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 8)

106

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 06, 2006

A number of posters have tried to use logic as a defense for religious beliefs. While I feel even the examples in this thread are themselves flawed, I would like to point out a couple larger issues with logic and faith.

My argument using logic was based on relative morality, and that if you grant the premise of a universal "right", than you need to bite the bullet and say there is a universal "standard" that is bigger than our whimsical selves or government. Nothing more. Of course you can argue this and just say there is no universal "right". Which makes it all relative. ...but then you cannot fault me for any injustice that I may cause because there is no such thing.

...of course you did not site my examples, so perhaps you were talking about another.

107

kona0197

on Jan 06, 2006

OK let me explain my logic a bit more. To deny that something exists you must acknowledge it does exist first otherwise your denial is based on nothing. Hope that makes it easier to understand.

108

Adamness

on Jan 06, 2006

What kona? That is just repeating what you said. As someone said, I can deny I have a million dollars in the bank. Does that mean that there really is a million dollars in the bank? No.

The point is, people either believe in the supernatural, like God, or they think there is nothing supernatural. It's pretty black and white.

109

Adamness

on Jan 06, 2006

Hmm I think I just got what you're saying. But you're just playing semantics. Atheists don't deny God, like criminals deny committing a crime.

Atheists do not think there is a God, or anything supernatural. The only thing atheists acknowledge is that other people believe in God.

I don't think there is a God, and choose to ignore it. I think there is no God, or supernatural whatever.

110

EventHorizon

on Jan 06, 2006

...That, in essence, in the short form, is morality...what John Lennon believed without religion as the basis for his ideals.

My problem is seeing how a solid idea of morality can exist without religion.
Sure, you can say (as a random example) 'shooting you neighbor in the face for fun is wrong,' but without religion, by what authority can you say something is actually wrong or right?
(Like SD said, either morality is relative, and each of us comes up with our own idea of 'right and wrong,' or there is a definate universal standard.')

He also asked, 'what if my morality tells be thats its ok for me to do something that your morality says is wrong?'

Imagine (in morally-relative world) a man on trial for (random example) what we nowadays would call the cold-blooded murder of an entire family. He would undoutably claim that 'his morality told him it was ok.' He could say that since the law that made killing illegal (assuming there was one) was against his morality, he did not have to obey it. What would/should he be convicted of? Nothing perhaps?

...Adamness, you said you look to humanity for your authority.

if humanity says 'genocide, (systematic extermination based on ethnicity/nationality) is definately ok,' would it be ok? Would you think it is 'ok'?

Calling a horse's tail a 'leg' does not mean the horse has five legs...Along the same lines, saying that genocide is 'ok' does not make it so...
Some things are just plain 'wrong,' regardless of the 'perception' of the viewer.

Greed is probably mankind's worst enemy....greed for power, wealth and dominance, and greed is most often, if not always, the underlying reason/motive for immorality, the pillaging, rape and murder of our brothers/sisters....the planet.

Are you saying that atheists don't have feelings at all? Nope. We are still humans. We care about others other than ourselves. We simply don't believe or even have need for any deities to represent anything.

I dont believe 'feelings' come into it, but I see what you are saying. Let me try to explain...

All people are innately selfish. (Meaning, they naturally put themselves and their well-being/intrests first on their list of priorites.) It is the way they are, the 'status quo.'

You can't change people's natures, but you can put in barriers (morality, laws, etc.) to prevent anarchy.
But, humanity will not worry about 'morality' if humanity is the authority behind it. (as you believe it is) People will, by default, put themselves and their interests first, not the transitory 'feelings' of society.

Without some sort of outside 'influence,' 'Bob' (a member of humanity) will begin to wonder 'why' he should care about morality. (As did the kids in Golding's 'Lord of the Flies') Why should he care about what 'humanity' thinks? Why should he care about murder, theft, rape etc.
There is no reason why he should care...as long the (what we would call) 'bad' things don't happen to him. (as then it would become a concern of the 'self')

XX, people wont care about morality unless there is a logical reason to do so.
(as I said before) I know that if I were an atheist, I would find morality baseless, (I would ask, why should I care about anyone else but myself? ...I challenge you to answer) and act accordingly.
Selfless Nobility, Charity, Philanthropy etc...All these fall away without religion because there is no reason for a person to do/worry about them. The 'self' becomes the supreme concern when deciding whether you should do something or not.
If 'action ABC' is not in the best interest of the self, it should not be done. If breaking the law is not in the best interest of the self, dont do it...If by helping your neighbor, you expect to get something back, do it. If philanthropy gains you praise and admiration among humanity, do it.
If not, dont bother. If you can steal, rape, and/or murder without getting caught, do it.

The common reply is 'well, Im an atheist, and Im not going around (random example:) raping villages and burning women. (or vice versa)'

No, you arent doing those things because society and its laws wont let you. But without morality, the creators and enforcers of laws would slide down the slippery slope of relative morality, eternally justifying their actions as 'ok.' (The aryan race is superior, therefore its ok to gas millions who arent aryans to death. This would be justifible in a morally-relative world...But I think all of us in this thread can agree that it would be/was undeniably wrong, and always will be.)

My point is that you cannot have a successful society without a tangible idea of morality, and without religion, you cannot have that tangible idea of morality.

My 2 cents...for what they're worth.

111

Adamness

on Jan 06, 2006

People see something like genocide as bad though. And people have committed genocide in the name of their religion, and for other reasons altogether. I don't think religion affects peoples morality. We interpret things as 'morally reprehensible,' but it may just be evolutionary traits we inherited. It obviously would be a bad idea for the species to kill ourselves in mass numbers.

However, it could be said that killing in smaller numbers is survival of the fittest. I'm not sure that this is true, but it could be argued.

I'd say that our morality is something internal we got through millions of years of evolution, rather than something external we got through a deity. This is why we haven't destroyed ourselves, and for the most part, we try to improve ourselves as much as we can.

I'm still confused, though, about God being moral. God obviously killed thousands and thousands of people in the Old Testament, and killed many more in the New, including his own son. (Sure the Romans ended up actually doing the killing, but God knew what would happen, and sent his own son to Earth to be killed. I mean, it's God, he certainly could have found a way to 'save' us with out killing his only offspring. It would be far more meaningful for Jesus to have stayed on Earth and helped us directly, rather than be killed. This is, of course, assuming there is a God and Jesus, which I don't think exists.)

But I digress.

112

scorpio-logic

on Jan 06, 2006

My point is that you cannot have a successful society without a tangible idea of morality, and without religion, you cannot have that tangible idea of morality.

Outstanding! My thoughts in different words! Very good argument, EventHorizon.

I'd say that our morality is something internal we got through millions of years of evolution, rather than something external we got through a deity.

Our belief systems and religions may have grown from millions of years of evolution, yes. Cro-magnun man sees two tribesman killed by an attacking saber-toothed tiger, one his mate and one his offspring. Since no other animal buries it's dead, Cro also does not. The Cro-man's tribe is camped nearby, and fell a herd animal for meat. As the others put the herd animal down, and as the life of the animal is ebbing away, Cro-man sees his offspring awaken. There is now, in his mind, a way to bring the dead back to life: through sacrifice of an animal. Religion begins.

And to say that morality is learned only from a deity or a religion with deities, those greater than ourselves that give us rules to live amoungst each other with a greater survival rate, cannot be in itself the only truth. For hundreds, even thousands, of years, mankinds wisest have debated the best way for the individual to survive with the populace. Many philosphies have been written with these roots. I am trying to say that religion is not our only basis for moral behavior.

Religion and government were both created for the sole reason to keep a community bound together, working together to further the community's numbers and reach. If we do not have a solid, uniform standard of moral basis, we have nothing to learn from other than our own mistakes.

It is not to be said that "God" is moral. It is said that he is the creator and we are created in His image. If you look closely, you'll see that it is man who wrote the Scriptures. They say that they were inspired, through dreams or visions. Tehy believed that the words they wrote, to help mankind further itself, were given to them by their creator. What better way to get more of the people to understand with them, the words of moral behavior that were given?

God did not kill thousands of people in the Old Testament, man did. The 7 plagues can be explained away by scientific data, but God was not involved. The curse was spoken by Moses. Moses killed them all, if he spoke the curse.

Jesus never claimed to be the only son of God, one of his Apostles did. And it would be easier to assume that there is a Jesus, than to try to prove there is a God. Jesus could have existed, afterall he was a man.

And so I proclaim that you can have a "tangible" idea of morality without religion. However, with religion, the reinforcement of the ideas is easier, as there is something greater than man, something that man cannot touch, set fire to, beat down, argue with, or feed to the lions.

The only real way to enforce morality, though, is first to admit that there is a greater authority. It does not have to be a deity. It could be law enforcement. It could be the local minister. It could be a rock. As long as you give yourself someone or something to answer to.

I hope I have spoken myself clearly enough to be understood, as this all came in a rush and it was hard for my fingers to keep up with my thoughts. Thanks for reading, and thanks for posting.

113

Adamness

on Jan 06, 2006

If religion was never created, and humans never had any ideas of any deity or supernatural being or force, I still think we would have the same general morality.

I don't think it's fair to think the only way people will be good, and know the difference of good and bad, is for them to be told. At a certain age, children know the difference between good and bad, much sooner than they can fully comprehend religion.

114

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 06, 2006

I don't think it's fair to think the only way people will be good, and know the difference of good and bad, is for them to be told. At a certain age, children know the difference between good and bad, much sooner than they can fully comprehend religion.

CS Lewis was the author of the movie currently playing called "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". In his book Mere Christianity (BTW he started as an atheist until he set out to disprove the existence of God), he mentions almost your exact words to indicate that there is some other force outside of our natural world that lets us know right from wrong. It is not our parents. It is not our schools or governments. Due to it being outside our natural world of "what we see, feel, taste" etc, he calls it "Super Natural". A loaded phrase, I know. But it is "other" oriented. Again I would say, that this is the beginning of faith (IMHO), to admit to something "other" than what we know, sniff, touch, learn and see.

115

rabidrobot

on Jan 06, 2006

Without intending any offense, I have to say that the argument that morality can only stem from religion is immature and demeaning.

To hold this viewpoint one must make certain assumptions about the nature of humanity.

First, it must be assumed that man is inherently immoral. That's easy if you're the type that believes in a Garden of Eden and Original Sin, but most of us like to think we are nice people, and our friends and family are too.

You must also assume that man is incapable of mature thought and reason. The argument is that the only thing preventing us from behaving evily is the threat of some supernatural punishment--treating all of us as if we are children who behave only to avoid a spanking.

I, for one, behave civily and with respect for others for a very logical (and ancient) reason: I'd want others to behave that way towards me. That's a bit of a simplification, but it does define a moral stance and requires no religion, dogma, or threat of eternal damnation.

There is again the unspoken assumption that "religious" implies "moral". As the studies and books linked in my first post explain, that is simply an urban myth.

Another undercurrent of the argument for religion based morality is the desire for absolutes in moral terms. But where are the absolutes in the Bible-based morality makers of this argument would have us obey? Is it absolute that "Thou shalt not kill?"--no, of course not. Soldiers kill, states execute, eople defend themselves and their loved ones. So already we have to introduce some semblance of relativity/situationally applied morality--the absolute is, well, not.

(Aside here. Many times I use "Thou shalt not kill" as an example, because it is specific, from the Ten commandments, and familiar. Often some guy will chime in and say "But it should say, 'Thou shalt not murder'." To that person, I ask, before you say it, tell me, are you admitting there are errors in the bible? And what is your point anyway (they always say that and only that) )

What about the other rules in the book many hold as absolute example of morality? The bible states very explicityly that the seventh day is the Lord's day, and no work shall be done on it, under penalty of death. But who today would consider it moral to kill the delivery boy for brining you your Sunday paper? Not I, and I suspect, not you.

In summation. Morality without religion is not only possible, but straightforward and undeniable. (But if you like thinking about this, you might enjoy this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805075208/103-0432759-8192669?v=glance&n=283155 ) Those who argue that their religion holds the key to morality nevertheless behave no more morally than other people (really. Chirstians need to get their shit together and lead by example, but they haven't, and until they [as a group now] do, they are hypocrites). And finally, the so-called absolute morality of the Bible is neither absolute nor moral.

on Jan 06, 2006

on Jan 06, 2006

The difference in "Thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not kill" is the taking of an innocent life, allowing for capitol punishment or death in warfare. Again, God is dealing with people where they are and would not hold a soldier liable for killing while he is serving his country. More in a minute.

118

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 06, 2006

What about the other rules in the book many hold as absolute example of morality? The bible states very explicityly that the seventh day is the Lord's day, and no work shall be done on it, under penalty of death. But who today would consider it moral to kill the delivery boy for brining you your Sunday paper? Not I, and I suspect, not you.

During the initial Judao Christian Theocracy (before Israel demanded a king), God set up a group of rules that needed to be followed for the protection of all. Many of them seemed harsh, but they were harsh times. Many of the stiputlations were to protect people. Overworking was one such issue, as was eating raw meat. Neither of which are very healthy. Jesus brought about a new plan, and again the religios people condemned him on the Sabbath, saying he was breaking the Law. He mentioned a similar situation as you did, RR, that it is ok for man to do good on the Sabbath and that it was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. I would encourage you, RR, to get a good understanding of the entire Bible, instead of just bits and pieces. You can make it say anything by grabbing bits and pieces. There is a theme that runs through it from beginning to end. It is about redemption.

Those who argue that their religion holds the key to morality nevertheless behave no more morally than other people (really. Chirstians need to get their shit together and lead by example, but they haven't, and until they [as a group now] do, they are hypocrites). And finally, the so-called absolute morality of the Bible is neither absolute nor moral.

If you read some of my earlier posts, this is not what it is about at all. It is about all of us coming up short. No people, religious or otherwise, are any better than any others.

119

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 06, 2006

"Christians", and I use the word hesitantly, have always been the problem with Christianity. The reason for this is that so many get the "better the thou" attitude when that particular attitude is exactly what Christ condemned. The humble servant was the one who was praised, and the Holy thinking religious people were the ones Christ called "brood of vipers". I urge anyone to read the book yourself. I certainly cannot give it the justice it deserves. Or at least the book of Matthew or John to get the low down on Jesus' teachings

120

Adamness

on Jan 06, 2006

Just for the record, is it foolish to try to prove there is or isn't a God. As I said, religion and spirituality is about faith and beliefs, not logic and proof.

Anyway, just because our parents, schools and governments don't tell us what is moral or not (which I'm not too sure about) it doesn't mean God or any deity or force is what's telling us about morality. Instinct and evolution dictate our morality. And I'm not just talking about evolution from ocean slime to man, I'm talking about the evolution of morals. As SD said, Jesus had different morals than the strict Jewish leaders of the time, and we have very different morals than Jesus.

Just as morals change over time, they also change from culture to culture. And yet, no cultures or religion tell people to kill each other, or steal from each other. That, to me is a universal inherited trait we got over time through evolution. At the same time, someone may look at that as God putting morals into us, or however that would work.

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!