-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Northwest Rankin High School is a public high school located in Flowood, Mississippi. On Tuesday April 9th, a student, representing Pinelake Baptist Church, addressed an assembly at the school and showed a video of two young men who had been “saved” from drugs and sex. Several students reported the mandatory assembly, during school hours, to the Appignani Humanist Legal Center (AHLC). AHLC coordinator William Burgess sent a letter of condemnation to principal Charles Frazier.
Rankin County School District released a statement saying the assembly was not mandatory:
Our students have the freedom to organize student-led and planned meetings and the assembly in question was student-led and organized.
However, the AHLC letter claims that the assembly was mandatory and an e-mail, shown here with names redacted, from Frazier to faculty members bears this out. As the AHLC letter notes: “Making attendance voluntary would not cure the constitutional infirmity.” This is borne out by the Court’s 
opinion in Lee v. Weisman (1992), where J. Kennedy wrote in the opinion of the Court: “the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.” The school can take no part any private student meetings promoting religion.
The AHLC letter notes that having a student deliver the presentation does not “absolve the school and its officials from liability.” That the presentation was school-sponsored and held on school property during class-time is sufficient for a violation of the Establishment Clause. The violation is exacerbated by Frazier’s promoting student attendance of the assembly as a requirement.
The AHLC letter also claims that several students, who tried to leave, were harassed by a principal and told to sit back down. One has to admire the students’ courage, in the face of official intimidation, in attempting to escape the proselytizing.
In her concurrence in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), J. O’Connor wrote:
The purpose prong of the Lemon test asks … whether, irrespective of government’s actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval. An affirmative answer to either question should render the challenged practice invalid.
Clearly, school officials used the authority of their office to require and maintain attendance at a Christian proselytizing meeting. This is a blatant example of Christian privilege and a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Rankin County School District better rein in Frazier, or they’ll have to use taxpayer funds to pay for defense lawyers in a civil suit.
The intent of the Establishment Clause is found in the words of the founders, whose envisioned a “perfect separation” between church and state. The progression towards that “perfect separation” requires constant vigilance. History shows us that those in power will use that power to maintain their dominance. New converts are essential for religions to maintain the status quo. Let religion obtain those converts using the persuasion by argument, rather than the coercion by authority. The historical predominance of the latter testifies to the ineffectiveness of the former.
H/T: Hemant Mehta.
I’ve spent years studying history and government on my own and in school and have studied such under the most liberal and the most conservative. I’m aware of the writings of Jefferson, but they are simply that: writings. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but does not mention separation of church and state. I read it again before I responded last night, and before my response now.
My knowledge of the facts of what happened at NWR comes now, not only from my own son, but others who were present at this assembly. One thing that struck me that everyone I spoke to, whether I knew them to be Christians or not, stated that not one person who claimed to feel their rights had been violated or who claimed to be offended made any attempt to leave, speak up in protest, or take any other step that the law allows them to do. Not one. My son went so far as to question one of theses offended students as to why they didn’t leave since they, by law, have the right to do so. The response was, “I don’t know”.
There are many student-led, faith-based activities that go on at this school and many others across the state of Mississippi. Even when I was in school, when we were told things like this could not be school sponsored, but rather student-led, we moved ahead, with the understanding that all were welcome, if those chose to participate. Mississippi is a state that is predominantly Christian, predominantly Protestant. For most of us, our faith is what guides our life.
For those of you who have a negative view of or experience with professing Christians, I deeply apologize. What you encountered was probably not true Christianity. As with any religion, there are always those whose speech or behavior taints and clouds the tenets of said faith. To say all Christians are judgemental, out to push an agenda, and every other negative thing that I face everyday, would be like saying that all followers of Islam are terrorists. It’s simply not the truth. Yes, we are called to share our faith with others, but many go about this the wrong way, and I have no doubt this is where many of you have had a negative experience with Christians. If you don’t see in my life what I’m sharing with you, then of course you will come away with a bad impression.
To anyone who commented on my previous, I welcome the comments. Under different circumstances, in a different forum, we might find that in many ways we are not so far apart. We may differ in faith or political views, but we all get up everyday, raise families, make a living, and a million other tasks. Yes, I am a Christian and that is how I live my life. I raised my children that way, but gave them the freedom to embrace it on their own. It has been what has sustained us during some of the worst things imaginable. My son had admitted that at times his faith has made high school a bit lonely, but it has also saved him from some major mistakes. The students who were offended had the right to walk out, but I would be lying if I said that I didn’t hope and pray that it would lead at least one to at least explore Christianity. And if any of you are ever in Jackson, Mississippi (or if you live in the area) I’m inviting you join me any Sunday at 10:15 am at Southside Baptist Church. All are welcome, but no one will be forced to stay. But you will be welcomed and loved…
My son went so far as to question one of theses offended students as to why they didn’t leave since they, by law, have the right to do so. The response was, “I don’t know”.
KWalker, I have been off a few days so this may have been written already but many, maybe most students will not get up and leave and therefore potentially make a spectacle of themselves, make themselves a bull’s eye. The fact that most in the school in Miss. where you went were “Christians” may well have made it hard for those who were of a different Faith to speak up and be a visible minority.
I our high school we were 75% Jewish yet our Christmas concert was just that with most of the music being about Christ.
In senior year one person finally spoke up and said this was wrong. She wanted to know why there was not music of other religions/religious at all?
Most of us privately said we agreed and how brave of her yet publicly we stayed mute, letting her be the visible face of what so many of us actually thought. Only she, who was someone who always loved the limelight, spoke up.
These kids were not adults, and how often do even adults not speak up and out? They were kids, in school, in control of school authority. Their grades may have been dependent on pleasing those in a position to cause them harm, with their college applications, with how easy the rest of the year was for them, or not. Etc, etc, etc.
As an adult too easy for us to say well, heck if offended they should have stood up, spoken up and walked out.
No KWalker, for a kid, much less for adults, that is not easy to do and may be the thing that has too many potential repercussions.
UPDATE: Apparently the law suit has been filed as of today.
The filing can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137789500/Complaint-in-M-B-v-Rankin-County-School-District
|”the Christian god seems to be a nervous, insecure fellow, a sort of Don Knotts of deities.”
I’ll be chuckling all day at the image that conjures up, bfm.
Thanks!
“And on the third day, God said, ‘Ange! We’ve got to nip it in the bud!'”
Nal,
If I recall the Puritians came a calling to set up a religious colony…. For whatever reasons it turned into a dismissal failure….. But establishing the concept that Winthrops version would not be continued if the New Colonies were to succeed….
But based upon historical notions that a certain god must be the head of each country…..something’s are continued something’s are abandoned for the betterment of all….. In this concept I agree with Jefferson totally….
KWalker:
Jefferson wrote that a consequence of the First Amendment was the “building a wall of separation between church and state.” That is the original meaning.
That’s half of the original intent. A wall works both ways.
As Justice Black wrote in McCollum:
… the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.
The founders and the Supreme Court don’t support your view.
And ditto what Gene H said.
KWalker:
1. You mistake criticism of bigotry and ignorance for anti-Christian attitudes.
2. The Tennessee state legislature recently abandoned consideration of a bill permitting state funding for private sectarian schools when it dawned on a few representatives that some of those funds could be used to build Muslim schools. If a student proposed a Muslim “voluntary” assembly at Northwest Rankin High School, the idea would never make it past the principal’s office.
3. As I have noted in the past, stating that Christianity is a religion is like stating that a rainbow is a color. Another poster recently pointed out that there are presently over 400 Christian denominations and sects in the United States. So when you say you are a Christian, you are revealing nothing about your beliefs, unless of course you believe that only those folks who subscribe to your particular orthodoxy are “true” Christians. Indeed, Christians are not even in agreement on the contents of the Bible.
4. In 1960 I was living in El Paso, Texas. You may or may not recall that John F . Kennedy was running for the presidency that year. I remember being handed pamphlets asserting that the United States was a Christian nation and that we would come to ruination were we to elect a Catholic.
5. My family moved to Huntsville, Alabama in 1963. That was where I first met a Southern Baptist who told me in no uncertain terms that Catholics were not Christians and that she believed that my family was condemned to eternal damnation unless we were born again. Since I had already been born once, I demurred.
6. The idea of student-led religious assemblies is merely the most recent ploy of evangelicals to get around the problem of state-sponsored religious assemblies. Several states, including Florida, where I live, have been pushing legislation authorizing such assemblies. The purpose is rather transparent. We have churches and church halls for assemblies. We have public schools for public education.
7. When I hear that self-proclaimed Christians have come up with plans for a schedule of Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. and atheist
assemblies to permit open and honest discussion about the range of belief and unbelief in the world, I and many others will be more open to your insistence that you are committed to the religious freedom promised by the Constitution.
P.S. I don’t know whom you have studied on the Constitution, but despite what you may have heard, David Barton is not a bona fide historian or constitutional scholar.
“As a parent of a Northwest Rankin student and a Christian, I’m reading this argument with great interest, and shaking my head. I am seeing, the typical liberal, anti-Christian rhetoric that I always see in these arguments, and I wonder if these types will ever come up with something else to argue this down.”
No one has said you cannot be a Christian. Under the 1st Amendment, your choice of religion is purely your business. Just so, every other citizen enjoys that same right to follow the dictates of their conscience free from either governmental or your interference.
“Christianity is not simply my system of belief, but the cornerstone of my life. I don’t have “religion”. I have a RELATIONSHIP with Christ.”
Good for you. And completely irrelevant to the legal argument against this manifestly unconstitutional forced assembly.
“If the student(s) who led this assembly were of another other faith, no one would bat an eye or open their mouth.”
You’ve obviously never read this blog before, have you?
“From what I understand, this was not mandatory and no student was forced to be there.”
Not according to both the press reports and the first hand reports of students posting to this blog.
“To the best of my knowledge and research, there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of student led religious assembly or prayer.”
The best of your knowledge is insufficient and this wasn’t a student led assembly. There is both legal precedent cited above to prove there are rulings on this matter and a copy of email evidence that the principal Charles Frazier made the assembly mandatory.
“I’ve studied the Constitution, and the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t found, and while that phrase does exist in government, it has become so wildly misinterpreted that its original meaning has become lost.”
That’s a semantic argument and as employed is a logical fallacy. Not all Constitutional legal doctrines bear their name from direct language found in the Constitution. This is the kind of misunderstanding that happens when laymen read the Constitution without any historical or jurisprudential context in which to properly understand the document.
“Its original intent was to ensure that government would not have the power to form a state church as they had in England. It did not mean that there was no room for basic Judeo-Christian tenets in government, or that Church and State could not coexist and work in tandem.”
Simply wrong as a legal and historical fact. The Founders, particularly Madison – the primary drafter of the Constitution – and Jefferson – whose work on the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom was a primary guide and notable precursor in formulating the 1st Amendment as passed, were very clear that religion had no place in government and that religion was an individual choice left up to each citizen’s conscience. The notion that ours is a “Christian Nation” is a myth started by would be theocrats and zealots and has no basis in either law or history. Or in the words of Jefferson, “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” (Letter to Virginia Baptists, 1808.) In his Virgina Act, Jefferson leaves no room for doubt and his language is clear when he says, “[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” In fact, most of the original settlers of this country were fleeing governments that tried for force a particular religious dogma upon them contrary to the dictates of their conscience.
“They can and should work together.”
Theocracy is one of the worst forms of government ever tried. One only needs to look at the history of Europe and the current states of Iran and Saudi Arabia for plenty of example of why combining religion and government ends in bloodshed and oppression.
“I’ve raised my kids to stand firm in their faith, and to pray wherever and whenever they feel led. My oldest son once asked me what would happen if he got in trouble for that, to which I replied that he has a mother that would stand with him.”
Well good for you. Just so long as you taught your son that others are free to ignore him and believe as they see fit and that he’s subject to criticism for espousing his beliefs according to the 1st Amendment’s Right to Free Speech.
“I’m not going to try to defend my faith. If doesn’t need defending, as it has stood for more than 2000 years.”
A wise strategy. The history of Christianity, like the history of all organized religions, is replete with examples of horrific things done in the “Name of God” by men with completely Earthly interests in maintaining power or acquiring wealth.
“I won’t be insulting of anyone, either.”
Good for you. Also wise.
“There has been enough of that on both sides of this conversation already. The slant and tone of the above article definitely shows what side of the argument the writer is on, and while I may not agree, I will defend the writer’s right to opinion.”
That starts with a mischaracterization, but ends well enough.
“But please bear in mind that everything stated in the article and in every comment (including mine) is simply that: opinion based on beliefs and our individual interpretation of the facts presented.”
Actually the article is based on both the facts of the incident and the laws of this nation.
“From what I read of the comments, only two responders were actual students.”
Read again. Those student’s speaking out were then treated to veiled threats from other students.
“I wasn’t there, and I seriously doubt any of the rest were. My son was, and I know what he told me about his experience with this.”
Which proves nothing. Unlike the email evidence that the principle made this a mandatory assembly. An assembly espousing a particular form of Christian dogma and trying to pass it off as science, done at a government facility, utilizing tax pay money to promote one religious view over another. Did I mention that’s unconstitutional? Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
“All I will say is that lawsuits like this ate exactly why America ceases to be the greatest nation on earth.”
No suit has been filed . . . yet. And that is your opinion and you’re entitled to it. However, to Constitutional scholars, such a suit would be an indication of something that has been and remains a source of greatness – the freedom of every citizen to chose the religion (or none at all) that conforms to the dictates of their conscience free from government interference.
As a parent of a Northwest Rankin student and a Christian, I’m reading this argument with great interest, and shaking my head. I am seeing, the typical liberal, anti-Christian rhetoric that I always see in these arguments, and I wonder if these types will ever come up with something else to argue this down. Christianity is not simply my system of belief, but the cornerstone of my life. I don’t have “religion”. I have a RELATIONSHIP with Christ. If the student(s) who led this assembly were of another other faith, no one would bat an eye or open their mouth. From what I understand, this was not mandatory and no student was forced to be there. To the best of my knowledge and research, there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of student led religious assembly or prayer. I’ve studied the Constitution, and the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t found, and while that phrase does exist in government, it has become so wildly misinterpreted that its original meaning has become lost. Its original intent was to ensure that government would not have the power to form a state church as they had in England. It did not mean that there was no room for basic Judeo-Christian tenets in government, or that Church and State could not coexist and work in tandem. They can and should work together. I’ve raised my kids to stand firm in their faith, and to pray wherever and whenever they feel led. My oldest son once asked me what would happen if he got in trouble for that, to which I replied that he has a mother that would stand with him. I’m not going to try to defend my faith. If doesn’t need defending, as it has stood for more than 2000 years. I won’t be insulting of anyone, either. There has been enough of that on both sides of this conversation already. The slant and tone of the above article definitely shows what side of the argument the writer is on, and while I may not agree, I will defend the writer’s right to opinion. But please bear in mind that everything stated in the article and in every comment (including mine) is simply that: opinion based on beliefs and our individual interpretation of the facts presented. From what I read of the comments, only two responders were actual students. I wasn’t there, and I seriously doubt any of the rest were. My son was, and I know what he told me about his experience with this. All I will say is that lawsuits like this ate exactly why America ceases to be the greatest nation on earth.
KWalker,
Besides echoing what Gene and Mike A. have said, which you will note was said civilly and with no attack upon you or Christianity, I would like to add my own thoughts. I’m sure your deeply held beliefs are a comfort to you and I respect that. What I don’t respect is that you are being disingenuous, either knowingly, or unknowingly. This is why I believe that:
You characterize the disagreement in terms of Liberal vs. Conservative and this is a false idea, spread by certain Christian denominations, who would mix Jesus into American politics for personal gain. This is not an issue of political leanings, it is an issue of the Constitution that has been settled decades ago by the Judiciary, were made up of both Conservative and Liberal Judges supporting the idea that religion has no place in our schools. That you ignore the past Judicial history is disingenuous. This because you either haven’t bothered to research the issue before opining on it, or because you ignore the prior ruling and wish to oppose them by creating a false history of them.
Among certain Christian denominations there has been a movement to “Christianize America”. By that I mean impose that denominations particular moral values upon the entire country. This is factual on the face of it because there have been a multitude of statements by the leaders of those denominations voicing that intent. That you disclaim knowledge of this is therefore disingenuous. It it made more so by the false premise that it is Christianity somehow under attack. This is an assertion that reverses the situation in order to cover the fact that this is part of an open agenda to Christianize our country. One of the problems with this agenda is that as Mike A. aptly pointed out there are many versions of Christianity actively represented in this country. Doctrinally, many of these Christian faiths are somewhat incompatible and many believe that they are the only true representatives of Christianity. Most of those most active in this movement to “Christianize America” are doing so with the solid belief that Christian means what they believe and not what another denomination believes.
Finally, you are being disingenuous by asserting that:
“If the student(s) who led this assembly were of another other faith, no one would bat an eye or open their mouth. From what I understand, this was not mandatory and no student was forced to be there.”
Flowood is demographically made up of 69% Southern Baptist Convention, 16% United Methodists, 5% Catholics, 1.3% Church of God, 1.2% Mormons and 10% other religious denominations or unaffiliated 3.2%. http://www.city-data.com/city/Flowood-Mississippi.html
The only reason this assembly could be held is because 69% of the town are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. If Catholic Students, or Mormon students wanted to hold such an assembly it would never have happened. This is precisely why religion and public schooling should not be combined, because it results in a diminishment of the rights of a minority, in this case possibly 30% of Flowood. A major part of the Southern Baptist’s Convention is proselytizing. This is their right. but as someone of almost seven decades of life there is little I find more annoying then someone trying to foist their religious beliefs on me. Since I am not a Southern Baptists and do not agree with its teaching, I would be similarly annoyed by proselytizing attempts towards my children and grandchildren. While in a public sense this is free speech and I would do nothing defend the right to do so, public schools should never be part of this right to proselytize. This is so because doing so in a public school is done under the assumption that the educational institution endorses it. You are a man of strong religious belief, think about how annoyed you would be if your children were coerced into sitting through the preachings of some other religion of which you don’t approve? Especially, if that religion preaches that they are the one true path to avoid hell and damnation.
And, again, what the Bible says is irrelevant to a legal discussion, Kevin. This isn’t a discussion about perfection. Perfection is a philosophical and mathematical abstraction and not attainable in the physical universe outside of abstraction. Even in laws and governments. As Justice Learned Hand once noted, “Law is the pale shadow of justice.” But he also said, “Right knows no boundaries and justice no frontiers; the brotherhood of man is not a domestic institution.” This includes the boundaries of religious dogma. This is a discussion about legality.
As for your semantic argument on the use of the word “moronic” in this context: What you said is not an express use of ad hominem but rather an implicit use of ad hominem. The adjective “moronic” is based on the root noun “moron” meaning “a stupid person”. The implication being that morons advance moronic arguments. If you wish your above retraction/clarification to stand, that is acceptable, however, the argument that your original statement contained implicit insult is not without merit. Just so, there is nothing moronic about the nature of this argument from either a legalistic or logical perspective. It addresses a fundamental right being infringed upon by those who would use legal mechanisms to spread their particular religious dogma. There is nothing foolish or stupid about such arguments when they are based in sound legal principle and relevant facts as this argument is based. Whether you’re appreciative or not or whether or not you approve of the argument – for whatever reason – is irrelevant to its validity.
As for “Yet I believe in the One who says there’s life after this, Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?” This is a statement of dogmatic belief and it is not in the least reflective of an open mind. A so-called open mind might “believe in the One who says there’s life after this” but a truly open mind would recognize that this is a statement of belief, not a statement of empirical fact or provable logic, consequently recognizing that there may not be either a “One” or a “life after this” as equally valid possibilities. Or the possibility that there may be more than “One”. Or the possibility that a “One” might be a different “One” or might even be completely incomprehensible to humans as gods by definition exist outside the constraints of the frame of reference that is our universe. An open mind is open to all possibilities, not just a notion of “One who says there’s life after this”. That belief is a constraint upon free thinking. It is in thought the polar opposite of an open mind.
Belief does not constitute proof of anything other than belief. Beliefs are not ispo facto true or rational. They might be, but when they are, it is coincidence as beliefs are not based on facts, merely the acceptance of something being true without the benefit of proof.
The law isn’t the realm of beliefs. It’s the realm of legal principle applied to empirical facts as bolstered by evidence and formally valid logics. As such, in form, it has far more connection to the methodology of science than the dogma of religion. Therein rests the fundamental dichotomy: a system based on reason and empiricism is at the taproot incompatible with a system based on belief and the dogma that sprouts from it. One requires proof. The other eschews proof for blind trusting acceptance.
Christianity, no matter its form, has no place in the discussion of the theory, application or interpretation of modern secular law as based on the social compact model. The only place it applies is in sectarian versions of cannon law which only apply to members of that given sect and then only on a voluntary basis as far as the Constitutional laws of our country are concerned.
Origin of MORON
irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
First Known Use: 1910
I didn’t call anyone on this thread a moron, I said the argument was moronic. Big difference. I’m sure there are some really smart people on this web site. I’ll bet some of them are so smart that they understand my point about Hayden asking for an assembly. If Hayden asks for voluntary assembly to present his values, and is turned down, then surely someone would recognize that the voluntary Christian assembly that was allowed was a double standard.
I support what the students did because they believed in what they were doing, thinking critically and being unafraid to voice their opinions. (portions of the previous thought borrowed from 6 inches above this space). I also understand the counterargument, hence my point that nobody wins. Maybe a better word would have been sways, converts, dissuages, or other big words people on this blog use more frequently than I.
P.S Independent thinkers=open mindedness? Lyrics from MercyMe “Yet I believe in the One who says there’s life after this, Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?”
Thanks, and if you say anything bad about me, then you are ad hoministic. 🙂
Kevin sez: “Looks like no one is winning this moronic argument. I would encourage Hayden to ask for an assembly to present his beliefs.”
********************************************
This comment indicates that you appear to not “get it” Kevin. The whole idea is that religious assemblies are in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as I explained upthread (see link).
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/20/unconstitutional-christian-assembly-at-northwest-rankin-high-school/#comment-548209
Religious assemblies allowed? None. Ninguno. Aucun. никто. なし.
Save it for church, synagogue, mosque or wherever.
You say that, “…no one is winning this moronic argument.” Kevin, the Constitution wins. There really is no argument. And as far as “moronic” goes, keep in mind that you are on a web site interacting with some of the best legal minds in the country. You can stop with the ad hominem stuff.
The youngsters who are critical thinkers, who are independent thinkers, and who are unafraid will ultimately win. Those who stubbornly refuse to comprehend the plain English in which the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses are written will lose.
Not sure if I’m allowed to post links, but here is the video I referenced:
Gene – the Psalmist didn’t say all “who don’t believe” are corrupt. He said “ALL”. That means everyone- me, you, John the Baptist, Joe the plumber. Other than that, I agree with the 3rd paragraph. If it’s ok to force my dogma, then it would also be ok to force Muslim dogma, Hindu dogma, etc.
If I had written what I thought John Lennon would say, it would have gone something like this “hey man, none of us are perfect, we should just love one another”. (Exactly what the verse I referenced is saying).
Lastly, I don’t think I mentioned a single thought in support of people using government to force their beliefs on others. The reason I would proselytize can be summed up in the YouTube video by Penn Jillette (an atheist). Do a search for Penn Jillette Christianity, it’s worth the 5 minutes.
leejcarroll- I understand the point behind the blog, I just don’t think it accomplishes much. Sadly, we are not a Christian nation (even though the majority of citizens would claim to be Christian). I live in the Bible belt, in a county that votes 90% Republican and a higher percentage than that would claim to be Christian, but only about 30% of the citizens are regular church-goers. No point, just info – but I do think opposing views help to keep the foundation from crumbling. Look at the history of “empires” and I think most hindered opposing viewpoints. None of them exist today. (Babylonian, Roman, Turkish, Japanese, English, Russian).
leejcarroll- I understand the point behind the blog, I just don’t think it accomplishes much. Sadly, we are not a Christian nation (even though the majority of citizens would claim to be Christian). I live in the Bible belt, in a county that votes 90% Republican and a higher percentage than that would claim to be Christian, but only about 30% of the citizens are regular church-goers. No point, just info – but I do think opposing views help to keep the foundation from crumbling.
Sadly? Kevin, so you would want religion, and by the way which denomination, to be the controlling voice?
It accomplishes a lot because it embodies America, opposing views discussed, analyzed, dissected, debated. If you are a teenager I am saddened that you are not being taught the benefit of reasoned (for the most part (: ) debate.
” Sadly, we are not a Christian nation ”
Some Christians seem to forget that the reason for separating church and state is to protect everyone’s religious freedom.
Once you admit that citizens can require a religious view then you leave open the possibility that the religion enforced will offend Christians.
How would Christians feel if the religious practice required were Islam, or obeisance to Ra the sun king, or devil worship.
If you believe in the decadence of modern society then it seems a likely bet that if religious practice is ever required it will be devil worship.
In contrast to Christians, I have never heard any one who worships the devil claiming that everyone should have to worship the devil in our schools, courts, state houses.
At the very least, those who worship the devil seem confident that the devil is powerful enough to make his appeal without using the power of the state to force his view on everyone else.
Christians, through their actions, seem to be saying that their god so impotent that he cannot prevail without using the power and force of the state.
If the point of evil in the world is to give men and women the opportunity to choose good, then why would Christians require religious practice.
Doesn’t forced religion seem to contradict the will of god and the whole point of choice?
What ever you say about the devil, at least he is not trying to use the power of the state to force children to pray to him in school.
I admit it may be a mistake to try to infer the nature of deities based on the characteristics of their followers. But the Christian god seems to be a nervous, insecure fellow, a sort of Don Knotts of deities. In contrast the devil seems confident, powerful, and ready to engage in informed discussion.
Kevin, you miss the point of blogs like this and what used to be the “American Way’, presenting opposing viewpoints, accepting that we do not all have to agree with only one point of view, and discussing them civilly. (And of course the days before way too many want to make this a “Christian nation.”
It depends upon how one defines “winning”.
If one is using the law and the Constitution as a measure, if one is using the extremist Southern Baptist dogma as a measure, if one is using science based in fact over religion based in belief as a measure, if one is using the rights of all over the opinions of the few as a measure – all of these measures yield different shapes of victory.
The bottom line is what Jesus did or did not do is irrelevant to the legal issues at hand. Jesus didn’t write the Constitution nor is Christianity a basis for our laws. However, the fact that you think anyone not following your particular interpretations of the dictates of Jesus is “corrupt” is quite telling as to how you define “winning”.
Your victory is forcing your dogma upon others no matter what it takes.
Too bad that the 1st Amendment says otherwise.
People are free to exercise whatever religion they wish or none at all and they are free to do so without governmental endorsement and enforcement of one particular religious dogma over another.
Blogs like this will continue to exist until people bent on proselytizing wake up and realize that religion is a personal private choice and one that each individual has a right to make according to the dictates of their conscience, not the dictates of zealots who would use government to force their beliefs upon others.
Looks like no one is winning this moronic argument. I would encourage Hayden to ask for an assembly to present his beliefs. If Jesus chose to post on this blog, He might have invoked Old Testament scripture. Maybe Psalm 53:3 – They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
Jesus spent three years focusing on the two greatest commandments (look them up) by teaching and showing others how to live by them. Because everyone is corrupt, however, blogs like this will continue to exist.
I think it’s different for me as a Baptist Christian because I just moved to Mississippi from Michigan and the whole religion thing is taken far more seriously. That sounds wrong but up North we don’t try and “shove it down peoples throats” as much, we preach God’s love and mercy versus fire and brimstone like down here in Mississippi. I am also fiercely against what my Administration allowed to happen not because I know a lot of atheists or because many people seemed bent out of shape, but just because it was wrong. Period. And I can assure you that I am a student and I know all of the students that have been posting, I even have a class with Hayden, who was very forthcoming with his thoughts on the subject during class. As I’ve said before, I am a Senior (Senior Privileges) and I leave class to go to the library when I have nothing to do and just surf the web and besides you can just get on the site on your phone, not all that difficult. And for the record, please try and refrain from calling us children it only further downplays our views and beliefs.
LeeJ,
Too bad then don’t have a civics teacher like I had…. Miss Case, may she rest in peace… Was the most difficult because she expected you to Learn…. No exceptions…. If you didn’t learn, she would keep you after school until you understood the fundamentals of basic government….. It was teachers like her… That make a difference…
I think that yes, they should be in school paying attention, if it is not their study hall or other ‘free time”, but, I also think the education they are getting here, both from OS and Gene H, among others, as well as the unfolding of debate and free thought is learning that you rarely find in school.