ACLU

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise. But to answer your rhetorical, IF the ACLU took the position you describe, no I would not support them on that case.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
My dad used to say "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." That sums it up pretty well.

No one is harmed by a two minute prayer being said over a loudspeaker, MP. If you can't prove harm, then no right is being violated just because some lost person doesn't like it.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
My dad used to say "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." That sums it up pretty well.

No one is harmed by a two minute prayer being said over a loudspeaker, MP. If you can't prove harm, then no right is being violated just because some lost person doesn't like it. </font>[/QUOTE]The loud speaker issue is a red herring. If you pray out loud in the hearing of anyone who objects to what you are doing, the government is trying to "establish" a religion.

 

[KenH]

It's about time that we recognize in this country that the majority have rights, too, and not just the minority.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So, I guess if a student Satanist group has a student-led prayer on the loudspeakers before a game to the dark lord of the underworld, you are not harmed, and it should be allowed. If you are offended, just don't listen. Same logic. Their is a big difference between hostility to religion and neutrality toward religion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by KenH:
It's about time that we recognize in this country that the majority have rights, too, and not just the minority.

Sure the majority has rights. But no one is free unless the rights of all are protected, majority and minority. Be careful what you wish for, as you may not always be the majority. Then you will be screaming for minorities to be protected.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise. But to answer your rhetorical, IF the ACLU took the position you describe, no I would not support them on that case. </font>[/QUOTE]It already has.

Reed v Van Hoven

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Ken, I was not familiar with Reed v Van Hoven, and do not know if the ACLU was representing anyone in that case. Perhaps you do.

However, I stand by my statement that I would not support the blanket banning of a pre-meal prayer by an individual. The problem, as I see it, is the "aloud" part. First of all, is the prayer violating a school quiet time or disruptive? If so, limits are ok, IMO. I do have to wonder why it is an issue. God hears silent prayers, so why the need for public spectacle, which btw Jesus expressly forbid. Those who make a public show of prayer have received their blessing, but God knows the heart of those who pray silently. At least that is what the Savior taught, if you take his teachings seriously.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by 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.

You can spread the Gospel all you like providing as long as you don't use government money or government property to do it - that would be using public property for private use.

Originally posted by KenH:
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?

They have done the opposite, KenH.

Originally posted by carpro:
The loud speaker issue is a red herring. If you pray out loud in the hearing of anyone who objects to what you are doing, the government is trying to "establish" a religion.

No, that just isn't true. The ACLU has gone to bat for people who were stopped by government officials from praying out loud.

You still haven't said how you personally were prevented from the free exercise of your religion...or is that a red herring?

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
So, I guess if a student Satanist group has a student-led prayer on the loudspeakers before a game to the dark lord of the underworld, you are not harmed, and it should be allowed. If you are offended, just don't listen. Same logic. Their is a big difference between hostility to religion and neutrality toward religion.

Christ has commanded us not to be neutral.

Somehow it seems you keep forgetting what comes first in our lives.

We are bound to carry His message anytime anyplace regardless of consequences.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
So, I guess if a student Satanist group has a student-led prayer on the loudspeakers before a game to the dark lord of the underworld, you are not harmed, and it should be allowed.

If that is the majority culture where the football game is being played, then yes, they can do that and I would just have to be a man and tough it out for two minutes.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Then you will be screaming for minorities to be protected.

We already protect minority rights better than any country that has ever existed. What you and the ACLU are advocating is the tyranny of minority rights over the rights of the majority.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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.

You can spread the Gospel all you like providing as long as you don't use government money or government property to do it - that would be using public property for private use.

</font>[/QUOTE]As a Christian, I will use the means and the opportunity that are available to me.

Since I'm not a liberal, I am not confused about what Christ has commanded me to do. This lack of confusion means I don't feel constrained to support a political position that is in conflict with my Christain beliefs.

 

[LadyEagle]

This thread is now closed per the 3-page warning posted earlier.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator