Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like a swell idea to me. The very year after prayer was taken out of schools ( 1963 ) the pregnancy rate of girls under fifeteen jumped from 5,000 per year to over 27,000 SAT scores have plumetted, violence and drug use increased   Coincidence ? Your laws ignore our deepest needs Your words are empty air You've stripped away our heritage You've outlawed simple prayer Now gunshots fill our classrooms And precious children die You seek for answers everywhere And ask the question ,why ? You regulate restrictive laws Through legislative creed And yet you fail to understand That God is what we need John Adams 1798 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for a government of any other." George Washington 1799  "What students should learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ " John Adams - "We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus " Patrick Henry - "It cannoy be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Well said, Turnkey.

"We have no King but Jesus."

Quoted: Whats this we shit, goy?

I was only quoting a popular saying during the revolutionary period.

The King's tax collectors would tell the Americans that they owed allegiance to the King (of England).

The Americans replied, "We have no King but Jesus."

Well, at least the Christian ones did.

Quoted: Exactly - but if he wanted a muslim call to prayer played over the school's PA system five times a day, it should NOT be allowed.

I disagree.

If 70% of the school happens to be Muslim, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having some govt. accomodation/recognition of the faith of the majority of people. Again, nobody is forced to participate in the prayer and nobody is discriminated against.

Quoted: John_Wayne777 saying my religion is a non-religion and calling me sonny when you don’t know anything about me is rather low.

I was not attempting to marginalize your faith, whatever it may be.

I WAS attempting to convey the concept that my praying in front of you is no more a violation of your rights than you NOT praying in front of me.

In other words, being witness to someone participating in a religious activity is no more a violation of someone's rights than being witness to someone's NON-participation in a religious activity.

I use the term "sonny" because my experience has been that the majority of people who misunderstand the 1st ammendment do so because they were educated according to modern "enlightened" concepts as opposed to learning what the Constitution actually says.

Usually these folks are whipper snappers.

Quoted: Quoted: Exactly - but if he wanted a muslim call to prayer played over the school's PA system five times a day, it should NOT be allowed. I disagree. If 70% of the school happens to be Muslim, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having some govt. accomodation/recognition of the faith of the majority of people. Again, nobody is forced to participate in the prayer and nobody is discriminated against.

I guess it is just a matter of a legitimate difference in opinion.

I would not want 30% Christian kids be forced to listen to muslims calls to prayer, or to have to put their classes on hold while the 70% majority prayed in a public school.  By the same token, I wouldn't want to 30% non-Christians to have to bow their heads and listen to a Christian prayer or invocation, even in a 70% Christian-majority district.

But, I see your point and acknowledge it as an equally valid viewpoint.  (But still secretly think I'm right and you're wrong )

Quoted: What is the point of this "resolution" other than to establish an "either you're with us or against us" mentality? Several of you have already pointed out that it doesn't really establish a government-sponsored religion, and it doesn't really prevent other religions from being practiced, so... ?

Perhaps to send a message to the state courts, schools, and other government agencies who freak out entirely when anything religious gets near the public square and who routinely over-react in ways that the Supreme Court has even called stupid??

Seems like a pretty good reason to me....

Quoted: That'll soar like a brick how about that 1st ammendment?

"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."
~ Fisher Ames (Author of the First Amendment)


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Quoted: I guess it is just a matter of a legitimate difference in opinion. I would not want 30% Christian kids be forced to listen to muslims calls to prayer, or to have to put their classes on hold while the 70% majority prayed in a public school.

Well provided that the islam represented in the school isn't the head-chopping, embassy firebombing strain, I wouldn't worry too much about the Christian kids.

I am coming from an approach that is consistent with how the founders behaved. Nobody could be forced to participate in any religious activity, but religious activity could take place on public property and in public systems. In fact, it was quite common and institutions like Congress STILL have public prayer offered before they begin session.

If the nation becomes 70% muslim, the 70% has the right to the same forms of expression on public property that Christians have enjoyed, while the Christians would still be entitled to the same protection of conscience that the minority enjoys under the 1st ammendment.

By the same token, I wouldn't want to 30% non-Christians to have to bow their heads and listen to a Christian prayer or invocation, even in a 70% Christian-majority district.

Again, that appears to be a new standard as opposed to the original intent of the founders.

But, I see your point and acknowledge it as an equally valid viewpoint.  (But still secretly think I'm right and you're wrong )

*SQUEEEEEK*

That was the sound of me wiping the spit off of my monitor after a juicy and prolonged raspberry in your direction.

Neener-neener.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That'll soar like a brick how about that 1st ammendment? Objectively, the first amendment restriction on religion applies specifically to Congress. Back in the early days (following ratification of the Constitution), several states did have officially endorsed religions. by that logic a state  then could also take away your right to free speech, take your guns, and quarter troops in your home. The 14th ensures that states have to respect the BOR as well

Nope, wrong. Congress is specifically called out in the first and not in the others. Yes, later (after the war of northern aggression) Federal power was solidified as dominant and the state can go suck on the 10th.

Quoted: Neener-neener.

Dang!

I was afraid of that.

I officially concede and admit defeat.  

Quoted: I am currently reading the biography on Adams and have yet to come across this quote. Adams was a very religious man, but his focus didn't seem to be so "Jesus Centric"  I have yet to find a reference directly to Jesus/Christ.  His references always seem to be about "The Lord"  "Providence"  "Higher Power", etc. I will continue on and update you as required.

Lots of the founders made such referrences.

In the days when we weren't so multicultural, religious concepts were about universal, and the words you cite are common vernacular during the days of the founders.

Everybody talked like that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We need a bill like that in the Danish parliament!   That's racist!! Now report to the department of re-education for your indoctrination reprogramming sensitivity training. Hey - I'm plenty sensitive. I almost cried at the part in the Jungle Book where it looks like Baloo is dead!

You bastard! I almost choked on my potato!

John_Wayne777 stated
Usually these folks are whipper snappers.

No John_Wayne777 unfortinaly I’m not a young whipper snapper.

I agree with you that your praying in front of me is no more a violation of my rights. But others have disagreed that my not praying is a violation of their rights.   I don’t understand how, but that was their view.

Quoted: Quoted: Exactly - but if he wanted a muslim call to prayer played over the school's PA system five times a day, it should NOT be allowed. I disagree. If 70% of the school happens to be Muslim, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having some govt. accomodation/recognition of the faith of the majority of people. Again, nobody is forced to participate in the prayer and nobody is discriminated against.

That was the whole point of maintaining state indentities in the first place, to allow specialization of each to a desired culture far beyond what we have now.

We all enjoy screwing with the parts of the bill of rights we do not like.  I am watching what happens first hand when one religion gains the upper hand in a culture and starts wiping out the other side.  We are a species of idiots.

Citizensoldier
Baghdad

Quoted: It is working for me. Here is the full text of the link you provided: SECOND REGULAR SESSION House Concurrent Resolution No. 13 93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4572L.02I            Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and            Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and            Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and            Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and            Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:             Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America. This resolution does absolutely nothing you were speaking of. It does not allow ONLY Christian prayer in schools, or indeed mandate any prayer whatsoever. It does not allow ONLY Christian religious displays on public property. Read the text again. It requires nothing of anyone, and offers no penalty to anyone for anything. In short, it violates no ones rights. It is an expression of opinion and does not have anything in it that would violate the establishment clause.

Awwww aint the media swell?  To hear our local news report it, they were getting ready to round up non-Christians and tie them to pews with thier eye lids propped open with shards of glass.  I heard it was to recognize Christianity as the "official" religion in Missouri.  

My immediate thought was.... "That's goin nowhere".  Instead it appears they are saying "We represent Christian folks".  Ok....  Well, glad we got that straight then.  

YAWN!  Just states where they stand on the issue and as a non-Christian I see nothing wrong with it.

Quoted: We all enjoy screwing with the parts of the bill of rights we do not like.  I am watching what happens first hand when one religion gains the upper hand in a culture and starts wiping out the other side.  We are a species of idiots. Citizensoldier Baghdad

Reading the bill of rights does not require any twisting. The first ammendment was never meant to sanitize the public arena from the dominant religion. Inferring that is was is the revisionist lie, just as is the suggestion that the founders were concerned with duck hunting with muzzleloading fouling pieces in the 2nd ammendment.

Quoted: I agree with you that your praying in front of me is no more a violation of my rights. But others have disagreed that my not praying is a violation of their rights.   I don’t understand how, but that was their view.

Then they were out of their minds.

You cannot be compelled to pray. That was the point of the establishment clause in the 1st ammendment. No one's freedom of conscience can be violated.

That is why religious freedom is so important, because it is closely tied to the freedom to hold beliefs, especially unpopular ones. A man's opinions, as Jefferson said in his Danbury letter, are his buisness alone. Only his actions should be regulated by government.

No one can force you to pray, or bow your head. The can passionately plead with you to pray, or call you a big stinky for not praying, but they can't force you to.

And folks like myself or O_P have no intention of ever forcing anyone to pray. In addition to violating someone's 1st ammendment rights, it would be a violation of our Christian teachings, since faith in Christ cannot be compelled. (Despite what Augustine wrote...)

Lots of folks on this site spend an awful lot of time worried about guys like me and O_P, but their worries are mostly a product of an overactive imagination.

You won't hear me or O_P say:

I GOT ME A .44 AND A BIBLE, AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER YOU HEATHEN BASTARDS ARE GONNA MEET JESUS!!!!  

Well, at least not in a serious manner anyway....

Quoted: Awwww aint the media swell?  To hear our local news report it, they were getting ready to round up non-Christians and tie them to pews with thier eye lids propped open with shards of glass.  I heard it was to recognize Christianity as the "official" religion in Missouri.   My immediate thought was.... "That's goin nowhere".  Instead it appears they are saying "We represent Christian folks".  Ok....  Well, glad we got that straight then.   YAWN!  Just states where they stand on the issue and as a non-Christian I see nothing wrong with it.

I have noticed that the media in general, when presented with the opportunity to cover something having to do with Christians, is more likely to cut off their own testicles with a butter knife than they are to report the actual facts.

I mean, how hard would it have been to look up what the bill actually says and report on that? Not very hard.

But the media is more interested in the sizzle than they are in the steak, especially when it comes to opportinities for them to push their world view.

Like I have said many times, the leftists in the media are doing their absolute best to create a caricature of "religious right" people that has absolutely no resemblance to the way people like me actually live or think, and then railing about the dangers of that frankenstien monster that they created out of their own fantasy. It is a rather common tactic in propoganda. The Nazis, for instance, made great use of it. So do the radical islamists today with their complaints that Jews eat arab blood in their bread, etc.

They create the religious monster and then use it to try and scare the pants off of people, so that people end up more afraid of me and guys like Old_Painless than they do of the people literally trying to redefine the Constitution and American society to end civil liberty rather than preserve it.  

Quoted: Voting a dead man {Mel Carnahan} to the Senate, now this.

Don't blame the rest of us for the vote fraud shenanigans of St Louis & KC.

Quoted: I GOT ME A .44 AND A BIBLE, AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER YOU HEATHEN BASTARDS ARE GONNA MEET JESUS!!!!

- WHHHHAAAAMMMMM :

That was the sound of me falling out of my chair laughing.  Seriously though, you get incoming fire if you show up at my door with a visable .44 and a bible in hand.  

Quoted: We all enjoy screwing with the parts of the bill of rights we do not like.

Not really. I happen to like all the parts of the BOR. I wish like heck the government would actually pay ATTENTION to the BOR for a change.

They seem determined to only be concerned about the rights of the individual when it comes time to try a murderer or capture a terrorist, and seem completely unconcerned about trampling on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment rights of fellows like me who present no actual threat to any other person.

I am watching what happens first hand when one religion gains the upper hand in a culture and starts wiping out the other side.  We are a species of idiots. Citizensoldier Baghdad

If you are in Iraq, you are seeing a culture that has been violent and unstable for a very long time who has no tradition of religious tolerance. Throw in a strain of belief that lauds the beheading of innocent people as some sort of brave religious action, and you have a difficult situation.

America is a much different society with a much different dynamic. Guys like Old_Painless, even if they were given absolue power, would not go wiping out people they disagreed with. In fact, they would reject absolute power and begin introducing protections against anyone ever having that kind of power.

Sort of like how our founding fathers behaved. Washington was popular enough to be a king, but he refused, as he sought a higher principle than the mere accumulation of power.

I don't think we can say the same of Hillary Clinton.

The danger we face today is largely presented by the forces of the left pushing their religious indoctrination of political correctness, who are every bit as mad for power as the radical islamists you are over there fighting, and every bit as intolerant of dissent.

Quoted: - WHHHHAAAAMMMMM : That was the sound of me falling out of my chair laughing.  Seriously though, you get incoming fire if you show up at my door with a visable .44 and a bible in hand.

I thought about having that as my signature, but too many people wouldn't understand that it was a joke, so I decided not to.

"The Law from Sinai ( The Ten commandments ) was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code " John Quincy Adams in a letter to his son

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best for the duration of free governments. "   Charles Carroll signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Let divines and philosophers, stateman and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian System." October 4th 1790 Samuel Adams

In Benjamin Franklin's plan for education in public Schools in Pennsylvania he insisted that schools teach " the excellancy of the Christian above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was founded as " a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton with the Rev.James Bayard formed the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great
(1) Christianity
(2) A Constitution formed under Christianity
"The Christian Constitutional Society, it's object is first: The support of the Christian Religion.
Second: The support of the united States "

Benjamin Rush "To the citizens of Philadelphia A Plan for Free Schools" March 28, 1787
"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education."

There's some more to chew on

If you don't read the article and read the text I am fine with it.


Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

Oh, I think that Blunt has been a good thing for Missouri because he cuts usless progams and is making people go and get jobs.

Quoted: Quoted: We all enjoy screwing with the parts of the bill of rights we do not like.  I am watching what happens first hand when one religion gains the upper hand in a culture and starts wiping out the other side.  We are a species of idiots. Citizensoldier Baghdad Reading the bill of rights does not require any twisting. The first ammendment was never meant to sanitize the public arena from the dominant religion. Inferring that is was is the revisionist lie, just as is the suggestion that the founders were concerned with duck hunting with muzzleloading fouling pieces in the 2nd ammendment.

What happent to not establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof?

Quoted: Quoted: We all enjoy screwing with the parts of the bill of rights we do not like. Not really. I happen to like all the parts of the BOR. I wish like heck the government would actually pay ATTENTION to the BOR for a change. They seem determined to only be concerned about the rights of the individual when it comes time to try a murderer or capture a terrorist, and seem completely unconcerned about trampling on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment rights of fellows like me who present no actual threat to any other person. I am watching what happens first hand when one religion gains the upper hand in a culture and starts wiping out the other side.  We are a species of idiots. Citizensoldier Baghdad If you are in Iraq, you are seeing a culture that has been violent and unstable for a very long time who has no tradition of religious tolerance. Throw in a strain of belief that lauds the beheading of innocent people as some sort of brave religious action, and you have a difficult situation. America is a much different society with a much different dynamic. Guys like Old_Painless, even if they were given absolue power, would not go wiping out people they disagreed with. In fact, they would reject absolute power and begin introducing protections against anyone ever having that kind of power. Sort of like how our founding fathers behaved. Washington was popular enough to be a king, but he refused, as he sought a higher principle than the mere accumulation of power. I don't think we can say the same of Hillary Clinton. The danger we face today is largely presented by the forces of the left pushing their religious indoctrination of political correctness, who are every bit as mad for power as the radical islamists you are over there fighting, and every bit as intolerant of dissent.

Just want to make sure we don't go that way.  The Klinton's are just as evil in the opposite direction.  

Quoted: You won't hear me or O_P say: I GOT ME A .44 AND A BIBLE, AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER YOU HEATHEN BASTARDS ARE GONNA MEET JESUS!!!!

Dern.

You mean that I've got to quit saying that?

Quoted: Dern. You mean that I've got to quit saying that?

Don't fib!

We all know that you would say:

I GOT ME A .45-70 AND A BIBLE!!! YOU CAN MEET JESUS NOW OR YOU CAN MEET HIM 600 YARDS FROM NOW!!!