ACLU

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
carpro, if they do it as a small group with only those who wish to participate, it is fine. If they use the PA system and impose the prayer on the entire audience, it is not fine. This is using public moneys and venue to impose religion on all in attendance. Now if it is a private Christian school, that is also fine over the PA system.

That is exactly how the aclu has twisted the 1st amendment into something it was never meant to be.

Since you didn't really answer the question, I'll try again.


How does a student led prayer before a student body at a football game between students violate the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment?

There is no possible way a sane person could conclude that it is an attempt by the government to "establish" a religion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I believe I have answered that. Reread my post. It depends on if it is a small voluntary group or imposed on everyone by the state (in the form of the local public school district).

 

[KenH]

So MP and Daisy, are ya'll saying that you believe that fear of violating the "establishment clause" trumps the "free exercise clause"?

 

[carpro]

No you didn't.
How is a prayer, regardless of who leads it and where, an attempt by the government to establish a religion?

Never mind. You can't answer that question because it is so clear that it is not , a child could figure it out.

Unless you have an agenda...like the aclu , which is the eventual destruction of all manifestations of religion, no matter where, when or how.

 

[KenH]

I see this as an attempt to follow the anti-smoking crusade. In this case, first ban religious expression on government property. Second, ban religious expression in "public" places such as work places, restaurants, and other places where the public gathers. Third, ban it in homes, cars, and other private places.

And I imagine it will all be done "for the children" in the minds of liberals.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by KenH:
So MP and Daisy, are ya'll saying that you believe that fear of violating the "establishment clause" trumps the "free exercise clause"?

You haven't proven that you've been prevented from "free exercise" of your actual religion.

As someone allergic to tobacco smoke, I really love the smoking ban. I am sympathetic to nicotine addicts, but I'm glad not to have to breathe their smoke.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
I see this as an attempt to follow the anti-smoking crusade. In this case, first ban religious expression on government property. Second, ban religious expression in "public" places such as work places, restaurants, and other places where the public gathers. Third, ban it in homes, cars, and other private places.

And I imagine it will all be done "for the children" in the minds of liberals.

And some Christians willingly accept imposed limits on how they exercise their faith.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
I see this as an attempt to follow the anti-smoking crusade. In this case, first ban religious expression on government property. Second, ban religious expression in "public" places such as work places, restaurants, and other places where the public gathers. Third, ban it in homes, cars, and other private places.

And I imagine it will all be done "for the children" in the minds of liberals.

And some Christians willingly accept imposed limits on how they exercise their faith. </font>[/QUOTE]How has the ACLU prevented you, personally, from practicing your religion?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daisy:
You haven't proven that you've been prevented from "free exercise" of your actual religion.

So, Daisy, you don't have a problem if my local government high school has a public prayer over the loudspeaker before a football game starts at a government stadium? If you do have a problem with it then you clearly believe that the "establishment clause" trumps the "free exercise clause", although I don't see how anyone can credibly claim that a prayer before a football game is an establishment of religion.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daisy:
How has the ACLU prevented you, personally, from practicing your religion?

Yes, the ACLU is preventing me from engaging in prayer with thousands of other Christians before high school football games.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:

How has the ACLU prevented you, personally, from practicing your religion?

If they are instrumental in crushing my brothers opportunity to freely express his faith, they are preventing me from expressing mine in however way I see fit. If I accept their limitations on my brother, I become a willing partner to their Godless agenda.

How is a public prayer an attempt by the government to establish a religion, regardless of where ,when or by whom it is offered?

 

[carpro]

It must be confusing to be a liberal and a Christian at the same time.

To be bound by Christ to spread the Gospel and bound by your politics to support every effort to stop the spread of your Lord's Gospel, has to cause a lot of inner turmoil.

 

[KenH]

The problem, carpro, is that there are legitimate concerns about the "establishment clause" such as we would not want to see non-Chritian religions banned by the government nor the goverment favoring one Christian denomination over another. But these concerns can be addressed without supporting the ACLU agenda that goes well beyond these concerns.

I think some Christians need to take a step back and consider what they are really supporting with the ACLU.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
I see this as an attempt to follow the anti-smoking crusade. In this case, first ban religious expression on government property. Second, ban religious expression in "public" places such as work places, restaurants, and other places where the public gathers. Third, ban it in homes, cars, and other private places.

And I imagine it will all be done "for the children" in the minds of liberals.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by KenH:
I see this as an attempt to follow the anti-smoking crusade. In this case, first ban religious expression on government property. Second, ban religious expression in "public" places such as work places, restaurants, and other places where the public gathers. Third, ban it in homes, cars, and other private places.

And I imagine it will all be done "for the children" in the minds of liberals.

Then after all that banning in comes the police state with biometric national ID's, cameras on every street corner, warrantless searches, no charge arrests, cops in black masks and submachine guns, freespeech zones, corporate coruption, and implantable (keeps the kids safe) microchips.

And that's just in the last 4 1/2 years. Wait till ya see what the globalists will let the Democrats do with all that.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Slippery Slope Fallacy

Tell that to smokers.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
How has the ACLU prevented you, personally, from practicing your religion?

Yes, the ACLU is preventing me from engaging in prayer with thousands of other Christians before high school football games. </font>[/QUOTE]No it is not. You may gather together and pray with them. You may not use the loudspeakers to force it on others.

My dad used to say "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." That sums it up pretty well.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Slippery Slope Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

 

[KenH]

Tell to smokers, MP. Tell it to smokers.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
No it is not. You may gather together and pray with them. You may not use the loudspeakers to force it on others.

So when the ACLU brings a lawsuit against a person(s) for praying before eating a meal at a government school cafeteria(without using a loudspeaker), are you going to support the ACLU?