Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

That is absolutely ridiculous. Your rights are not endangered by someone else exercising free speech and freedom of religion. If you are too hypersensitive to stand it, raise a protest, pray to your own God, or toughen the hell up, but don't deprive everyone else of their rights because you disagree with them. Even if someone did sit up there and read the whole book of acts or Surah, it would not be encroaching on anyone's rights. We have the freedom TO speak not the freedom FROM speech. Well, yeah, it really was. I don't know, but if somebody wants it, nobody should force them to stop it. Yep. I remember one atheist a while back that forced the school to stop saying the pledge of Allegiance because it contained the word "God" in it. And I'm sure that's not the only one. In another case a little girl was warned not to pray over her food. She did anyway and was suspended from school. Where's the uncivilized behavior? Well, the thousands might get away with it, but I recall a female valedictorian who was arrested after mentioning Jesus in her graduation speech. ...And the school might get sued for failing to stop it. Typically, a Christian believes God is far more important than winning the game. What about them??? They still have the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Hearing someone else's free speech and seeing someone else worship does NOT violate that person's rights. Well, what about the little girl who was suspended for praying over her lunch? Of course you would never entertain the idea that you misunderstand their position. "Where one or two are gathered together in My Name, I am there with them in Spirit." Praying together is like singing the national anthem together. Everyone has a spirit of unity. Of course by your logic, we should not sing the national anthem together because we might offend someone with anti-American sentiments. Here, yet again, you post another arrogant statement showing how absolutely superior you believe yourself to be as if believers are sad little children and you must humble yourself to come down and speak with them. And we should be able to vote on it and move on as I am espousing in another thread, but due to the criminally broad interpretation of the separation between church and state judges continue destroy democracy and majority decision by throwing religion out altogether thereby destroying our freedom. Who's doing that? No sir, he's talking about the rights we originally possessed. In the word of William Wallace: "FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I don't know of any church big enough for an entire 5-A school and it doesn't make sense for everyone to have to meet at a different location to pray. Why not just do it at the game?Christians are threatened because their rights are being taken away.

Thanks for your reply. No, you don't, sir. You have a right to speak out against me, you have a right to keep me off your property, but you do not have the right to shut me up unless I slander you. I have the right to free speech. Absolutely not. If the organizers were planning to do such a thing, I would get the attention of the media and let everyone know about this so that people would vote these nazis out of their school board positions. THAT is how it should work. But I have no right to sue them or the school to stop them. Christians are complaining because they are losing their freedoms. If you don't think that's worth complaining about, well, you're no true Scottsman. I do and you're wrong. You don't seem to know your head from your ass. You've already offended me and I just offended you. Does that mean we violated each others rights? Absolutely not. It means we have been rude to each other and its up to us to settle it, but we do not have the court shut one or the other up for it. (BTW, my apologies for the head/ass thing, that was rude) The only responsibility the GOVERNMENT bears is to ensure that no one is slandered and no one is kept silent. It is up to the people NOT the government to have integrity when dealing with each other. The government is not a parent forcing everyone to shutup and say "sorry". I agree with this, but the government should not be doing the telling. No not really. The documents are available if you wish to do the research. I recommend Original Intent by Barton. I suppose they would, but I don't know of any school where the community has a majority of KKK members to vote in a KKK school board. Furthermore, the KKK slanders others so they might be defeated in a lawsuit. And it's NOT the flaming GOVERNMENT's sporting venue, it's the PEOPLE's sporting venue. The government can't tell the people what they must and musn't do at their sporting event. Haha... WELL, this IS logic worthy of the KKK. Are you really so blind as to not see where this attitude leads? That depends on the person. Some people are hypersensitive about it and others aren't. I agree that it is impolite to do something that is offensive to someone else even if it is your right to do so, but I do not agree that it is the government's job to make sure everyone is being polite to one another. You see, this kind of idiotic irrational statment is why I refuse to debate with you prophecy or any other topic that cannot be reduced to pure logic.It is your kind of irrational thinking as demonstrated in the previous quote that the constitution protects us from. Yes, free speech even protects the KKK with all their racism. If you start allowing the government to decide who gets to speak, then that leads to tyranny, so you let everyone, EVEN THE ONES YOU DISAGREE WITH speak. NO. America is FREE. The government cannot tell us WHERE we may be religious. Liberals... I agree, but we disagree on what constitutes "forcing". WHY is not the issue. The protection of our freedom to do so -- for whatever reason we choose -- is the issue. And as I said, there is something to be gained in the coporate worship of God. Stop your lying that it is all about attention.This tit for tat argument has been fun, but it obviously will not go anywhere so this is my last post here. Have a good'un.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-03-2005 19:16 AM

Hi Asgara,I'm so accustomed to praying with other believers, that I had never questioned this practice before, but after looking it up I think it is perfectly okay.Jesus seems to be discouraging "showing off" in prayer, but he doesn't say we must pray in solitude. In fact right after this passage he tells them how to pray and uses plural pronouns. Jesus also prayed in public as well as alone. Many instances of believers praying together are recorded in Acts.So clearly, Jesus is not demanding that we pray in solitude only. He seems to be saying that it is the attitude that is important, not the show.Furthermore, this doesn't really have to do with the debate about the right to pray. The reasons for better or worse are irrelevant, it is the freedom to act freely that matters.

Schraf, if you have any beef on Mr. Barton, please start a new thread and list everything. His son lives on my floor at school, and I'd love to show your list to him so that he can compare notes.As for his book Original Intent, it is a very thick book filled mostly with copies of original documents. Even if the documents contained within represent 1% of all the original documents from that era, they are sufficient to show the strong influence of Christianty on the founders.Article 11 states:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."A nation is composed of people -- a government of laws.I completely agree that the government is not founded on the Christian Religion, but the founders were guided by the common morality at that time, which had its roots in Christianity, and the nation at that time was composed mainly of Christians, and consequently they exercised their freedom to live as desired. There is no denying this.America was originally (and still is barely) a very Christian nation with a government that is unconcerned with religion. By original documents I also mean letters written by the founders that reveal their religious beliefs and intents.

He is obviously biased, but he uses original documents to support his arguments in fact I believe he has the largest collection of original documents in the nation. There is nothing wrong with that. Neither is there anything wrong with selling a copy of the constitution. Your labeling of him as a "huckster" is unfounded.

Hahahaha...This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-04-2005 14:25 AM

He does seem to be an information source and he is obviously biased, but as long as he is not just writing pure opinion and supporting statements with original documents, there's nothing wrong with that.I can also look up a picture of the American flag, but I may wish to pay for a real one, and the nicer a flag it is the more willing I am to pay for one. That is capitalism not hucksterism. I don't see any basis for making negative assumptions about his character.

I'll try to reply to you and Justin's message here. Although freedom is a Christian (and non) value, that is not what I am talking about.A nation is founded on more than mere laws. It is founded by lots and lots of people working, living, eating, learning, and in times of war fighting together. Many of these people's beliefs belonged to some form of Christianity and as such their communities reflected their beliefs, and the wisdom written by the founding fathers also reflected their beliefs (I realize some were deists). Not all communities were founded by people of the same denomination or religion, but within those communities religion meshed in smoothly throughout the society and the public square and no judge would have demanded otherwise.

I see a problem with it, and if myself or some of my friends heard someone saying it we can speak out against it. This actually happens on occasion. I have seen a production on the History Channel about neo-nazis and it showed a neo nazi rally and right next to them were a crowd of jews and christians shouting right back at them with the police watching to make sure it didn't turn violent. As the saying goes: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Freedom means the responsibility goes to the people rather than the government. It also means there is more diversity and less mediocrity and yes, more division. But the hope is that as long as people can talk, then we will be better off for it, and we are.