Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think about this from another perspective. Let's assume that the school system hired a Muslim coach. Practice time coincides with normal prayer time, so he submits a requisition to spend school money to buy prayer rugs for the entire team so they can all pray together. Everybody is OK with using taxpayer funds to buy the prayer rugs, aren't they?
That would be equivalent to the school using tax payer money to buy glasses and serving dishes so the team can have the Lord's supper. And I wouldn't support that. But a coach out of his own concern for the safety and well being of his team wanting to say a prayer is completely different. Likewise, I wouldn't be bothered if a Muslim or Native American coach wanted to speak blessing over me as a teammate based on their individual faiths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I believe that this is nothing more than a claim that SOME sermons could be deemed hate speech, and, if a pastor advocates violence that results in violence, he could be accused of hate speech. Otherwise, you'll have to tell us what you are referring to.
That's the problem. Any government leader can come up with their own definition of what qualifies as hate speech.
That would be equivalent to the school using tax payer money to buy glasses and serving dishes so the team can have the Lord's supper. And I wouldn't support that. But a coach out of his own concern for the safety and well being of his team wanting to say a prayer is completely different. Likewise, I wouldn't be bothered if a Muslim or Native American coach wanted to speak blessing over me as a teammate based on their individual faiths.
That's the problem. Any government leader can come up with their own definition of what qualifies as hate speech.
Think about this from another perspective. Let's assume that the school system hired a Muslim coach. Practice time coincides with normal prayer time, so he submits a requisition to spend school money to buy prayer rugs for the entire team so they can all pray together. Everybody is OK with using taxpayer funds to buy the prayer rugs, aren't they?
How is that a restriction on your freedom of religion? All that does is keep the public space neutral.
I believe that this is nothing more than a claim that SOME sermons could be deemed hate speech, and, if a pastor advocates violence that results in violence, he could be accused of hate speech. Otherwise, you'll have to tell us what you are referring to.
I have no idea what this even means.
Back to the OP: The town decided that the monument would be removed. There were multiple complaints from multiple points of view. There is no evidence the town managers are atheists, so the atheists are not responsible for what happened.
Lol, I am sure Jeff would bring his own Muslim prayer cloth to kneel down with the coach at proper time,'' Praise Allah,'' I am sure Jeff would speak up and take part in his Muslim coach's prayer.
Last time I looked, the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and dictates that a government can not establish an official religion over another. Yet atheists have twisted those laws to mean freedom from religion. In other words, they think it's their right to be shielded even seeing a minor reference to religion in public view. This vile extreme attempts focused only on Christianity just shows the level of contempt that they have in their hearts against Christ and his followers.
For one thing, removing the word Lord is just silly. It is still a prayer. Who is the moment addressing if Lord no longer exists on it? Second, from what I read, only one person complained about the momument. So now they entire community has to accommodate the wishes of some anal person who can't stand the sight of the word Lord. Third, the momument was a donation. How is this any different than a piece of art on a public land that might be offensive to some people?
Which "Lord?" Who's "Lord?"
The complaints occur when Christians manage to insert their beliefs into governmentally sanctioned functions. That is a violation of the US Constitution.
On the side of a hill near Livermore Ca., east of San Francisco, there is a giant lighted "Jesus Saves" sign. It is on private property, and it has been there for years. If the sign said, "Allah O Akbar," (God is great) or "Satan Rules," (shudders ) Christians would be outraged and demand its removal. Sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander. Or so I have been led to understand.
That would be equivalent to the school using tax payer money to buy glasses and serving dishes so the team can have the Lord's supper. And I wouldn't support that. But a coach out of his own concern for the safety and well being of his team wanting to say a prayer is completely different. Likewise, I wouldn't be bothered if a Muslim or Native American coach wanted to speak blessing over me as a teammate based on their individual faiths.
You wouldn't be bothered. OK. You are one person; you do not speak for everyone. But public things, such as a public school sports team is for everyone.
Nothing is stopping the coach from praying for his team, only from praying publicly. Again, what is wrong with praying the way that Jesus instructed? I would think that a Christian would prefer to do all things in the way that Jesus instructed.
The complaints occur when Christians manage to insert their beliefs into governmentally sanctioned functions. That is a violation of the US Constitution.
On the side of a hill near Livermore Ca., east of San Francisco, there is a giant lighted "Jesus Saves" sign. It is on private property, and it has been there for years. If the sign said, "Allah O Akbar," (God is great) or "Satan Rules," (shudders ) Christians would be outraged and demand its removal. Sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander. Or so I have been led to understand.
I have seen those "Jesus Saves" lights many, many times.
And this is very much like my experience with the HOA that I used to be in when I was living in Colorado. Each community meeting had to begin with a lengthy christian prayer. Never mind that some people living there were Buddhist, Jewish, or of no faith. It was a we christians are in the majority, and we can do whatever we want mentality.
That the 'Good old days' that they long for. When only the Christians had a voice and the others would have to keep their traps shut. Now others are speaking up for equal rights, in fact and the Constitution -backed Law (for all the RWF's swear that it is a Christian document giving the Bible -believers Authority over all people) is supporting it in case after case. But it was like that from the start even when atheists had no rights under law.
There was the case where Christian tracts were sent to school with the kids - so non - Christian tracts were sent along and the Christians went mad. the answer? -No religious tracts of any kind. That is what the answer is time after time and, though we do not have separation of church and state here (in the UK, Church and state are not joined at the Hip - welded together at the spine) removal of religious shibboleths from many areas has become necessary. Either you have that, or you have Bahomet statues and atheists monuments put up alongside the commandments, or you have None of it, and Religion is confined to the place of worship and - it'c can't be helped - the family.
Oh- and TV channels. And didn't we hear a wittering of complaints about the ONE atheist TV channel that was started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Yes, well said, Trans. He would be the first person on here screaming about a Muslim prayer, or really anything not Christian. In fact, he has done it before. His excuse? The Christian majority should be able to do what they want, not anyone from the minority. IMHO, Jeff is as anti-American as they come. He wants a theocracy, and everyone who is not a Christian to be second class citizens.
I recall - I think it was Jeff, but I may be mistaken - someone going ballistic about study of the Quran in school. Of course he (the poster) hadn't read the article any more than Jeff read the one that sent him to the moon about atheist vandalism of religious monuments,as it said that it was being read 'as literature'. was just studied as literature.
I could write the rest of the script...
"Oh ho ho ho, yes...a bearded Imam in class teaching the Quran as 'Literature.."
"You think it's teaching Islam? You don't approve?"
"You bet i don't. That teacher should be sacked."
"Ok done. No more 'religious Texts in the literature class."
"Well there's atheism, yet again eroding Christianity from society again! It 's not enough that you can't have the Bible taught in school but now you can't even have it taught as literature!"
"Well, that's what happens when you ban one Holy book - you have to ban them all"
"But America is a Christian nation!"
...and set it to music
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-26-2019 at 12:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Christians would be outraged and demand its removal. Sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander. Or so I have been led to understand.
