PDA

View Full Version : My response to a Christian email forward on school prayer


JamesKrieger
October 10, 2003, 06:53 AM
Hi, everyone,

I received the following email forward from a Christian friend a few weeks ago:


In a recent letter to the editor
Samuel Thompson wrote: I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to
sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with
Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher
taught his theory of evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness
will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a
football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe
in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game. "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
Christian principles! And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very
own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than
200-to-1. So what would you expect ... Somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish
prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a
Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to
hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother
me one bit. When in Rome..."
But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody
is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection
plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a
Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession
stand. Call your lawyer.
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the
world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the
other cheek while our courts STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before
we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God,
help us!!! And if that last sentence offends you, well...just sue me. The
silent majority has been SILENT too long...it's time we let that one or two
who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what
they want...it is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you
don't have to pray...you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you
don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is
your right, and we will honor your right...but by golly you are no longer
going to take our rights away ...we are fighting back and we WILL WIN!!!
After all, the God you have the right to denounce is on our side! God bless
us, one and all, especially those who denounce Him...God bless America,
despite all her faults she is still the greatest nation of all! God bless
our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship
God.
May 2003 and the years that follow, be the years the silent majority are
heard! May we put God back as the foundation of our families and our
institutions. If you agree just say Amen!
Keep looking up! In God WE Trust! If you agree with this, then do not be
ashamed and please pass it on.

If not, hey just delete it...that is your right!


Here was my response:

would like to offer a polite disagreement with some comments made in
Samuel Thompson's letter to the editor. Samuel is not correct about some
aspects in regards to the law and some other conceptions that he has
regarding prayer in school.


>Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness
> will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a
> football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
> reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they
believe
> in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
> going home from the game.

Mr. Thompson is most likely referring to a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court
in 2000 in a case of a Texas school, where student-led prayer was not
allowed over the public broadcast system at a public high school football
game. This was an appropriate decision by the court, because the
student-led prayer over the public broadcast system represented a violation
of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution. The
decision had nothing to do with the fact that some people were offended.
The use of a public school broadcast system, funded by government tax
dollars, for any act of religious worship, in the presence of essentially a
captive audience, is clearly a first amendment violation. One might argue
that the audience isn't "captive." However, even this is irrelevant.
Justice Stevens wrote in the court decision, "Even if we regard every high
school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely
voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame
prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in
an act of religious worship." Now, one might argue that the pregame prayer
is not an act of coercion. Thompson argues, "Just humor us for 30 seconds.
If that's asking too much, bring Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the
bathroom. Visit the concession stand." However, the pregame prayer, when
done over a public loudspeaker, puts the non-Christian in a difficult
position. The non-Christian has two choices. First, he/she can refuse to
participate as Thompson suggests. However, to not participate when everyone
else is will result in the individual revealing his/her non-Christian
beliefs to everyone else, which he/she shouldn't have to do. This puts the
individual in a potential situation where they may be ostracized or
harrassed (which has happened before) since he/she doesn't believe as
everyone else does. The second choice is to participate and "fake it." In
this case, the non-Christian must go against his/her conscience. Either
way, it is an act of coercion to participate in an act of worship, and is
thus a violation of the Establishment Clause since the government (the
public school) is involved.


>"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
> Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
> Christian principles!

This country is founded upon the Constitution of the United States, which is
a purely secular document which makes no reference to Christianity or any
other religion. While it is true that many of the individuals at the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were Christians, this does not
make the Constitution founded on Christian principles. I have asked
Christians exactly what Christian principles the Constitution is based on
and I never get a straight answer. If one goes and reads the transcripts of
the debates during the Constitutional Convention, very few references to
Christianity are made. The secular nature of the Constitution is further
revealed by Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series
358) from 1796-1797, which, approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by
President John Adams, clearly stated:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character or
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, -- and as the
said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries."


> If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish
> prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a
> Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to
> hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended.

There is a distinct difference between these countries and our country.
These countries do not have a constitution with an amendment that basically
requires church and state to be separate. Again, the Supreme Court decision
has nothing to do with whether someone was offended or not. It has to do
with whether or not student-led prayer over a public school broadcast system
is Constitutional, and the court has ruled that it is not.


> I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the
> world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the
> other cheek while our courts STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS.

Christians do not have any less rights than anyone else does. Not allowing
student-led prayer over a public broadcast system, to a captive audience, is
not stripping away rights of Christians. The students are still free to
pray of their own accord before, during, and after the game. The audience
is free to do these things as well. What is not allowed is the use of
public school grounds and a public broadcast system to broadcast these
prayers to everyone in the audience, or to lead the entire audience in a
prayer, which is a religious act of worship. No religious group, whether
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc., is allowed to do this. Thus, the rights
of Christians are not being suppressed..


> Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray
before
> we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a
> handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Mr. Thompson has constructed a strawman. Lawyers are not telling Christians
to cease praying. Again, Christians are allowed to pray before, during, and
after school and school events, as long as it is not disruptive. What is
not allowed is the use of government-funded facilities and tools (like a
public broadcast system) to engage in religious acts of worship to
essentially captive audiences. Thus, a teacher cannot lead a class in
prayer. A student cannot lead an entire class in prayer during class.
Prayers cannot be said over school loudspeakers during school events. All
of these cases basically represent GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED prayer, which is a
violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Otherwise, students
are free to pray in school whenever they like, and thus their rights have
NOT been taken away, and no one has told them to cease praying.


>God,
> help us!!! And if that last sentence offends you, well...just sue me.
The
> silent majority has been SILENT too long...it's time we let that one or
two
> who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what
> they want...it is time the majority rules!

Mr. Thompson does not realize that we live in a Republic, not a democracy.
A true democracy, where majority always rules, is one of the worst, most
tyrannical forms of government, because the majority can basically vote out
the rights of the minority. For example, if 51% of the country wanted to
vote the other 49% to a remote island, then it would happen. This is why
the Constitution exists...to protect the fundamental rights of the minority
from oppression by the majority. One of these rights, freedom from
government-sponsored religious coercion, is protected by the First
Amendment.


> don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is
> your right, and we will honor your right...but by golly you are no longer
> going to take our rights away

Again, no one has taken anybody's rights away. I am curious exactly what
rights others have, that Christians do NOT have.

simian
October 10, 2003, 08:25 AM
It is not only non-Christians that need be concerned. The plaintiffs in the Sante Fe case were Catholic and Mormon. Christian by my definition. The majority Baptist population was using the "prayers" and other activities to torment and harass the non-Baptists. The letter need not be worded in non-Christian vs Christian, but as one denomination of Christian against all others.

Simian

Rhaedas
October 10, 2003, 08:40 AM
Excellent response. :notworthy

Yes, the playing of one sect against another seems a good way to take some of the steam out of their argument, but of course some will argue that the one sect is not a True Christian (TM) religion. Always something... :rolleyes:

hezekiah jones
October 10, 2003, 10:02 AM
People tend to forget most of these challenges are brought by believers. One of the best is the 6th Circuit's en banc ruling on Ohio's state motto, "With God all things are possible." The suit was brought by a Christian that objected to having the words of Christ put officially on par with the state insect. He lost. I don't have time to find the opinion, but it is excellent reading, and hardly a comfort to fundies, since there is testimony cited from a Biblical scholar that attests, among other things, that even if there was such a person, and if he did in fact utter the words recorded in Matthew, Jesus just ripped off the saying from a myriad of earlier "wise men."

Stephen Maturin
October 10, 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by hezekiah jones
I don't have time to find the opinion, but it is excellent reading, and hardly a comfort to fundies, since there is testimony cited from a Biblical scholar that attests, among other things, that even if there was such a person, and if he did in fact utter the words recorded in Matthew, Jesus just ripped off the saying from a myriad of earlier "wise men."

That's ACLU v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/6th/01a0073p.html), a case the minister won before the original three-judge panel but lost on reconsideration en banc. There certainly was some interesting stuff in that Bible scholar's affidavit:

"2. The phrase 'With God all things are possible.' is as much at home in the Greek philosophical tradition as within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Homer (probably 8th century B.C.) wrote, 'To the gods all things are possible.' Sophocles (c. 496 - 406 B.C.) wrote, 'When a god works, all is possible.' Plutarch (c. 50 - c. 120 A.D.) quoted Callimachus (c. 305 - c. 240 B.C.) as saying, 'There is nothing that God cannot effect.'

* * *

"5. The phrase in question may not be a dominical saying. That is to say, Jesus may never have actually said it. Modern scholars do not believe that everything attributed to Jesus was in fact spoken or done by him. The Gospels are the literary creations of early Christian communities. The genre is very different from biography or history. It is a literary form that allows for creative interpretation of the oral and written traditions about Jesus that were available. Furthermore, if Jesus did speak these words, we must keep in mind that he was a Jewish rabbi in a Hellenistic world who drew on Hebraic thought that had been reinterpreted in light of the classical tradition of Greece noted in paragraph two above. In other words, he was not saying anything new when he said, 'With God all things are possible.' He was simply using a proverbial phrase that was commonly known and accepted as true." (Emphasis supplied.)

JonathanChance
October 10, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by JamesKrieger

>"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
> Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
> Christian principles!

This country is founded upon the Constitution of the United States, which is
a purely secular document which makes no reference to Christianity or any
other religion.


Watch out when using this argument. Some fundies use the whole "In the Year of our Lord" reference as proof that the US was founded on Chrisian principles. :rolleyes:

SinEater
October 10, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by JonathanChance
Watch out when using this argument. Some fundies use the whole "In the Year of our Lord" reference as proof that the US was founded on Chrisian principles. :rolleyes:


Fantastic !!! Then they will freely admit that we as Americans must worship the Divine Julius, because the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Excellent.

Also, we must still be subjects of the British Crown, because the Mayflower Compact recognized the authority of James Stuart, King of England. Superb reasoning !!!

<feh.>

Rhaedas
October 10, 2003, 03:24 PM
Yes, the signing of the Constitution with the conventional method of dating in that time therefore nullified any of the secular, state-religion separation language in the document.

For that matter, any atheist who uses current dates must be a closet believer, even if they tack on a C.E...it's based on the same (faulty) beginning year. :rolleyes:

If they want to get literal...it doesn't specifically say which Lord is being referred to... :)

Arizonaepu
December 10, 2004, 07:53 PM
Over a year later and I again received an email from a fundie friend on this very same topic. Only this time, it is being attributed to Paul Harvey versus the mythical, unknown Samuel Thompson as the author. (Has anyone identified this seemingly ficticious Samuel Thompson fellow?) I guess someone realized that no one knew who the hell Samuel Thompson was and decided to come up with a more visible celebrity.

Just wanted to give everyone a head's up -- it will probably appear in your e-mail in-box any day now.

simian
December 10, 2004, 09:13 PM
Yes, the signing of the Constitution with the conventional method of dating in that time therefore nullified any of the secular, state-religion separation language in the document.

For that matter, any atheist who uses current dates must be a closet believer, even if they tack on a C.E...it's based on the same (faulty) beginning year. :rolleyes:

If they want to get literal...it doesn't specifically say which Lord is being referred to... :)

Just like keeping the month of January means Americans woship Janus, Monday means we worship Mars, Wednesday means we worship Odin, Thursday means we worship Thor, Friday means we worship Frea, Saturday means we worship Saturn.

Simian

Chris Weimer
December 11, 2004, 05:01 AM
1: You won't find Buddhist prayers in China because they're communist and that religion, like all religions, is forbidden (yeah yadda yadda yadda about recognized religions, they're still forbidden.)

2: Monday means the day of the Moon and not Mars.

EverLastingGodStopper
December 11, 2004, 06:41 AM
These "interacting with the other side" threads are more PA&SA than CSS, so (despite the thread's old age) I'm moving it.

La ilaha
December 12, 2004, 12:29 PM
> Christians are just sick and tired of turning the
> other cheek ...

HEH! That's golden! You should have pointed out the irony of his choice of words here and directed him to Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29.

Good response, by the way. I wish I had the patience to so calmly and clearly argue against such drivel.

Shadowy Man
December 12, 2004, 02:59 PM
Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing.

Their Bible also says to pray in private (Matthew 6:6).

Alter
December 13, 2004, 02:16 PM
Tangent:

Mars is Tuesday. In Spanish: Martes.

Many of the days have the correspnoding gods.

Monday = Moon, Lunes = luna (moon)

Tuesday = Tiw, Norse god of war. Martes = mars, god of war.

Wednesday = Odin, fastest god on his 8-legged horse. Miercoles = Mercury, fastest god.

Thursday = Thor, sky god. Jueves = Jupiter, sky god.

Friday = Freya, goddess of beauty. Viernes = Venus, goddess of beauty.

Shake
December 15, 2004, 01:35 PM
Oh no! Not this godspam again! :angry:

We've ripped this one to shreds before; it's just so full of crap. But I'll add in my 2 cents here anyway.
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to
hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother
me one bit. When in Rome...The one obvious point here is that many other countries don't have a separation of church and state written into their founding documents. No, those exact words don't appear in ours, but the intent is there, clearly in black and white. 1st Amendment, anyone?

Finally, to this part:The silent majority has been SILENT too long...it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want...... which fortunately didn't include the "sit down and shut up" phrase which similar godspams contain, I usually respond by sending them this link (http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030129sam0129p1.asp). That should get them thinking twice about majority rule.

Here's another thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82915&highlight=silent+majority) about a similar (if not exactly the same) godspam. It also contains links to other threads about the same thing.

Obey_Matthew_6_6
December 16, 2004, 01:30 AM
Oh no! Not this godspam again! :angry:



As dissected on Snopes.com....

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/american.htm