Supremes reject Christian student appeal

What is the difference between a Theocracy and your form of Christian government?

Well then, clue me in.

I'm sorry you think that's a smear. Your extreme anti-secularism led me to think you are pro-Theocracy, but since you say you are not, I'll take your word for it; however, I really would appreciate it if you would explain the difference between your position and theirs since I'm cluefree.

 

Daisy? Maybe you should go back to my post which you referenced! You know the one where you claim I said we should "impose" a "theocracy". I think you will find exactly where I stand on the issue but you won't find that.

Will I get an apology if you find yourself corrected? Or are you going to force me to print exactly what I have said? At which I will demand an apology.


Take care, Ralph

 

Actually, not. It, the ACLU, is founded on American principles as found in the Constitution.

Sorry, that's too crytic - which ones what?

It's a direct reply to what is quoted directly before; I'd think from the segue that would be obvious.

I agree that they ought to have been able to opt out of the recitations, but beyond that, they should not be able to opt out of merely learning about other cultures and religions, imo.

Not so, intent is the key.

Why is pretending not acceptable at this age level? I would think that college students would be a bit beyond that.

And the original suits against school prayers were brought on behalf of religious students, not atheists. The ACLU has fought on the side of Christian schoolchildren to express their personal religious beliefs.

 

I can't read type that small.

I didn't reference any particular post of yours as they all seem to have a similar theme.

No, I don't see exactly where you stand on that as you haven't addressed the issue of theocracy by name which is why I asked how your position is different.

Oh, and I didn't claim that you said we should impose a theocracy; I said some right-wingers would like to - do you deny that? - after mentioning your post. So I implied it, not claimed it.

Hey, I already said I was sorry - why demand what was freely given? I'll say it again if you like - sorry, my intention was not to smear you. I didn't mean to offend you, sorry.

How could I force you to do anything, Ralph? What I would appreciate is if you would be so kind as to explain the difference between your position and theocracy (in reasonably sized type), however you would care to define the terms. I've already admitted that I don't know - your getting all huffy isn't going to get me to know faster than your simply explaining would.

 

Daisy, I am not being huffy. I took issue because you misquoted me in such a manner as to disparage. I will clarify for you.

No this is not correct. What you said was,

Niteshift was explaining how anytime someone wants to introduce "any biblical-based course in the schools.....they paint it as an attempt by right-wingers to impose theocracy". You then immediately proved his point. But it is OK as I accept your apology and apologize for coming across "huffy". :1_grouphug:

How my position is different than what or who? I am not exactly sure what you mean here. I will offer the following though. I have a post in the History forum "America is a Christian nation".

Many take issue with calling America a Christian nation and thought this is what you were referencing. I have no problem saying America is a Christian nation because we were formed on Christians principles. By Christians representing a nation of Christians. Not a Theocratic nation but definetly not Secular. As such has no reference, dependence, or acknowledgement of God.

The nation has never been or was formed to be as that. Indeed, secularism or atheism was something the Founders and those before would have found dangerous to this nation. Anyhow, it is an entirely different topic and do not wish to re-visit within this thread.



To address your question directly. I have no problem with our Leadership recognizing God. Nor the nation praying for His forgiveness and guidance. This has always been the case along with many, many other things.
I have no problem with a teacher serving as a good moral example. By leading a short prayer for those children who would like to hear such. Nor do I have a problem with the Ten Commandments on a wall. There is nothing imposing about such things and it can be done with consciousness of others.

These things had always been a part of America and so there is pecedence for it. This is not theocratic as nobody is forced to hear, read, or believe. It is simply maintaining what had always been something of great importance. Good moral instruction based on God's word.




As it stands All children are forced to read, write, recite, and persuaded to accept many atheistic and paganistic things. Which in many cases goes directly against the greatest majority of children's beleifs. Such goes against God.

Again God says His word is not "burdensome".


Take care.

In Christ, Ralph :jesus:

 

You cannot provide evidence of this. I however can provide evidence that it is and was founded by communists and has communism for its goals.

 

I have no idea what the history of the ACLU is, nor do I care. Having lived since the early 50's and somewhat watched the news, it is quite apparant that these nutcases are a nuscience to the American people.

 

This is well said "saturneptune" and absolutley accurate. Though I probably would have used stronger language. What is scary is there are many who just don't realize this or ignore it.


Take care, Ralph

 

Demanding an apology when one was already given is huffy in my book. I didn't "misquote" as I didn't quote you at all, so saying I did is being huffy as well as wrong.

Actually, I was not referring to any particular post of yours, but that was unclear. I should have made that plural, "Have you read Ralph's posts?"

Great, we're cool, then?

Um, Ralph, you just spent the better part of two posts yelling at me for saying you'd like to impose a theocracy, so the answer to 'what' is theocracy and to 'who' is theocrats, however you'd like to define the terms.

Taking the scenic route?

Leaving aside the, um, factual aspect of your post, let me paraphrase to see if I have understood you correctly: you differ from theocrats in that they would force the general poplace to believe, hear and read whereas you would simply preach at them incessantly while giving them the option of plugging their ears and closing their eyes? You object to the idea of force which is where you differ from the theocrats - is that correct?

So, is it your opinion here that if the force aspect were removed from public schooling, it would be hunky-dory?

Perhaps it's in the presentation...

But, take care yourself.:1_grouphug:

 

That and equal opportunity for the Bible to be taught.

 

Their "mission" statement on the "About" page.

Ok prove that the ACLU has communism as its goal.

It might be better, less derailing, if you'd move that discussion to one of the ACLU threads already in existence or to a new one.

 

I already started a thread with the evidence. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34201

 

Taught as what?

 

Why can't kids learn the Bible at church like I did rather than being taught the Bible by the governernt? I don't want the government to teach religion. If you didn't want them to teach about sex, why would you want them to teach about religion?

 

Then I assume you are against what the government is doing with this particular Islamic promotion...correct?

 

MP, in case you missed it in the OP, THIS is what the problem is! Students are being REQUIRED to engage in prayer (to Allah, as if they were Muslims) in this class. And the Supremes think this is okay?

You are against "forced" Christian prayer, and yet you support "forced" Islamic prayer in the classroom? I do not understand!

Bill

 

Hello Daisy:wavey:
I am going to keep it light but we need to be clear on a few things, OK.

A) I originally printed you "misrepresented" me but changed it to "misquoted". Because you said they should see "Ralph's post", and that I wanted to "...impose theocracy". I had every right to react as I did because it is a disparaging statement but will practice a little more patience in the future. My position has been very clear in this thread, and others.

B) I read right over what you are calling an initial apology, "I'm sorry you think that's a smear. Your extreme anti-secularism led me to think...." This is not an apology Daisy. It came across with sarcasm as did much of that post and you made no effort to correct what you had stated. So I gave you the task of clearing it up. I asked if an apology would come if you found yourself corrected but demanded nothing. Unless you had forced me to clear up what I have stated in regards to theocracy.

A sincere apology is simply "I am sorry" or "I did not mean to misrepresent you but". Which you have since done and I thank you.

C) Just to clarify. I do not have an “extreme anti-secular” view and know what it means. I was simply trying to make a point for Christians. As some people and society condition people to believe Secularism is perfectly fine in many or most instances. Ultimately though, isn't it a devilish or worldly term, as it attempts not to recognize God or His Word?

Well that might have helped but it would not have avoided the problem. The fact is I have never said or implied we should impose a theocracy.

But yes we are "Cool" on the quote thing! No problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daisy there are numerous other's participating in this thread. So I just wanted to be clear on exactly who and what.

Darnit Daisy, there you go again and once more making Niteshifts point. He's gotta be rolling on the floor, ha.:laugh:
Where have I, or anyone, implied we should "preach at them incessantly"?

My definition of Theocracy or a Theocrat is as the Dictionary describes. It is a government which is based mostly or entirely on religion. With Leaders who are ordained as such. I have never advocated this becuase which exact Church doctrine would we use? As Baptist's cannot even agree with Baptist, ha. In additon the diversity within America is to great and such is not possible. However, to keep from getting in trouble with God. Would a nation conducting itself in good Christian spirit based mostly upon our Lord's word be soooo bad???


The problem is what you and a few others choose to call Theocracy. Which apparently is any reference to God or His word within the public? As you seem highly contentious even toward the posting of the Commandments on a wall or a simple and voluntary prayer.

I have consistently stated, the posting of the Ten Commandments on a wall, or a simple prayer led by a teacher by those who wish to hear such, would surely be OK? Certainly something could be worked out in order to give some sort of balance! This is far from Theocracy and to think otherwise is well beyond stretching it.

You have however, got it backwards! As it stands All children are "preached at incessantly" and taught to accept as factual, many atheistic or paganistic things. These things are done without any opposing views and in contrast to the majority of student’s beliefs. They teach Darwinism as factual, when it's pillars were proven lies from it's inception and over again; that alternative lifestyles are completely normal and fully acceptable. There are school books which seek to remove all references to our Founders Faith or the purpose of the Pilgrims and their faith. Which in fact was to start a new life and to promote Christianity. There are many attempts not to even acknowledge these things on historical accounts. Apparently we Christians like to pretend the Devil is not in play at all? We just accept what the Secular world tells us is OK? Like blind sheep? The fact is no child has the option of “closing their eye’s” or “plugging their ears” to the above things.

Nobody, is saying public schools should be turned into proselytizing and forced-faith buildings. You believe a posting of the Ten Commandments or a voluntary and simple prayer, lead by a teacher is BAD or Evil? Whether that could be worked out, between classes, at lunch, or in a designated area etc? Do you want God’s Commandments and His Word removed from the public?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it is OK to ignore what the majority of Children might possibly like to hear or see? It is OK to leave other Children to the wolves? Many of whom come from lost or broken homes with no available moral example!? This is OK but a posting of the Commandments or a simple prayer is Bad?

Because I do not see it as OK or Godly.

Take care,
In Christ, Ralph :jesus:

 

You would think so, wouldn't you? But there has never been any evidence of it.

Well, if a required class had children simulating baptism, partaking of the Lord's Supper, and memorizing Bible verses, would you say it's ok because it was only pretending? No I didn't think so. But you think is it A-ok for kids to simulate Muslims rites in a similar manner.

Not at the present they aren't. But in the future, who knows.

 

Sure thing, Ralph.

You should have stuck with "misrepresented" for accuracy's sake. I didn't say that you wanted to impose theocracy, I implied it when I said, "...some right-wingers ..." I don't think that theocrat is a disparaging term; it means "one who wants the civil government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." I sincerely assumed from your posts that you were one such.

That was not sarcasm, that was sincere. You do preach against secularism, more than most people, as being against God and that did lead me to think that you favored theocracy and I am sorry you consider it a smear. Sarcasm is saying something you don't mean, but I did and do mean it.

Thank you for the lecture on sincerity - see the diff? that is sarcasm.

That comes off as extremely anti-secular to me. Do you think that that is pro-secular or only moderately anti? I honestly don't get your objection.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You didn't ask me to clarify; you stated that you wanted to clarify. ***This is getting murkier by the minute ***

My own interpretation. :tonofbricks:

Ah, at last, your definition and why you reject it! Thank you!

I was going with the Miriam-Webster definition as posted above.

Students don't need to be led in prayer by a representative of the State; they can pray on their own in their own manner. What you suggest fosters an "us" vs "them" mentality generally to the detriment of "them".

Do you think that there are no right-wingers who would like to impose a theocracy as you defined it?

Do you consider algebra atheistic, paganistic or godly?

They touch on the theory of evolution, if that is what you mean by "Darwinism", as the basis of biology. Since that is accepted by the vast majority of working biologists, to be ignorant of that would be ignorant of the basis of biology.

Students come from varied backgrounds, which to them, are normal and acceptable.

On this we agree - history should not be bowdlerized of religion.

See, now here you cross the line from teaching about religion to preaching a particular religion in public schools.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prayer is exclusive and has no secular purpose. As for the 10 Cs, it depends on how they're displayed and why a particular version is chosen.

Pray privately and not for show.

Yes.

Which is why I mistook you for a theocrat.

 

Except for their court cases, friend of the court filings, lectures and publications.

It depends on what it was supposed to be teaching, but probably.

Perhaps you should wait for an actual answer instead of assuming one.

Then will you say the majority should rule or will you be glad when the ACLU intervenes?