc]

Here in Australia it's arguably as much a "Christian" population as the States, but they don't mix politics and religion anywhere near as much. People seem to realize that religion is a personal matter and that you can't force your religion on other people, especially not through politics. I must say it's much better that way. People can't agree on religion or politics, mixing them is like a speedball. Only an addict would think it's a good thing.

[theHawk]

If the Bible were the only document ever in which murder was established to be wrong you might have a point.

So, if there is some other document out there outside of the Bible that establishes certain behaviors as wrong, then you won't say its religion pushing its morals on everyone else?

Is the Bible the only document in the world that condemns homosexuality? If not, then how could you say an anti-homosexual stance on issues is an example of pushing religion on others?

[Missileman]

So, if there is some other document out there outside of the Bible that establishes certain behaviors as wrong, then you won't say its religion pushing its morals on everyone else?

There are, for the most part, universally accepted laws against murder, theft of another's property, perjury, etc. The prohibition of these offenses is not unique to any religion or society. There are however lots of blue laws still on the books that were put in place to do nothing other than push morals.


[QUOTE=theHawk;33882]Is the Bible the only document in the world that condemns homosexuality? If not, then how could you say an anti-homosexual stance on issues is an example of pushing religion on others?

Where did I say this?

[Hagbard Celine]

I suppose things aren't quite as bad as they may seem. It sure shows groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State to be in the distinct minority.

--------------
The latest Newsweek poll found 91 percent of American adults say they believe in God and nearly half rejects the scientific theory of evolution.

Despite concerns over rising secularism in the country, Christians still far outnumber any other faith group. According to the poll, released on Friday, 82 percent of American adults identify themselves as Christian. Religious non-Christians make up only 5 percent of the public.

Poll results come months after Time magazine reported 66 percent of American have no doubts God exists while 11 percent believe in God but has some doubts. The Time report also revealed more than 85 percent of Americans follow a Christian faith.

Link (http://christianpost.com/article/20070402/26658_Poll%3A_9_of_10_Americans_Believe_in_God%3B_ Nearly_Half_Rejects_Evolution.htm)
Sorry but I don't think the fact that 91 percent of Americans believe in God automatically means they'd support prayer in schools. In a related story, radical Muslims who adhere to Shariah law do support prayer in schools...

[5stringJeff]

Sorry but I don't think the fact that 91 percent of Americans believe in God automatically means they'd support prayer in schools. In a related story, radical Muslims who adhere to Shariah law do support prayer in schools...

And in a related story, Muslims are against theft and murder. If we don't allow people to steal and kill all they want, then the terrorists have already won, eh?

[Hagbard Celine]

And in a related story, Muslims are against theft and murder. If we don't allow people to steal and kill all they want, then the terrorists have already won, eh?

Bad example. All people are against theft and murder. Try again.

[theHawk]

Where did I say this?

You didn't, I am trying to understand your logic though.
The "you" was meant more for people in general who say religious people are "pushing their morals onto them", such as homosexual issues, gay marriage, abortion ect.
What I don't understand is how you can say I have "no point" about my example of murder because the Bible is not the only source to condemn murder. You imply that if multiple documents outside of the Bible share the same moral values, then it isn't an example of religion pushing its morals.

[Missileman]

You didn't, I am trying to understand your logic though.
The "you" was meant more for people in general who say religious people are "pushing their morals onto them", such as homosexual issues, gay marriage, abortion ect.
What I don't understand is how you can say I have "no point" about my example of murder because the Bible is not the only source to condemn murder. You imply that if multiple documents outside of the Bible share the same moral values, then it isn't an example of religion pushing its morals.

Murder, universally accepted by nearly every human being as a taboo, is not a religious moral just because it's listed in the Bible. IMO, religious morals are those that fall outside the universally acccepted, morals like those of the Ten Commandments that don't deal with killing, stealing, and perjury.

Blue laws are perfect examples of forced compliance with religious morals. The commandment to keep the sabbath holy led to prohibition of alcohol sales on Sundays.

[Hagbard Celine]

Murder, universally accepted by nearly every human being as a taboo, is not a religious moral just because it's listed in the Bible. IMO, religious morals are those that fall outside the universally acccepted, morals like those of the Ten Commandments that don't deal with killing, stealing, and perjury.

Blue laws are perfect examples of forced compliance with religious morals. The commandment to keep the sabbath holy led to prohibition of alcohol sales on Sundays.

Down with blue laws! I always want Chick-fil-a and beer on Sundays :angry:

[5stringJeff]

Bad example. All people are against theft and murder. Try again.

Except thieves and murderers, which can be found in just about any county jail. The point is, just because an evil person/group holds a certain moral position doesn't mean that the position is necessarily evil/immoral.

[Gunny]

This is as untrue as when Grunt said it. Children are not being prevented from praying silently in school, it's as impossible as preventing someone from daydreaming.

Well, perhaps it would be intrue if it was. The fact is, they are forbidden. Naturally, until SPs figure out how to monitor thought, as long as no one does it overtly it is unenforceable.

And I didn't say anything about praying silently. If a group of like minded students wish to have a group prayer on their own time, they should be allowed to. Out in the open with fear of persecution for expressing their religious beliefs.

[eighballsidepocket]

Many agnostics would argue they believe in a God, FWIW.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

I.E....Agnostics wouldn't be agnostics if they believed in a god. Not unlike political moderates...:wink2: Thats Merriam Webster's take.:wink2:

[Nuc]

[
I.E....Agnostics wouldn't be agnostics if they believed in a god. Not unlike political moderates...:wink2: Thats Merriam Webster's take.:wink2:

Wouldn't it be possible to personally believe in a god or gods yet realize that you could be wrong and they might not exist?

For example I believe that there is life on other planets. But I suppose I could be wrong. Nevertheless I believe it.

[Missileman]

Well, perhaps it would be intrue if it was. The fact is, they are forbidden. Naturally, until SPs figure out how to monitor thought, as long as no one does it overtly it is unenforceable.

The lack of a designated moment of silence does not equal "silent prayers are forbidden".


And I didn't say anything about praying silently.

Your reply was to a post about a moment of silent prayer. Unless you specify a change of context, I have to assume your reply is in the context of the post replied to.



[If a group of like minded students wish to have a group prayer on their own time, they should be allowed to. Out in the open with fear of persecution for expressing their religious beliefs.


Define "their own time". IMO, once school has started, teachers AND kids are "on the clock" and both have jobs to do.

[Gunny]

The lack of a designated moment of silence does not equal "silent prayers are forbidden".



Your reply was to a post about a moment of silent prayer. Unless you specify a change of context, I have to assume your reply is in the context of the post replied to.





Define "their own time". IMO, once school has started, teachers AND kids are "on the clock" and both have jobs to do.

If my response does not include the word "silent," when I say prayer, then I obviously an speaking of prayer, in general.

Anytime not designated specifically as class time can be considered "own time." You, of course, are going to argue the opposite, but then, you are arguing theory and I am arguing reality.

Enforced indoctination of secular-progressivism/liberalsim isn't a job ... it's torture.

[grunt]

The bottom line is; Nothing in the Constitution says I can't pray, outloud, anywhere i want. As long as I am not hindering someone else's rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." An education is an American right, so if by me praying outloud stops someone from learning, then yes, I can't do it. But if I'm at school, at lets say lunchtime, and want to have a group prayer, outloud, I should be able to. Not allowing me to is taking away my freedom of religion.

[Nuc]

The bottom line is; Nothing in the Constitution says I can't pray, outloud, anywhere i want. As long as I am not hindering someone else's rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." An education is an American right, so if by me praying outloud stops someone from learning, then yes, I can't do it. But if I'm at school, at lets say lunchtime, and want to have a group prayer, outloud, I should be able to. Not allowing me to is taking away my freedom of religion.

That's silly. There are plenty of situations where doing something out loud is not acceptable. If a group of people at lunchtime want to chant, "Tastes Good, Less Filling" and another group "Repent sinners come to Jesus" I don't want to hear either because I'm trying to eat.

[grunt]

That's silly. There are plenty of situations where doing something out loud is not acceptable. If a group of people at lunchtime want to chant, "Tastes Good, Less Filling" and another group "Repent sinners come to Jesus" I don't want to hear either because I'm trying to eat.

Then leave. It's not silly. If you don't want to "hear" things you don't like, you better go and find a deep dark cave somewhere.

[Nuc]

Then leave. It's not silly. If you don't want to "hear" things you don't like, you better go and find a deep dark cave somewhere.

I think you've found a deep dark cave and your head is in it. Just don't fart!:finger3: :clap: :poke: :pee: :slap:

[grunt]

I think you've found a deep dark cave and your head is in it. Just don't fart!:finger3: :clap: :poke: :pee: :slap:



lol..Still doesn't change the fact that I'm right. :fu:

[Missileman]

If my response does not include the word "silent," when I say prayer, then I obviously an speaking of prayer, in general.

So to be clear, do you believe that a lack of a designated moment of silence prevents those kids who wish to pray silently from doing so?


Anytime not designated specifically as class time can be considered "own time." You, of course, are going to argue the opposite, but then, you are arguing theory and I am arguing reality.

Enforced indoctination of secular-progressivism/liberalsim isn't a job ... it's torture.

If you think it's theoretical that a teacher's job is to provide instruction in the subject of whatever class is being taught and that it's the student's job to soak up as much of that instruction as humanly possible, I'd say that you have no idea what reality is.

From: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/student-prayer-faq.htm


Students are allowed to pray before meals and before taking tests. Students may legally pray before school, during breaks, recess, or lunch, and after school. In extra curricular activities, students may pray at events such as "meet you at the pole;" Bible clubs, and prayer clubs organized by students before or after school. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling for schools to hold a "minute of silence," citing that students wishing to pray or not to pray may do so silently.

This must mean that any prohibition of a moment of silence is coming from a local or state level. The rest of it puts a pretty large dent in your "forbidden" argument.

[eighballsidepocket]

I'm tell yah guys.........your endless debates drive a man to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Oops! Must of dozed off. :laugh2:

Why not a group hug, and agree to disagree?:salute:

[Missileman]

I'm tell yah guys.........your endless debates drive a man to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Oops! Must of dozed off. :laugh2:

Why not a group hug, and agree to disagree?:salute:

Give me your address and I'll send you a key.

[GW in Ohio]

I suppose things aren't quite as bad as they may seem. It sure shows groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State to be in the distinct minority.

Link (http://christianpost.com/article/20070402/26658_Poll%3A_9_of_10_Americans_Believe_in_God%3B_ Nearly_Half_Rejects_Evolution.htm)

Jeff: Just because someone favors separation of church and state, that doesn't mean they're against religion. They just don't want public policy to be influenced by any one religion.

Of course, much of our public policy and laws is based in morality, but it's morality that's common to all religions.

[eighballsidepocket]

Give me your address and I'll send you a key.

Please excuse my illiteracy.......

Missleman.......could you expand on the "key" comment.

In all honesty I don't understand it.
*****
By the way my comment was all in pun........Continue on men with the debate.:clap:

[Missileman]

Please excuse my illiteracy.......

Missleman.......could you expand on the "key" comment.

In all honesty I don't understand it.
*****
By the way my comment was all in pun........Continue on men with the debate.:clap:

I was offering to send you a key to the shackles holding you prisoner in this thread. :poke:

[eighballsidepocket]

I was offering to send you a key to the shackles holding you prisoner in this thread. :poke:

Got your point. Thanks for clarifying.:salute:

[Gunny]

So to be clear, do you believe that a lack of a designated moment of silence prevents those kids who wish to pray silently from doing so?

I already answered that. Until SP's lean how to read minds, it really isn't enforeceable, is it?

Why should Christians have to hide in a closet to pray? That IS what you are saying.

[Missileman]

I already answered that. Until SP's lean how to read minds, it really isn't enforeceable, is it?

Which leads us back to the question: If kids can pray silently without a designated moment of silence, why is a moment of silence necessary?


Why should Christians have to hide in a closet to pray? That IS what you are saying.

I don't recall saying it, but it has been suggested before.

Matthew 6:6 (King James Version)

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[Nuc]

Which leads us back to the question: If kids can pray silently without a designated moment of silence, why is a moment of silence necessary?



I don't recall saying it, but it has been suggested before.

Matthew 6:6 (King James Version)

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But........did they actually have CLOSETS back then? I thought Bible people lived in caves, locust nests, mangers,arks, sand dunes and the like. Any archaeologists out there?

[Abbey Marie]

But........did they actually have CLOSETS back then? I thought Bible people lived in caves, locust nests, mangers,arks, sand dunes and the like. Any archaeologists out there?

You're kidding, right?

clos·et /ˈklɒzɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kloz-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a small room, enclosed recess, or cabinet for storing clothing, food, utensils, etc.
2. a small private room, esp. one used for prayer, meditation, etc.
3. a state or condition of secrecy or carefully guarded privacy: Some conservatives remain in the closet except on election day. Gay liberation has encouraged many gay people to come out of the closet.
4. water closet.
–adjective 5. private; secluded.
6. suited for use or enjoyment in privacy: closet reflections; closet prayer.
7. engaged in private study or speculation; speculative; unpractical: a closet thinker with no practical experience. being or functioning as such in private; secret: a closet anarchist.
–verb (used with object) 9. to shut up in a private room for a conference, interview, etc. (usually used in the passive voice): The Secretary of State was closeted with the senator for three hours in a tense session.

**As a side note, the defintion example about conservatives is well taken, and explains how polls data and voting results can be so different.

[eighballsidepocket]

Folks there's corporate prayer, as in a church service where possibly one person might pray while the congregation prays silently in aggreement.

And of course private prayer, where we resign to a bedroom or out in the forest, or in the garage.......but plainly away from distractions, and other folks. We talk to our Creator one on one, and spill out all our woes, and also give Him our thanks and gratitude, and petitions too.

If some kid is at school and decides he wants to pray, then maybe the kid can find a quiet place and whisper a quiet prayer to God, and no one should be offended by that. Free speech should allow for free speech with your Creator, shouldn't it?
*******
However, I do remember as a little kid in our public elementary school in the 1950's that when I got the chance to eat in the school cafeteria and have a hot meal for 25 cents, we never started eating until we all corporately gave thanks to God for our lunch. Yep, a public school right in the S.F. bay area!

Not one kid in there complained. We had a couple Jehovah's Witness kids that had to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance in our classroom, but no kid in the class gave them a bad time. In fact it stimulated interest in us, and often these J.W. kids would get asked why they didn put their hand on their heart and say the pledge. They'd say that it was their religion not to do it, and that was it. No fuss, no making fun, no castigation from the other kids. We all went out to the playground and forgot the matter.

It's the grownups that make the fuss, and pass the laws, and complain about a prayer before a football game or graduation ceremony. The kids? In most cases they could care less.

It's the wannabee lawyers, and NYU/ACLU lawyer brats that cause all the problems.

Now, everything is walking on egg shells at Public schools. A teacher disciplines a student for disrupting a class, and the teacher is called on the carpet, disciplined or fired. One wack-job agitator parent, and everyone "Cow Tows" or the ACLU jumps in.

Kids don't care. They learn prejudices from their parents, and really don't care if they have atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Bhuddist, Hindu, or Moslem kids sitting with them learning the 3-"R"'s. It the dang 60's-70's-80's spoiled brat Poli-Sci majored parents that screw up the smooth running pot.

If you do a good job of raising your kids with ethics and morals and a good religious foundation, and the kid doesn't see any hypocriticalness in your life, bets are on, that they'll survive school without converting to some "wacked out" religion at age 5 through 18. They may want to spread their wings and try other things that scare the heck out of you once they're out of H.S., but if you've instilled good values in them via your faith, and haven't been hypocritical in your life style that they've observed while you raised them, then they'll most likely return back to that foundation that you instilled in them. Every young kid will think Mom and Dad is always right, but they must also formulate their own identity, and have their own beliefs. Whether you have a compliant one or a rebellious one, they all need to formulate their own identity. We need to nurture it. If you do it in a respectful way, your kid will return back to the foundations he/she learned in their youth.

Fear not.........they will return to what you taught them, if you set a consistently good example for them as a parent/s. That includes humbling oneself and admitting error, and apologizing for wrong in front of them. When a kid sees transparency in his/her's parents, it makes all the differnce in the world.