News on Religion in Our Goverments

A couple decades ago the local newspaper's letters-to-the-editor was going hot and heavy with letters calling for school prayer. My single response included Matt 6:5. That immediately killed that issue for more than two years, after which it would only be raised sporadically.

If you don't have prayer over the PA how is God supposed to hear it? I have seen this sleight of hand many times. No one has the right to use public funds (like the funds used to buy the PA system, buy the bleachers, etc.) in order to broadcast sectarian prayers. No one is saying that people caught praying are going to be thrown out of the game. All that is being said is that they shouldn't use the PA system to say their prayers. Some people refuse to see the difference between the two.

I read a nice little story by an evangelical Christian several years ago. He told of his conversion from "prayers on the PA" to not. The conversion was caused by some prayers on the PA before a high-school football game, but they were Buddhist prayers at a school in Hawaii. The author's reaction to that was a very gracious, "Oh, I get it now!"I've wanted to argue with the locals here about what prayers they would most prefer at our football games. Somehow. I don't think that the most vocal proponents would really prefer the choice of the largest bloc of players/students: "Dios te salve, Mara, llena eres de gracia ....."

Bishops Criticize Tough Alabama Immigration Law - The New York TimesI don't know where to stand on this one.

I do not think that a church commenting on a law, even joining in a lawsuit, is the kind of thing this thread seeks to relay. I think it is more the directly intrusive things that churches do, like force involuntary prayer on a captured audience of kids or sailors, or push to have pro-creationist teachings included in the science curriculum.This is more like a citizen (even if a church) in free exercise of their political rights rather than them attempting to negate the rights of others.

I thought this was interesting. Not so much the questions that Keller asks but just the idea of expecting candidates for public office to defend their religious beliefs. SourceHere is the original. It may require a password.I would say that the public has a right to know if a candidate believes that armageddon is just around the corner. I can't see what all the implications would be but I'll bet there would be alot of them.Edited by Dogmafood, : Add link and title

I am prepared to be wrong, but.....aren't those rights granted us by way of paying taxes? Do non tax paying "citizens" have the same rights as the rest?Again, I am fully prepared to be woefully wrong.

Who is a non-tax paying citizen?

Payment of taxes has no baring on whether the First Amendment applies or not. Taxes are assessed by Congress. They determine who pays how much. If Congress says you are exempt from this or that or all taxes, this means nothing to the exercise of your constitutional rights.Now, not paying your taxes as owed ... well, that is a different story.

I only meant insofar as Paul classifying the church as a citizen. Churches don't pay taxes, but he corrected me on that so....nevermind the issue.

Ok, but you mentioned voting. I personally see voting as being separate from speaking.Take, for example, a felon. He has NOT lost his first amendment rights ro speak, but he HAS lost his right to vote.{abe}
NEVERMIND lol. I had other things on my mind and got confused. Disregard. Sorry for derailing.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I see it a bit differently. It is what public schools do. If a christian school wants to have a prayer over the PA at their stadium then go for it. They have every right. However, when public funds are in play it must abide by the first amendment. The Constitution states that the government does NOT have religious free speech rights. It states just the opposite. The government is to stay out of religious matters.

Totally agree.I read Arti's question as asking if his referenced story was germane to this thread. Citizens exercising their rights does not seem, IMO, to be part of the OP's intention.

In addition, Churches are not exempt from all taxes any more than any other non-profit. Income taxes are still paid on salaries and even ministers get to pay sales tax and gas tax and property tax and social security and ...

Yea, that's great and all, but says nothing about labeling the church itself as a citizen. The church itself doesn't pay any of those taxes.