AP: First Amendment cited by both sides in school board prayer dispute

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by codeorama

In your opinion.

Uh, and in their opinion, too. All of it based upon the solid rock of Scripture. I'm happy to be amongst them in this regard. I'm not one of them by any means. But I do hold the beliefs of most of them, and that is a blessing.

[Henry]

I didn't say throw out the testimonies. I said don't simply pick out the ones that suit you and base your entire arguement on them. George Washington also also declared at one time that the path of piety should not require political direction. He said what he said that day, too. Remember the whole 'seperation of Church and State' quote that you are so anxious to note isn't actually in the Constitution? That was written by a founding father too. A guy named Thomas Jefferson, who not only signed the Declaration of Independence, but, you know, WROTE it. You seem content enough to ignore his opinion as it pleases you.

The foundation of the Constitution is it's remarkable ability to adapt to the needs and will of its people without denying them their freedoms. It has survived the vote of non-land-owning citizens, the abolishment of slavery, the vote of women, the general election of Senators, prohibition and other timely changes to it's original content. Moreover it provided us with this little institution I like to call The Supreme Court, which enables us to interpret it's meaning to properly function under modern circumstances. THAT is it's foundation, not the nominal religion of it's founders. And that's a good thing, because people like you and I will never be able to agree on what those men actually thought. Heck, in most cases they themselves couldn't agree. So they left us the means to govern ourselves without their help, and that should be celebrated rather than discouraged. A concept which shouldn't bother those who aren't afraid to live in a free and open society.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Henry

I didn't say throw out the testimonies. I said don't simply pick out the ones that suit you and base your entire arguement on them. George Washington also also declared at one time that the path of piety should not require political direction. He said what he said that day, too. Remember the whole 'seperation of Church and State' quote that you are so anxious to note isn't actually in the Constitution? That was written by a founding father too. A guy named Thomas Jefferson, who not only signed the Declaration of Independence, but, you know, WROTE it. You seem content enough to ignore his opinion as it pleases you.

Oh, yes, and I always find it amazing (unfortunately) that most Americans think that the words "Separation of Church and State" are actually in the Constitution. That's how warped this thing has become. The media has actually made them think that those words are in there. I am also quite aware that Jefferson was the one who penned those words to the Danbury <i>Baptist</i> Association. Rather a strange audience if you're out to promote a complete separation of state from religion, don't you think? Unless he wasn't really promoting that at all (which, given his audience, is the obvious truth). And you mean the Declaration of Independence that starts with the words "created" and "Creator" in its first few lines? Rats!!! The atheists are going to have learn to use a new poster boy for their position. For Jefferson certainly wasn't an atheist.

The foundation of the Constitution is it's remarkable ability to adapt to the needs and will of its people without denying them their freedoms. It has survived the vote of non-land-owning citizens, the abolishment of slavery, the vote of women, the general election of Senators, prohibition and other timely changes to it's original content. Moreover it provided us with this little institution I like to call The Supreme Court, which enables us to interpret it's meaning to properly function under modern circumstances. THAT is it's foundation, not the nominal religion of it's founders. And that's a good thing, because people like you and I will never be able to agree on what those men actually thought. We don't need to agree. They left us the means to govern ourselves without their help, and that should be celebrated rather than discouraged.

I'm not sure we need to try to agree about what they thought. I'm content to simply read what they themselves said about what they thought. I'm not saying that all of them were born-again Christians. Many of them were. Some weren't. However, you'll be hard pressed to find many totally unbelievers and atheists. Were there any?? Not that I know of. They believed that freedom and morality were religious tenants and that a nation could not survive without them. (See Washington's statement from his farewell address that I posted to Code.)

What I do know is that most, if not all, of them were men of great character. Yes, they had their faults and secret sins like we all do (some of which did not remain secrets). But I choose to believe that they would not live a life of total hypocrisy by trying to establish the roots of our nation on a belief system that was totally contrary to what they believed. There is abundant evidence that they, as a whole, wanted religion to be a huge and integral part of our government and nation.

[Chopper Dave]

SF51, give it up. You're prejudiced against anyone who doesn't think like you, and there's always some long-winded, holier-than-thou, novel of a response. We're getting sick of it.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

SF51, give it up. You're prejudiced against anyone who doesn't think like you, and there's always some long-winded, holier-than-thou, novel of a response. We're getting sick of it.

Speak for yourself, Dave, and don't pretend to think that you represent the whole. That would thinking a bit high of yourself.

If you don't like it, then stay out of it. No one is asking you to comment.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Speak for yourself, Dave, and don't pretend to think that you represent the whole. That would thinking a bit high of yourself.

If you don't like it, then stay out of it. No one is asking you to comment.

I am speaking for myself, except for the "we're getting sick of it" remark. So, in your epic battle to argue every little bit of symantics with anyone who disagrees with you, fine. I amend that statement to say "Judging from the many counter-arguments all over the Tailgate that are basically trying to get you to shut your mouth, it looks as if the general populus of the board may in fact be starting to get sick of your endless nonsense."

There. Verbose and pointless enough for you? And by human nature, if you don't like something, you do your best to extinguish it. You forget that no one is asking you to spew your gospel, either.

[Henry]

Well gosh Skinsfan, Jefferson said what he said. You have no right to interpret his words otherwise.

Look, I'd love to talk in circles with you all day long, but the Skins just lost, I've got work to do, and my head hurts from bashing it against your Wall of Christianity. Maybe someday you'll learn to examine and appreciate historical events in their totality as opposed to reading with an agenda. You certainly have the fortitude for it, if not the desire.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Henry

Well gosh Skinsfan, Jefferson said what he said. You have no right to interpret his words otherwise.

Look, I'd love to talk in circles with you all day long, but the Skins just lost, I've got work to do, and my head hurts from bashing it against your Wall of Christianity. Maybe someday you'll learn to examine and appreciate historical events in their totality as opposed to reading with an agenda. You certainly have the fortitude for it, if not the desire.

Exhibit A.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I am speaking for myself, except for the "we're getting sick of it" remark. So, in your epic battle to argue every little bit of symantics with anyone who disagrees with you, fine. I amend that statement to say "Judging from the many counter-arguments all over the Tailgate that are basically trying to get you to shut your mouth, it looks as if the general populus of the board may in fact be starting to get sick of your endless nonsense."

There. Verbose and pointless enough for you? And by human nature, if you don't like something, you do your best to extinguish it. You forget that no one is asking you to spew your gospel, either.

As far as I know I don't need permission to post, do you? So comment if you like, but don't just blow steam (like you just did twice). Post something of substance--something that will contribute to the thread--or just keep quiet.

If the "populous (check your spelling!! ) is getting sick of me" then let them say so. It's obvious you are, and that is fine. I'm not here to please you or anyone else. But keep your remarks personal. It looks bad when you lump others in with your venom.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Henry

Well gosh Skinsfan, Jefferson said what he said. You have no right to interpret his words otherwise.

Yepper! But I'll sure keep them in <u>context</u> of what, why and where. It's wise to do so. Not once have I said that we should not try to interpret his or any other Founder's words. (Kind of a silly accusation, don't you think?) What I said is that when doing so we need to keep the context of the statements, and if we are not able to do that then we must take the statements at face value. That is good logic, my friend, no matter how silly you try to make it look. It keeps one safe from getting pinned, which you certainly have not done to me.

Look, I'd love to talk in circles with you all day long, but the Skins just lost, I've got work to do, and my head hurts from bashing it against your Wall of Christianity. Maybe someday you'll learn to examine and appreciate historical events in their totality as opposed to reading with an agenda. You certainly have the fortitude for it, if not the desire.

You mean like consider Jefferson's remarks in light of who he was talking to when, and the political circumstances surrounding his remarks? How is that agenda?

Ok, I enjoyed it. There were a few barbs, but I appreciate the pretty straight forward debate. Just remember, Henry, not everyone that sees it in a way other than you is lacking an understanding of American History, nor do they necessarily have an "agenda." Maybe they just see it differently. :logo:

[Chopper Dave]

Did I lump anyone in? No. But I could, given that the owner of the website just blew you off.

You see, I'm not looking for you to please me or anyone else. It's just clear that you post simply to do the opposite, to piss off everyone but those who are like you. Call it blowing steam, I just call it calling you out. Rather than arguing in circles or leaving it alone to avoid arguing in circles, I'm just letting you know that I don't appreciate it. And judging from how people respond to you, they don't appreciate it either.

Christian fundamentalism sheathed under a tsunami of usually useless facts and articles is still the same old annoying Christian fundamentalism. Debate is the purpose of this board, but you don't debate. You innundate us with prejudice and a few biased articles here or there to back it up.

Yes SF51, I'm calling you out on your prejudice. As Henry put it, I, along with what I'm sure are many others, am sick of you parading around as a holy beacon knowledge, standing atop your Wall of Christianity, scoffing at those who think differently. You can have Jesus; I'll take reality. And I suggest that you give it a try some time.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

Did I lump anyone in? No. But I could, given that the owner of the website just blew you off.

You see, I'm not looking for you to please me or anyone else. It's just clear that you post simply to do the opposite, to piss off everyone but those who are like you. Call it blowing steam, I just call it calling you out. Rather than arguing in circles or leaving it alone to avoid arguing in circles, I'm just letting you know that I don't appreciate it. And judging from how people respond to you, they don't appreciate it either.

Christian fundamentalism sheathed under a tsunami of usually useless facts and articles is still the same old annoying Christian fundamentalism. Debate is the purpose of this board, but you don't debate. You innundate us with prejudice and a few biased articles here or there to back it up.

Yes SF51, I'm calling you out on your prejudice. As Henry put it, I, along with what I'm sure are many others, am sick of you parading around as a holy beacon knowledge, standing atop your Wall of Christianity, scoffing at those who think differently. You can have Jesus; I'll take reality. And I suggest that you give it a try some time.

And you are WAY, WAY off, Dave. I don't post to upset anyone. That is the God's honest truth. What I do do is stand by my guns. Something you liberals hate. If you can't persuade then you attack a person's character and throw out baseless accusations. Go ahead. That's what you're all about and it's all you have.

Useless facts? LOL. Define "facts." I'm sure it will have something to do with "as long as it agrees with me." Sorry, my young opponent, but those are not facts. But facts do get in the way sometimes, don't they? Sorry, but that's not my fault.

[Chopper Dave]

What I mean by useless facts are facts that have nothing to do with the argument but you provide to make yourself look like you know what you're talking about.

And furthermore... You know what? Screw it. You're useless. You liberals this, you non-believers that. You stand by your guns? Pal, if these figurative guns were real, we'd all be up sh*t creek.

And I find it funny that you stereotype liberals as character-attackers, but that's beside the point. You're a waste of a mind.

I'm all about fighting people like you. People who's view of the world is so clouded by their prejudices that they can't see their foolishness.

And you fail to make mention of the big P word that I mentioned. PREJUDICE. You hate us. You can't stand us, us being the "non-believers". You won't say it, but you believe it, and you give every indication from your posts that it's true.

I'm sure there'll be some "clever" 75-page retort from you. Take note before you waste your time, though, because I'm through with you. Post whatever you want. Post naked pictures of the Pope for all I care. I'm through with you.

Such a waste of a mind.

[Henry]

Dave, I appreciate the assist, but ease off a bit, ok? SF51 is still entitled to his opinions, even if you or I disagree with them.

[Chopper Dave]

OK, sorry. I got a little angry, but it's not a matter of disagreeing with an opinion, it's a matter of fighting a blatant (OK, sometimes subtle) bigot.

No matter. He's on my ignore list now.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

No matter. He's on my ignore list now.

Whew! Finally. It took forever to shake him. :laugh:

Actually, I'm <u>totally</u> joking. Dave is a kid and he's still shootin' from the hip. Hopefully, he'll grow up and cool down as age and maturity settle in. I was like him at his age, too.

But for all you guys readin' this out there, yes, I'm as conservative as they probably come. I'm a born-again Christian who is not ashamed to say it and who believes that the remedy for this world's evils is salvation through Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with believing that and I believe I can prove why I believe that. I truly have no ill for anyone out here (not even Dave, as much as he's tried to say that I do). I don't hate anyone but the Devil. God is my witness on that. But I will tell you this, I won't back down when I feel like the truth is at stake. If Dave or anyone else interprets that as "hatred" or "prejudice" or "useless facts" or whatever, that is your opinion.

If you treat me with respect, I'll treat you with respect, and even if you don't treat me with respect, I'll still do my dead level best to treat you with respect. I admit that I get fiery sometimes and that gets the best of me. A personal fault for sure. But it's not my desire to battle or fight for the sake of fighting. I think our nation is in trouble--spiritually and morally--and I intend to fight to do my part to right the ship, so to speak. I don't mind being the minority as long as the debate doesn't turn into what Chopper Dave turned it in to. When it gets to that I have no desire to continue.

Henry, we disagree, but I appreciated the healthy debate. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. I think in the end most of our disagreement hinged upon the most logical way to interpret the Founders. Perhaps we should start a thread on how to use logic? LOL!! Thanks.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Whew! Finally. It took forever to shake him. :laugh:

Actually, I'm <u>totally</u> joking. Dave is a kid and he's still shootin' from the hip. Hopefully, he'll grow up and cool down as age and maturity settle in. I was like him at his age, too.

But for all you guys readin' this out there, yes, I'm as conservative as they probably come. I'm a born-again Christian who is not ashamed to say it and who believes that the remedy for this world's evils is salvation through Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with believing that and I believe I can prove why I believe that. I truly have no ill for anyone out here (not even Dave, as much as he's tried to say that I do). I don't hate anyone but the Devil. God is my witness on that. But I will tell you this, I won't back down when I feel like the truth is at stake. If Dave or anyone else interprets that as "hatred" or "prejudice" or "useless facts" or whatever, that is your opinion.

If you treat me with respect, I'll treat you with respect, and even if you don't treat me with respect, I'll still do my dead level best to treat you with respect. I admit that I get fiery sometimes and that gets the best of me. A personal fault for sure. But it's not my desire to battle or fight for the sake of fighting. I think our nation is in trouble--spiritually and morally--and I intend to fight to do my part to right the ship, so to speak. I don't mind being the minority as long as the debate doesn't turn into what Chopper Dave turned it in to. When it gets to that I have no desire to continue.

Henry, we disagree, but I appreciated the healthy debate. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. I think in the end most of our disagreement hinged upon the most logical way to interpret the Founders. Perhaps we should start a thread on how to use logic? LOL!! Thanks.

Might I suggest not using someone's age as a retort? Comes across somewhat high minded I would say. Just a thought.

[Ancalagon the Black]

What I do do is stand by my guns. Something you liberals hate. If you can't persuade then you attack a person's character and throw out baseless accusations. Go ahead. That's what you're all about and it's all you have.

That is completely uncalled for and, furthermore, flies in the face of earlier comments you have made (regarding evolutionists refusing to depart from their beliefs).

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That is completely uncalled for and, furthermore, flies in the face of earlier comments you have made (regarding evolutionists refusing to depart from their beliefs).

I have never attacked a person's character or motives because they chose to hold a view different than mine. I have never told anyone that if they had real guns we'd all be in trouble because they WOULD kill us (like Chopper Dave said to me). I've never told someone that they hate everyone, or that I only write to "piss people off." (like Chopper Dave said to me.) Not only is it ALL baseless, but it's disrespectful.

When a person sticks by his beliefs regardless of the clear evidence against that belief, I think they are wrong and I'll tell them so. But you won't see me attack a person's character or motives just for that reasons like Chopper Dave has done over and over. I could throw a few barbs his way. Shoot, he's earned them for sure. But I won't. Why? Because that's not why I'm out here. I like to debate these issues because they have merit. It's not my goal to just shoulder-up my figurative machine gun and spray the forums at extremeskins.com.

An old lawyers' adage admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” Chopper Dave, and others like him, seem to have chosen the latter course of action, and that is unfortunate.

So what I said was true and, I believe, quite called for.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

Might I suggest not using someone's age as a retort? Comes across somewhat high minded I would say. Just a thought.

Believe me, Stu, I'd prefer not to. But after reading post after post from this guy, I can't for the life of me figure out why he would hold to such extremely foolish and ridiculous views, except that he's still just an immature kid that has yet to experience the responsibilities of life. I didn't exempt myself from it when I said "I was like him at his age, too." But with that said, I'm not going to sit around and let him spew his "textbook" knowledge without a challenge, and I think he needs to know that he is being immature. It would be a good thing for most 17 year olds to listen more than they speak. As they grow up then perhaps they can <i>earn</i> the right to open their mouth. But for now, listening is best.

Understand, I don't think it's wrong for him to make comment and share his opinion. But he's so ****y and arrogant to a fault (see his comments on abortion in a recent post, and note how many times he told us who are against it that we "ARE wrong"), when we all know that he has not even taken on life's basic responsibilities like having a career, raising a family, facing serious financial hardships, etc. Those things just come with time. He needs to know his place and HUMBLY state his opinion.

This is a problem with the youth today. They have no respect for their elders. A few generations ago that would have never happened, not even towards someone they didn't like or agree with. There was just a general respect for adults. It's a very bad cancer in our society when the youth think that they know more than those who have actually lived and experienced life.

I can only speak for myself, but I would never treat someone that is over twice my age with such blatant disrespect as Chopper Dave treats me and others who are much older than him. It's not being high minded on my part to point that out. It's just trying to get Chopper Dave to be respectful of age and the wisdom of years.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Believe me, Stu, I'd prefer not to. But after reading post after post from this guy, I can't for the life of me figure out why he would hold to such extremely foolish and ridiculous views, except that he's still just an immature kid that has yet to experience the responsibilities of life. I didn't exempt myself from it when I said "I was like him at his age, too." But with that said, I'm not going to sit around and let him spew his "textbook" knowledge without a challenge, and I think he needs to know that he is being immature. It would be a good thing for most 17 year olds to listen more than they speak. As they grow up then perhaps they can <i>earn</i> the right to open their mouth. But for now, listening is best.

Understand, I don't think it's wrong for him to make comment and share his opinion. But he's so ****y and arrogant to a fault (see his comments on abortion in a recent post, and note how many times he told us who are against it that we "ARE wrong"), when we all know that he has not even taken on life's basic responsibilities like having a career, raising a family, facing serious financial hardships, etc. Those things just come with time. He needs to know his place and HUMBLY state his opinion.

This is a problem with the youth today. They have no respect for their elders. A few generations ago that would have never happened, not even towards someone they didn't like or agree with. There was just a general respect for adults. It's a very bad cancer in our society when the youth think that they know more than those who have actually lived and experienced life.

I can only speak for myself, but I would never treat someone that is over twice my age with such blatant disrespect as Chopper Dave treats me and others who are much older than him. It's not being high minded on my part to point that out. It's just trying to get Chopper Dave to be respectful of age and the wisdom of years.

I would rather go with the "lead by example" route.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

I would rather go with the "lead by example" route.

Me too, and I think I've tried to do that. That's why I try my best not to question a person's motives for saying what they say (unless it's obvious to everyone) regardless of whether or not I agree with them. All I ask for is the same treatment. We can disagree without becoming nasty.

Does "lead by example" mean you never judge someone's actions? I don't think so. All of us can judge actions; very few of us should judge motives. There is a difference.

[Sea Bass]

It's been said before by others, but I think it needs repeating.

There are 2 basic principles in the 1st amendment on this topic:

1. make no law respecting an establishment of religion

2. make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof

A state sponsored religion, such as the Church of England, clearly violates principle #1.

However, if "separation of church and state" is used to remove all semblance of religion from government, then it violates principle #2.

It's one thing to have laws that force a religion on people, but it is another to have laws that force religious values on people (for example laws against murder.)

I think we would be foolish to eliminate all of our values from government under the guise of separation of church of state.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Sea Bass

It's been said before by others, but I think it needs repeating.

There are 2 basic principles in the 1st amendment on this topic:

1. make no law respecting an establishment of religion

2. make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof

A state sponsored religion, such as the Church of England, clearly violates principle #1.

However, if "separation of church and state" is used to remove all semblance of religion from government, then it violates principle #2.

It's one thing to have laws that force a religion on people, but it is another to have laws that force religious values on people (for example laws against murder.)

I think we would be foolish to eliminate all of our values from government under the guise of separation of church of state.

That is one of the best and most concise explanations of the First Amendment I've ever read. Very, very well said, Sea Bass.

I have no doubt that this was the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

[gbear]

I think every day, all members, schoolteachers, and students should be required to recite the following prayer:

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

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

what? innapropriate? It's a well known prayer. It's probably among the 5 most commonly said prayers in this country? What's wrong with starting every work day with it? What do you mean you're not Catholic (or heaven forbid, even Christian).

Oh you mean some prayers might be okay but not others. Which ones are okay/appropriate for a government sanctioned/sponsored event? the ones you agree with?