I still don't think there is enough details to really pass judgment on the situation.

I agree Fat, but I'd still be upset as a parent on missing seeing my child do his Baptism. Real upset. In doing Baptism you are showing your family/church family/strangers in the worship service that you are born again and in doing so you are doing as Jesus did.

 

Yes you are right. But in the end the what matters is the boys relationship with Christ.

I was not at the service where my son accepted Christ. He was 12 at the time. He went to a Big Tent Revival concert and from what I understand could not wait for an invetation. Of thousands of people in the crowd my little boy was the first to come foreward which broke the ice for others.

I kind of felt slighted for not being allowed to witness this, but I was very proud of him and his decision.

This boy may never again hear the calling of Christ the way he heard it that night. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward belief. The people who witnessed it were the people who God intended to witness it.

There are a lot of bad decisions a child can make. As a parent be happy when your children make the right one.

As far as needing parental permission to speak to a kid about Christ, this is taking a worldly view of Christianity. A relationship with Christ is between Christ and the other person. A parents belief is not relevant.

Baptism has nothing to do with speaking. It's a whole other ball of wax, and something with which the parents had a right to be involved.

I agree Fat, but I'd still be upset as a parent on missing seeing my child do his Baptism. Real upset. In doing Baptism you are showing your family/church family/strangers in the worship service that you are born again and in doing so you are doing as Jesus did.

Amen! :thumb:

His father was involved. The one that really matters.

Here is how I see it.

 

The fact of the matter is that an individual who is in a position of authority in a public school encouraged his students to join him in attending his church. I don't see how any rational individual could look at this as a good thing. First and foremost it is an abuse of the position of authority and trust that a coach requires. Secondly it leads to a serious blurring of the separation of church and state. Now I know that some people have issue with the Establishment Clause, particularly in the Bible Belt, but the fact is that it exists and due to that fact any influencing of religious beliefs by any figure from a public school is prohibited. For them to do otherwise leads to the appearance of favoring one faith over another. Would people be as joyous had this been a synagogue or a mosque? What it if it were a Hindu Temple and they decided to profess their faith in Kali?

 

 

On top of all this, do we really want people making serious religious decisions based solely on emotion? That is one of the reasons why the Catholic church takes so much time for the sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony and Holy Orders. These all require considerable time, dedication and study before individuals are allowed to take those steps. How any church could allow anyone to take a step like that without considerable study and self-reflection is beyond me.

 

Even so, were there no connection to an authority figure in a school whatsoever this wouldn't even have made news. I understand the desire to profess one's faith and share it but you need to understand the appropriate time and place. Being an employee of the state, which cannot favor one faith over another, this needs to be taken into account.

Luke 23:39-43

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Yes you are right. But in the end the what matters is the boys relationship with Christ.

I was not at the service where my son accepted Christ. He was 12 at the time. He went to a Big Tent Revival concert and from what I understand could not wait for an invetation. Of thousands of people in the crowd my little boy was the first to come foreward which broke the ice for others.

I kind of felt slighted for not being allowed to witness this, but I was very proud of him and his decision.

This boy may never again hear the calling of Christ the way he heard it that night. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward belief. The people who witnessed it were the people who God intended to witness it.

There are a lot of bad decisions a child can make. As a parent be happy when your children make the right one.

 

But did you get to witness his baptism?

 

These parents did not. :thumb:

 

I agree about the important issue, salvation. However salvation that is experienced in such a rushed and pressured circumstance can lead to major problems for that faith in the future and for the way the witness of the Church is perceived.

Here is how I see it.

 

The fact of the matter is that an individual who is in a position of authority in a public school encouraged his students to join him in attending his church. I don't see how any rational individual could look at this as a good thing. First and foremost it is an abuse of the position of authority and trust that a coach requires. Secondly it leads to a serious blurring of the separation of church and state. Now I know that some people have issue with the Establishment Clause, particularly in the Bible Belt, but the fact is that it exists and due to that fact any influencing of religious beliefs by any figure from a public school is prohibited. For them to do otherwise leads to the appearance of favoring one faith over another. Would people be as joyous had this been a synagogue or a mosque? What it if it were a Hindu Temple and they decided to profess their faith in Kali?

 

 

On top of all this, do we really want people making serious religious decisions based solely on emotion? That is one of the reasons why the Catholic church takes so much time for the sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony and Holy Orders. These all require considerable time, dedication and study before individuals are allowed to take those steps. How any church could allow anyone to take a step like that without considerable study and self-reflection is beyond me.

 

Even so, were there no connection to an authority figure in a school whatsoever this wouldn't even have made news. I understand the desire to profess one's faith and share it but you need to understand the appropriate time and place. Being an employee of the state, which cannot favor one faith over another, this needs to be taken into account.

 

I see it as a good thing because I am a christian. At the same time I understand the reservations people have with it. As far as making a decision on emotion, how do we know this wasn't planned for a while by the young man? Like I said, I'd like to know the exact details of the event.

 

We always prayed before and after ball games when I was in high school. Based on your views, is that wrong to say the Lord's prayer like I would guess most teams do?

Baptism has nothing to do with speaking. It's a whole other ball of wax, and something with which the parents had a right to be involved.

 

Parents cannot choose for or against a child's choice of salvation, BIBLICALLY.

 

In our warped society, courts would probably agree with you.

 

Biblically, I can no more choose for my children their status of faith than any other parent can.

Here is how I see it.

 

The fact of the matter is that an individual who is in a position of authority in a public school encouraged his students to join him in attending his church. I don't see how any rational individual could look at this as a good thing. First and foremost it is an abuse of the position of authority and trust that a coach requires. Secondly it leads to a serious blurring of the separation of church and state. Now I know that some people have issue with the Establishment Clause, particularly in the Bible Belt, but the fact is that it exists and due to that fact any influencing of religious beliefs by any figure from a public school is prohibited. For them to do otherwise leads to the appearance of favoring one faith over another. Would people be as joyous had this been a synagogue or a mosque? What it if it were a Hindu Temple and they decided to profess their faith in Kali?

 

 

On top of all this, do we really want people making serious religious decisions based solely on emotion? That is one of the reasons why the Catholic church takes so much time for the sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony and Holy Orders. These all require considerable time, dedication and study before individuals are allowed to take those steps. How any church could allow anyone to take a step like that without considerable study and self-reflection is beyond me.

 

Even so, were there no connection to an authority figure in a school whatsoever this wouldn't even have made news. I understand the desire to profess one's faith and share it but you need to understand the appropriate time and place. Being an employee of the state, which cannot favor one faith over another, this needs to be taken into account.

 

So, are you against Fellowship of Christian Athletes in schools?

I see it as a good thing because I am a christian. At the same time I understand the reservations people have with it. As far as making a decision on emotion, how do we know this wasn't planned for a while by the young man? Like I said, I'd like to know the exact details of the event.

 

We always prayed before and after ball games when I was in high school. Based on your views, is that wrong to say the Lord's prayer like I would guess most teams do?

 

To the bolded:

 

I have no problem with it as long as it is not mandatory and led by students as opposed to the coaches. Were it a parochial institution then I have no problem with it. Trinity, St.X, LCA and CAL for instance it is not a problem because they are private schools with religious affiliations.

 

It may have been planned upon by the young man, however something tells me that if he planned it he would likely have informed his mother ahead of time so she could have shared in the event.

I think this is posted on here but one case says a coach cannot even bow their head during a athlete led prayer.

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19931

 

But Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote in the lead opinion yesterday in Borden v. East Brunswick School District that Borden’s past action of leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. “A reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray,” Fisher wrote.

 

Meanwhile, Judge Theodore McKee wrote that kneeling or head-bowing would look like an endorsement of religion even to someone who did not know the coach had led prayers in the past.

 

And the third judge, Maryann Trump Barry, wondered what a coach should do in Borden’s position. “Surely he would not be required to keep his head erect or turn his back or stand and walk away,” she wrote. “Any such requirement would evidence a hostility to religion that no one would intend.”

So, are you against Fellowship of Christian Athletes in schools?

 

Not as long as they are student led, run and treated no differently than any other club. If they are required to have a faculty moderator that is fine as long as the moderator is not taking the lead in things.

 

Now if there were any intimidation to those wanting to found a club for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any other religious group then I would want all clubs of a religious nature banned from campus.

Not as long as they are student led, run and treated no differently than any other club. If they are required to have a faculty moderator that is fine as long as the moderator is not taking the lead in things.

 

Now if there were any intimidation to those wanting to found a club for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any other religious group then I would want all clubs of a religious nature banned from campus.

 

But coaches in most cases are the sponsors. So, wouldn't that still fit your description of

 

The fact of the matter is that an individual who is in a position of authority in a public school encouraged his students to join him in attending his church. I don't see how any rational individual could look at this as a good thing.

 

Remember at least some FCA meetings there is worship and prayer to God and Jesus as well as discussion of the plan of salvation.. Similar to the activities of church.