The Illinois House of Representatives yesterday voted to reverse its action of less than a year ago. (See prior posting). By a vote of 72-31 it approved, and sent to the Senate, H.B. 4180 that would make a moment of silence optional instead of mandatory in Illinois schools. Both the State Journal-Register and the Chicago Tribune report that even though last year the legislature overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of a bill that made the moment of silence mandatory, a number of legislators have now reversed their positions after complaints from many teachers and superintendents. Senate passage of the bill is less certain. Last November, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking one school district from enforcing the law. (See prior posting.)
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
17 comments:
I wonder why the teachers and administrators object --because it is hard to implement and enforce the silence?
The mandate was an effort to say we support the right to start a day with prayer--privately. But, of course, we don't need a moment of silence to do it and I always thought it was rather lame as a substitute for free exercise of local schools to have corporate prayers if they want to in certain circumstances -- for crises --for safety and wisdom in a school day--for athletic teams to play fairly and safely --for school boards seeking guidance to do right.
It's a minority of atheists and those who think sectarian prayers are worse than no prayers --who have caused this restriction on the free exercise of religion.
Start your day with prayer -- at home. In private.
"...restriction on the free exercise of religion"
No restriction at all on the private exercise of religion. But when you bring it into public space, you encroach on someone else's freedom from your specific religion.
There is no such thing as a freedom FROM the free and public exercise of religion by people of faith.
If almost everyone in a school system has some faith in God, we should be able to at least open the school banquets and meetings with a prayer of gratitude that acknowledges a Supreme Being.
We never stop to consider that the Supreme Being might just bless a nation that acknowledges Him and seeks to do right and wise and good things because of that faith. That uses prayer to make us mindful of the needy and the suffering as we pray for families who've been through a tragedy --in a corporate setting.
The publically expressed prayer of believers doesn't force you to believe at all.
We never stop to think that a citizenry that is influenced to believe in a Supreme Being may be a more sane and humane citizenry --and in fact, I give our national Christian heritage credit for our modern view of human rights --and Golden-Rule philosophy. It wasn't so with communism, Islam, the rude and foul-mouthed socialists of europe and the Nazis. America has led the world in civil rights and generosity to others. We are also the most self-critical nation on the earth.
"There is no such thing as a freedom FROM the free and public exercise of religion by people of faith."
There had better be. Because I won't have anyone -- I don't care who he is -- waving his religion in my face and telling me I have to let him do it.
"If almost everyone in a school system has some faith in God..."
Big "if." How about just keeping the religion at home and letting schools do only what they are supposed to do -- teach children basic education.
That would be preferable to their social engineering, Chimera.
They step on MY toes every time they do sex ed massachussetts style --or try to tell my kids things that are not true --that some of you are "born
gay." Or that it's OK to have sex as long as you are ready and responsible to use condoms.
I can go with a public school that ignores the social issues and religion altogether --but they had better not be teaching their moral relativity junk. Like they tried in the past, saying things like, "NO one but you can decide what is right for you." and "there are no absolute truths --Morality is relative to the situation."
One local teacher had a lesson on fact vs. opinion and she said , "Adam and Eve were the first couple." Fact or Opinion. The right answer was "opinion." Which really frosted the mother who had taught her child that "Adam and Eve were the first created couple because the Bible says so." Fact or opinion? To those who believe the Bible to be true, it is fact. And no one can prove it is not. Doctrines are not "opinions" to the relgious --and the school ought not say they are to our kids.
And public school's decision-making guides of "life skills courses" were abysmal, also. with their extreme self-esteem emphasis --so that every kid thought he should be on the starting line up, the cheerleading squad, have the solo and the lead part and all A's. All a bunch of egotists who couldn't take disappointment graciously
or appreciate the superior talents of others. (Nevertheless, however, the tortoise and the hare story should be taught --persistence often takes people all the way toward a firm goal--even if they are in the middle of the class. I've seen average people achieve great goals.) Self-esteem comes more from DOING right and more from persistence that produces achievement than from loving self.
It's because of these basic philosophical differences, as America becomes more and more diverse, that we really need vouchers to go to the schools that best represent our values --if the public school can't keep their hands off our religious beliefs.
I believe in the melding pot that is public ed --but public ed has CHANGED to where it thinks it has a civic duty to undermine the religious faith of Christians by telling them that all religions are equally true/valid --or equally untrue and invalid --or worst of all --that all of them are valid --except Christianity.
"That would be preferable to their social engineering..."
Choose the lesser of two evils? Why not toss them both out the window and choose neither?
Religion is social engineering. Everything we teach our offspring (and each other) is social engineering. Even table manners are social engineering.
My objection to religion and prayer (or anything resembling it, including a moment of silence that everyone knows is simply another euphemism for prayer) inside public schools is this: kids have to be there. It's the law. They're a captive audience, and they're vulnerable and easily intimidated by those who claim to have authority.
When pseudo-authority figures try to force a belief system on kids, I object. We are not talking about biology, here; we are talking about a subject on which no two people on earth have ever been able to agree with absolute finality. Religious beliefs are like snowflakes -- no two alike -- always a variation, no matter how slight.
And if you have trouble believing that, try seeing Eve as Adam's second wife.
There is nothing wrong with differences of opinion. What is wrong is when someone's opinion is forced upon someone else by law or intimidation. Morality is always relative.
Homosexual activity is abnormal for you, because you feel no attraction to your own gender. That's cool. But you can't force anyone else to have the same sexual feeling you have. It does me no harm for you to stay in one -- strictly heterosexual -- sexual relationship for your entire life, so I have no objections to your lifestyle.
What I don't understand is how you think my lifestyle, or those of my children, can have a negative impact to you.
We're back, once again, to "Just leave people alone."
I'm quite willing to leave people alone --if they aren't trying to be "in my face" or "in my childrens' faces" --with their advocacy of premarital, promiscuous or heterosexual relations.
If I don't tell my kids that the other ideas they see in the culture are sinful, they won't know --and they'll think it's ok to be like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman." Ok to experiment homosexually or heterosexually --to get their "sexual itch scratched" --as you put it. And in fact, it's all high risk for a lifetime of misery.
Delayed gratfication sexually has rewards --monogamy and virginity until marriage have their rewards. Such a man and his wife have been the fulfillment of each other's physical and emotional needs for a lifetime --this is a beautiful thing.
I am not trying to tell YOU how to live your life or how to raise your children in the area of sex ed (or any other, for that matter.)
But it would be a problem if you lived next door and asked me to condone your lifestyle to my kids --or if we tried to teach each other's kids anything about religion, sex, etc.
(Granted, I don't know what your lifestyle is, but you keep suggesting it is surely different than mine or my beliefs.)
I would be friendly to you; you would likely not like me, knowing what I believe. It's a shame that I would be considered offensive if I said God loves you and sent Christ "into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him might have eternal life."
Of course, I would want to live my faith in the presence of neighbors but it would be hard not to tell you what i am sure is true about our chance at heaven. I don't want people to get to Judgement Day and say, "Nobody told me that Jesus was real! I heard He was just a mythical figure!! I would've believed if I had known! "
"I'm quite willing to leave people alone --if they aren't trying to be "in my face" or "in my childrens' faces" --with their advocacy of premarital, promiscuous or heterosexual relations."
Are your really? How about you just let the two married guys next door to you live in peace without commenting on their marriage to anyone -- not to your friends and not to your kids. How about just leave them alone like you'd leave any other couple alone? Or better still, how about extending your friendship to them?
One of my best friends is a born-again Christian who's closer to me than my own brother. He believes fervently in the personal kind of salvation touted by evangelists of all stripes. He wears his faith like a skin. He eats, drinks, sleeps it. He lives it.
But you'll never hear him speak a word about it to anyone.
Among his friends are gays, straights, priests, shamans, witches, cops, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, actors, writers, entertainers, doctors, nurses, therapists, and politicians. Some of his friends drink and do drugs. He does not. Some of his friends are sexually active, and some have multiple partners. He is not. Everyone knows him. Everyone loves him.
And when there's a group being organized for any purpose -- whether it's fundraising for something or just a party -- he's always first on the list of people to invite. Always. Nobody ever stops to think, "Oh, we shouldn't invite him because he disapproves of such-and-such."
He never disapproves of anyone else's choices, even if they're 180 degrees from his own opinion of what's right or wrong for himself. He never presumes to judge anyone else. Never.
That's what I mean.
"I'm quite willing to leave people alone --if they aren't trying to be "in my face" or "in my childrens' faces" --with their advocacy of premarital, promiscuous or heterosexual relations."
Are your really? How about you just let the two married guys next door to you live in peace without commenting on their marriage to anyone -- not to your friends and not to your kids. How about just leave them alone like you'd leave any other couple alone? Or better still, how about extending your friendship to them?
One of my best friends is a born-again Christian who's closer to me than my own brother. He believes fervently in the personal kind of salvation touted by evangelists of all stripes. He wears his faith like a skin. He eats, drinks, sleeps it. He lives it.
But you'll never hear him speak a word about it to anyone.
Among his friends are gays, straights, priests, shamans, witches, cops, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, actors, writers, entertainers, doctors, nurses, therapists, and politicians. Some of his friends drink and do drugs. He does not. Some of his friends are sexually active, and some have multiple partners. He is not. Everyone knows him. Everyone loves him.
And when there's a group being organized for any purpose -- whether it's fundraising for something or just a party -- he's always first on the list of people to invite. Always. Nobody ever stops to think, "Oh, we shouldn't invite him because he disapproves of such-and-such."
He never disapproves of anyone else's choices, even if they're 180 degrees from his own opinion of what's right or wrong for himself. He never presumes to judge anyone else. Never.
That's what I mean.
And someday, you will stand before God and wonder why this friend never told you how to be saved. He never said what Jesus said, "repent --for the Kingdom is nigh!" He never made you feel that you needed to come to Christ--even though, if he's a christian, that's what he believes.
When he dies, you will all say what a wonderful man he was --and what a fine Christian --and he will get all credit for his good personality and his good works--though in truth, he didn't have the courage to risk his friendships and his good reputation in order to tell you all the truth--that you needed to see that you were sinners --as we all are --who need Christ to atone for our sins. It's that blood of the lamb that saved Isaac -that saved the Hebrew children from the Egyptians --that provided for the remission of sins for the Jews at Passover -- that made John the baptist say of Jesus: Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
When the Passover lambs would have been sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus died on the cross and the temple veil was torn from top to bottom because of the earthquake --signifying the end of the priesthood --as Jesus is now the only mediator between God and man. He said, "No man comes to the Father except through me."
Myth or history?
I don't know about your lifestyle, chimera, so I'm not judging you or anyone else. We are all equal at the foot of the cross of Christ --all sinners who need remission of sins by His blood. But we need to be willing to find out from God what IS sinful in His sight --and the Bible spells it out --and I think our consciences tell us the Book is true. Otherwise, I believe we are in denial.
But this shouldn't be upsetting to you in the slightest if you don't believe it has any truth in it.
I did have a gay man living next door to me once. And I also once saw a neighbor child being set up to be a gay by his family --and he is gay today.
the gay man had a man visit him frequently whom he called his son. he also had a boy visit him once and I caught them carrying on inappropriately. I was friendly to him --invited him over for dessert with my family on one occasion--but I assure you, I would not have let my sons get too close with him or visit in his house without me as I didn't trust him for his series of visitors. I never had courage to talk with him either about his soul --and he has since died.
"And someday, you will stand before God..."
Honey, I am god. Not your god. I am my own god. To do what you suggest, I'd have to stand in front of a mirror and rant at myself, and that just sounds so silly.
I answer only to myself, and I expect no one else to answer to me.
My friend knows that, and he's okay with that. That's why we're friends.
You say you're not judging me or anyone else, but you are. You can't help yourself. It's the way you were raised, I'm sure. But in this world of information superhighways, you don't get points for ignorance.
"Myth or history?"
Most definitely myth. Where in any history book (no, the bible is not a history book) can you find it?
"I never had courage to talk with him either about his soul --and he has since died."
And no doubt you are as relieved as he probably was.
Relieved? No. It was a summer place --so we didn't know each other well. I'm pretty sure he would have been a brick wall to talk to about faith. But I would've been willing but I'm sure he was not. I didn't have context for knowing him well enough to discuss religion. And perhaps your friend feels that way --that he's not responsible to witness of his faith to you because he already knows you will not be receptive.
Read Biblical ARchelogy stuff -and you'll see they have proven historical context of some Bible stories. I don't think most historians think Jesus was mythical. Josephus wrote about him. And Pliny the Younger? There is enough evidence to prove Jesus, the person, is not a myth --whether or not you believe in His resurrection. Several early writers did. It is a history book. The best of the Jewish history and the history of the early church and Jesus Christ. Lots of writers involved --not typical of false prophets.
"Biblical" archeology? Oh...you mean the kind that proves that Jerusalem existed back then? Well, of course it did! But I wouldn't put too much credence in Josephus if I were you. He doesn't have the best odor among true historians. The best of them view most of his writings as pure fiction, and self-serving fiction at that.
Pliny the Younger was a politician, a philosopher, and a writer of fiction, both comedy and tragedy. Not a serious historian at all.
There are no historical documents that indicate the Messiah of your bible ever existed as portrayed.
There is the Bible itself --and it was not written by Jesus --none of it. There were so many names in the New Testament attesting to the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It is the best news-- to hear that the Creator loved us and sent His Son, Jesus, into the world to be the ultimate sacrificial lamb --so our sins would be atoned for. So we might have a 2nd chance at immortality in paradise --as Jesus told the thief beside him on the cross --"Today you shall be with me in Paradise."
Three days later, He is seen by His followers --alive after being surely dead. He also raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been in the grave several days --and had started decomposition. Why do so many different people attest to these stories and travel by foot all over the known world --to tell that God had come in the flesh--and that all His followers will live forever --because the risen Jesus said so? So many stories attesting to the truth of the Good News of Christ's coming, dying, resurrecting, and coming again.
Lee Strobel's videos are on line --and these are excellent contenders for the faith.
The. Bible. Is. Not. A. History. Book.
Seven words. In English.
How are you not understanding this?
The JEws wrote it as history --look at all the boring geneology. It's history. There are also songs as in the Book of Psalms --and Proverbs, wise sayings and teachings. The Book of Acts and the 4 Gospels --all historical accounts.
The letters are letters, written by early Christians. And the writing and the wisdom therin --all amazing! Deep. contemporary.
Relevant today. like this one:
"Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another --even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you." Ephesians 4:32
"The JEws wrote it as history..."
How do you know that? There are no other historical accounts to back it up. Nowhere. Not one.
How do you know that, it an age before "reality television," this wasn't just an exercise in storytelling -- and the winner and runners-up got to see their stories published in a book for all their relatives to admire?
Post a Comment