God

[firstpusk]

Thanks to those who agree. and if anyone care this piece [sIC] was written by Samuel Thompson.

 

I dont think that is accurate. The particular piece has been circulated under anonymous or Samuel Thompson but it is more likely the work of Nick Gholson a sports columnist for the Wichita Falls Times Record News from September of 1999. That is because I was able to trace it back to that paper and Samuel Thompson has been dead since 1843, sixteen years before Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. The one source I found linking Thompson to the article gives a brief biographical sketch of this Revolutionary War soldier and early Texan.

 

http://www.scamsandscandals.com/SamThompson.htm

 

[packsaddle]

Oops, Sorry everyone. "Algebra" was the Little Rascals' mule, the one that chased people when they sneezed. Episode, 'Honkey Donkey'...definitely a must-see (BTW, has nothing to do with politics).

[NWScouter]

Plus I doubt Thompson ever saw a football game or said the pledge of allegiance, or had high scohool teacher or called where he was at as the Bible belt or felt Jerusalem was controlled by the Jews, or had a phone book or even knew what a phone is or a walkman or concession stand. They all are after 1843 the year he died.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Plagiarized though it may have been, I just want to point out one thing about the initial post in this thread. It does little good to point out what the government could do (or permit people to do under its authority, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court was the case with this prayer) in other countries such as Israel, Iraq or China, when those countries do not have a constitutional provision equivalent to to the one at issue here, or if they do have it, do not abide by it.

 

I know for a fact that Israel has no equivalent of the "establishment clause" in its basic laws, although they do protect freedom of worship. (I say basic laws because (like the UK) Israel has no written constitution, but they have laws defining proper governmental conduct.) To the contrary, Israel in effect has an "established religion" (another thing it shares with the UK though not quite in the same way) and a number of Israel's laws would be unconstitutional in a nation that had our "establishment clause." But that's ok, because Israel was formed for a unique purpose and its laws serve that purpose.

 

Iraq is an interesting case at the moment, of course. It has an interim constitution, and one of the big issues in adopting that constitution was the role Islam would play in the government. That is going to be a big issue again when they try to adopt a permanent constitution. But it is safe to say that Islam will get some special mention in the permanent constitution, as it did in the interim one. Again, this is in conflict with the idea of an "establishment clause." So, what they do at a public school in Baghdad -- or Tehran, Rihyad, Damascus, Cairo, or any other Islamic place -- is not relevant to what goes on at public schools here.

 

China, well China. I have no idea whether they have an "establishment clause," but it doesn't matter. China could have just about anything protecting the rights of its citizens in its constitution, but that is meaningless because the government ignores the constitution and just does what it wants anyway. The state of human and civil rights in China is not exactly something I want us to emulate here. I would point out, however, that you would not be likely to hear a prayer to Buddha at a sporting event in China for 2 reasons: One, under Communism China is officially atheistic, and Two, Buddha is not a deity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

We are not in any of those places and you can worship as you please, where you please. We are only limited by affording others their right to worship as they please. Whenever the majority decides that their way is the only way, then we will have the type of government that you speak about in China. I hope we don't go there.

FB

 

[Proud Eagle]

I personally favor the approach of having a moment of silence in place of a PA system prayer.

 

If a local minister or a student leader wants to have a pre-game prayer, have a designated time and place for that, but do it in such a way that people don't have to participate. (Do it in the end zone, on the sideline, or in some designated part of the stadium.)

 

Alternatively, you could have a "religous/philisophical/ expression moment" and all the Christians could say the Lord's Prayer together. Those of other faiths could do whatever they want.

 

 

Oh, one other note, doesn't the idea of filling an anonymous law suit go in direct opposition to the idea of being able to confront your accuser?

 

It seems to me, if you do not know who it is you may have injured, then there is no way to know how best to defend yourself. I can understand perhaps placing a gag order on the involved parties, but I would certainly hope that the defendant has the opportunity to know who has accused them of infringing on their rights.

 

(This reminds me of something in our morning paper about the Kentucky juvinile justice system. Essentially, the entire process is off limits to the public and the press. In fact, it is possible for reporters to be jailed for publishing information about juvenile court cases. This infringes deaply on the ability of the public to monitor the justice system and the courts in particular. Since the public has no means of knowing if the juvenile system works, they have no way of expressing their opinions through their legislators. So it also infringes on the powers of another branch of state government. However, there must be some way to reach a compromise that protects the public, protects the legislative powers, and protects the defendants.)

 

Sorry about going off on a tangent.

[boleta]

Since you want public prayer so badly, allow me to choose the one we will all use.

 

Thank you for being so gracious in your religious tolerance, Rooster, BSATSPL, FOG, and the rest.

 

I choose the Hari Krishna chant. Please don't thank me so. Oh, and by the way, no other prayer will be tolerated publicly. If you don't want to chant, don't. If you want something else, pray quietly to yourself.

[Fat Old Guy]

Are you tolerant of those who claim that illness can be treated by shaving the head and blood letting?

 

Should I be tolerant of someone who insists that pi equals six?

 

 

[boleta]

Makes as much sense as...

 

[Name religion here].

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

We cut pi into 8 equal pieces.

 

The Hari Krishnas may chant and dance for the whole game.

 

If they must bloodlet and shave their heads, it should be done on the sideline, instead of on the field. Those behaviors are restricted for the players.

 

FB

[evmori]

Doesn't the 1st Amendment say something like "freedom of religion" and freedom of speech" NOT "freedom from religion" or "freedom from speech"?

So someone prays & someone is offended! Big deal! What if someone cusses up a storm! Should we ban cussing?

Or ya know what, I don't like the word buns so I am going to sue anyone who uses the word buns in my presence because I'm offended by it. And if I have to I'm gonna take it all the way to the Supreme Court!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[NJCubScouter]

Should I be tolerant of someone who insists that pi equals six?

 

It certainly would make life simpler -- if you don't insist that your circles be round, or closed, that is.

 

(A little geometry humor there.)

[NJCubScouter]

Ed asks:

 

Doesn't the 1st Amendment say something like "freedom of religion" and freedom of speech" NOT "freedom from religion" or "freedom from speech"?

 

Ed, the last time you asked basically the same question, I quoted the exact words of the First Amendment -- not "something like" the words, but the exact words -- and pointed out which of those words has been interpreted by the courts to produce the legal rulings that you do not like. And that was not the first time it has been explained to you. Yet you continue to act as if you do not know the answer, after it has been supplied to you several times. I understand that you do not like the answer to your question, but by this time, you have to know what the answer is.

[evmori]

Rhetorical questions don't need answers. Trying to make a point! Guess you missed it!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

Prior to this post, this was my sole contribution to this thread:

 

Nor does prayer have to be banned. Prayer is a form of expression just like any other. The focus of that expression should not hinder one's rights.

 

Which prompted Boleta to include me in this post:

 

Since you want public prayer so badly, allow me to choose the one we will all use.

 

Thank you for being so gracious in your religious tolerance, Rooster, BSATSPL, FOG, and the rest.

 

Boleta, you obviously cannot tolerate religious expression in public. Apparently, these peoples prayers threaten you. What power do they have over you that makes you want to ban them? How is the quality of your life being destroyed?

 

You sarcastically address us as if we have no tolerance for people with different faiths, yet it is you that want all signs of public faith erased. It is you that wants religion hidden from public view.

 

Yes, religion is a private matter. And if one desires, he may keep it private. But others feel different. And the First Amendment gives them the right to act on those feelings.