The New School Prayer

Published on January 4, 2006 By WOM In WinCustomize Talk

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

From watching whats on the news now a days, thought this made a lot of sense.

Comments (Page 6)

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

"Logically" speaking, without a single standard to look to, there is nothing that says morality is to be followed more than lack of it. The argument would be that "morality" is needed for the preservation of our species or it is needed to keep from infringing on the rites of others. Again "logically", there is nothing that stipulates that anarchy, confusion, and right infringement is not the preferred choice if I deem it so. No matter what you say aboout morality, it is ambiguous as to what it is or why it should be followed without there being a universal standard. Anything less leads to disagreement as to "right" or "wrong". It all becomes relative. Relativity means what is right for me could be wrong for you and visa versa.

With that thinking, what is "right" for me could be harmful to others and most would say that is "wrong", but I could just say "don't push your ethics on me, I believe thusly" and since morality between people and governments may all be relative, you could not deny it. You could only lock me up to prevent me from harming others, even though I may believe it to be ok.

Follow me?

There is no truth, unless it has come from something beyond our petty differences. Something outside of what we see and has more authority than government (because governments are often wrong. I'm sure to have no arguments here).

If there is universal "rightness", there needs to logically be a universal standard. It cannot be relative.

This is the beginning of faith. To believe in something bigger and more authoritative than ourselves. Something "supernatural" if you will, originating from beyond what we know to be "natural" or "visible" in our daily lives.

Cynder-Elluh

on Jan 05, 2006

If there is universal "rightness", there needs to logically be a universal standard. It cannot be relative.

Yeah, what he said!
That is the bottom line_______________________________

NightTrainthedark

on Jan 05, 2006

That was a different incident than the one I was referring to.

rabidrobot

on Jan 05, 2006

Island Dog, could you link some info on the incident you were referring to? I can't seem to find anything about it.

A point often overlooked when discussing these examples of "Christian persecution", especially when the examples are based in reality, is that Christians have the same recourse as everyone else. If a school system suspends a student for wearing a T-Shirt, or reading a book (at the appropriate time--you obviously shouldn't be reading during class), or saying "Merry Christmas" (just pick your talk radio rumor of the day), then that student or their parents can sue the school district. And they will win, because they should.

And, along the same lines, when Christians try and use the public schools to propagate their belief system by forcing other people's children to participate in rituals, the parents of those children can sue. And they will win, because they should.

EventHorizon

on Jan 05, 2006

Nicely put, SD.

Adamness

on Jan 05, 2006

Why does there have to be one, unchanging standard? If we looked to standards of the Bible, we could sell girls off into slavery and stone gay people to death. Today, both of those are totally absurd, but 2,000 years ago, that was morally okay, and you can be sure it was done.

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

To say that it happened is not to say that it was God ordained any more than you could say that God ordained the killing of Jews in WWII. It happened, but not by God's hand.

You will find that God has always dealt with the issues of the day, but His standard never changed. He was the one who gave man dignity (made in the image of God) and never wanted for men to be slaves. Did Jesus talk about how a slave should respond to his master and visa versa? Yes, because He dealt with the issues of the day. Today He might talk about how a woman should deal with an abusive husband in the same manner.

...and when the "religious" people were ready to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery, it was Jesus who saved her, pointing out that the stoners were no more innocent than she in life.

He turned religion on it's head and spun it around, knowing that none of us is any better than another and that none have the right to think so.

starkers

on Jan 05, 2006

My problem is not so much with religion or the lack thereof (aetheism, etc). It should be a persons universal right to believe in and practice whichever religion they choose, as it is equally the right of someone to be an aetheist if they so believe that way.

My problem is with all this 'so-called' political correctness. It has created far greater intolerance, divisions that are now chasms, and hatred between people, races, colours and creeds who at one time were able to co-exist more peacefully.

When governments and self appointed moral consciences for the community intervene to tell us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot do regarding our faith and religious beliefs, we as a world are in trouble. Truth is, these self proclaimed 'do-gooders' are destroying the fabric of society with their text book educations....with little or no knowledge of the real world because their heads are too far up their asses. Hitler and Stalin were both self proclaimed do-gooders, and take a look back to the devastation and havoc they wreaked upon the world.

Hitler also proclaimed himself to be a Christian and declared a holy war on the jews, saying that they were unclean and guilty of all original sin, etc, etc. Truth be known, Hitler didn't have a religious bone in his body...the real reason for persecuting the Jews was economic, in that Germany was bankrupt and owed huge war reparations, whilst the European Jewish population was wealth and had resources through being sound businessmen/women. Put simply, he wanted what was theirs, along with the resources of other counrties that Germany was lacking.....war his answer to mass unemployment and job creation. The same goes with many other wars fought in the name of religion....'the you got what we want agenda, and we ain't payin' fer it, so we're a comin ta git it' God never had anything to do with it....man just used his name to validate evil intent.

Clear and living example of that resides in Iraq! During his regime he was clearly non-religious and persecuted many of varying religious beliefs...now he's on trial for his crimes against humanity, he clutches his Kuran in court and mumbles prayers. In other words, religion as a convenience, not through faith

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

God never had anything to do with it....man just used his name to validate evil intent

Standard Operating Procedure for many in this world.

_02

on Jan 05, 2006

I just would like to say that you put that so well Bill and Starkers. You really hit the nail on the head.

Adamness

on Jan 05, 2006

The question I thought was raised was how an athiest has morality, since they essentially answer to nobody. I said atheists answer to humanity, while people of faith answer to God, karma, or whatever. This is not to say that people of faith don't answer to humanity, but it often isn't the main motivation, if it is at all.

If God deals with an issue in a certain way, and if there is only one standard of dealing with that issue which was created by God, than how can he change how he deals with that issue?

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

If God deals with an issue in a certain way, and if there is only one standard of dealing with that issue which was created by God, than how can he change how he deals with that issue?

Good question, but not a difficult one from the standpoint of the the Bible.

Muder is wrong. God's standard.
Lying in wrong. God's standard.
10 Commandments etc etc

It all point to our need for something. The whole point of pointing out "sin" or our weaknesses in the bible is to point out that we are in need of Him. If we are perfect, there is no need for a savior, right? But none of us is perfect so we are all in need of Him. That is the teaching. Not "I am better" or "more moral", but rather "we are all in this together and have been found lacking".

He is also the one who said "Love your neighbor as yourself". In this ageless best seller, the root of how we treat each other and how He treats us is "love". Both for social reform and for dealing with each other as well as why He chose to be involved at all. As Frank Zappa would say, that is the "cruks of the biscuit"

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

I'll quit hogging this thread and go to bed. I hope I did not offend any. I would die for my belief, but also for your right to disagree. People die for their beliefs every day. The real trick is to live for them.

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 05, 2006

One more thing (Columbo movies

), in regards to post 87. In the early years of recorded Judaio Christendom, there was a Theocracy. A government set up by God to deal with His people. That was done away with when His people wanted a king instead. God is no longer in the "legislating morality" business (according to the Bible), but is in the life changing business. Again based on love and forgiveness.

Good night all.

Adamness

on Jan 05, 2006

I don't think I can argue with any of that. You believe it, I don't. We respect each other, and our rights to say that, but most likely, neither of us will change each others minds. Rock on though.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!