Saturday, 08 January 2011
-
Prayer in Public Schools
My brother Kelly sent me this message on Facebook:Do you feel that prayer should be put back in public schools? ...Do you feel that mandatory Christian prayer should be in public schools? Or would you be all right with Christianity, Islam, and any other religious groups having their own prayer times in public schools as long as prayer is not mandatory?
Here is my answer:
I don't think it matters much if prayer is allowed or forbidden in [public] schools. I don't think Christians ought to demand it be allowed either. If a Christian is demanding prayer be allowed in schools I would venture to say they potentially are putting the American ideals of "equality" and "freedom of religion" above fearless faithfulness to God. They may be putting American ideals above kingdom ideals. I'm not saying that freedom to practice religious liturgy is wrong or not worth pursuit but that isn't a Christian ideal. It is an American ideal. It'd be nice but I'm not convinced it's entirely possible. I'd rather see Christians seek the kingdom and see how that works out. Fortunately, we have an example in scripture of how believers ought to address the legalization or the forbidding of prayer.
In Daniel 6 we read about a great man of God named Daniel who was faced with a situation in which he had to deal with the conflict of illegal prayer. Daniel certainly didn't demand prayer to be legal or accepted when it was outlawed for anyone to prayer to Yahweh. He just prayed. He prayed at predictable times and in a known place. It was no secret to his adversaries (who coaxed the king, who loved Daniel, into creating the irreversible law for the exact purpose of getting Daniel in trouble) that he was breaking the law. Not only did he rebel against the laws of men and refuse to fight the absurd law but he was one of the most powerful men in the government! He had more pull with the king than anyone else and yet he accepted the law and acted against it. In doing this he, like the apostles later on, held to the truth that he "must obey God rather than human beings" (Acts 5:29).
Daniel's situation was far worse than the potential "banning of prayer in schools." He faced death for praying to Yahweh. Nothing happens to students who pray. Nothing. At least nothing happened to me or any of my friends and I've yet to hear from a first hand source that something has happened to a student who prayed in school. If something does happen, it's not serious. Well, not as serious as being thrown into a den filled with lions. If it is this serious, praise God for the world declaring itself the world and the faithful servants of God declaring themselves as such! Also, he has clearly proven himself able to protect his faithful ones in such times. Persecution is not something to fear (1Peter 3:14). We're called by God to be faithful and to obey him and not men. The rules of men are basically irrelevant. If they compliment the way of God then we are obedient to them and if they go against the way of God then we rebel against them in holiness just like Daniel.
I don't put much stock in the American ideal of freedom of religion (see my post Rethinking Freedom of Religion). Again, I'm not saying it is bad but I just don't believe it is possible and I don't think that is necessarily something to mourn. I believe that type of peace among men is only possible through Christ and inside his kingdom (see my post My Struggle with Political Involvement). Everyone getting along is a nice thought but it is simply impossible in a sinful world. A government can not please everyone and should not try (for that is not the purpose of government). It is my belief that the U.S. is often attempting to please everyone. Tolerance seems to be king a lot of the time. Christians, in contrast, should be concerned with pleasing God. Christians in the U.S. are often too focused on having "rights" instead of seeing all good things as gifts from the Father. Rights don't matter. Not really. Not for the Christian. Not for the sake of protecting them from persecution anyway. We're not entitled to anything (see my post Replacing Gifts with Entitlement). We've never been taught to fear or fight against the possibility of persecution. Perhaps we flee at times but that's it. If we're fighting for the legal right to pray then we are misguided or cowardly or both. At least, that's my currently leaning.
At the end of it all, it doesn't matter if prayer is allowed, forbidden, or demanded. Christians are merely concerned with being a faithful witness to Christ. That includes praying no matter what the surrounding circumstances may be. Instead of fighting for rights let us simply fight to be faithful. Let us fight against the evil powers that attempt to keep us from being faithful by actually being faithful instead of pushing papers in front of government officials. Scripture tells us it pays to suffer for doing what is right (1Peter 3:13-22). We are not told in scripture that it is good or right to fight to get our way or to have government permission to live out our faith. Rather, we are instructed to live rightly and endure whatever consequences that may bring us. In it all, we praise God. Just like Daniel.What are your thoughts on prayer in schools? Have you ever participated in a school-sanctioned prayer? Does prayer in schools need to be legalized in order for Christians to pray at school?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TheGreatBout@xanga
- Name: Travis
- Location: United States
- About Me: Seek and you will find... or something.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 230 Views: 0 347807 Comments: 0 3317 View all posts by TheGreatBout@xanga
Comments (49)
Well said.
I don't think we can "demand" anything. I will be praying regardless of where they say it is allowed. And I will be faithful to that cause regardless of the cost.
Why would should Christians then waste our times trying to force others to accept what we're going to do anyway?
Agreed, although, most that know me would expect me to agree. It seems many Christians think we live in Israel and that everyone in the nation should obey the bible. I think we are closer to Daniel's situation of being in Babylon or Rome than we are to being in Israel.
Yet Muslims demand and get their way...and this is somehow acceptable? The Constitution of the USA declares in the first amendment that the giovernment cannot forbid the freedom of worship....yet a teacher even brining a Bible into Public School can be fired....and this is alright?
The author here says that Daniel's situation was far worse than what we have today in the USA, but so long as we as Christians roll over and let a small, small minority of people (read: atheists and homosexuals) dictate what is legal and what is illegal, how much longer will it be until Christians ARE executed for praying publicly? A hundred years ago, banning prayer in public school was determined to "never happen", but look at us in America today: just 60 years ago, the main problems in school (when prayer was still legal) were running in the hallways, talking out of turn, and chewing gum in class; today, drugs, sex, out-of-wedlock children, violence, and disobedience to teachers are the norm with problems being with the spread of AIDS and HIV, pregnancy pacts among female high school students, and higher and higher drop-out rates...and Prayer in Public School isn't a Christian nor Biblical ideal?
Pray, don't pray, I don't think it makes a difference. It's just empty words ascending into an empty sky. Face it. You can't prove someone or something is actually listening (except maybe the person in the next stall.) It probably isn't appropriate for schools though any more than asking children to write letters to Santa in school. Children do like sing-songish repetition of words. It makes them feel more secure in a group. Especially when the words have no real meaning to them.
If Christian students or of any other faith would like to have prayer in school, they should be allowed. It's only if others that are not prayer-based are forced to do a prayer, is where there will be a problem. As much as a student is free to practice their faith, others should be free to practice theirs as well.
i'd like to learn in school, rather than wasting time with mandatory prayer to a deity i will never believe it. as if the state of our education system isn't bad enough, let's take more time away from math/science/language arts/foreign language/etc. etc. and force all students of every creed to sit and listen to jesus time?
For me, it's just whatever. I still prayed in school and joined a gospel choir in school where we prayed together IN SCHOOL. So what. Those who want to pray will pray and those who don't won't. Just like those who wanted to have sex in school did and those who didn't...didn't. I don't know why we are always trying to push legislation to FORCE our beliefs on people who obviously couldn't give two craps. Is that an effective way to appeal to someone's heart?
the pagan Roman Empire died off centuries ago. when will Christians realize that now, THEY are the ones in charge? they are the majority, actively or passively, discriminating against everyone else. i can see how, being a religion meant originally for those feeling oppressed, such a mentality might linger. but they need to realize that they're the emperors wielding power now. especially in the US.
@JandJinJapan@xanga -
"Yet Muslims demand and get their way...and this is somehow acceptable?"
i've only ever seen the Muslim community demand the same rights afforded to other religious groups, including Christians. i think Christians are just PO-ed because they're no longer in charge. which is ironic, because so much of the religion is based on being a powerless minority.
"but so long as we as Christians roll over and
let a small, small minority of people (read: atheists and homosexuals)
dictate what is legal and what is illegal, how much longer will it be
until Christians ARE executed for praying publicly?"
slippery slope argument = fail.
"A hundred years ago, banning prayer in public
school was determined to "never happen", but look at us in America
today: just 60 years ago, the main problems in school (when prayer was
still legal) were running in the hallways, talking out of turn, and
chewing gum in class;"
haha... are you kidding? my grandmother grew up in the friggin' Bible belt, and she (and most of the girls in her class) was a wild child. parties every night, hooking up with random guys, smoking 24/7... please don't try to argue that such issues suddenly sprang up now. they've always been around, they've just become more socially entertaining to watch.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - The Christian faith isn't based on being a powerless minority. However, the early church clearly was as far as political power goes. And the Church grows best, and is cleansed and filtered of false converts best, when persecuted as a minority.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - Even if this nation turns into one that does execute Christians for practicing their faith (like the nations it has been a part of throughout its history as evidenced by the writings of Paul) we should not fear it (again as evidenced by the writings of Paul and the apostles). Daniel didn't. He didn't fight it either. Why should we? Have we become more deserving of the world loving and not hating us as Christ said it would? Where in scripture do we see Jesus or his followers attempting to change the laws to get "freedoms" or "rights" to practice their faith in the systems surrounding them? What does Jesus say that makes us think we should try to run governments or ensure our safety through legislation? What biblical reason do we have to dictate what is legal? We have biblical reason to obey God and consequently be good citizens who honor the law and the authorities but is there any scripture that tells us to be the authorities or to sway them to do what we please?
@JandJinJapan@xanga -
"yet a teacher even brining a Bible into Public School can be fired"No they can't. Cut the melodrama.
"as we as Christians roll over and let a small, small minority of people..."
The percentage or ratio of Christians to whatever is irrelevant. Secularity protects everyone. It's why freedom of religion and freedom from religion are in the FIRST amendment. No church or religious institution can favored over another.
"today, drugs, sex, out-of-wedlock children, violence, and disobedience to teachers are the norm"
In what universe? First off, Drugs? Sex? Oh God forbid, lol. Secondly, violent crime is down (violent crime is lowered when drugs are legalized, by the way), illegitimate children are down:
http://www.guttmacher.org/datacenter/trend.jsp#
By any real-world measurement, the moral zeitgeist is climbing forward, not backward, and oddly enough none of it positively correlates with religiosity.
When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga: No they can't. Cut the melodrama.
No melodrama: it happened in Kansas City twice in the 1990s. Two teachers - one in KCMO and the other in KCK - brought their Bibles to their respective schools to read during their planning periods. One happened to have the Bible on her desk during a test, and was quietly reading to herself. As student noticed this, told her parents, who, in turn, called the local ACLU office. Out of fear of a lawsuit, the teacher was fired. She later herself filed suit with the Rutherford Institute on the grounds of her personal rights being violated. The second teacher in question was also fired after a student came to her room during her planning period, in which she was - again - quietly reading the Word of God with no students present. Said student then told one of the vice-principals in passing, and she, too, was fired out of fear of the ACLU coming down on the school district. Neither the NEA nor the ATF stood up to defend these teachers' rights. Yes, friend, is has happened.
The percentage or ratio of Christians to whatever is irrelevant. Secularity protects everyone. It's why freedom of religion and freedom from religion are in the FIRST amendment. No church or religious institution can favored over another.
Is it? What was the ratio of Communist Party Members to the population of the Soviet Union? What was the percentage? How about 1%? Think that percentage didn't matter? And the Communists were the ones who ruled Russia and the CIS for nearly a century (and are still seeking power in the Former Soviet "Republics"). One percent of the population was able to overthrow the sitting government, win a civil war within the borders of Russia, kill the rightful ruler (Czar Nicholas II), and allow one of its leaders to directly or indirectly kill off nearly 100 million Russians over the course of his thirty-year reign. They were also able to strengthen the Gulag System, force the Church of Jesus Christ underground, and silence any opposition to the Communist Party to the point of pain of death (and its still haoppening by a small minority in Commubnist Red China, North Korea, VietNam, and Cuba).
How about Germany in the Mid-`20s to Mid-`40s? What was the percentage of the population of Germany that was actually members of the Nazi Party? Again, the numbers were around 1~3% and look at what that small, small percentage was able to do: expel and/or kill off 6 million Jews and 4~6 million other so-called untermenshcen, establish not only Concetration Camp system for political opponents of Naziism but Extermination Camps for the before-mentioned untermenschen, force industy, agrarian, and military sectors to bow to the wishes of one man, and ended up causing a war in Europe that extinguiished a great part of 50 million lives (or more).
How about here in America? Homosexuals and Atheists comprise 3~5% of the United States' Population combined, and yet, both of these groups are setting policy for the rest of American society. Atheists are demanding God be reckoned out of the public sector....and it has been happening since the early 1960s. homosexuals are demanding their "right" to "marry", and have been forced to take to the courts to see that their way is granted, despite the majorities of the populartions of 39 states declaring marriage to be between one man and a woman.
You can tell yourself all you want, When_We_Were_Both_Cats, that ratio means little, but history gives the lie to this idea. Pandering as we are doing in the USA is following the exact course take by both Russia and Germany....adn ahost of other nations and civilizatiosn that did the same thing.
In what universe? First off, Drugs? Sex? Oh God forbid, lol. Secondly, violent crime is down (violent crime is lowered when drugs are legalized, by the way), illegitimate children are down...
Hmmm...is that why inner city schools are still having a hard time finding teachers willing to teach in their districts? Is this why the federal Education Department has to recruit retired military personnel and former police officers to go and teach in the inner cities? Yes, all those "safe" inner city schools. And laugh off sex and drugs in schools if you wish; it doesn't make the problem go away. Further, legalizing drugs will make the US an even worse society, not better.
Further, regarding your resource, here are two that show how stats, such as the one your website posts, can hide, and are easily hiding, the truth:
http://gothamist.com/2009/09/22/cuny_colleges_accused_of_watering_d.php
http://www.wreg.com/wreg-mcs-under-report-story,0,525522.story
TheGreatBout@xanga - So we should just stand aside as believer and do naught while society spirals down towards Christian Persecution? We should just let by-gones be by-gones, let whomever in government do whatever he or she or they want and sit quietly by and do nada? I'm not afraid of what the Government can and probalby will do, but I certainly don't want to see happen to the USA what Jeremiah and Ezekiel saw happen to Israel and Judah, what Daniel saw happen to Babylon, and what Paul, Peter, and the rest of the Apostles saw happen to Rome. Standing aside and doing nothing is akin to being an accessory, and furthermore, it isn't wanting what's best. Ezekiel states twice that he was supposed to be awatchman on the walls for his people, and if he didn't warn them about the dangers of sin and hell and eternal death, then their blood would also be on his hands. Are we not called to do the same as Believers in jesus Christ? Are we not called as believers to point out the dangers of drug use, the homosexual lifestyle, robbing banks and stealing cars, and the killing of babies via the euphemism of "abortion on demand"? Are we forgetting that the people of Israel as well as the kings were equally guilty in falling away from the Lord God? And speaking of Daniel: did he not oppose King Nebuchadnezzar when the King weanted to wipe out all of the wise men for failing to interpret his dream? Was it wrong for Daniel to have withstood the king's order at that time? Should he have just taken the sword then and there and been done with it?
So why, MagisterTom@xanga, are my hands tied as a teacher and one-time school administrator? Why should it be illegal for me, as a teacher, to pray with a student or a group of students, and lead them in such? Either we follow the 1st amendment or we don't, and following a standard in partiality is not following it a-tall...
Enter a public school, too_pretty_to_die@xanga, and you'll get to see what I get to see on a pretty much daily basis. I have no problem with Muslims being allowed to pray at school, have their Koran taught at school, and teaching of Muslim prayers in pubnlic school....so long as I, as a Christian, am allowed to do the same thing. As it ism, there isn't such equality. Muslim students can have a room to themselves to pray, but Christians have to go off campus where I teach.
slippery slope argument = fail.
See what I wrote above in response to When_We_Were_Both_Cats. You can say this all you wish, but the facts of historical record give the lie to this, as well...
haha... are you kidding? my grandmother grew up in the friggin' Bible belt, and she (and most of the girls in her class) was a wild child. parties every night, hooking up with random guys, smoking 24/7... please don't try to argue that such issues suddenly sprang up now. they've always been around, they've just become more socially entertaining to watch.
Well so did both of my Grandparents, and amazingly enough, Christ transformed their lives in a miraculous way insomuch that Grandpa left off the hooch for the last fifty years of his life, and Grandma made sure all of her children were in Sunday School and Church every week. Sure, such social ills have been with us, but in that day and age, they were the exception, not the rule, and, more importantly, were looked down upon. Today, its quite the opposite.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - I'm pretty sure you, as an official of the school, leading a student in prayer would violate the establishment clause. That being said, I don't work in a public school, and I don't intend for my children, God willing that I have some some day, to be educated in a public school. I think that if you give your children to the Romans to be educated you shouldn't be surprised when they come back as Romans.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - i have to jump all over some other comments you made...
"Out of fear of a lawsuit, the teacher was fired."
you said it yourself: the teacher was fired out of fear of a lawsuit. i'd bet a good sum of money that, if they had taken the case to court and proven that the teacher wasn't trying to shove religion down the throats of students, they would have won pretty easily. perhaps school districts shouldn't be so willing to roll over and take it.
regarding your examples of Communism and Nazism... unlike our society, Russia went from monarchy to Communist government directly. you can't possibly complain that they failed to uphold ideals they never claimed they had to begin with. unlike them, we already have a document guaranteeing basic rights. and i certainly hope you aren't trying to criticize them for having a revolution, as you seem to be doing... because, in case you forgot, that's how our country came to exist, too. do you really believe we wouldn't have slaughtered the English royal family if they had been on our side of the pond?
as for Nazism, i find it ironic that you... presumably a Christian who seems to want to limit the rights of American citizens through a narrow and religiously motivated definition of marriage... have a problem with fascism.
"Atheists are demanding God be reckoned out of the public sector....and it has been happening since the early 1960s. "
good. God has no business being a central figure in a secular society. this is my true problem with Christianity as a whole... you guys seem to be confusing persecution with a gradual loss of authority over every aspect of society. if you want a theocracy, by all means... find yourself a tropical island and set one up. but the more you guys complain about being persecuted, the more i'm reminded of "all men are equal... but some are more equal than others." this is why i'm far more sympathetic to other religious groups.
"homosexuals are demanding their "right" to
"marry", and have been forced to take to the courts to see that their
way is granted, despite the majorities of the populartions of 39 states
declaring marriage to be between one man and a woman."
i seem to remember a majority of Americans wanting to keep slavery the day it was abolished. that doesn't make it morally acceptable. either marriage is a right, or it isn't. if it's not, then why stop at restricting it to heterosexual couples? the Bible says marriage exists for making babies... infertile people shouldn't be allowed to wed, either.
"Enter a public school, too_pretty_to_die@xanga, and you'll get to see what I get to see on a pretty much daily basis. "
i work in a public school, from time to time. and it hasn't been too long since i've been in one myself.
"Muslim students can have a room to themselves to pray, but Christians have to go off campus where I teach."
uh-huh... when i was in high school, Christians met on campus often. being Wiccan at the time, i was often discriminated against by religious teachers. at my graduation ceremony, the principal told a joke that was pretty damn offensive to non-theists. i was horrified.
see? i can use anecdotes as evidence, too.
"Sure, such social ills have been with us, but
in that day and age, they were the exception, not the rule, and, more
importantly, were looked down upon. Today, its quite the opposite."
i don't know where you live... but where i come from, it doesn't matter how liberal you are: being a slut, drug addict, or teenage mother is still a horrible thing to be.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - Ezekiel was talking about Israel (God's people) and sin. We're discussing prayer in school in the United States of America in 2011. Also, the idea that one either changes the laws of the country to fit the "don't persecute Christians" agenda or must stand aside and watch a country spiral into an unjust and murderous (towards Christians) nation is a bit unreasonable. The options aren't that few. But you ask if we are called to do the same as followers of Jesus Christ. I'd say we're called to warn our brothers against sin like you have pointed out, yes. I wouldn't say we're called under Christ to change laws for the sake of saving our skin though.
I'll again ask you the questions you didn't directly answer which are similar to the question you are asking me. As Christians, why should we fight prayer being outlawed? Have we become more deserving of the world loving and not hating us as Christ said it would? Where in scripture do we see Jesus or his followers attempting to change the laws to get "freedoms" or "rights" to practice their faith in the systems surrounding them? What does Jesus say that makes us think we should try to run governments or ensure our safety through legislation? What biblical reason do we have to dictate what is legal? We have biblical reason to obey God and consequently be good citizens who honor the law and the authorities but is there any scripture that tells us to be the authorities or to sway them to do what we please?
You are right than Daniel fought for the king to make a moral decision. He pleaded on behalf of non-Jewish men for the king to have mercy so they may live. That is incredibly different than attempting to overturn a law that endangers himself for practicing his faith. I'm not at all proposing Christians don't witness to the authorities over them. I'm saying Christians shouldn't invest in trying to save their own skin from persecution by means of changing government laws (especially such small laws like prayer being "illegal" in public schools).
this website is very good, you can go and see it
http://www.shoes4world.com/
@laytexduckie@xanga - or lack of... Agreed.
TheGreatBout@xanga - Is not prayer a very basic and fundamental practice for Christians? As such, why is it thought unimportant when talking about allowing teachers and administration to lead in prayer? Why is it thought unnecessary to fight and stand for such a basic right as prayer, and allowing teachers to lead such? Ezekiel was also writing under God's inspriation to us today, too. If we are not called by God via Ezekiel to be watchmen on our nation's moral walls, then what else has God not called us to, seeing how Ezekiel - by your response - was merely talking to Israel and sin?
Per your questions: did not Jesus contend with the Pharisees concerning the religious laws of the time and the land (and which governed Judaea) in which he physically walked this earth? Was he not challenged for healing on the Sabbath Day, telling people to rise up and carry their beds on the Sabbath, eating with ceremoniously unwashened hands, pulling one's oxen or donkey out of a ditch (or heling a neighbour with his), all of these being laws by which the Sanhedrin ruled the people of Israel? As such, was he not fighting for the freedom to simply live and do well? Following his ascension, were not Peter and John contending with the Sanhedrin following the healing of the criplled man at the Beautiful Gate - and many times later - in preaching Jesus Christ Crucified and Risen, something the Sanhedrin and ruling council forbade them to do? Was not James Barzebedee beheaded (and Peter arrested) by King Herod on the pretext of preaching in Jesus' name, James' execution and Peter's scheduled execution being because King Herod wanted to give a pleasure to the Jews, indirectly enforcing the Sanhedrin's law and edict of not teaching or preaching in Jesus' Name? Was not Paul apprehended by the Jews and later forced to appeal to Caesar for the same reason: the preaching and teaching of the resurrection through Jesus Christ? Abnd which is more important: rendering to Caesar or unto God? Did the Apostles and followers of Jesus Christ in the Early Church die in vain in the arenas, and suffer persecution needlessly? Did they not, by their lived, exemplify Christ, thereby defying the orders of the state under Caesar Nero and the Roman Senate? Was John the Baptist also not fighting for freedom from the religious "laws" of the day that governed Israel?
Regarding your question about followers of Jesus not needing to be or not being in leadership: King David? Should he have turned down Samuel and God and remained with the sheep while Saul continued his catastrophic rule as King of Israel? What about Kings Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Josiah? Should they, too, have relinqueshed their crowns? How about Obadiah, Palacial Governor under King Ahab and Queen Jezebel: shiojld he have resigned as Palace Governor, not hidden the 100 prophets of the Lord and allowed them to be beheaded by Queen Jezebel? What of Daniel? Should he have rejected King Nebuchadnezzar's offer of promotion to President of Babylon (ditto that for his elevation uner King Beklshazzar and King Darius)? Paul and the Gospels mention people being in places of influence with regards to Herod's palace; should these people have relinqushed their positions because oftheir being followers of Jesus Christ? You can say all day that believers have no place in government, and assume that Jesus said ntohign and that the Bible is silent about followers of Jesus not being in places of influence with regards to laws protecting believers' rights, but the truth is somethign else altogether. The most glaring example that gives the lie to this idea is Queen Esther. Had she not stepped up, the Bible says salvation for God's People would have come from another area; it says nothing about the Jews resigning themselves to their faite, and not standing up and defending against sinful oppression.
Yes, too_pretty_to_die@xanga, ane why did the school districts have that knd of fear? what brought it on? What was the catalyst? The teachers brought Bibles to school, which were seen and reported by students, thereby leading to their firing. Gloss over this fact all you wish, but the fact of the matter is these teachers were fired because they simply brought Bibles to school and chose to read them in the open in those settings. They were fired for bringing Bibles to school, assumptions concerning counter-suits being irrelevant and notwithstanding.
Really? Russia didn't have a Duma as early as the 16th and 17th centuries? The Communists DIDN'T transform the State Duma into one of their political entities and government legislative processes? Lenin seems to have given speeches before the Duma prior to the October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky did the same. In fact, Trotsky was acutally elected to the Duma in 1912. Seems like Russia didn't go directly from an Absolute Monarchist state as you allude, but was a constitutional monarchy with a congress with deputies popularly elected. Regarding your assertions for Germany and Naziism, there's no need for name calling and gross pigeon-holing. You seem to be a stand-up person with well-intentioned opinions of which, while I disagree, I do respect. Blessings to you today. Per the quip about the English Royal Family, the fact that the infant USA did NOT execute Tories is example that, no, the leadership of the USA would NOT have executed King George had he resided in the USA. We'd have shipped him and his family right back to Great Britain, just was we did General Cornwallis and other generals who happened also to be English Nobles, and colonists who fought alongside the redcoats.Regarding your assertionsfor atheism in government, the Founding Fathers diametrically disagree with you.
And yes, you did use anecdotes as evidence: you did say something about your grandmother and her early life being evidence of some normality of lifestyle. Sorry to hear your principal was pretty much a jerk. I had a chemistry teacher who could be quite jerkish towards just about everybody.
Let's not compare apples to oranges. Slavery is and was a social ill that needed to be brought down in the USA and soemthing that the Bible speaks clearly against, as even many Southern Leaders expressed leading up to the US War Between the States. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that is using pseudo-science to vbaklc up its claims of normalcy in the face of evidence that people CAN and DO walk away form such a lifestyle on a regular basis.
MagisterTom@xanga - I guess I'm missing how the Establishment Clause is in effect with me and my psotision, then, because I am not part of the school's administriiton, nor a member of any congress, but a private citizen who happens to be a teacher and an employee and a follower of Jesus Christ. Further, I attended a pulic school for the thirteen years of my primary and secondary education, as did my brother, and we both are still serving the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you all for your replies, by the way, to my earlier posts...
@JandJinJapan@xanga - Just because a scripture has application for today does not mean it has application for any context we wish to give it. As I pointed out in my last comment, Ezekiel clearly teaches us to be on the watchtower for the people of God and to warn them against sin. I don't think it encourages us to fight for laws to ensure Christians aren't persecuted or that they get whatever they want in a pluralist society just as I don't think it encourages us to.
Again, I think the whole concept that Christians ought to be concerned with their U.S. rights is misguided. We should see all gifts as blessings. What are we entitled to? What does God tell us we are entitled to? Jesus nowhere indicates we are entitled to being accepting or protecting by the nations we live in. He told us the exact opposite. He told us to expect hatred and persecution. He didn't tell his followers to fight that either. The early Christian tradition discourages believers from fearing or fighting persecution. Even if the values of surrounding nations change the Christian values never do.
Yes, of course Jesus challenged the Pharisees. We should also challenge the spiritual/religious leaders of our day. But when do we read of Jesus challenging the Roman authorities to lighten up on him or his followers? When does he ask his followers to get involved in the Roman government so they may make laws that are kinder to the Jewish people? Like the Ezekiel and Daniel there is no attempt to change the political system. Nothing in the accounts of the martyrs indicates they died with the intent to change the political system. There was plenty of interaction with the authorities but none of them show Jesus or his followers making any attempt to alter the laws, especially for their own sake. You're right that they take those opportunities to stand up for Christ though. They flew right into the accusations against them and accepted the unjust punishments they were given for living out their faith.
King David was around a while before Jesus. The same is true of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Uzziah, Jotham, Josiah Obadiah, Queen Jezebel, Daniel, Beklshazzar, Darius, and Esther. They didn't follow Jesus Christ of Nazareth. We have to admit that God seems to be working in different ways after Christ and before Christ. But you bring up a good point with Samuel and the idea of saying down crowns. Samuel 8 shows us that God never desired for his people to be under earthly governments but Israel rebelled and God allowed them that rebellion. That does not mean he desires for his people to fight for political power or influence though. I would say the opposite is actually more probably. That is, that his people should move away from political power and influence serve God alone (rather than men as you pointed out). But that's not my stance.
Clearly God had plans for Israel that involved political positions from time to time (like Joseph and Daniel). Again though, we have to acknowledge that even with that political power these men didn't try to save their own skin or change the laws of the land so they could live out their faith. Rather, they simply lived out their faith (and suffered for it). The best case for your position is probably Esther as you said. Though, Esther wasn't exactly trying to change laws or be a part of the government as much as she was acting as a "spy" to convince the king to stop genocide (a genocide he wasn't aware of). I think Christians can do this today too. Informing government officials of injustices in the world is a great idea. We ought to do such things. Even Paul points out that we ought to be a voice for the voiceless by defending the cause of the widow and helping orphans. But that doesn't mean we change laws or seek political power to save our own skin and avoid persecution. Informing is one thing but changing laws is another.
"You can say all day that believers have no place in government, and assume that Jesus said ntohign and that the Bible is silent about followers of Jesus not being in places of influence with regards to laws protecting believers' rights, but the truth is somethign else altogether."I didn't say believers have no place in government. If I did, I shouldn't have because that's not my position. I'm speaking of motives and not mere position. I think Christians in government is problematic but not impossible. I also don't claim that followers of Christ weren't in places of authority. In my audio version of this blog I specifically point to Erastus who was in charge of public works (Romans 16:23). But let's face it, that's quite a bit different from a believer being in a place of influence with regards to laws so that they don't face persecution or can do what they want. However, I still maintain Jesus didn't teach his followers to alter laws to protect their rights. Can you show me where he teaches that in the gospels? Where does Jesus teach his followers to seek to overturn laws for the sake of safety? Where does Jesus discuss embracing one's rights? The closest thing I've ever found is Paul stating his Roman citizenship to avoid certain sufferings (but he also neglects to do so at other times so we know he isn't concerned with merely avoiding persecution. He also doesn't fight for the political rights of others so they don't face persecution. He tells Christians to not fear persecution).
@JandJinJapan@xanga -
"Really? Russia didn't have a Duma as early as the 16th and 17th centuries? "
unless "Duma" is suddenly Russian for "Bill of Rights", i don't see how the existence of a parliament changes my point. being a constitutional monarchy doesn't automatically entail religious freedom. in fact, the Russian Empire was pretty oppressive when it came to religion. all you can really argue is that the Communists knocked Christianity off its pedestal.
"Regarding your assertions for Germany and Naziism, there's no need for name calling and gross pigeon-holing. "
i could point out that fascism's most general characteristics are authoritarian and ideological. and i can't really ignore the reality that the Religious Right and Nazism share the same opinion of same-sex marriage for much the same reasons. not to mention, i'm not seeing your logic in saying that promoting (even enforcing) equality is somehow fascist.
but really, your eyeroll-inducing use of quotations in regards to same-sex marriage says it all. the only thing that disgusts me more than bigotry is sarcastic bigotry. i'll start using the same to refer to your "right" to "speak to an invisible being in the sky". and i'll proceed to care about your "rights" as much as you care about theirs.
""Regarding your assertionsfor atheism in government, the Founding Fathers diametrically disagree with you."
yes... because Thomas Jefferson making his own version of the Bible demonstrates how wonderful of a Christian he was. the Founding Fathers also wouldn't have supported me, a woman, having any rights whatsoever. i wasn't aware they were as infallible as your god.
"Slavery is and was a social ill that needed
to be brought down in the USA and soemthing that the Bible speaks
clearly against, as even many Southern Leaders expressed leading up to
the US War Between the States. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that
is using pseudo-science to vbaklc up its claims of normalcy in the face
of evidence that people CAN and DO walk away form such a lifestyle on a
regular basis."
i won't even touch this one with a ten-foot pole. all i can say is, i'm glad you guys are soon to be the minority.
TheGreatBout@xanga - And right there is where you err, my friend: Ezekiel wasn't just about warning Godly people, but about warning the sinner as well. If we as believers fail to warn either about the dangers of sin, we will have their blood on our hands. And it isn't simply about that, either. The Old Testament is rife with verses that teach that when evil and death and the sword happen and those who know it is coming do othing to stop it or help the intended victims to safety, it is akin to murder itself. Sergeant Alvin York, who was an avowed pacifist, was told by his pastor that, with his shooting ability, he had a Christian Duty to use his gift to save lives. His pastor pointed out the verses from Ezekiel to convince Sgt. York. The end result is that Sgt. York DID save many lives in World War I, and was hailed a hero for his actions by not only his home state of Tennessee, but by the US Government as well. Was God displeased that Alvin York used his shootign skills to save lives? We know that War is never God's first path, but what to do when the enemy is upon us, screaming and attacking in order to enslave and take away freedom to live as one chooses under the law? Standing aside and doing naught is not an option, and that is a Biblical principle...
So, in essence, you are saying that the Founding Fathers shouldn't have stated anything about inalienable rights, particularly towards the freedom to worship? By the logic you are showign in your second paragraph, homosexuality oughtt op be okay, too, as Jesus mentioned nada about homosexuality or anything close to it, saving His definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. Jesus may not have said it in his New Testament Teachings, but that doesn't mean they weren't or aren't important. Concerning homosexuality, enough was said before Jesus walked on this earth in his bodily state, and the Apostle Paul and others expounded on the subject more deeply after he ascended. Same said for personal freedoms such as prayer in public school and other public places. Enough was said elsewhere in the Bible.
Merely passing the Sandhedrin off as a religious body, and the Pharisees off as a religious political party is a total misdirection: they were the effectual rulers of Israel at the time of Jesus' life here on Earth. They had the right from the Roman Government concerning punishment (though not having the authority to carry out a sentence of death), including incarceration, hard labour, whipping and scourging, and other forms of corporal punishment. and if a Roman Citizen were present, the death sentence could be carried out so long as that Citizen had poltiical power and position, and consented to the execution (Paul and the stoning of Stephen). The very fact that the Sanhedrin had the power to arrest and try Jesus is testament that they were more than just political leaders, and had far greater power over mens' lives than the guidance on how to worship God. To allude thatthere was no attempt to change the system is ignorant of Scripture: Jesus healed on the Sabbath (the laws of the land of Israel at that time called that "work"), told people to take up their beds and walk home (again, carrying something like a bed was regarded as "work"), ate with unwashened hands (again, the law forbade this and penalties could be and were assessed), pulling oxen or other livestock out of a ditch (again, defined as "work"), and anything else Jesus did contrary to the law. What Jesus called all of that is "Doing Good", and not illegal.
So what if these kings and rulers were before Jesus? God states in the Bible that he changes not and that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. To say that the righteous kings of Israel and Judah didn't follow Jesus Christ is dishonest. They were the forerunners of believers today. To say that the Holy Ghost didn't work back in the Old Testament -- or to allude such -- as he works today is, again, dishonest. People who had their hearts right with God had the presence of the Holy Ghost with them, and could be used by him at any time. T osay that God doesn't want his people involved with seeking political power or government position is dishonest. Queen Esther definitely sought it. King David fought for it and to keep it. King Jehoshaphat and his father and grandfather fought wars and involved themselves in palacial intrigue in order to reunite Judah and Israel. Agan, TheGreatBout, you can state all you like that these men were "before Jesus", but that is irrelevant to the discussion: God used them to effect his will on earth, and when they were called to government and political leadership, they answered.
Again, to state that Queen Esther wasn't out to change a horrific law is dishonest. She certainly DId want to change the law, and was effective in doing. A spy? Hardly! She had a duty as Queen of Persia to see that her adopted nation's security was maintained, and if there was ever a threat to the Persian Crown, it was Haman the Agagite: a man that would create a law to destroy an entire people wuld just as soon stick a knife into the back of the king. Yes, ehr duty was also to her people, the Jews, and God worked an amazing miracle by her, but to say she didn't want to change the law is just flat wrong. Otherwise, why would she set on King Ahasuerus wirth tears begging him to change the law followiogn the hanging of Haman?
You are alluding that Christians have no place, and asserting that their presence there -- or those trying to get in via the American political process -- is wrong. Just so we're clear, who, exactly, are the rulers of the USA? Is it the President? The Congress? The Judges? How about us citizens ourselves? As such - the government being by the peopel, of the people, and for the people - do we not have a ruling responsibility to decide and make decisions to whether this country will be a Godly one or no? To answer your question, the only place Jesus calls for any kind of self defense is in Luke 22 where he tells his apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane to trade their garments for swords (pray-tell, why would he do that?). But again, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Does this mean Jesus Christ supported the gay and lesbian lifestyle? Perhaps, again, the Bible has enough to say both about homsoexuality and the citizen-rulers of a country defending themselves and their rights, insomuch that Jesus was silent about it? Jesus also never spoke directly abut beating up ones wife or girlfriend - does that mean Jesus and the Bible condone spousal abuse? Jesus never said a word about taking care of the elderly, but the rest of the Bible does, insomuch that Paul the apostle calls neglect of family a sin and the work of an infidel: does this mean Paul and Jesus contradict each other? Christ also never uttered a word concerning fair busuiness practice, but the Bible states countless times that to have an uneven balance is abominatin in God's eyes - does this mean that Jesus countermanded the even-balance and single weight-scale practice? Jesus also didn't mention a thing about flying in an airplane, driving a car, riding a bicycle, traveling underwater, or using a cell phone: does that men we ought not use any of these innovations or practices? Your questions have been answered, TheGreatBout - I'd appreciate it if you would reciprocate.
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply...
too_pretty_to_die@xanga - skirting the issue doesn't help. The Russian Czar promulgated a constitution guaranteeing the right of its citizens ot vote for elected representation in what is called the Duma. You assertion that Russia went straight from an absolute monarchy to communism is flat-out wrong. And though there was relgigious repression under the Czars, it paled in copmparison to the subjugation of the church under the Communists. and Christianity obviously didn't stay off of its pedestal, as the church in Russia has experienced great growth in the years followign the collapse of the USSR.
True Christians don't put their ideological or religious opponents into death camps. Neither do they make laws forbidding the practice of free religious worship.
And what rights are homosexuals not afforded in the USA? And let us be clear on what "rights" are. Marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege in the USA. Service in the Armed Forces isn't a right, it is a privilege in the USA as well. Name one right that hmosexuals are not afforded. please, if you will...
Yes, yes, yes, the old, tired example of Thomas Jefferson being this rabid atheist, yet it was Jefferson who wrote the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of Worship. It was also Thomas Jefferson who - despite his writing of a Bible that cut out Christ's deity (something he repudiated sometime later in a letter to John Adams) - spoke so highly of Christianity, God, and Jesus Christ, as well as the need for the USA to remain a Christian Nation. Yes, that Thomas Jefferson. As far as the Founding Fathers not supporting you as a woman, gross and baseless assertation at best. Thank the Lord they made it possible for us, the Citizenry of the USA to amend the Constitution of the USA. After all, had they not done that, women really wouldn't have the rights that they enjoy today...
Thank you for your reply.
@JandJinJapan@xanga -
"You assertion that Russia went straight from an absolute monarchy to communism is flat-out wrong."
ok, then i misspoke in regards to the use of "absolute." but that doesn't change the reality that there were no guarantees of religious freedom.
"True Christians don't put their ideological
or religious opponents into death camps. Neither do they make laws
forbidding the practice of free religious worship."
i'm not sure it puts your religion in a better light to admit that you are like the Nazis when it comes to ideology... just not as bad when it comes to how the ideology is applied.
"And what rights are homosexuals not afforded
in the USA? And let us be clear on what "rights" are. Marriage isn't a
right, it is a privilege in the USA. Service in the Armed Forces isn't
a right, it is a privilege in the USA as well. Name one right that homosexuals are not afforded. please, if you will..."
until recently, homosexual couples were not allowed to have their SOs visit them in the hospital.
if marriage is a mere privilege, then married couples should not be granted special rights. there should be no tax breaks for married couples, for instance. you can't claim that marriage is a religious institution when the secular status of married vs. single is so different. i don't see why homosexuals are any less deserving.
if military service is a privilege, i'd rather extend that privilege to anyone willing to die for this country (because i sure as Hell won't),than have my tax dollars support discrimination. military service is a job like any other job... you go through training, get a paycheck, get benefits, and even get to retire. the military should have to follow discrimination laws like any other government institution.
"As far as the Founding Fathers not supporting you as a woman, gross and baseless assertation at best."
then it shouldn't have taken a century or so for us to be allowed to vote.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - How about here in America? Homosexuals and Atheists comprise 3~5% of the United States' Population combined,
and yet, both of these groups are setting policy for the rest of
American society. Atheists are demanding God be reckoned out of the
public sector....and it has been happening since the early 1960s.
homosexuals are demanding their "right" to "marry", and have been forced
to take to the courts to see that their way is granted, despite the
majorities of the populartions of 39 states declaring marriage to be
between one man and a woman.
Where did you get these statistics? I was personally under the impression that homosexual identifying people make up between 3-5% of the US population (and more than that if we included other non-straight identifying individuals), and I'm pretty sure that not all Atheists are gay...or that all homosexual people are atheists. Therefore, that number is not interchangeable between the two, and there should be more than just 3-5% of people in the US that feel they are homosexual or atheist.
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that "sin" just magnetizes to certain people and when they do one thing wrong, they do it all wrong.