The Problem with Society

[SHSBulldog00]

The Columbus track team was disqualified after praising God following a win. This is beyond disgraceful!

http://www.khou.com/sports/Act-of-fath-costs-track-team-its-win-205661221.html

[pancho villa]

He broke the rule!!!! DQ! That was an excuse!

[Maroon87]

What a stupid rule.

[waterboy]

What a stupid rule.

Amen! They should tell their Congressman about this, and the governor. This rule is nonsense. Raising a finger and pointing to God is not what I would consider excessive at all.

[cougartino]

And a player announcing he's gay is celebrated? My God!

[Emerson1]

Gay guy didn't break a rule. No way this doesn't get overturned anyways.

[Old Tiger]

It's a rule in place to prevent athletes in HS from doing stuff like Usain Bolt does after crossing the finish line. While I don't agree with it a rule is a rule.

[Old Tiger]

And a player announcing he's gay is celebrated? My God!
You are comparing two totally different things and this kind of comment shows your ignorance.

[cougartino]

You are comparing two totally different things and this kind of comment shows your ignorance.

Actually it shows yours because my point went totally over your head. But that's okay. You can always let it marinate a little longer. And in the even that doesn't help, go back and reread the title of the thread to assist you. That is all!

[ogg]

The Columbus track team was disqualified after praising God following a win. This is beyond disgraceful!

http://www.khou.com/sports/Act-of-fath-costs-track-team-its-win-205661221.html

Seems like another/softer punishment would be more justified rather than a DQ. Celebrating a touchdown doesn't result in ejecting from a game.

[Tejastrue]

So very tired of this sort of thing. Total BS. We are so at the point to where we trip over ourselves in order not to offend in the name of political correctness. Go Redskins!!


http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4880582794020419&pid=15.1

[Macarthur]

The Columbus track team was disqualified after praising God following a win. This is beyond disgraceful!

http://www.khou.com/sports/Act-of-fath-costs-track-team-its-win-205661221.html

They were not DQed for praising god. They were DQed for excessive celebration.

[Tejastrue]

This is far from over.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22146374/act-of-praise-deemed-excessive-costs-columbus-track-team-chance-at-state

[Old Tiger]

This is far from over.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22146374/act-of-praise-deemed-excessive-costs-columbus-track-team-chance-at-state

oh no not the local news!!!

http://i.imgur.com/Pn3UX.gif

[rockdale80]

They were not DQed for praising god. They were DQed for excessive celebration.

No, no, no Macarthur! They were DQed because they were praising God. Did you not see the clip on FOX? How can you argue that?

[Tejastrue]

OT...Did you even look at the video? Has really nothing to do with the local media except the link to the track meet in Austin. :dispntd:

[Old Tiger]

OT...Did you even look at the video? Has really nothing to do with the local media except the link to the track meet in Austin. :dispntd:

No, I just found that .gif and wanted to use it.

[Tejastrue]

oh no not the local news!!!

http://i.imgur.com/Pn3UX.gif


No, I just found that .gif and wanted to use it.


Okay..well, it was a good one..but is that politically correct?

[Macarthur]

No, no, no Macarthur! They were DQed because they were praising God. Did you not see the clip on FOX? How can you argue that?

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

The rule clearly states that you can't raise your arm. Whether he was pointing to god or pointing to a dead relative is beside the issue.

If you want to argue that the rule is stupid, I would agree, but that's a diff discussion.

[Old Tiger]

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

The rule clearly states that you can't raise your arm. Whether he was pointing to god or pointing to a dead relative is beside the issue.

If you want to argue that the rule is stupid, I would agree, but that's a diff discussion.He's being sarcastic...due to all the people here freaking about the God aspect of it and not focusing on the rule.

[Macarthur]

Ok. My bad. I guess my sarcasm meter is broke today. :p

[movethechain]

Yet, if he had crossed the finish line, turned to mecca and knelt in prayer, I doubt it would be an issue.

[rockdale80]

Yet, if he had crossed the finish line, turned to mecca and knelt in prayer, I doubt it would be an issue.

Unless the rule stated that he should not turn and kneel in prayer, then I am guessing there would be a DQ.

Regardless, this is an absurd comparison.

[Tejastrue]

Has anyone seen the actual violation? From what area was the appointed judge/ref from?

[rockdale80]

Has anyone seen the actual violation? From what area was the appointed judge/ref from?

The rule was broken. There is no dispute over whether or not the breaking of the rule occurred. The issue rests with the kids saying they were praising God and wanting an exception to be made because for baby Jesus.

No religious exemptions exist and the disqualification stands as called. Somebody call the Wahmbulance.

[Old Tiger]

The rule was broken. There is no dispute over whether or not the breaking of the rule occurred. The issue rests with the kids saying they were praising God and wanting an exception to be made because for baby Jesus.

No religious exemptions exist and the disqualification stands as called. Somebody call the Wahmbulance.

I recommend smoked gouda or a muenster to go with all the wine.

[rockdale80]

I recommend smoked gouda or a muenster to go with all the wine.

A Wahmburger and French Cries

[Tejastrue]

Your source is what? Again, has anyone on here seen the actual violation? On another note this is more of a personal thing for you..with the anti-religion and all that. Enjoy it to the fullest extent. I take it as maybe the judge was from any place other than Columbus.

[movethechain]

Unless the rule stated that he should not turn and kneel in prayer, then I am guessing there would be a DQ.

Regardless, this is an absurd comparison.

This is not an absurd comparison, when the christian values and expressions that made this country great are outlawed and islamic values and expressions are defended, allowed, accommodated and celebrated by liberals.

[Old Tiger]

This is not an absurd comparison, when the christian values and expressions that made this country great are outlawed and islamic values and expressions are defended, allowed, accommodated and celebrated by liberals.

Why are we a Christian based country? Aren't we "land of the free and home of the brave?" Regardless if he pointed to the sky for God, Allah, or any other religious figure head it breaks the rules that are clearly stated.

Islamic values should be able to be expressed and we shouldn't oppress their beliefs because you or other people disagree with it.

[Tejastrue]

Why are we a Christian based country? Aren't we "land of the free and home of the brave?" Regardless if he pointed to the sky for God, Allah, or any other religious figure head it breaks the rules that are clearly stated.
Islamic values should be able to be expressed and we shouldn't oppress their beliefs because you or other people disagree with it.


Why does this wreak of hypocrisy?

[Old Tiger]

Why does this wreak of hypocrisy?

From same post...


Regardless if he pointed to the sky for God, Allah, or any other religious figure head it breaks the rules that are clearly stated.

[rockdale80]

This is not an absurd comparison, when the christian values and expressions that made this country great are outlawed and islamic values and expressions are defended, allowed, accommodated and celebrated by liberals.

The rule doesnt infuse religion into the consideration and to put it simply, it forbids the gesture, regardless of intent. To say that praising Allah is an absurd comparison because the intent of the rule was not to oppress religion. You are just pissed that the enforcement doesnt pander to your Christian beliefs of acceptability. A rule is rule is a rule.

Liberals celebrate Islamic values and expressions? I think that is a bit of a blatant lie. Wait, you must be referring to when I get together with my highly educated and reasonable minded friends to worship Allah? DA

[Tejastrue]

From same post...


Yes, of course but...you can't disagree with one and agree with the other. Regardless of your opinion, this country was founded on God...not Allah..not Buddah..not Satan... not Atheism... but it has slowly over time embraced the fact of a common denomimator...and in the words of Wiiliam Wallace....Freeeeedom!!!

[Tejastrue]

The rule doesnt infuse religion into the consideration and to put it simply, it forbids the gesture, regardless of intent. To say that praising Allah is an absurd comparison because the intent of the rule was not to oppress religion. You are just pissed that the enforcement doesnt pander to your Christian beliefs of acceptability. A rule is rule is a rule.

Liberals celebrate Islamic values and expressions? I think that is a bit of a blatant lie. Wait, you must be referring to when I get together with my highly educated and reasonable minded friends to worship Allah? DA


Is Old Tiger your BFF? Just asking.....

[rockdale80]

Yes, of course but...you can't disagree with one and agree with the other. Regardless of your opinion, this country was founded on God...not Allah..not Buddah..not Satan... not Atheism... but it has slowly over time embraced the fact of a common denomimator...and in the words of Wiiliam Wallace....Freeeeedom!!!

Not true either. Deism is not the same as Christianity. All evidence points to the Founding Fathers urging a clear seperation of Church and State...

[rockdale80]

Actually, I barely know the guy.

[Old Tiger]

Is Old Tiger your BFF? Just asking.....

No I just praise allah you infidel!

[rockdale80]

All hail Allah!

[MJMbrahmas10]

Heard from a bird that " it was a cam newton superman move"

[Old Tiger]

Heard from a bird that " it was a cam newton superman move"

what's the word?

[regaleagle]

It is my belief that the intent for "excessive celebration" in athletic competition has been reduced "excessively" to a point where is is nearly impossible to express any kind of exhuberance in triumph whatsoever. I disagree with the idea of such strict or narrow interpretations of a rule that would take away an accomplishment of an individual or a team expressing its joy(a natural emotion) in winning a competition, esp. when done without demeaning the opposition, or intended for that purpose. End of Opinion.

[Manso/V8]

Has anyone seen the actual violation? From what area was the appointed judge/ref from?

From the race photo in the first news segment posted, it must have been the 4 x 100m relay. Bellville is listed as the winner, and Giddings as the second place finisher. The meet was held at Kingsville A&M.

I imagine the meet officials where from that area and I highly doubt if the meet official(s) had any bias or cared if Columbus, Bellville, or Giddings won that race.
It sure is a shame the Columbus team was DQ'ed over something like this. If the gesture was a minor as described in the interviews, then the interpretation or judgement of the official seems a bit off.

At least at the 3A level, most of the meets leading up to district are kind of a ball of confusion and a little loose with the rules......you have Boys V, Girls V, Boys JV, and Girls JV events being held back-to-back......and they usually have asst football coaches running the events/meet. Once you get to the Region meet, things get serious. This kid from Columbus could have made the same gesture in earlier meets and likely no one would have even noticed or even known it was a potential rules violation.

Wimberley Boys scored 4 points in the Region meet? Is track not very popular there?

[Macarthur]

?.., this country was founded on God...not Allah..not Buddah..not Satan... not Atheism... !

Would you care to expand on this? What exactly are you talking about?

[Farmersfan]

Being in law enforcement myself I understand that a law must be written in such a way as to attempt to eliminate any gray area or subjective interpretation. I can't imagine the amount of discourse we would get on a constant basis if this rule was written to allow "MINOR" acts of celebration but not "major" acts! Think about it a minute. That would bring someone's subjective opinion of what is minor or major into play. Therefore the rule clearly states "NO" acts of celebration of any kind.






Regardless of your opinion, this country was founded on God...


Certainly some more education is needed here. But even if you believe this country was founded on Christianity you cannot deny that the "GREATNESS" of this country didn't develop until society started moving away from fundamental Christianity.

[tigerball4life]

I asked a friend who was at the meet and near the finish line what he saw, he says he doesn’t think the kid got DQ’d for the “pointing to the heavens” rather what happened afterward, as Paul Harvey would say “The rest of the story”. It appears the meet official was warning the kid that he would get DQ’d at the state meet for that when the kid started dropping “F” bombs and that is what brought the DQ.

[Cam]

All hail Allah!


:1omg!:.....Allah chingada!.....:D

[Roughneck93]

:1omg!:.....Allah chingada!.....

:spitlol:

[Aesculus gilmus]

Football season can't get here fast enough. I really regret having clicked on this thread.

[Ernest T Bass]

Jesus H and a chicken basket! Seriously people?! This thread is making me sad.
#1 The rule is pretty clear. He broke it. Ive seen others DQed for it as well. Not sure why this one is such a big deal.
#2 He wasn't "praising God". He was emulating professional athletes that's he's seen doing the same thing. Kids do it all the time. In this case, there was a rule against it. Had he stepped off the track and started speaking in tounges, he would have been fine.

[STAggie]

I asked a friend who was at the meet and near the finish line what he saw, he says he doesn’t think the kid got DQ’d for the “pointing to the heavens” rather what happened afterward, as Paul Harvey would say “The rest of the story”. It appears the meet official was warning the kid that he would get DQ’d at the state meet for that when the kid started dropping “F” bombs and that is what brought the DQ.

This is exactly what happened per an eye witness report. Meet director tried to talk to him and even placed his hand on the kids shoulder, the kid then shoved his hand away and began cussing. Funny how we never get the full story. Also, the rule clearly states no hand raising especially pointing one finger, now he is praising god but at the meet who is to say he wasn't trying to taunt. Oh well, right call was made and the crying and whining needs to stop.

[Weebe]

Will the bible thumpers filter back into the woodwork?

[cougartino]

Will the bible thumpers filter back into the woodwork?

To your post I say rejoice! There will be a day when you won't have to deal with us.

[refereedoc]

Will the bible thumpers filter back into the woodwork?

You will have to tell our coach that too. Watch the last 2 minutes of the video. I am proud to have a GOD fearing, bible thumping example for our boys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwuRAp1VGyk

[Cam]

To your post I say rejoice! There will be a day when you won't have to deal with us.

:eek:....I'm not for sure weebe....but I think you just got condemned to burn in eternal HELL!......:flaming::crazy1::D......just kiddin' everybody....carry on men of men.....is it football season yet?

Don't touch that finger!.....you don't know where it's been!......

[Macarthur]

This is exactly what happened per an eye witness report. Meet director tried to talk to him and even placed his hand on the kids shoulder, the kid then shoved his hand away and began cussing. Funny how we never get the full story. Also, the rule clearly states no hand raising especially pointing one finger, now he is praising god but at the meet who is to say he wasn't trying to taunt. Oh well, right call was made and the crying and whining needs to stop.

And now the REAL story comes out....

I don't want to sound preachy (so to speak), but this is a perfect example to those of you that immediately got this sense of outrage and persecution because you're a person of faith. Always reserve judgement until you have all the facts.

[Tejastrue]

From the race photo in the first news segment posted, it must have been the 4 x 100m relay. Bellville is listed as the winner, and Giddings as the second place finisher. The meet was held at Kingsville A&M.

I imagine the meet officials where from that area and I highly doubt if the meet official(s) had any bias or cared if Columbus, Bellville, or Giddings won that race.
It sure is a shame the Columbus team was DQ'ed over something like this. If the gesture was a minor as described in the interviews, then the interpretation or judgement of the official seems a bit off.

At least at the 3A level, most of the meets leading up to district are kind of a ball of confusion and a little loose with the rules......you have Boys V, Girls V, Boys JV, and Girls JV events being held back-to-back......and they usually have asst football coaches running the events/meet. Once you get to the Region meet, things get serious. This kid from Columbus could have made the same gesture in earlier meets and likely no one would have even noticed or even known it was a potential rules violation.

Wimberley Boys scored 4 points in the Region meet? Is track not very popular there?

Thanks for the highlight from the Region track meet Cinderella. 4 points..awesome!!

[Tejastrue]

And now the REAL story comes out....

I don't want to sound preachy (so to speak), but this is a perfect example to those of you that immediately got this sense of outrage and persecution because you're a person of faith. Always reserve judgement until you have all the facts.


LOL..you were right in the middle of it because it's just as important to you, and a few others here to say that you are not a person of faith. My whole issue was the fact he was DQ'd for such a simple act. I didn't care why he was pointing to the sky. As it turns out there's apparently much more to it and the decision was justified. This story could change again in a heartbeat.

[Manso/V8]

Thanks for the highlight from the Region track meet Cinderella. 4 points..awesome!!

Your welcome.

[BwdLion73]

I get together with my highly educated and reasonable minded friends

Thats why I joined this site...to get together with my highly educated and reasonable minded friends...;)

[Macarthur]

LOL..you were right in the middle of it because it's just as important to you, and a few others here to say that you are not a person of faith.

What makes you say that? I never said I'm not a person of faith.

You need to be careful jumping to conclusions.


My whole issue was the fact he was DQ'd for such a simple act. I didn't care why he was pointing to the sky. As it turns out there's apparently much more to it and the decision was justified. This story could change again in a heartbeat.

That's certainly not what you said.

This is your quote:


Yes, of course but...you can't disagree with one and agree with the other. Regardless of your opinion, this country was founded on God...not Allah..not Buddah..not Satan... not Atheism... but it has slowly over time embraced the fact of a common denomimator...and in the words of Wiiliam Wallace....Freeeeedom!!!

It appears it wasn't just about a simple act for you.

BTW, you never answered my question about how the country was founded on the Christian God.

[Trashman]

Today at work a guy told us that he was gay and wanted everyone to know because that's who he is. My Boss nodded and told us that if we had any other personal news to share, we should do it now....this really quiet kid stood up, and announced he was sexually attracted to owls and then sat down....

We aren't allowed to share personal things at work anymore.

[Cam]

Thats why I joined this site...to get together with my highly educated and reasonable minded friends...;)

....watch it there 73!......I'll have you know I am highly edu-macated!.......and my mind is there for a reason...for what, I'm not sure....but someday I'll figure it out!......:p

[BwdLion73]

You should have told him you didn't give a "hoot"

[Cam]

Today at work a guy told us that he was gay and wanted everyone to know because that's who he is. My Boss nodded and told us that if we had any other personal news to share, we should do it now....this really quiet kid stood up, and announced he was sexually attracted to owls and then sat down....

We aren't allowed to share personal things at work anymore.

dang...all of a sudden, BW folk are poppin' up everywhere.......Owls huh?....Ya know, there is something about those critters.....anytime our weenie dog decides she's gotta go outside at 2am to do her thing, I get a bit nervous about them owls cause we got a bunch of em' and I fear one will scoop her up!.....So, I'll go outside with her, stand there and listen to the "whoo...whoo...whoo in the hell.....whoo"......OVER and OVER!......I gotta admit, it don't do anything to me sexually, but it does make me feel like peein'....so, every night just about, my weenie dog and I are outside peein' in unison.....but don't worry folks, I live out in the country...ain't nobody watchin' cept them owls!.......;)

[44INAROW]

Today at work a guy told us that he was gay and wanted everyone to know because that's who he is. My Boss nodded and told us that if we had any other personal news to share, we should do it now....this really quiet kid stood up, and announced he was sexually attracted to owls and then sat down....

We aren't allowed to share personal things at work anymore.


You should have told him you didn't give a "hoot"



now that's funny :evillol:

[pancho villa]

I don't understand all the Christian upset. He broke the rule! It is simple, be a gracious winner and there would be no problem. This is not a religious argument. IT IS A TRACK AND FIELD RULES ARGUMENT!

[Tejastrue]

What makes you say that? I never said I'm not a person of faith.

You need to be careful jumping to conclusions.



That's certainly not what you said.

This is your quote:



It appears it wasn't just about a simple act for you.

BTW, you never answered my question about how the country was founded on the Christian God.


You need to put the comment I was responding to and not try to make it fit to your liking. My initial comment on this thread referred to the political correctness of today's society. As far as my reference to God...I did not say Christian God. I think most believed in a Supreme Being and that is expressed in the Declaration.

[cougartino]

:eek:....I'm not for sure weebe....but I think you just got condemned to burn in eternal HELL!......:flaming::crazy1::D......just kiddin' everybody....carry on men of men.....is it football season yet?

Don't touch that finger!.....you don't know where it's been!......

I meant that as a exultation for me, not a condemnation to anyone. One day Jesus will return (makes me glad) and folks will have to answer to him directly.

[rockdale80]

Says the self righteous and pompous guy that will probably have some explaining to do if God returns in this lifetime....

[Farmersfan]

I meant that as a exultation for me, not a condemnation to anyone. One day Jesus will return (makes me glad) and folks will have to answer to him directly.





Why would you feel this exultation for yourself and not for all others?

[Farmersfan]

Says the self righteous and pompous guy that will probably have some explaining to do if God returns in this lifetime....



Which would a worthy God value more, Honest skepticism or dishonest belief?

[rockdale80]

I think he would dismiss your hypocrisy and and that of most denominational followers. The failure to yield teachings based on the breadth of the Bible and insistence on utilizing a passage to press for hatred and prejudice would not appease God.

[Farmersfan]

I think he would dismiss your hypocrisy and and that of most denominational followers. The failure to yield teachings based on the breadth of the Bible and insistence on utilizing a passage to press for hatred and prejudice would not appease God.



My hypocrisy on this subject is non-existent.

Do you believe God will require appeasement? If so where do you come by this opinion if you don't mind me asking.

[Macarthur]

As far as my reference to God...I did not say Christian God. I think most believed in a Supreme Being and that is expressed in the Declaration.

This is your quote:


Yes, of course but...you can't disagree with one and agree with the other. Regardless of your opinion, this country was founded on God...not Allah..not Buddah..not Satan... not Atheism... but it has slowly over time embraced the fact of a common denomimator...and in the words of Wiiliam Wallace....Freeeeedom!!!

If it's not Allah, Buddah or Satan, which other God is there than the Christian God? Come on, you can I both know what you meant.

[Old Tiger]

I think Jesus would say the stories written in the bible are bs and didn't go down like they are perceived now days.


Sent from Heaven using Tapatalk

[Tejastrue]

This is your quote:



If it's not Allah, Buddah or Satan, which other God is there than the Christian God? Come on, you can I both know what you meant.

I don't think Christians have a sole propreitorship to God so yes..it's exactly what I meant.

[cougartino]

Why would you feel this exultation for yourself and not for all others?

When did I say I didn’t want it for anyone else? You can have it too, if you elect. It’s like a free cold picture of lemonade on a hot day for anyone to have a glass. I can tell you where it is and how to access it. But it’s still up to you to taste it.

[speedbump]

All hail Allah!

No thanks. I'll proudly remain an infidel.

[Bullaholic]

From every source I have read, the majority of adult American citizens identify themselves as some form of a Christian as their religion. Why then would it be wrong to call America a predominately Christian nation with respect to religion?

[Macarthur]

I don't think Christians have a sole propreitorship to God so yes..it's exactly what I meant.

Then when you reference God and the founding of this country, which God are you talking about?

[Cam]

No thanks. I'll proudly remain an infidel.

You infidel!.....INFIDEL....I just love that word.....sounds so harsh......

[Manso/V8]

The Drudge Report now has a link to a Breitbart article about the relay team disqualifaction.

A couple of the news articles refer to them as The Mighty Caridinals.
I thought they were just The Cardinals, we like to call them, the dirty birds.

The dirty birds certainly have a knack for causing a ruckus, if the F-bomb story is true, then the dirty bird character remains intact.

[Macarthur]

From every source I have read, the majority of adult American citizens identify themselves as some form of a Christian as their religion. Why then would it be wrong to call America a predominately Christian nation with respect to religion?

Nothing.

Depending on which poll you read, it's around 75% that identify as Christian.

The problem comes in with respect our government. Our government is and was founded as a secular government. The founders did this on purpose. Just because the majority of people in this country are Christian does not mean that our government has any preference what so ever towards a religion. The founders were VERY, VERY, VERY clear on this.

[Cam]

But we have this treasure in jars of clay
to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. --- 2 Corinthians 4:7

[Cam]

......this thread will be banished into the gates of Downlow hell....by Monday I would guess:thinking:.......:D

[Old Tiger]

From every source I have read, the majority of adult American citizens identify themselves as some form of a Christian as their religion. Why then would it be wrong to call America a predominately Christian nation with respect to religion?
just as english is the language of the united states:crazy1::dispntd:

[ethsfbnut]

Just perused it. Surprised its lasted `til this afternoon.

[Old Tiger]

Just perused it. Surprised its lasted `til this afternoon.

It's the new downlow....love it....live it

[Bullaholic]

just as english is the language of the united states:crazy1::dispntd:

Nope--English is the predominate language spoken in the Uninted States---not the only language. You really want to split hairs with me, Case....:D

[Tejastrue]

Then when you reference God and the founding of this country, which God are you talking about?


They are one and the same. You don't have to be Christian to worship or follow the same God. Talked to a person of Jewish decent lately? Probably opening a can of worms but in reality I believe there is but one true God. If I recall correctly, we have touched on this before. It is uncanny when you look at the many nations around the world and their relgious understandings at how closely their spiritual journeys intertwine. Why is it because God was omitted from our Constitution that people believe our country was not founded on the basis of God. No piece of paper can tell me otherwise. There have been too many events throughout the history of this nation that suggest a spiritual intervention.

[Macarthur]

They are one and the same. You don't have to be Christian to worship or follow the same God. Talked to a person of Jewish decent lately? Probably opening a can of worms but in reality I believe there is but one true God. If I recall correctly, we have touched on this before. It is uncanny when you look at the many nations around the world and their relgious understandings at how closely their spiritual journeys intertwine. Why is it because God was omitted from our Constitution that people believe our country was not founded on the basis of God. No piece of paper can tell me otherwise. There have been too many events throughout the history of this nation that suggest a spiritual intervention.

There is so much contradiction in this post I almost don't know where to start.

How can they be one in the same and you believe there's only one true god? Those two don't jive.

And give me a couple of examples of spiritual intervention that you think could only have that explanation.

[bobcat1]

I understand the rule was broken. I also understand it can be enforced with discretion. I would also understand if the F bomb was dropped why the DQ was given. What I don't understand is how anyone can believe there is no God. I remain an infidel, Bible Believing Christian, and will until I reach Heaven. It's an individual choice and it is your choice to make or not. You alone have to live with your choice as do I.

[pirate4state]

Kid showed his ass. The rest of this is just old school DL :wave:

[Tejastrue]

There is so much contradiction in this post I almost don't know where to start.

How can they be one in the same and you believe there's only one true god? Those two don't jive.

And give me a couple of examples of spiritual intervention that you think could only have that explanation.

Not following you. What part of one and the same do you not understand? One being the common denominator. Not sure why this is so important to you unless it is your mission to disprove my beliefs.

[Manso/V8]

Not following you. What part of one and the same do you not understand? One being the common denominator. Not sure why this is so important to you unless it is your mission to disprove my beliefs.

I understood what you said completely. Some want to take everything literally and focus on semantics.

[Matthew328]

I love how the TV stations took this story and ran with it, without checking the facts...lazy media these days just looking for a story....if you aren't at the event, it might be a good idea to get both sides of the story before running with it...the bottom line is neutral parties at the even concurred that the kid's gesture was a little more than its being made out to be...he was likely only going to get a warning from the meet official about not doing that at state but instead decided to show his rear end and cuss and throw the baton down....

But no one will report that story

[Macarthur]

Not following you. What part of one and the same do you not understand? One being the common denominator. Not sure why this is so important to you unless it is your mission to disprove my beliefs.

I guess I don't understand how you can say different faiths are one in the same and then proclaim there is only one God.

[Tejastrue]

I guess I don't understand how you can say different faiths are one in the same and then proclaim there is only one God.

What I said was God was one and the same. It is why I gave Judaism as an example. Different faiths but one God. I just feel that at the end of the day, no matter the similarities or variances in scriptures and teachings in the multitude of faiths they are all linked to one God. How they approach it, whether for evil or good (and there is a fine line there) is irrelevant here. I guess we'll all find out who got it right someday. My guess is very few...

[Tejastrue]

I love how the TV stations took this story and ran with it, without checking the facts...lazy media these days just looking for a story....if you aren't at the event, it might be a good idea to get both sides of the story before running with it...the bottom line is neutral parties at the even concurred that the kid's gesture was a little more than its being made out to be...he was likely only going to get a warning from the meet official about not doing that at state but instead decided to show his rear end and cuss and throw the baton down....

But no one will report that story


It is how riots get started. It is a scary thing. Gossip at 4G...or is that a little slow these days.. Our own Attorney General jumped in on it. Apparently none of his people were at the meet. lol

[TxAthlete]

When did I say I didn’t want it for anyone else? You can have it too, if you elect. It’s like a free cold picture of lemonade on a hot day for anyone to have a glass. I can tell you where it is and how to access it. But it’s still up to you to taste it.

I got really giddy when I read this quote...the irony...free cold picture of lemonade on a hot day....classic.

[Weebe]

I love how the TV stations took this story and ran with it, without checking the facts...lazy media these days just looking for a story....if you aren't at the event, it might be a good idea to get both sides of the story before running with it...the bottom line is neutral parties at the even concurred that the kid's gesture was a little more than its being made out to be...he was likely only going to get a warning from the meet official about not doing that at state but instead decided to show his rear end and cuss and throw the baton down....

But no one will report that story

What's funny is the number of people who showed their ass on this thread trying to defend him in the name of "Christianity".

And then even after they figured out he was wrong, they don't shut up, but instead continue to show their ass by preaching to everyone who disagrees with them.

[Macarthur]

What I said was God was one and the same. It is why I gave Judaism as an example. Different faiths but one God. I just feel that at the end of the day, no matter the similarities or variances in scriptures and teachings in the multitude of faiths they are all linked to one God. How they approach it, whether for evil or good (and there is a fine line there) is irrelevant here. I guess we'll all find out who got it right someday. My guess is very few...

Ok. Fair enough.

I would think there's quite a few of your christian friends on here that would disagree with you.

[Phil C]

So many victims of society these days. :(

[Tejastrue]

Ok. Fair enough.

I would think there's quite a few of your christian friends on here that would disagree with you.


Makes no difference. If you think about it..mankind orginated in one specific region.

Since they have not yet pulled this thread and without showing my ass too much (I would say a little butt crack is acceptable) maybe you can share some insight as to where you stand. I think it is only fair and not unreasonable to ask.

[Macarthur]

Makes no difference.

Orthodox Christianity would say otherwise.



If you think about it..mankind orginated in one specific region.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.



Since they have not yet pulled this thread and without showing my ass too much (I would say a little butt crack is acceptable) maybe you can share some insight as to where you stand. I think it is only fair and not unreasonable to ask.

I tend to be a deist type.

[Tejastrue]

Orthodox Christianity would say otherwise.




I'm not sure I follow your meaning.



I tend to be a deist type.




It makes no difference to me.



We had to start somewhere. One God.



What does that mean? Is it on and off at times?

[Macarthur]

We had to start somewhere. One God.

Which god? And how?




What does that mean? Is it on and off at times?

It means just what it says. I consider myself a deist. I never said anything about off or on. You read something into it?

[TheDOCTORdre]

I'm a Christian, believer, follower of Jesus, born again or whatever you want to label me, that's fine; the kid broke the rule plain and simple whether it was the pointing to God (who knows if that's what he was really doing in the moment except for him and God) or the "F bomb", so the DQ was justified. My problem isn't from a Christianity stand point, (although if it turned out he was DQ'ed for his beliefs I would have a problem with it); my problem is with the wussification of America, I think celebration should be allowed, even excessively, and if you don't like it, you should figure out a way to stop the other team/player from celebrating.



And I realize this is a huge run on sentence but I don't care

[Macarthur]

I'm a Christian, believer, follower of Jesus, born again or whatever you want to label me, that's fine; the kid broke the rule plain and simple whether it was the pointing to God (who knows if that's what he was really doing in the moment except for him and God) or the "F bomb", so the DQ was justified. My problem isn't from a Christianity stand point, (although if it turned out he was DQ'ed for his beliefs I would have a problem with it); my problem is with the wussification of America, I think celebration should be allowed, even excessively, and if you don't like it, you should figure out a way to stop the other team/player from celebrating.



And I realize this is a huge run on sentence but I don't care

Well, here's the thing. There is such a thing as excessive celebration. There's nothing wrong with celebrating a success. However, it can cross a line of classless and taunting. The problem is with these idiotic no tolerance type of rules that don't allow people to use their judgment and common sense.

[Tejastrue]

Which god? And how?





It means just what it says. I consider myself a deist. I never said anything about off or on. You read something into it?


There is only one.

I think it's time for you to share your great insight since you are so quick to question others.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Well, here's the thing. There is such a thing as excessive celebration. There's nothing wrong with celebrating a success. However, it can cross a line of classless and taunting. The problem is with these idiotic no tolerance type of rules that don't allow people to use their judgment and common sense.


Yeah I agree I think there is a difference between celebrating and taunting, I think there is no place for taunting on the field of play but to limit celebration is to limit the very essence of the game, IMO

[TheDOCTORdre]

My problem is all these "rules" are in place to make everyone feel like a winner, and that's horse crap in my book, because sometimes you aren't a winner in life.

[Tejastrue]

My problem is all these "rules" are in place to make everyone feel like a winner, and that's horse crap in my book, because sometimes you aren't a winner in life.


Here, here :clap:

[bobcat1]

My problem is all these "rules" are in place to make everyone feel like a winner, and that's horse crap in my book, because sometimes you aren't a winner in life.


Here, here :clap:

Zactly! It's called life. If you never lost how would you know what a win was worth?

[Cam]

DOCTORdre!.....where have you been?.....I thought for sure you had moved to Switzerland!......

[Cam]

Zactly! It's called life. If you never lost how would you know what a win was worth?

"When you learn to lose, you'll know what it takes to win!" ------ Journey

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/journey/whatittakestowin.html

[TheDOCTORdre]

DOCTORdre!.....where have you been?.....I thought for sure you had moved to Switzerland!......

I've been lurking around just keeping quiet

[Tejastrue]

"When you learn to lose, you'll know what it takes to win!" ------ Journey

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/journey/whatittakestowin.html


If you are going to go thru the trouble it could have at least been a music video. :p

[Cam]

If you are going to go thru the trouble it could have at least been a music video. :p

sorry....that lyric just popped into my head when I read bobcats post......not sure if they ever made a video.....but if you must hear the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5qg0tkRJY

[Tejastrue]

Nice..could have been on the 'Rocky' soundtrack.

[Cam]

.....the bottom line about this thread is:

The problem with society is we're a society with problems!....:vrycnfsd:

[Macarthur]

There is only one.

I think it's time for you to share your great insight since you are so quick to question others.

I've shared more than you have. I've answered what you've asked of me. How about you return the favor?

I've asked you several questions that you choose to ignore with snarky diversions.

[Manso/V8]

I've shared more than you have. I've answered what you've asked of me. How about you return the favor?

I've asked you several questions that you choose to ignore with snarky diversions.

I don't agree that Tejas has been snarky.
You say you are a deist.
That can mean several things.
Why don't you outline what that means to you?

[Gone Fishing]

Wimberley Boys scored 4 points in the Region meet? Is track not very popular there?

Track is not popular and I would say some of that comes from the program early on (or lack of) with coaches and the promotion of track and field. For the years Ive been around here its football and volleyball almost year round. Also I know a couple seniors didn't run this year and had been to regional their soph and jr years.

[Gone Fishing]

Wasn't there a football team that lost a game or playoff because of this rule when he did it before crossing the goal line. Like the rule or not, it is the rule AND it is the coaches responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen and that his or her TEAM knows the rules. A kid knows he can't jump off sides in football whether he is a smart ace or a God loving kid. A kid can't travel with the basket ball whether he is a sh*t head or a Christian. Get my point? A rule is a rule in all the UIL sports even though we may not like them all.... Coaches fault...but the kid did it.....they have to move on.

[refereedoc]

...they have to move on.[/QUOTE]

We have beat this horse to death. How about we all move on to another topic, this getting old and convoluted.

[Tejastrue]

I've shared more than you have. I've answered what you've asked of me. How about you return the favor?

I've asked you several questions that you choose to ignore with snarky diversions.


For just about every response I've given you've responded in return with another question. I've shared what I believe to be true in my heart. It appears that you youself are in search of answers. For myself...I wish I had that knowledge but unfortunately I'm not sitting at the right hand. I believe that is where the faith aspect of it all comes into play for all of us.

[Macarthur]

I don't agree that Tejas has been snarky.
You say you are a deist.
That can mean several things.
Why don't you outline what that means to you?

It simply means that someone believes there is a god but that he does not reveal himself as the major religions of the world do. I.E. if someone doesn't believe mine they are going to hell.

I believe that if there is a god, he is way beyond what our minds can comprehend.

[Macarthur]

For just about every response I've given you've responded in return with another question. I've shared what I believe to be true in my heart. It appears that you youself are in search of answers. For myself...I wish I had that knowledge but unfortunately I'm not sitting at the right hand. I believe that is where the faith aspect of it all comes into play for all of us.

Whatever.

And yes, I am always in search of answers. Only fools believe they already have them.

The problem with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

B. Russell

[Tejastrue]

Whatever indeed. Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Emerson1]

So can someone reiterate what the guy actually did? Last I read he was dropping F bombs to the judges. Don't feel like searching through 9 pages of arguing.

[Manso/V8]

It simply means that someone believes there is a god but that he does not reveal himself as the major religions of the world do. I.E. if someone doesn't believe mine they are going to hell.

I believe that if there is a god, he is way beyond what our minds can comprehend.

That sounds like basic Deist thinking.

I am not speaking for Tejastrue, but I understood his views to be very similar to what you are saying, there is a God, or one God to be more exact. However, there are different religions around the world that worship the one God, that mostly have similar teachings, views on life, and how we should live it.......those religions just have different stories wrapped around the one God.

Granted some of those stories include ways that God reveals himself to man, which is different than your belief. Correct me if I am wrong, but usually Deists assume a God, or a Creator exists based on the magnificence of this world, everything in it, including life. So, I would contend that to a Deist, Creation is the way God reveals himself.

[BwdLion73]

So can someone reiterate what the guy actually did? Last I read he was dropping F bombs to the judges. Don't feel like searching through 9 pages of arguing.

I was wondering the same thing. The kid could have been a deist pointing at a UFO.

[Manso/V8]

I was wondering the same thing. The kid could have been a deist pointing at a UFO.

I don't think Deists believe in UFO's, or if they did, I'm not sure they would admit it, or acknowledge them.

The rumor is that the race official counseled/warned the kid that if he made that gesture in the state meet his team could be DQ'd.......and the kid overreacted to the warning, showed out, and that is what actually prompted the DQ at Region. But, that was reported 3rd party. If the kid did show out, it might have been in response to an actual DQ ruling, which would be more understandable.

[Macarthur]

That sounds like basic Deist thinking.

I am not speaking for Tejastrue, but I understood his views to be very similar to what you are saying, there is a God, or one God to be more exact. However, there are different religions around the world that worship the one God, that mostly have similar teachings, views on life, and how we should live it.......those religions just have different stories wrapped around the one God.

Granted some of those stories include ways that God reveals himself to man, which is different than your belief. Correct me if I am wrong, but usually Deists assume a God, or a Creator exists based on the magnificence of this world, everything in it, including life. So, I would contend that to a Deist, Creation is the way God reveals himself.

I'm sure some deists think they see God through his creation. Remember that since deists have no dogma, I'm sure views vary.

When I say reveal, I'm speaking more god actually talking or having some sort of direct communication with man.

[BwdLion73]

I don't think Deists believe in UFO's, or if they did, I'm not sure they would admit it, or acknowledge them.

The rumor is that the race official counseled/warned the kid that if he made that gesture in the state meet his team could be DQ'd.......and the kid overreacted to the warning, showed out, and that is what actually prompted the DQ at Region. But, that was reported 3rd party. If the kid did show out, it might have been in response to an actual DQ ruling, which would be more understandable.

I have heard those same "rumors" I just thought before we continue the my god, your god, no god fight that someone who was there or in the know might just put this to bed.

[panfan]

before we continue the my god, your god, no god fight that someone who was there or in the know might just put this to bed.

where and when, the beginning of time.....? LOL :spitlol:

[Cam]

where and when, the beginning of time.....? LOL :spitlol:

....panfan, you stay outta this!.....:evillol: ...ya like the purple grinnin' little fella?...that was just for you.....

[defense51]

where and when, the beginning of time.....? LOL :spitlol:

This is the stuff wars are fought over, I have a suspicion that we here on the 3ADL probably aren't going to settle anything pertaining to this issue!

[panfan]

This is the stuff wars are fought over, I have a suspicion that we here on the 3ADL probably aren't going to settle anything pertaining to this issue!

agree - just taking a shot a lightening the discourse a bit. CAM - yep the little purple feller is a dandy.

[Matthew328]

Statement regarding investigation of Region 4 Conference 3A Track Decision











AUSTIN, TX? An incident involving the disqualification of the Columbus High School 4X100 meter relay team at the Region IV Conference 3A regional track meet occurred on April 27, 2013. The UIL was made aware of this issue on May 2 after media reports of the disqualification began airing on May 1. Once becoming aware of the incident, the UIL immediately began investigating the matter thoroughly.







Over the course of the investigation, the UIL interviewed several eyewitnesses and reviewed video of the race. Additionally, the UIL spoke to the involved parties. The UIL has concluded the investigation and has found no evidence to suggest that the disqualification took place as a result of the student-athlete expressing religious beliefs. The basis for the disqualification was due to the student-athlete behaving disrespectfully, in the opinion of the local meet referee.







Based on the UIL's investigation, the student athlete raised his hand and gestured forward at the conclusion of the 4x100-meter relay. The meet official approached the student-athlete in an effort to warn him of a possible disqualification should that behavior continue. In the opinion of the official, the student reacted disrespectfully. Based on his reaction, the student-athlete was subsequently disqualified. Any decision to disqualify a student-athlete at any track meet must be upheld by the head meet referee. The meet official and the meet referee conferred, and the disqualification was upheld on-site. At no point during the discussions surrounding the disqualification at the meet was the issue of religious expression raised by any parties.







The UIL's investigation also revealed that all coaches involved were notified prior to the regional meet that any gestures in violation of the NFHS track and field rule against unsporting behavior would be grounds for disqualification. Coaches were instructed to discuss this with their student-athletes prior to all races.







To assist the UIL in its investigation, the student-athlete's parents submitted a letter stating that their son's religious freedoms were not violated. "In looking back at the conclusion of the 4x100 race, we realize that Derrick could have handled the win in a different manner," KC and Stacey Hayes said in the letter. "It was not our intention to force the issue that our son's religious freedom was violated. Nor do we feel that way now. After discussing this with our son, we have come to the conclusion that his religious rights were not violated."







The student-athlete who was disqualified also submitted a letter during the investigation stating: "Although I am very thankful for all God has given me and blessed me with, on Saturday, April 27, 2013 at the Regional Track Meet in Kingsville, TX, my actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated."







The UIL is committed to protecting student-athletes' and their rights and takes matters such as these seriously. In order to reduce the amount of interpretation on the part of track officials in regards to unsporting behavior, the UIL will work with NFHS for a clearer definition of the unsporting behavior rule.

[Tejastrue]

That sounds like basic Deist thinking.

I am not speaking for Tejastrue, but I understood his views to be very similar to what you are saying, there is a God, or one God to be more exact. However, there are different religions around the world that worship the one God, that mostly have similar teachings, views on life, and how we should live it.......those religions just have different stories wrapped around the one God.

Granted some of those stories include ways that God reveals himself to man, which is different than your belief. Correct me if I am wrong, but usually Deists assume a God, or a Creator exists based on the magnificence of this world, everything in it, including life. So, I would contend that to a Deist, Creation is the way God reveals himself.


I guess if I had to be labeled it would be a theistic one.

[Macarthur]

Statement regarding investigation of Region 4 Conference 3A Track Decision











AUSTIN, TX? An incident involving the disqualification of the Columbus High School 4X100 meter relay team at the Region IV Conference 3A regional track meet occurred on April 27, 2013. The UIL was made aware of this issue on May 2 after media reports of the disqualification began airing on May 1. Once becoming aware of the incident, the UIL immediately began investigating the matter thoroughly.







Over the course of the investigation, the UIL interviewed several eyewitnesses and reviewed video of the race. Additionally, the UIL spoke to the involved parties. The UIL has concluded the investigation and has found no evidence to suggest that the disqualification took place as a result of the student-athlete expressing religious beliefs. The basis for the disqualification was due to the student-athlete behaving disrespectfully, in the opinion of the local meet referee.







Based on the UIL's investigation, the student athlete raised his hand and gestured forward at the conclusion of the 4x100-meter relay. The meet official approached the student-athlete in an effort to warn him of a possible disqualification should that behavior continue. In the opinion of the official, the student reacted disrespectfully. Based on his reaction, the student-athlete was subsequently disqualified. Any decision to disqualify a student-athlete at any track meet must be upheld by the head meet referee. The meet official and the meet referee conferred, and the disqualification was upheld on-site. At no point during the discussions surrounding the disqualification at the meet was the issue of religious expression raised by any parties.







The UIL's investigation also revealed that all coaches involved were notified prior to the regional meet that any gestures in violation of the NFHS track and field rule against unsporting behavior would be grounds for disqualification. Coaches were instructed to discuss this with their student-athletes prior to all races.







To assist the UIL in its investigation, the student-athlete's parents submitted a letter stating that their son's religious freedoms were not violated. "In looking back at the conclusion of the 4x100 race, we realize that Derrick could have handled the win in a different manner," KC and Stacey Hayes said in the letter. "It was not our intention to force the issue that our son's religious freedom was violated. Nor do we feel that way now. After discussing this with our son, we have come to the conclusion that his religious rights were not violated."







The student-athlete who was disqualified also submitted a letter during the investigation stating: "Although I am very thankful for all God has given me and blessed me with, on Saturday, April 27, 2013 at the Regional Track Meet in Kingsville, TX, my actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated."







The UIL is committed to protecting student-athletes' and their rights and takes matters such as these seriously. In order to reduce the amount of interpretation on the part of track officials in regards to unsporting behavior, the UIL will work with NFHS for a clearer definition of the unsporting behavior rule.

Matt, do you have a link to this?

[Cam]

I guess if I had to be labeled it would be a theistic one.

dangit tejas....you just gotta use them fancy tongue twistin' words don't ya?.....I can't spell "theistic" much less pronounce it!.....thanks to you, now I have a permanent lisp!......

[957tiger]

ah, and therein lies the rest of the story. I just heard today there was indeed a post race incident that lead to the DQ. The above post confirms that. It is totally believable that an incident such as this could occur in today's society. Perhaps that is why many, including myself jumped to conclusions about this situation. The problem is the nameless, faceless people who campaign their "causes" have left us distrustful of the goverment, who out of fear allow political correctness to blind them. Is this a symptom, or direct cause and effect.

[Tejastrue]

Statement regarding investigation of Region 4 Conference 3A Track Decision

Thanks for posting.

[Matthew328]

Matt, do you have a link to this?

https://www.uiltexas.org/press-releases/detail/statement-regarding-investigation-of-region-4-conference-3a-track-decision

[Ernest T Bass]

#2 He wasn't "praising God". He was emulating professional athletes that's he's seen doing the same thing. Kids do it all the time. In this case, there was a rule against it. Had he stepped off the track and started speaking in tounges, he would have been fine.

Nostradamus on that a--!!

[Macarthur]

https://www.uiltexas.org/press-releases/detail/statement-regarding-investigation-of-region-4-conference-3a-track-decision

Thanks.

[buff4ever]

Completely rediculous that this made the Yahoo news row this morning. You think they will run a retraction story now, nope, it is going to be old news now.

Columbus is having a hard time shaking the dirty bird image they have created over the past few years.

I feel for the rest of the team though, unless they were acting out as poorly as the athlete that finished the race.

[buff4ever]

What is most ridiculous in this matter is that as many people were upset about the rumored story of kids being punished for showing love to God, there are just as many people that were happy to see a kid be punished for this rumored reason. The bottom line is that the team was punished for activities that were worthy of DQ according to the rules set by the UIL. Now that some truth is being aired, only because of the crazy media attention around false rumors, everyone kinda tucks back into their little holes and drops the ridiculous discussion that the rumors to begin with started unnecessarily.

True story of the Cardinals aside, this country was built on certain morals and beliefs that revolve around God and why people came over here to begin with. The more that we forget that as a whole country and disregard it, the uglier the situation in this country is going to get. The proof is in the facts over however many years you want to link to us getting further and further away from the original beliefs and rights of this country's beginning.

Mac, I know that your initial response to this will be to ask for what facts, and examples, but we don't have the time to go over those things on this board, and it would be against probably more than one of the rules of this board. However it is undeniable, and a conversation I would probably love to have with you away from this board over several beverages.

[rockdale80]

What is most ridiculous in this matter is that as many people were upset about the rumored story of kids being punished for showing love to God, there are just as many people that were happy to see a kid be punished for this rumored reason. The bottom line is that the team was punished for activities that were worthy of DQ according to the rules set by the UIL. Now that some truth is being aired, only because of the crazy media attention around false rumors, everyone kinda tucks back into their little holes and drops the ridiculous discussion that the rumors to begin with started unnecessarily.

True story of the Cardinals aside, this country was built on certain morals and beliefs that revolve around God and why people came over here to begin with. The more that we forget that as a whole country and disregard it, the uglier the situation in this country is going to get. The proof is in the facts over however many years you want to link to us getting further and further away from the original beliefs and rights of this country's beginning.

Mac, I know that your initial response to this will be to ask for what facts, and examples, but we don't have the time to go over those things on this board, and it would be against probably more than one of the rules of this board. However it is undeniable, and a conversation I would probably love to have with you away from this board over several beverages.


Or people could have moved to America to avoid religious persecution, and thus laid a framework of laws that prevented a government for persecuting any religion whilst establishing laws against the participation of government in religion and vice versa.

[Macarthur]

What is most ridiculous in this matter is that as many people were upset about the rumored story of kids being punished for showing love to God, there are just as many people that were happy to see a kid be punished for this rumored reason. The bottom line is that the team was punished for activities that were worthy of DQ according to the rules set by the UIL. Now that some truth is being aired, only because of the crazy media attention around false rumors, everyone kinda tucks back into their little holes and drops the ridiculous discussion that the rumors to begin with started unnecessarily.

True story of the Cardinals aside, this country was built on certain morals and beliefs that revolve around God and why people came over here to begin with. The more that we forget that as a whole country and disregard it, the uglier the situation in this country is going to get. The proof is in the facts over however many years you want to link to us getting further and further away from the original beliefs and rights of this country's beginning.

Mac, I know that your initial response to this will be to ask for what facts, and examples, but we don't have the time to go over those things on this board, and it would be against probably more than one of the rules of this board. However it is undeniable, and a conversation I would probably love to have with you away from this board over several beverages.

I'd love to start another thread about the role faith played in the foundations on this country. Theres way too much misinformation these days.

But back to the point, I can't speak for anyone else, but I could care less about someone giving thanks to god. My whole deal from the beginning was that there had to be more to the story than just someone pointing to the sky. And how the media was making this out to be some attack on Christianity and it was never about that.

[Macarthur]

I strongly suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and make a judgment now given all the information we have now about what side of this issue was being rational and not rushing to judgement.

[44INAROW]

I am so glad I kept my mouth shut for once........ now that the truth came out - I am still wondering where the media got the notion that they were the MIGHTY Cardinals lol

carry on......................

[Ernest T Bass]

I am so glad I kept my mouth shut for once........ now that the truth came out - I am still wondering where the media got the notion that they were the MIGHTY Cardinals lol

carry on......................

Most mascotts are either "fighting" or "mighty".

[44INAROW]

Most mascotts are either "fighting" or "mighty".

I don't disagree with you but we've been playing Columbus since I was in school (circa 73-76) and I've never heard of them being referred to as "the Mighty Cardinals"

[vet93]

Actually, I believe that our forefathers were trying to do two things. Protect our government from being run by a particular religion or branch of religion, but also to protect a persons right to freedom of religion. The "seperation of church and state" was as much to protect the people's right to worship as they see fit as it was to protect governmental takeover of a particular religion.


Or people could have moved to America to avoid religious persecution, and thus laid a framework of laws that prevented a government for persecuting any religion whilst establishing laws against the participation of government in religion and vice versa.

[rockdale80]

Actually, I believe that our forefathers were trying to do two things. Protect our government from being run by a particular religion or branch of religion, but also to protect a persons right to freedom of religion. The "seperation of church and state" was as much to protect the people's right to worship as they see fit as it was to protect governmental takeover of a particular religion.

I am certain that is exactly what I said. This protects both government and subscriber. What people fail to realize is that a public educational institution is "government" and funded by ALL tax payers. School taxes are not exclusive to Christian parents, thus the removal of religion from the classroom and from the field of play falls in line with this separation of Church and State. Jewish parents, Buddhist parents, Deist parents, Atheist parents, Agnostic parents, and God forbid Islamic parents all pay to fund the educational system. To me, it seems logical that all religions should be protected and none promoted in this atmosphere. This isn't about pandering to Islam or being politically correct, but points towards being respectful of others beliefs and their monies support of a government funded institution. I understand a "point to the sky" to thank God is not a promotion of a religion and should not be punished as an infraction, but any school promotion of a religion (prayer, God, Etc.) should be a no go.

If you want your God to be advocated in school, then pony up the money and send your kids to a Christian School. Stop whining and put your money where your faith is....

[Macarthur]

I am certain that is exactly what I said. This protects both government and subscriber. What people fail to realize is that a public educational institution is "government" and funded by ALL tax payers. School taxes are not exclusive to Christian parents, thus the removal of religion from the classroom and from the field of play falls in line with this separation of Church and State. Jewish parents, Buddhist parents, Deist parents, Atheist parents, Agnostic parents, and God forbid Islamic parents all pay to fund the educational system. To me, it seems logical that all religions should be protected and none promoted in this atmosphere. This isn't about pandering to Islam or being politically correct, but points towards being respectful of others beliefs and their monies support of a government funded institution. I understand a "point to the sky" to thank God is not a promotion of a religion and should not be punished as an infraction, but any school promotion of a religion (prayer, God, Etc.) should be a no go.

If you want your God to be advocated in school, then pony up the money and send your kids to a Christian School. Stop whining and put your money where your faith is....

:iagree:

[Manso/V8]

I don't disagree with you but we've been playing Columbus since I was in school (circa 73-76) and I've never heard of them being referred to as "the Mighty Cardinals"

They remain "the dirty birds" in my book, until their typical behavior changes.

[TheDOCTORdre]

I am certain that is exactly what I said. This protects both government and subscriber. What people fail to realize is that a public educational institution is "government" and funded by ALL tax payers. School taxes are not exclusive to Christian parents, thus the removal of religion from the classroom and from the field of play falls in line with this separation of Church and State. Jewish parents, Buddhist parents, Deist parents, Atheist parents, Agnostic parents, and God forbid Islamic parents all pay to fund the educational system. To me, it seems logical that all religions should be protected and none promoted in this atmosphere. This isn't about pandering to Islam or being politically correct, but points towards being respectful of others beliefs and their monies support of a government funded institution. I understand a "point to the sky" to thank God is not a promotion of a religion and should not be punished as an infraction, but any school promotion of a religion (prayer, God, Etc.) should be a no go.

If you want your God to be advocated in school, then pony up the money and send your kids to a Christian School. Stop whining and put your money where your faith is....

I actually pretty much agree with this

[Tejastrue]

I think everyone here understands the concept and reasoning for the separation of Church and State but it's getting to the point where self expression will be obsolete in our public school systems. Political correctness is a major contributor.

[Old Tiger]

I actually pretty much agree with this

Now days everybody wanna talk like they got somethin to say...but nothin comes out when they move their lips...just a bunch of jibberish....and people forgot about dre

[rockdale80]

I think everyone here understands the concept and reasoning for the separation of Church and State but it's getting to the point where self expression will be obsolete in our public school systems. Political correctness is a major contributor.

Ridiculous. Students can pray independently but the school cannot advocate a Christian position with a morning classroom or all school prayer. Students can talk about their faith but the school cannot teach it. There is a difference in expressing ones beliefs and the school advocating it.

What you just said is simply not true...

[pancho villa]

After reading this whole thread I see there are a lot of self-righteous numbuts on here.

[Tejastrue]

Ridiculous. Students can pray independently but the school cannot advocate a Christian position with a morning classroom or all school prayer. Students can talk about their faith but the school cannot teach it. There is a difference in expressing ones beliefs and the school advocating it.

What you just said is simply not true...


Self expression goes far beyond the religious aspect.

[Tejastrue]

After reading this whole thread I see there are a lot of self-righteous numbuts on here.

Says the great El Rey

[sweetwater07]

oh no not the local news!!!

http://i.imgur.com/Pn3UX.gif


i couldn't care less about this story, however, Old Tiger...your signature is HILARIOUS....i've watched it at least a dozen times

[ronwx5x]

I grew up in the era of school prayer at every football game. Don't think it made me a better person.

[Farmersfan]

I find scripture after scripture after scripture that would indicate a person should pray always and pray within themselves. I cannot find a single passage that would re-enforce the standard Christian ideology that we must pray as a group and in public. In fact, Mathew repeatedly admonishes us to not be like the hypocrites and pray in public.

Matthew 6:5 ESV /

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."

Matthew 6:1-34 ESV /

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...

Matthew 6:6 ESV /

"But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."


Sources: http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_in_public



I'm thinking the whole "Pray in school" movement is nothing more than an effort to forward the Christian political agenda and really has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom. Can anyone provide scripture that supports the public prayer or would indicate that it is even desirable to do so?

[Weebe]

Absolutely correct. It's funny how they just shifted their argument when the original topic turned out to be bogus.

[Weebe]

After reading this whole thread I see there are a lot of self-righteous numbuts on here.


Above post was meant as reply to this.

[regaleagle]

I think there is no question that we as a society here in the U.S. have endured some extreme Christian bashing over the past two decade from groups that would like to see our educational system teach our children that there is NO GOD to trust in. To have a godless America is to dismantle the entire fabric of what this country stands for, not to mention equal rights for all men. The spindoctors can spin it how you want.....but the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have slowly been taken away from the individual in this country and that ideology will continue UNLESS those that oppose such indoctrination(the silent majority) speak out against it. Yes, in some instances the "silent majority" has overreacted to a situation that made the news, but in no way has this harmed or wronged any particular person or instituion like those who want to make our children believe there is no God would want you to think it has. Clear minds can see clearly, and confusion is the weapon of the enemy. Take it for what it is.....nonsense.

[Macarthur]

I find scripture after scripture after scripture that would indicate a person should pray always and pray within themselves. I cannot find a single passage that would re-enforce the standard Christian ideology that we must pray as a group and in public. In fact, Mathew repeatedly admonishes us to not be like the hypocrites and pray in public.

Matthew 6:5 ESV /

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."

Matthew 6:1-34 ESV /

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...

Matthew 6:6 ESV /

"But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."


Sources: http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_in_public



I'm thinking the whole "Pray in school" movement is nothing more than an effort to forward the Christian political agenda and really has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom. Can anyone provide scripture that supports the public prayer or would indicate that it is even desirable to do so?

Quite frankly one of the best posts I've ever read on this board. Good stuff, FF.

[Macarthur]

I think there is no question that we as a society here in the U.S. have endured some extreme Christian bashing over the past two decade from groups that would like to see our educational system teach our children that there is NO GOD to trust in.

Can you give some examples? I really don't like sweeping generalizations without some sort of basis.

I also find this victim mindset interesting. Folks of faith love to reference the fact that, depending on which poll you read, the percentage of Christians in this country is somewhere around 85%. If that's true, then who are these people taking things away? These teachers that are teaching our kids that there is no God are all in that 15% that are not Christians? I can tell you this, virtually every teacher my kid has had had all sorts of Christian references all over their classroom (crosses, etc.). So who is doing this?


To have a godless America is to dismantle the entire fabric of what this country stands for, not to mention equal rights for all men.

Again, what is the basis for this? This is a huge statement. What the heck are you talking about?


The spindoctors can spin it how you want.....but the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have slowly been taken away from the individual in this country and that ideology will continue UNLESS those that oppose such indoctrination(the silent majority) speak out against it.

There may be some real truth to this, but what does this have to do with God. Don't all of these politicians that we elect claim to be followers of God?


Yes, in some instances the "silent majority" has overreacted to a situation that made the news, but in no way has this harmed or wronged any particular person or instituion like those who want to make our children believe there is no God would want you to think it has. Clear minds can see clearly, and confusion is the weapon of the enemy. Take it for what it is.....nonsense.

Can you elaborate? I have no idea what this means?

[BEAST]

The problem with society today started many moons ago in my opinion, and it started with good intentions. My grandparents, as most of yalls did, came straight through the depression. It literally rocked the foundation of this country. But, as America always does, we climbed out of that mess. The adults of that age worked extremely hard, harder than most of us have ever worked, just to put food on the table. As time went on, those folks began slowly but surely to get ahead, little by little. In this time the adults began working and putting money away for the sake of their children. They wanted their childrens generation to have it better than they did. To their credit it worked. Every generation since then has had it "better" then the one before them. The problem is, todays generation dont understand or respect just how hard it was to get to this point. Hard work is something most youth these days know little about. Is it their fault? No. Why? Because we as parents want to give them the things we didnt have. Parents these days work crazy hours and live hectic lives. There is just not enough hours in the day anymore. Not enough time to spend real quality time with the kids we have. To share with them what is real and what matters. I think we should all slow down just a little bit and realize it is ok if our kids have it exactly how we had it. Here is the kicker, I am as guilty or more guilty as anyone.




BEAST

[regaleagle]

I don't think any further elaboration is necessary at this juncture. I'm not into debating this topic with those that support the deterioration of our individual rights in this country. You seem to be a somewhat intelligent person.....so draw upon some of that knowledge and I'm sure you will have no problem understanding my post. And btw, you have every right to disagree with it....as much as I have a right to disagree with some of your posts.

[Macarthur]

I don't think any further elaboration is necessary at this juncture. I'm not into debating this topic with those that support the deterioration of our individual rights in this country. You seem to be a somewhat intelligent person.....so draw upon some of that knowledge and I'm sure you will have no problem understanding my post. And btw, you have every right to disagree with it....as much as I have a right to disagree with some of your posts.

You're not into debating the topic but you can make sweeping generalizations without any explaination of you thought process?

And who says I will disagree? I may actually agree with some of your points. I actually agree that some of our liberties have gone away.

[regaleagle]

I prefaced my post with the words "I think". I am free to post any generalizations I deem to be peritinent to the subject as long as it is prefaced with my opinion. It is not my intention nor my obligation to debate, explain, or dissect my opinions on a subject , or to offer references. For those that read the post(s), it is their determination to take from that particular post what they may. To those that have understanding, I think the point has been made. For those that don't, no amount of debate will make a difference.

[Macarthur]

In other words, you don't really know why you said what you did. It's just something people like to say.

[regaleagle]

No, those are YOUR words, not others.

[Bullaholic]

Can you give some examples? I really don't like sweeping generalizations without some sort of basis.

I also find this victim mindset interesting. Folks of faith love to reference the fact that, depending on which poll you read, the percentage of Christians in this country is somewhere around 85%. If that's true, then who are these people taking things away? These teachers that are teaching our kids that there is no God are all in that 15% that are not Christians? I can tell you this, virtually every teacher my kid has had had all sorts of Christian references all over their classroom (crosses, etc.). So who is doing this?



Again, what is the basis for this? This is a huge statement. What the heck are you talking about?





There may be some real truth to this, but what does this have to do with God. Don't all of these politicians that we elect claim to be followers of God?





Can you elaborate? I have no idea what this means?


Mac, you are addressing regaleagle, but I will just jump in with one attempt to state what you probably already know:

Most Christians rely on their faith for answers to all things in life and beyond, including answering questions in religious discussions. They can only tell what they believe to others, but not always be able to provide proof of their beliefs to another's satisfaction. This is extremely dffiicult, and sometimes even infuriating, perhaps considered insulting to their intelligence, to non-believers who feel that Christians are trying to force their religious beliefs on other persons without any tangible evidence for the basis of their faith in an attempt to make converts. Therefore, it is extremely hard for Christians and non-Christians to "argue" religion or non-religion---there can only be statements of beliefs or opinions for hopefully, friendly, and enlightened discussion.

I am a Christian and I have always approached explaining my solicited beliefs to others on the basis of their wanting to know more about Christianity, and finding the beauty of it's message sufficient to want to know more, if I have done a good job of explaining my faith.

I have not ever, and do not consider myself above any man or woman, believer or non-believer, because of my faith.

[vet93]

Actually, these passages were a condemnation of hypocrites and the self righteous not necessarily corporate prayer in general. Jesus Himself prayed in front of people often. Both the old testatment and the new have examples of public prayers. If we are to "pray without ceasing" as is also mentioned in your source, then it would make sense that you may find yourself praying in a group. As is the case in most things involving what we do as Christians...it is a matter of the heart. If I am praying corporately so that you will see what a "good christian" I am or to show that I am in any way better than you, then I am sinning and I need to be quiet. However, if I am earnestly praying for the protection and betterment of others and my heart is inclined towards God and not man then I am not sinning and it does not matter whether I am praying in a closet or before thousands. You can also sin in your "prayer closet" if your motives are wrong as well. This question is about what is driving our prayer not whether we are in the prescence of others or not.



I find scripture after scripture after scripture that would indicate a person should pray always and pray within themselves. I cannot find a single passage that would re-enforce the standard Christian ideology that we must pray as a group and in public. In fact, Mathew repeatedly admonishes us to not be like the hypocrites and pray in public.

Matthew 6:5 ESV /

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."

Matthew 6:1-34 ESV /

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...

Matthew 6:6 ESV /

"But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."


Sources: http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_in_public



I'm thinking the whole "Pray in school" movement is nothing more than an effort to forward the Christian political agenda and really has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom. Can anyone provide scripture that supports the public prayer or would indicate that it is even desirable to do so?

[Macarthur]

Mac, you are addressing regaleagle, but I will just jump in with one attempt to state what you probably already know:

Most Christians rely on their faith for answers to all things in life and beyond, including answering questions in religious discussions. They can only tell what they believe to others, but not always be able to provide proof of their beliefs to another's satisfaction. This is extremely dffiicult, and sometimes even infuriating, perhaps considered insulting to their intelligence, to non-believers who feel that Christians are trying to force their religious beliefs on other persons without any tangible evidence for the basis of their faith in an attempt to make converts. Therefore, it is extremely hard for Christians and non-Christians to "argue" religion or non-religion---there can only be statements of beliefs or opinions for hopefully, friendly, and enlightened discussion.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have had countless discussions with folks and both parties have remained immensely respectful of each other. I don't consider it arguing. I don't argue about such things. I like to have discussions.

I respect greatly the world view of those of faith.

What I have some issues with, in regards to regaleagle, is making sweeping generalizations and not being willing to have some educated response when someone asked you to elaborate. Especially, when the views tend to have, on their face, some level of contradiction.

[bobcat1]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have had countless discussions with folks and both parties have remained immensely respectful of each other. I don't consider it arguing. I don't argue about such things. I like to have discussions.

I respect greatly the world view of those of faith.

What I have some issues with, in regards to regaleagle, is making sweeping generalizations and not being willing to have some educated response when someone asked you to elaborate. Especially, when the views tend to have, on their face, some level of contradiction.

So does this mean you like to argue

[Macarthur]

So does this mean you like to argue

huh?

Do you actually read all of the posts or do you just focus on one sentence and then hit the reply button?

[bobcat1]

huh?

Do you actually read all of the posts or do you just focus on one sentence and then hit the reply button? I have read every post in this thread Mac but I did not notice any rules posted that said I had to read them all to post on it. Do you care to back up that statement you just made with some facts or were you forming an opinion based on your beliefs?

Discuss, debate, discount another's faith based beliefs, and their own opinions formed through common sense all = Arguing to me and that is my opinion of you. You seem to seek out ways to find fault or discredit others= fault finder. A contrarian if you will. I base my opinion of you on your past, present and what I perceive to be your future unless you change. :taunt:

[Bullaholic]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have had countless discussions with folks and both parties have remained immensely respectful of each other. I don't consider it arguing. I don't argue about such things. I like to have discussions.

I respect greatly the world view of those of faith.

What I have some issues with, in regards to regaleagle, is making sweeping generalizations and not being willing to have some educated response when someone asked you to elaborate. Especially, when the views tend to have, on their face, some level of contradiction.

I did not intend to imply that you don't show respect for other's beliefs, but rather why some find it hard to understand some Christian explanations of their beliefs when they make a heated argument to change another's mind instead of their heart.

I defer to Vet 93, who I greatly respect, and who does a much better job of giving more precise explanations of Christian beliefs than I.

[Macarthur]

I have read every post in this thread Mac but I did not notice any rules posted that said I had to read them all to post on it. Do you care to back up that statement you just made with some facts or were you forming an opinion based on your beliefs?

What I meant was all of the post you are critiquing. You asked a question when I already answered it in the post you were questioning. Do you read all of a particular post before you go off half cocked?


Discuss, debate, discount another's faith based beliefs, and their own opinions formed through common sense all = Arguing to me

I've disagreed with many folks on these boards. Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong.

The issue is when someone makes some sort of statement, they need to be able to give some sort of reasonable defense. If it truly is an opinion formed by common sense, then it should be easy to explain.


and that is my opinion of you. You seem to seek out ways to find fault or discredit others= fault finder. A contrarian if you will. I base my opinion of you on your past, present and what I perceive to be your future unless you change. :taunt:

You certainly can have that opinion. However, I have had many very reasonable converstations with many posters on here. And I also, unless you would like to prove me otherwise, have NEVER resorted to childish name calling and personal attacks, which is more than I can say for others on this board.

If someone holds some opinions or beliefs strongly, they should be able to carry on a reasonable conversation. It's when people are insecure about that belief or opinion when they resort to diversions.

[Tejastrue]

Found it on the internet so....

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

[bobcat1]

What I meant was all of the post you are critiquing. You asked a question when I already answered it in the post you were questioning. Do you read all of a particular post before you go off half cocked? I assume that is your opinion?




I've disagreed with many folks on these boards. Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong. But you really don't know, right?


The issue is when someone makes some sort of statement, they need to be able to give some sort of reasonable defense. If it truly is an opinion formed by common sense, then it should be easy to explain. But when they say that is opinion, don't you then ask for chapter and verse? That is what I mean by being a contrarian.




You certainly can have that opinion. However, I have had many very reasonable converstations with many posters on here. And I also, unless you would like to prove me otherwise, have NEVER resorted to childish name calling and personal attacks, which is more than I can say for others on this board. I'll agree with you on this but you never concede a point. In your opinion you are right and others are..... not as educated in their answers. That's the aire with which you respond in my opinion.


If someone holds some opinions or beliefs strongly, they should be able to carry on a reasonable conversation. It's when people are insecure about that belief or opinion when they resort to diversions. They can only carry on a reasonable conversation with a reasonable man, right?

[bobcat1]

Found it on the internet so....

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

Very good article Tejastrue.:2thumbsup

[regaleagle]

Thank you for your enlightened response, Tejastrue. Unfortunately, I'm not as adept in searching the internet or even using this tool to the capacity it holds. But that's not to say that others cannot search and find some of the answers for themselves if they are so inclined. Actually, it's easier to be "reclined" than inclined these days, lol.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Actually, these passages were a condemnation of hypocrites and the self righteous not necessarily corporate prayer in general. Jesus Himself prayed in front of people often. Both the old testatment and the new have examples of public prayers. If we are to "pray without ceasing" as is also mentioned in your source, then it would make sense that you may find yourself praying in a group. As is the case in most things involving what we do as Christians...it is a matter of the heart. If I am praying corporately so that you will see what a "good christian" I am or to show that I am in any way better than you, then I am sinning and I need to be quiet. However, if I am earnestly praying for the protection and betterment of others and my heart is inclined towards God and not man then I am not sinning and it does not matter whether I am praying in a closet or before thousands. You can also sin in your "prayer closet" if your motives are wrong as well. This question is about what is driving our prayer not whether we are in the prescence of others or not.

:clap:

[Old Tiger]

I blame the Illuminati


Sent from Heaven using Tapatalk

[Macarthur]

I'll agree with you on this but you never concede a point.

That is simply not true.

[Macarthur]

Nm......

[Manso/V8]

That is simply not true.

Catch-22

Like that time you thought you might have been wrong, but then realized your were mistaken.

[Tejastrue]

Very good article Tejastrue.:2thumbsup

Thanks Bobcat and Regal. Hopefully everyone who shared in this thread took the time to read the article. I fully expected it to be bisected then dissected by now but it is still early. Sometimes it seems Madelyn Ohare is alive and well, incognito, and hangin with the Downlow. Just kidding people!!



Thank you for your enlightened response, Tejastrue. Unfortunately, I'm not as adept in searching the internet or even using this tool to the capacity it holds. But that's not to say that others cannot search and find some of the answers for themselves if they are so inclined. Actually, it's easier to be "reclined" than inclined these days, lol.



Regal..that's no excuse. It's not that hard. Two words... enter and net. Now these next two words might be a little more difficult..dot and matrix. Put them all together with your high speed dial up (through your phone line) and you have a network and sharing center. I love the new technology!! FYI..I've had the same aol account and e-mail since 1992. LOL...

[Manso/V8]

FYI..I've had the same aol account and e-mail since 1992. LOL...

Interesting, I always took you for a Compuserve kind of guy.

[Tejastrue]

No sir..I'm not quite as old as you...:wave:

[Macarthur]

Thanks Bobcat and Regal. Hopefully everyone who shared in this thread took the time to read the article. I fully expected it to be bisected then dissected by now but it is still early. Sometimes it seems Madelyn Ohare is alive and well, incognito, and hangin with the Downlow. Just kidding people!!
..

Of course you know anyone can find in 30 seconds a dozen articles that have a very differenttake than that article.

The bottom line is that most of the founders were christian but the folks that were the most adamant about the government staying out of church, and vise versa, are the folks that were fleein what was happ ening in England. It makes no sense for them to come over here and set up a similar system.

[Macarthur]

The main thing to realize about this issue is that it is very complex and nuanced. It is not something that can be given proper attention by a 1000 word article.

If you are really interested in this subject, I would suggest a book by David Holmes, the faiths of our founding fathers. Hes the chair of religious studies at William and Mary so he's not some heathen infidel. :)

[Farmersfan]

I think there is no question that we as a society here in the U.S. have endured some extreme Christian bashing over the past two decade from groups that would like to see our educational system teach our children that there is NO GOD to trust in. To have a godless America is to dismantle the entire fabric of what this country stands for, not to mention equal rights for all men. The spindoctors can spin it how you want.....but the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have slowly been taken away from the individual in this country and that ideology will continue UNLESS those that oppose such indoctrination(the silent majority) speak out against it. Yes, in some instances the "silent majority" has overreacted to a situation that made the news, but in no way has this harmed or wronged any particular person or instituion like those who want to make our children believe there is no God would want you to think it has. Clear minds can see clearly, and confusion is the weapon of the enemy. Take it for what it is.....nonsense.




Perhaps this is God testing your faith? A mean having to endure 2 full decades of negative TALK after 200 decades of being in control with very little intolerance and repeated outrageous practices against your fellow man in the name of your "faith" seems a bit much for someone to have to deal with. Don't you agree? ;)

[Farmersfan]

The problem with society today started many moons ago in my opinion, and it started with good intentions. My grandparents, as most of yalls did, came straight through the depression. It literally rocked the foundation of this country. But, as America always does, we climbed out of that mess. The adults of that age worked extremely hard, harder than most of us have ever worked, just to put food on the table. As time went on, those folks began slowly but surely to get ahead, little by little. In this time the adults began working and putting money away for the sake of their children. They wanted their childrens generation to have it better than they did. To their credit it worked. Every generation since then has had it "better" then the one before them. The problem is, todays generation dont understand or respect just how hard it was to get to this point. Hard work is something most youth these days know little about. Is it their fault? No. Why? Because we as parents want to give them the things we didnt have. Parents these days work crazy hours and live hectic lives. There is just not enough hours in the day anymore. Not enough time to spend real quality time with the kids we have. To share with them what is real and what matters. I think we should all slow down just a little bit and realize it is ok if our kids have it exactly how we had it. Here is the kicker, I am as guilty or more guilty as anyone.




BEAST


Great post Beast! I agree.

[buff4ever]

Of course you know anyone can find in 30 seconds a dozen articles that have a very differenttake than that article.

The bottom line is that most of the founders were christian but the folks that were the most adamant about the government staying out of church, and vise versa, are the folks that were fleein what was happ ening in England. It makes no sense for them to come over here and set up a similar system.

The dozen articles can be like many others, a later interpretation of what the author wants to believe was the intention of the founding fathers. The problem with your statement is that the many interpretations of what later authors want to believe and readers to think, doesn't change the quotes of the men in that article. They didn't want what happened in England, you are right, but that doesn't mean they were abandoning Christianity either.

[Macarthur]

The dozen articles can be like many others, a later interpretation of what the author wants to believe was the intention of the founding fathers. The problem with your statement is that the many interpretations of what later authors want to believe and readers to think, doesn't change the quotes of the men in that article. They didn't want what happened in England, you are right, but that doesn't mean they were abandoning Christianity either.

But quotes have to have context, also.

You could find a Jefferson quote that is pro Christianity and I could find an equal number of Jefferson quotes that were anti Christianity.

Christians like to use context when discussing the bible. Same goes with all these quotes you love to use.

If you want to get into a quote battle of the founders, we can do that but it's probably not going to resolve anything.

[Tejastrue]

Of course you know anyone can find in 30 seconds a dozen articles that have a very differenttake than that article.

The bottom line is that most of the founders were christian but the folks that were the most adamant about the government staying out of church, and vise versa, are the folks that were fleein what was happ ening in England. It makes no sense for them to come over here and set up a similar system.

You have to admit...it was a pretty good article in defense. I'll be honest..in today's society, there are so many things I despise about mainstream Christianity, especially the media driven evangelists. The early acts 'in the name of God' of both the Church of England and Europe were disgusting. It was obvious that the separation was needed. I suspect that most that fled for religious persecution was not because they rejected religion but because they wanted the choice of how to embrace their faith and not be burdened or condemned by the holier than thou priests of that era.

I'll pick up the book you have suggested and try to read it with an open mind. I highly doubt it will change my perspective.


I think we need to subtitle this thread "Newton's 3rd Law"

[Macarthur]

You have to admit...it was a pretty good article in defense. I'll be honest..in today's society, there are so many things I despise about mainstream Christianity, especially the media driven evangelists. The early acts 'in the name of God' of both the Church of England and Europe were disgusting. It was obvious that the separation was needed. I suspect that most that fled for religious persecution was not because they rejected religion but because they wanted the choice of how to embrace their faith and not be burdened or condemned by the holier than thou priests of that era.

I'll pick up the book you have suggested and try to read it with an open mind. I highly doubt it will change my perspective.


I think we need to subtitle this thread "Newton's 3rd Law"

I don't doubt that the quotes in the article are accurate. Many of the founders we devout but making that jump to this being formed as a Christian nation and government is huge. Again, I can post equally impressive articles that actually have a bibliography, which I notice was missing from that article.

Pick up that book... You'll find it interesting.

[Tejastrue]

I blame the Illuminati


Sent from Heaven using Tapatalk


Then here's the church for you...:wave:

http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/

[Tejastrue]

No sir..I'm not quite as old as you...:wave:


I retract this comment. I am indeed your elder.

Happy Birthday Manso!

[Manso/V8]

I retract this comment. I am indeed your elder.

Happy Birthday Manso!

I still got plenty of time to plant trees!

.......but I do wish I had planted a few more 20 years ago.

[Farmersfan]

Most Christians rely on their faith for answers to all things in life and beyond, including answering questions in religious discussions. They can only tell what they believe to others, but not always be able to provide proof of their beliefs to another's satisfaction. This is extremely dffiicult, and sometimes even infuriating, perhaps considered insulting to their intelligence, to non-believers who feel that Christians are trying to force their religious beliefs on other persons without any tangible evidence for the basis of their faith in an attempt to make converts. Therefore, it is extremely hard for Christians and non-Christians to "argue" religion or non-religion---there can only be statements of beliefs or opinions for hopefully, friendly, and enlightened discussion. .


Is there a place in modern society for policy or rules that are founded on nothing but "faith"? I would say no. If you look at the long history of our species when ruled by "faith" I think you would agree. Most of the discussions you mentioned between believers and non-believers stem from some social activity or propaganda that influences us all and not just Christians alone. My only point on this subject now and always has been that if someone wants or expects to be taken seriously they MUST provide a foundation for their ideas or beliefs. Any ideology worthwhile for EVERYONE must be succinct and rational. Christians aren't exempt from this regardless of how much they wish it were so. The day where a person could demand his beliefs be taken seriously because they are religious in nature is quickly going away. As society advances and our knowledge of the universe grows this requirement for justification grows exponentially. The burden of proof or justification that falls on Christianity increases with every passing day. More and more people are beginning to understand what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”. I don't mean to keep harping on this same quote but in reality it completely encompasses this debate over whether or not religion should have a seat at the table when public policy is being drawn up. Good points though!
[/QUOTE]

[Farmersfan]

Actually, these passages were a condemnation of hypocrites and the self righteous not necessarily corporate prayer in general. Jesus Himself prayed in front of people often. Both the old testatment and the new have examples of public prayers. If we are to "pray without ceasing" as is also mentioned in your source, then it would make sense that you may find yourself praying in a group. As is the case in most things involving what we do as Christians...it is a matter of the heart. If I am praying corporately so that you will see what a "good christian" I am or to show that I am in any way better than you, then I am sinning and I need to be quiet. However, if I am earnestly praying for the protection and betterment of others and my heart is inclined towards God and not man then I am not sinning and it does not matter whether I am praying in a closet or before thousands. You can also sin in your "prayer closet" if your motives are wrong as well. This question is about what is driving our prayer not whether we are in the prescence of others or not.




No! Actually these passage were a DIRECTIVE from God that you shall not be like the hypocrites. They describe what the hypocrites like to do and admonish you to not do that. You can chose to take the words literally or slant them to serve your purpose but it's pretty obvious to everyone what the intent is. A desire to stand and pray in public so that others can see you is not what God wants. Unless you feel a group prayer at a football game is more effective than a private prayer for the same purpose then the "To be seen" mentality is the ONLY REASON for a group prayer desire. You might think a group prayer promotes God in some way but the basis for this thought is still a desire for others to WITNESS or SEE the prayer. Can you give another reason for someone to want to pray at a public venue, in the open and with everyone silent and listening?

[vet93]

I am sorry to disagree, but had Jesus meant that we were not to pray in public he would not have put the qualifier to "not be like the hypocrites". He would have simply told us to not pray in public because it is a sin. In other words, he gave us a very specific reason why these folks were in error when they were praying in front of everyone. It was not because they were praying with other people present; it was because they were doing so to elevate themselves before others. There are many, many reasons to pray corporately that have absolutely nothing to do with sinning or elevating oneself above others. We pray corporately to give others comfort and assurance in a time of need (funerals, group events) , we unite in prayer together to give thanksgiving for God's provision as a people, we pray together as families to recognize God's supremacy in our family life and to help teach our children how to pray (Just like Jesus taught the disciples to pray when he taught them the Model Prayer), we pray to unite our hearts as one in intercession for an individual, group, nation or our world. I am not diminishing our own responsibilities to commune with God privately (very important), nor am i diminishing a personal conviction that you may have to only pray by yourself (that is certainly your right and I respect that). However, when you apply the full counsel of God and you look at other aspects of Christian life which clearly command the group dynamic (worshiping the Lord in song, fellowshipping together as a group, working together to help others, and working together to advance the gospel), it is plain that there is not a restriction on praying in public when a person's motives or genuine and inclined toward God. As a matter of fact, chastising someone for praying in public when their motives are pure is akin to David’s wife, Michal, chastising David because he was dancing before the Lord and being undignified before the people…we all know how that worked out for Michal.


No! Actually these passage were a DIRECTIVE from God that you shall not be like the hypocrites. They describe what the hypocrites like to do and admonish you to not do that. You can chose to take the words literally or slant them to serve your purpose but it's pretty obvious to everyone what the intent is. A desire to stand and pray in public so that others can see you is not what God wants. Unless you feel a group prayer at a football game is more effective than a private prayer for the same purpose then the "To be seen" mentality is the ONLY REASON for a group prayer desire. You might think a group prayer promotes God in some way but the basis for this thought is still a desire for others to WITNESS or SEE the prayer. Can you give another reason for someone to want to pray at a public venue, in the open and with everyone silent and listening?

[Manso/V8]

Lighten up.

[Farmersfan]

I am sorry to disagree, but had Jesus meant that we were not to pray in public he would not have put the qualifier to "not be like the hypocrites". He would have simply told us to not pray in public because it is a sin. In other words, he gave us a very specific reason why these folks were in error when they were praying in front of everyone. It was not because they were praying with other people present; it was because they were doing so to elevate themselves before others. There are many, many reasons to pray corporately that have absolutely nothing to do with sinning or elevating oneself above others. We pray corporately to give others comfort and assurance in a time of need (funerals, group events) , we unite in prayer together to give thanksgiving for God's provision as a people, we pray together as families to recognize God's supremacy in our family life and to help teach our children how to pray (Just like Jesus taught the disciples to pray when he taught them the Model Prayer), we pray to unite our hearts as one in intercession for an individual, group, nation or our world. I am not diminishing our own responsibilities to commune with God privately (very important), nor am i diminishing a personal conviction that you may have to only pray by yourself (that is certainly your right and I respect that). However, when you apply the full counsel of God and you look at other aspects of Christian life which clearly command the group dynamic (worshiping the Lord in song, fellowshipping together as a group, working together to help others, and working together to advance the gospel), it is plain that there is not a restriction on praying in public when a person's motives or genuine and inclined toward God. As a matter of fact, chastising someone for praying in public when their motives are pure is akin to David’s wife, Michal, chastising David because he was dancing before the Lord and being undignified before the people…we all know how that worked out for Michal.




OK, fair enough! My point is made. What part of all your post above could not be equally accomplished without the public prayer at a football game or in school? I was not so much commenting on whether or not you are right or wrong in wanting a public prayer. My comment was to illustrate that to REQUIRE others accept the public prayer as a exercise of your freedom of religion is a misleading and incorrect assumption. Unless your religion REQUIRES a public group prayer at a football game then it seems you have some alternative options that accomplish the exact same thing and serves the same purposes in the eyes of God so the desire for a public prayer is no more a valid desire than someone who wants to sing Irish drinking songs over the PA at a football game.

[Macarthur]

My comment was to illustrate that to REQUIRE others accept the public prayer as a exercise of your freedom of religion is a misleading and incorrect assumption. Unless your religion REQUIRES a public group prayer at a football game then it seems you have some alternative options that accomplish the exact same thing and serves the same purposes in the eyes of God so the desire for a public prayer is no more a valid desire than someone who wants to sing Irish drinking songs over the PA at a football game.

Again, excellent point.

[regaleagle]

So which is it??? Are you arguing against public prayer in general or against those that would practice prayer in public because of their faith? What about the prayer given by our government in a session of Congress? What about the public prayer given at a new Presidential Inauguration? Are you saying these displays of public prayer should be abolished as well? Sounds to me like you want to bake your cake, but not eat it. I really don't digest your points because they are really not wholly true....even though you are very adept at attempting to make some sort of logic out of them. You may be able to sway some with your points, but these discussions also allow for those same readers to gain knowledge from people of faith as well, esp, from those that have the knowledge and skill sets to challenge the debates of those that are non-Christian in faith or have no belief in God whatsoever.

[TheDOCTORdre]

OK, fair enough! My point is made. What part of all your post above could not be equally accomplished without the public prayer at a football game or in school? I was not so much commenting on whether or not you are right or wrong in wanting a public prayer. My comment was to illustrate that to REQUIRE others accept the public prayer as a exercise of your freedom of religion is a misleading and incorrect assumption. Unless your religion REQUIRES a public group prayer at a football game then it seems you have some alternative options that accomplish the exact same thing and serves the same purposes in the eyes of God so the desire for a public prayer is no more a valid desire than someone who wants to sing Irish drinking songs over the PA at a football game.

So you're problem isn't so much with Christian's desiring to pray together corporately or even doing so as long as they do not insist on making it mandatory for others to do so with them? Just making sure I'm understanding your stance

[catfish]

Certainly sounds like a good Christian lad.

[Tejastrue]

Heard the Pope declared him a Saint.

[Farmersfan]

So which is it??? Are you arguing against public prayer in general or against those that would practice prayer in public because of their faith? What about the prayer given by our government in a session of Congress? What about the public prayer given at a new Presidential Inauguration? Are you saying these displays of public prayer should be abolished as well? Sounds to me like you want to bake your cake, but not eat it. I really don't digest your points because they are really not wholly true....even though you are very adept at attempting to make some sort of logic out of them. You may be able to sway some with your points, but these discussions also allow for those same readers to gain knowledge from people of faith as well, esp, from those that have the knowledge and skill sets to challenge the debates of those that are non-Christian in faith or have no belief in God whatsoever.




I think my argument is against a Christian's ability to claim something as a right of their free expression of religion when their expression of said religion can be shown as contradictory to the religion they are expressing. Wow! That was a mouth full! Unless it can be justified in some way then it can't be and should not be taken seriously by society. I believe this is what society is finally beginning to understand. A open, public prayer at a football game for instance cannot be justify in any sense of the word from the Holy Bible. Of course a very loose, cherry picked requirement can be conjured up by individuals just as was done on this forum a few posts back. That is fine and good when it influences or impacts you or yours but when it influences those that I love then I have a fundamental right to demand a justification for it.
I think we all have either used the term "Because I said so" to our children or had parents use it to us. As a response to our own children this will usually work because there is a inherent authority that a parent is exercising towards their children. But "Because I said so" will never work towards another adult in a discussion where there isn't an existing authority. If a Christian demands acceptance of a idea or a belief based on faith alone then they are in essence saying "Because I said so" to the rest of society. "Faith" for all that it encompasses is completely valueless to those who don't share in the same ideology. Therefore it cannot be a foundation for setting public policy meant for EVERYBODY. Does that make sense?
I could talk all day long about the way that most modern Christians are so selective about their dogma as to render the dogma completely ineffective as a tool to justify a belief but that is another discussion for another time.

[Farmersfan]

So you're problem isn't so much with Christian's desiring to pray together corporately or even doing so as long as they do not insist on making it mandatory for others to do so with them? Just making sure I'm understanding your stance




I personally don't have a problem with a public prayer at a football game. I was raised in a time and place where this was the norm. I have no problem remaining silent and allowing this practice. Where my issues start is when Christians speak up that this practice IS THEIR RIGHT. Let's forget for a moment that even the Bible that Christians are supposed to follow doesn't indicate that this prayer is needed or desired and let's concentrate on the fact that even if Christians have been able to convince themselves that a public prayer at a sporting event is the free exercise of their religious rights we can show how these very same Christians have intelligently chosen to ignore a huge portion of the same dogma that produced the prayer requirement in the first place. It's kind of selective religious need. For example: If you come to me and demand the opportunity to kneel and face East (towards Mecca) because it is required by your religion I must respect that, right? But what if that same religion requires that you wear a head piece that covers everything but your eyes and you have chosen to not participate in that part of it? I can rightfully claim that your demands are selective and that your expression of religion is based on personal desire and not on dogma. At that point you have lost all claim to respect and tolerance from others. Of course this is my opinion only. If you don't follow ALL of your religion's dogma then you can't demand tolerance for the cherry picked personal favorites. That's all I have been trying to say.

[vet93]

Christians are not contradicting themselves when they pray in groups or public. Non-Christians want to rip Jesus' quotes screaming out of context in order to prove a self-serving point...that is to keep Christians quiet regarding prayer. I will reiterate, Jesus' rebuke in Matthew was aimed at the self-righteous and the hypocrite, not at group prayers. In Luke 12, Jesus encounters the exact same situation and comments on the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee, not on praying in public. If you look at these two situations that are very similar, Jesus is consistent in his rebuke of the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee or scribe. If what you are saying is true regarding praying only when you are by yourself, then Jesus violated His own directive by asking a group of the disciples to come pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were singing and praying aloud in prison…how dare they! All of the sudden, an earthquake delivered them from bondage…don’t you think that God would take a dim view of their ostentatious display of “Public Prayer” if he had a problem with it? If he was concerned about their terrible sin in this matter, I can assure you that He would not have delivered them from prison. The whole book of Psalms is a collection of prayers put to music to be sang or recited aloud for goodness sake.

While I understand that you may not desire or think that group prayer is in any way beneficial, quite honestly, many people of faith derive a great deal of comfort and support from a group prayer, including when we pray at a school or government function. If the prayer does not hurt the non-believer (other than taking 30 seconds out of their day), but does help a great number of people that gain encouragement, peace and or comfort from that prayer, then it makes me wonder why someone would seek to deny someone else the ability to hear something that benefits such a large segment of our population.




I think my argument is against a Christian's ability to claim something as a right of their free expression of religion when their expression of said religion can be shown as contradictory to the religion they are expressing. Wow! That was a mouth full! Unless it can be justified in some way then it can't be and should not be taken seriously by society. I believe this is what society is finally beginning to understand. A open, public prayer at a football game for instance cannot be justify in any sense of the word from the Holy Bible. Of course a very loose, cherry picked requirement can be conjured up by individuals just as was done on this forum a few posts back. That is fine and good when it influences or impacts you or yours but when it influences those that I love then I have a fundamental right to demand a justification for it.
I think we all have either used the term "Because I said so" to our children or had parents use it to us. As a response to our own children this will usually work because there is a inherent authority that a parent is exercising towards their children. But "Because I said so" will never work towards another adult in a discussion where there isn't an existing authority. If a Christian demands acceptance of a idea or a belief based on faith alone then they are in essence saying "Because I said so" to the rest of society. "Faith" for all that it encompasses is completely valueless to those who don't share in the same ideology. Therefore it cannot be a foundation for setting public policy meant for EVERYBODY. Does that make sense?
I could talk all day long about the way that most modern Christians are so selective about their dogma as to render the dogma completely ineffective as a tool to justify a belief but that is another discussion for another time.

[Bullaholic]

Christians are not contradicting themselves when they pray in groups or public. Non-Christians want to rip Jesus' quotes screaming out of context in order to prove a self-serving point...that is to keep Christians quiet regarding prayer. I will reiterate, Jesus' rebuke in Matthew was aimed at the self-righteous and the hypocrite, not at group prayers. In Luke 12, Jesus encounters the exact same situation and comments on the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee, not on praying in public. If you look at these two situations that are very similar, Jesus is consistent in his rebuke of the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee or scribe. If what you are saying is true regarding praying only when you are by yourself, then Jesus violated His own directive by asking a group of the disciples to come pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were singing and praying aloud in prison…how dare they! All of the sudden, an earthquake delivered them from bondage…don’t you think that God would take a dim view of their ostentatious display of “Public Prayer” if he had a problem with it? If he was concerned about their terrible sin in this matter, I can assure you that He would not have delivered them from prison. The whole book of Psalms is a collection of prayers put to music to be sang or recited aloud for goodness sake.

While I understand that you may not desire or think that group prayer is in any way beneficial, quite honestly, many people of faith derive a great deal of comfort and support from a group prayer, including when we pray at a school or government function. If the prayer does not hurt the non-believer (other than taking 30 seconds out of their day), but does help a great number of people that gain encouragement, peace and or comfort from that prayer, then it makes me wonder why someone would seek to deny someone else the ability to hear something that benefits such a large segment of our population.

Vet93--I think you and I are on the same pages in our Bibles and our beliefs. I think the non-believer and non-Christian objections to prayer in public places, or government, are that, in the case of the non-believer, they believe that their right to freedom from prayer is being violated, and in the cases of non-Christians that the prayers are only of a Christian origin.

"For where two or three gather in My name....." , my friend....

[MUSTANG69]

I personally don't have a problem with a public prayer at a football game. I was raised in a time and place where this was the norm. I have no problem remaining silent and allowing this practice. Where my issues start is when Christians speak up that this practice IS THEIR RIGHT. Let's forget for a moment that even the Bible that Christians are supposed to follow doesn't indicate that this prayer is needed or desired and let's concentrate on the fact that even if Christians have been able to convince themselves that a public prayer at a sporting event is the free exercise of their religious rights we can show how these very same Christians have intelligently chosen to ignore a huge portion of the same dogma that produced the prayer requirement in the first place. It's kind of selective religious need. For example: If you come to me and demand the opportunity to kneel and face East (towards Mecca) because it is required by your religion I must respect that, right? But what if that same religion requires that you wear a head piece that covers everything but your eyes and you have chosen to not participate in that part of it? I can rightfully claim that your demands are selective and that your expression of religion is based on personal desire and not on dogma. At that point you have lost all claim to respect and tolerance from others. Of course this is my opinion only. If you don't follow ALL of your religion's dogma then you can't demand tolerance for the cherry picked personal favorites. That's all I have been trying to say.

I have been following this thread but have stayed out of the discussion because these type of debates are never ending. However, the third sentence of your post struck a nerve. Maybe your wording is not your real meaning. My question about the third sentence is: Where does your right to allow or disallow derive from?

[Farmersfan]

Christians are not contradicting themselves when they pray in groups or public. Non-Christians want to rip Jesus' quotes screaming out of context in order to prove a self-serving point...that is to keep Christians quiet regarding prayer. I will reiterate, Jesus' rebuke in Matthew was aimed at the self-righteous and the hypocrite, not at group prayers. In Luke 12, Jesus encounters the exact same situation and comments on the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee, not on praying in public. If you look at these two situations that are very similar, Jesus is consistent in his rebuke of the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisee or scribe. If what you are saying is true regarding praying only when you are by yourself, then Jesus violated His own directive by asking a group of the disciples to come pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were singing and praying aloud in prison…how dare they! All of the sudden, an earthquake delivered them from bondage…don’t you think that God would take a dim view of their ostentatious display of “Public Prayer” if he had a problem with it? If he was concerned about their terrible sin in this matter, I can assure you that He would not have delivered them from prison. The whole book of Psalms is a collection of prayers put to music to be sang or recited aloud for goodness sake.

While I understand that you may not desire or think that group prayer is in any way beneficial, quite honestly, many people of faith derive a great deal of comfort and support from a group prayer, including when we pray at a school or government function. If the prayer does not hurt the non-believer (other than taking 30 seconds out of their day), but does help a great number of people that gain encouragement, peace and or comfort from that prayer, then it makes me wonder why someone would seek to deny someone else the ability to hear something that benefits such a large segment of our population.





You've justified your opinion with a "Because I said so" argument. There is no way to measure how many people actually receive any comfort or pleasure from a group prayer. There is also no real way of knowing what percentage of them would receive the exact same comfort from a silent prayer or a prayer at home or in their own car before the game. Everything you just said is subjective and based on YOUR interpretation of the most ambiguous book ever written. Can you provide us with a number of people at a average high school football game that are aggravated or frustrated by having to sit through a public prayer when they honestly feel it is a complete waste of time? Of course not! Again, we are back to the fact that although you hold a prayer as a desirable and beneficial thing not everyone thinks of it that way. So in order for YOUR desires to trump my desires you must have a better justification for yours than mine. "Because I said so" isn't enough justification any more. It has been for 2000 years of our history but that is changing. You cannot purchase anything with a pocket full of faith from someone who doesn't value that faith. No respect! No tolerance! No understanding! The only way to do so is to make the faith valuable to the other person. So how do you make something that is worthless to a person appear to be valuable? The only way that i can see to do this is to set a viable justification or foundation for that faith. Religion has no ability to do that. And here we are!

[Farmersfan]

I have been following this thread but have stayed out of the discussion because these type of debates are never ending. However, the third sentence of your post struck a nerve. Maybe your wording is not your real meaning. My question about the third sentence is: Where does your right to allow or disallow derive from?





The laws of the land! The essential liberties that every human enjoys are based on and limit to what they can do without inflicting on others. We have passed laws to prevent one person from infringing on another person in every single avenue of life except in this one. So a rough translation of the First Amendment requirement for the Separation between church and state dictates that even the right of the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on the rights of others to NOT be subjected to this unwanted practice. In a public setting where a mixed group of people have gathered for a NON-RELIGIOUS event it is not socially or legally acceptable for one segment to inflict their own ideas or beliefs on the other segment if the inflicting is unwanted and unwelcome. This is where I get my authority to chose to tolerate or not tolerate. I can either tolerate the public prayer or I can exercise my rights and stand up and demand the authorities involved protect my rights. The confusion stems from the idea that Christians think they also have a RIGHT to pray in public. The last several pages have been directed at showing this really isn't a right but a desire. Desires don't hold the same protections that rights do.

[BEAST]

You've justified your opinion with a "Because I said so" argument. There is no way to measure how many people actually receive any comfort or pleasure from a group prayer. There is also no real way of knowing what percentage of them would receive the exact same comfort from a silent prayer or a prayer at home or in their own car before the game. Everything you just said is subjective and based on YOUR interpretation of the most ambiguous book ever written. Can you provide us with a number of people at a average high school football game that are aggravated or frustrated by having to sit through a public prayer when they honestly feel it is a complete waste of time? Of course not! Again, we are back to the fact that although you hold a prayer as a desirable and beneficial thing not everyone thinks of it that way. So in order for YOUR desires to trump my desires you must have a better justification for yours than mine. "Because I said so" isn't enough justification any more. It has been for 2000 years of our history but that is changing. You cannot purchase anything with a pocket full of faith from someone who doesn't value that faith. No respect! No tolerance! No understanding! The only way to do so is to make the faith valuable to the other person. So how do you make something that is worthless to a person appear to be valuable? The only way that i can see to do this is to set a viable justification or foundation for that faith. Religion has no ability to do that. And here we are!

Everything you just said in this post to vet93 could be said about your post above.




BEAST

[cougartino]

Proverbs 26:4-5
Sometimes you do. Sometimes you don't. ;)

[Tejastrue]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Public-Prayer-and-the-Founding-Fathers.html

[MUSTANG69]

The laws of the land! The essential liberties that every human enjoys are based on and limit to what they can do without inflicting on others. We have passed laws to prevent one person from infringing on another person in every single avenue of life except in this one. So a rough translation of the First Amendment requirement for the Separation between church and state dictates that even the right of the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on the rights of others to NOT be subjected to this unwanted practice. In a public setting where a mixed group of people have gathered for a NON-RELIGIOUS event it is not socially or legally acceptable for one segment to inflict their own ideas or beliefs on the other segment if the inflicting is unwanted and unwelcome. This is where I get my authority to chose to tolerate or not tolerate. I can either tolerate the public prayer or I can exercise my rights and stand up and demand the authorities involved protect my rights. The confusion stems from the idea that Christians think they also have a RIGHT to pray in public. The last several pages have been directed at showing this really isn't a right but a desire. Desires don't hold the same protections that rights do.

I questioned you because you used the word "I" as if you individually could put a stop to the praying.

[Macarthur]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Public-Prayer-and-the-Founding-Fathers.html

That is a terrible article. It brings absolutely nothing original to the discussion.

[Tejastrue]

That is a terrible article. It brings absolutely nothing original to the discussion.

Original? lol..

I did not realize the posts here had to meet your approval. I'll try to do better.

[Macarthur]

Original? lol..

I did not realize the posts here had to meet your approval. I'll try to do better.

Oh, get over yourself. That was a terrible article by a history professor at BAYLOR! Boy, that's an objective source. :dispntd:

[Tejastrue]

Having a bad day? Most of the comments on this thread show little objectivity. I guess I should feel honored that you have singled me out. It is obvious that you guys give little credibilty to people with any link to Christianity, faith, or religion, especially when it comes to historical knowledge of this country.

i got over myself a long, long time ago.

[Macarthur]

Having a bad day? Most of the comments on this thread show little objects ctivity. I guess I should feel honored that you have singled me out. It is obvious that you guys give little credibilty to people with any link to Christianity, faith, or religion, especially when it comes to historical knowledge of this country.

i got over myself a long, long time ago.

Its not so much about historical knowledge. He may very well have much more than me. I would hope he does given his position. Its about how the information is presented and what he is trying to accomplish. That article was very flimsy and you know it.

And it's not about him being a person of faith. The book I referenced a couple of posts back is by a guy that is over a divinity school.

As I said, the subject of faith as it relates to the beginnings of our country is very complex and just can't be given justice in some cute little 1000 word article.

[Manso/V8]

I am not taking sides on this exchange but it seems like Tejastrue is channelling Truman!

[Tejastrue]

I am not taking sides on this exchange but it seems like Tejastrue is channelling Truman!

:thinking: You care to elaborate on that?


You did remind me of a song though....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCQHqig-Uk

[Manso/V8]

:thinking: You care to elaborate on that?


You did remind me of a song though....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCQHqig-Uk

It was a joke, and if I have to elaborate, it's not funny. So I guess it wasn't funny.

Truman and Macarthur had a what developed in to a public argument about policiy and actioins in Korea.
Macarthur was going kind of rogue and was pressing to advance in to North Korea, Truman didn't want to, for fear of riling the Chinese.
Truman relieved Macarthur of his duties.

[Tejastrue]

It was a joke, and if I have to elaborate, it's not funny. So I guess it wasn't funny.

Truman and Macarthur had a what developed in to a public argument about policiy and actioins in Korea.
Macarthur was going kind of rogue and was pressing to advance in to North Korea, Truman didn't want to, for fear of riling the Chinese.
Truman relieved Macarthur of his duties.


Sorry, that one sailed right over me. Is it too late to say it was funny after the fact?

[Manso/V8]

Sorry, that one sailed right over me. Is it too late to say it was funny after the fact?

Sure, go ahead and laugh, or at least smile.

[Farmersfan]

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Public-Prayer-and-the-Founding-Fathers.html



I think I completely support the moment of silence idea. This allows everybody regardless of their predisposition to address in silence whatever they want to address. And it does not have to be a religious event for anyone who doesn't want to make it one.

[Macarthur]

I have no issue with a moment of silence and I've never spoken with a person without faith that had an issue with a moment of silence either.

[Farmersfan]

Everything you just said in this post to vet93 could be said about your post above.




BEAST




Except my perspective is from a NO-ACTION standpoint and my above point is addressing those who commit an action. It doesn't matter if I can provide proof of how many people are comforted or aggravated by someone else's actions. I'm not the one advocating doing something and justifying it with subjective rationale. I don't see how advocating NO-ACTION in order to protect the rights of a selected group can be compared to advocating ACTION that infringes on a selected group and calling it protection of another group's rights. Does that make any sense at all?

[MUSTANG69]

I think I completely support the moment of silence idea. This allows everybody regardless of their predisposition to address in silence whatever they want to address. And it does not have to be a religious event for anyone who doesn't want to make it one.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the most logical.

[Farmersfan]

Sometimes the simplest solution is the most logical.


I might start a backlash of epic proportions here but a moment of silence does not serve the purposes for the religious segment. Religion by it's very nature requires recruitment and the "spreading of the word". No matter how much it is denied on here or at other venues the true purpose of public prayer for a Christian is to expose others to their beliefs. We all know this to be true. Like I have shown in the proceeding pages that the justifications used for wanting a public prayer could be accomplished by other means that does not infringe on other's rights to not be forced to be exposed to it. But exposure is ultimately the purpose of it all. Ever wonder why the school prayer debate is probably the hottest topic around? I believe it is solely due the fact that religious leaders recognize the urgency in getting indoctrination in early in a kids life. There is a rational reason for the existence of so many religiously based schools. Christian schools, protestant schools, Muslim school, Catholic schools, Methodist schools and every other possible denomination you can think of. Millions of children are starving to death all over the planet and yet the workforce of God is spending Billions of dollars on school systems that they can control rather than feeding the children. Indoctrination is given priority over defending and protecting. We can find thousands of examples that show that the existence of the Church has been elevated far, far, far above the actual work of God as required in the Bible. But that too is another discussion.