Comments on: Prayer in public meetings: Point/Counterpoint rebuttals

By: Infidel

Infidel — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:04:41 +0000

Uh, right, Scott (16). I never imagined he would bother to read my post or care about its content, or that he cares what I think. However, I think the people who read this blog might. And I think most of them got that. Thanks for clarifying, though.

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:19:00 +0000

@20 John, his viewed being right or wrong are irrelevant. Defending them here makes no difference.

He’s got the political muscle to push his agenda. It comes from money, court decisions, political action, etc.

If we who see the need and benefits to keeping church/state separate don’t “practice what we preach” at the ballot box, we deserve to have our behinds handed to us.

By: John

John — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:00:20 +0000

if Mr. Stavers comments are so right on, why isn’t there any comments endorcing his view on this blog?

By: linda riess

linda riess — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:57:22 +0000

would the religious like our country to look like other countries whose religious leaders are their political leaders? SEE THE FUTURE….rolled out posters 20 feet high hanging off balustrades of the face of our leader imposing on us to follow him……times of the day where you must stop what you are doing, take out your prayer object, and fall to your position upon it and pray to your leader/deity. wherever and whatever the whim of the leader says to do you must do -or be punished, shunned, or outed. I can go on and on…and be more and more angry and nauseous. So.. the Puritans should have kept going back when they were stopped in their vector? That arrow would have shattered our country in pieces. The first amendment saved us from a future of cow-towing and bowing to the ruling party in position of authority. Keep your vision of the future in your own fairy book! I’ll take FREEDOM.

By: the1observant

the1observant — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:58:45 +0000

“Where will anti-religion agenda end?” – huh?… Oh, you must mean… When do people stop fighting for others rights as addressed in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution? Well, hopefully never, because obviously you (Matthew Staver) don’t care about everyone’s rights and somebody else with a reasonable mind must do it.

The Declaration of Independence declares “our Creator” endowed us with unalienable rights.” – Correct, but it’s not the U.S. Constitution. But since the subject is brought up, I will remind you that “our creator” does not equal “christian god”. In fact, “our creator” can range anywhere from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to numerous spiritual beings in Myth History, or from the physical creator (the Earth Environment itself) to acknowledging that our parents also create and pass on the idea of those unalienable rights. I’m sorry, but “our creator” is actually a secular choice of words. Also, if one wanted to, you could anthropomorphize the theory of evolution and call that your creator which automatically endows you with unalienable rights because it aided in the development of your brain to think about and practice liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Benjamin Franklin, declared “that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” Like Franklin, I think not.” – First of all, Franklin was a Deist, and to put it bluntly, he was considered an infidel in the eyes of christianity because he did not believe the same as they do. And, secondly, please explain the atheist empire of China? I’m sure it’s just a figment of my imagination… lol

By: gdad

gdad — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:57:04 +0000

This is the kind of malarkey that the vice president of a Christian university put out? Glad my kids aren’t there.

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:46:24 +0000

For those interested in defending the separation of Church and State and attacking Mr. Staver, I need to point out, making logical and/or legal arguments won’t work because Mr. Staver is NOT interested in the truth or objectivity.

He’s got an ideology he wants to push. This is a political argument as much as anything. Therefore, he’s simply blowing a dog-whistle to rally like minded people. It’s a way of defining the in-group and the out-group.

Anyone that writes here as if Mr. Staver would care what you think; well, you’re wasting your time.

A better use of your time would be to address the people who do read the comments but are wavering; those who may lean towards Mr. Staver’s viewpoint but are open to learning and changing their minds.

By: Stanley Dorst

Stanley Dorst — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:48:11 +0000

Here is a link to the ACLU website, where it addresses myths and lies about the Santa Rosa County case Mr. Staver refers to.

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/does-v-santa-rosa-county-school-district-top-5-myths-and-facts

I thought that “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor” was one of those 10 commandments Mr. Staver is so fond of? In that case, shouldn’t he be more honest in his claims?

By: Infidel

Infidel — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:22:55 +0000

Mr. Staver, I’d like you to show where the FFRF or the ACLU or any other such group has ever advocated that anybody should be prevented from praying or otherwise worshipping as they personally see fit while not in some way representing the government. You can’t, because it hasn’t happened. You know full well that a century of Supreme Court case law has affirmed that nobody in any government capacity may officially endorse any religion, yet you continue to maintain that you, and 75% of the American public, are discriminated against by a rank minority of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. At the same time, you maintain that the founders of this nation, who authored the document (The US Constitution) upon which your argument founders, really intended the effect of that document to be the direct opposite of what it has been, and that the very first clause of the very first amendment of that document has no effect whatsoever. You know full well that in order to maintain the freedom of religion enjoyed in this country, the government must not be involved in religion. Yet you and your ilk continue to insist that religion (specifically, yours) be injected into the government on a daily basis, thus subverting the original intent of those founders. Have you no decency, sir? Why can’t you see that your right to worship does not include using our government to indoctrinate me or my children into your religion? The only logical conclusion is that you don’t really care about religious freedom at all, and that your real agenda (and that of your rich backers) is really to repeal the establishment clause thus ending religious freedom as we know it. What next? Another inquisition? The return of the dark ages? You are free to go door to door trying to sell your religion, tout it from any soapbox, scream it from any mountaintop, but you can’t enlist the government to help you do it .The founders, including Ben Franklin, created a secular government because they did not want to duplicate the oppression of the state sponsored Church of England. You want to reinstate the very thing this nation was founded to oppose. You support the oppression of theocracy. The only way to insure freedom of religion is secular government. You are wrong.
One more thing. A lot of commenters ask why you christian theocrats seem to ignore your lord’s injunctions against public prayer in Matthew 6:5-6, yet there’s never a reply. Why is that?

By: glea

glea — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:43:36 +0000

I’m so embarrassed.

My earlier post should have read, “You have seen WHOSE future?”