The preacher at Bell Co couldnt get a microphone and say a public prayer

I'll ask again:

 

Can't you say your prayer in private? Or does God only act if said over the PA system at a public school game?

“Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are ‘one nation under God,’ and our currency bears the motto, ‘In God We Trust.’ The morality and values such faith implies are deeply embedded in our national character. Our country embraces those principles by design, and we abandon them at our peril. Yet in recent years, well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice in the classrooms. The law of this land has effectively removed prayer from our classrooms. How can we hope to retain our freedom through the generations if we fail to teach our young that our liberty springs from an abiding faith in our Creator?”

 

Ronald Reagan.

 

Question: If saying the Lord’s Prayer and/or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion--why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

if they had started praying out loud in the stands then some of you on here would start saying "Do it in private" I just believe most are against praying anyway.

“Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are ‘one nation under God,’ and our currency bears the motto, ‘In God We Trust.’ The morality and values such faith implies are deeply embedded in our national character. Our country embraces those principles by design, and we abandon them at our peril. Yet in recent years, well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice in the classrooms. The law of this land has effectively removed prayer from our classrooms. How can we hope to retain our freedom through the generations if we fail to teach our young that our liberty springs from an abiding faith in our Creator?”

 

Ronald Reagan.

 

Question: If saying the Lord’s Prayer and/or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion--why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

 

You are wasting your time trying to convince those on here, I am sure they will smooth talk it into something else

if they had started praying out loud in the stands then some of you on here would start saying "Do it in private" I just believe most are against praying anyway.

In a similar vein, you seem to be against answering questions...

 

Though, I'll admit---it's pretty hard to answer a question when logic rears it's ugly head.

if they had started praying out loud in the stands then some of you on here would start saying "Do it in private" I just believe most are against praying anyway.

 

People may say they should do it in private, but no one on here would argue that they didn't have the right to do it. Completely different issues.

In a similar vein, you seem to be against answering questions...

 

Though, I'll admit---it's pretty hard to answer a question when logic rears it's ugly head.

Logic, hahahahaha

People may say they should do it in private, but no one on here would argue that they didn't have the right to do it. Completely different issues.

 

 

Yeah I am sure no one would say a word about it.

We pray all the time before athletic contests at NCC wether playing a public or private school . We have a captive audience . As soon as I can get a copy of the prayer I will post it .

I must correct myself. The term has been attributed to Jefferson as the originator. Actually it was used prior to his use of it in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

 

From the Library of Congress:

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

 

"That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year's Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, "being seasoned to the Southern taste only." " Emphasis added.

 

"...for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more."

 

 

He was against the National Days of Prayer and fasting that were commonly called twice a year. That is true. The Danbury Baptist were actually upset at the state of Rhode Island and calling for help from Jefferson. He actually avoided address the state's role (as in one of the United States) in the letter. But he re-iterated that the National government has not role in supporting specific sects.

 

I should say the quote has been mis-used by religo-phobes (i.e. atheists and such) for years.

 

So, historically speaking, Baptists have been religo-phobes? :idunno:

 

On May 16, 1920, George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, stood outside the U.S. Capitol and spoke about religious liberty to a crowd estimated at 15,000.

 

"It is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe," he said. "God wants free worshippers and no other kind."

 

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2007/06/truett-speech-remembered.html

 

 

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind.

 

http://www.biblebelievers.com/truett_baptist_religious.html

 

 

Here is a statement from the 1925 & 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (adopted by the SBC):

 

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has Left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

 

:thumb:

Logic, hahahahaha

Laugh all you want. I'll answer any question you pose to me...can't say the same about you.

“Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are ‘one nation under God,’ and our currency bears the motto, ‘In God We Trust.’ The morality and values such faith implies are deeply embedded in our national character. Our country embraces those principles by design, and we abandon them at our peril. Yet in recent years, well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice in the classrooms. The law of this land has effectively removed prayer from our classrooms. How can we hope to retain our freedom through the generations if we fail to teach our young that our liberty springs from an abiding faith in our Creator?”

 

Ronald Reagan.

 

Question: If saying the Lord’s Prayer and/or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion--why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

 

There are some fallacies in the above.

 

First of all, the idea of observing a moment of silence is not the debate. I myself have suggested that this is the ultimate solution to the problem for all involved and it would hold up in court I believe.

 

Secondly, the Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge written by a Baptist cleric towards the end of the 19th century. It DID NOT contain the phrase (Under God) in the original draft and was not added until the 20th century so it's a misnomer to call it "woven into our national fabric."

 

Thirdly, the original motto of the US is actually "E Plurbis Unum" and was adopted as such in 1782. It was not until 1956 that the phrase "In God we Trust" was officially added. In fact it did not appear on money until the Civil War and its origins might very well have only been as far back as the last stanza of the "Star Spangled Banner."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

Statement retracted...

There are some fallacies in the above.

 

First of all, the idea of observing a moment of silence is not the debate. I myself have suggested that this is the ultimate solution to the problem for all involved and it would hold up in court I believe.

 

Secondly, the Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge written by a Baptist cleric towards the end of the 19th century. It DID NOT contain the phrase (Under God) in the original draft and was not added until the 20th century so it's a misnomer to call it "woven into our national fabric."

 

Thirdly, the original motto of the US is actually "E Plurbis Unum" and was adopted as such in 1782. It was not until 1956 that the phrase "In God we Trust" was officially added. In fact it did not appear on money until the Civil War and its origins might very well have only been as far back as the last stanza of the "Star Spangled Banner."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

 

When President Reagan made this comment, did Our Pledge contain "one nation under God?" So what exactly is the debate? You seemed to have ignored the part about saying the Lord's Prayer and a U.S. taxpayer-paid chaplain/preacher beginning every session of Congress with prayer uninterrupted since 1777. I hope you don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

if they had started praying out loud in the stands then some of you on here would start saying "Do it in private" I just believe most are against praying anyway.

 

Boy, just when I thought you couldn't be more wrong you go and up the ante.