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 9)

121

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 07, 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.

Well said. I certainly am no match for Carl Sagan to debate this and most here cannot equal St. Thomas Aquinas (sp?), or Anselm or any other great thinkers on the subject. It comes down to faith. Well said, Adamness.

But (in my opinion) God gave us a mind to ask the questions, find the answers, and to seek. It is only those who seek, who find. Only those who question receive answers.

122

rabidrobot

on Jan 07, 2006

I'd hoped to avoid dueling Bible quotations, and hopefully we will. I also appreciate the upfront admission that "[A person] can make [the Bible] say anything by grabbing bits and pieces". But I am more familiar with the subject than you give me credit for.

The argument that in the New Testament Jesus trumps anything in the Old Testament only seems to come out when it is convenient. It is convenient to say Jesus doesn't want us killing the Sunday delivery boy no matter what the Old Testament says. Yet we don't have people wanting to put Jesus's rules for forgiveness on monuments in the courthouses. No, then it is much more vindicating to post the Old School, eye-for-an-eye style Ten Commandments. Where's Jesus's values of brotherly love on the homosexual marraige issue? Nowhere to be seen; it would plainly negate the OT quotes people use to defend their position.

My point is, I'm not the one picking and choosing what rules of the Bible I want to follow, and when I want to follow them. The people doing the picking and choosing--which as you say, can defend nearly any viewpoint--are the people who (when convenient) actually believe in it.

Additionally, if the Bible is intended to be, and indeed can be fully understood only when, read as some sort of unified whole about "redemption", then what use is it as a moral guide?

Basically, SD, I am in agreement with you. People should read the whole Bible, not just the bits and pieces. They should read the Song of Solomon http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Sgs/Sgs001.html#top . Give Ezekiel a good read. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze004.html#12 Then, if you can really integrate hot-sex and shit-cakes into a unified whole about redemption worthy of guiding your life by, then I admit, you, sir, know your Bible better than I.

123

kona0197

on Jan 07, 2006

Well I'm not going to argue anymore. I know based on faith that there is a God. That's what I believe in.

124

Adamness

on Jan 07, 2006

But (in my opinion) God gave us a mind to ask the questions, find the answers, and to seek. It is only those who seek, who find. Only those who question receive answers.

To me, that's a cop out. Whenever I get into bitter, angry arguments (friendly discussions?) with my friends about religion, I always say something like 'If God is up there, throw a fish at my head.' Obviously nothing happens, and my point is proven. To me at least.

But they say that God shouldn't answer me, but rather I should seek out and answer God. Now, to me, that is bs. I won't go on, since I don't want to start a religion vs. atheism debate that will turn into Flamefest '06, but you all at least know what I'm saying, whether you agree with me or not.

To tie this back to the original post, I think we can all see now why religion and spirituality shouldn't be a part of public schools. If the point is to put morality into kids, morality may or may not be tied to religion, and we shouldn't teach things that may or may not be true, when there really is no evidence either way as to where morality originates. That was a long sentence.

125

starkers

on Jan 07, 2006

Well I'm not going to argue anymore.

Well I don't know that I had...or at least never intended to....

I'm not going to kill, slay or murder anyone today...ever
I'm not going to steal from the local shop tomorrow...ever
I'm not going to covet my neighbour's wife today, tomorrow...any day
I'm not going to commit adultery today or tomorrow...any later I'll be too old

I'm not going to stop loving my neighbour as I would myself.
And I most certainly will continue to honour my mother and father, etc, etc.

I firmly believe in the existence of God (non denominational), and therefore in the ten commandments. I also respect and admire the ideals and view of people such as John Lennon, etc.

However, the I'm not going to's have nothing to do with either religion or the ideals of admirable men/women who base their morality on other principles. There's something else inside of me that says I shouldn't do any of these things. Maybe it's just that simply I don't have the heart or guts to, not out of fear of punishment or being caught, but because I'm just not built that way. We're all born with a conscience....it's just that some choose to ignore it, and those of us who listen to it, try to lead decent, respectable and moral lives, irrespective of faith or the lack thereof. If God gave me this conscience, then I'm grateful for it, but by the same token, then, God did similarly for aetheists, whether they believe it or in Him or not (did I just open a can of worms there or not

)

As I see it, There's a place for faith/religion, scientific proof and aetheism in this world, and if we can draw from all these resources to find way of teaching our young practical morality/decency, then we are part way towards winning the battle.

126

scorpio-logic

on Jan 07, 2006

If one religion is allowed, then all others should be. Why suspend one school of thought for another? All in all, for me it is a quest for answers to a question: how best should I live my life amoungst the masses? A majority of answers come swiftly from experience, others take a little guidance. Whether this guidance is in the form of Scriptures from the New or Old Testament, or from the Dalhi Lama, or even Lao Tzu, Neizche or Voltaire; answers is what I look for.

As for "we shouldn't teach things that may or may not be true, when there is no evidence...", if we don't give the opportunity to think, no questions are asked, no thought is provoked and no real experience is gained.

The poem in the original post is about a young person who feels lost, has no direction to turn for fear of loosing more ground. This young person observes that 100 year old American traditions are being admonished by disgruntled people of another faith, or even the same faith. While we debate whether morality is based in religion only, it is mutable as are the times. If the Bible were to be modified to fit the era, we might all see things in different light than now. But for now, should the schools be left a place of learning and not a religious battlefield?

In my opinion, the "Pledge of Alligiance" should not be changed. Our Dollar should not be changed. My thinking being that if we, as a nation, succumb and change what has been our symbols throughout the life of our nation, we will show the more malignant nations that we are weaker than we portray. And the Commandmants should be left in front of the courthouse, some of our laws come straight from the Book.

I am not a church going Christian. I have been a member of 2 very different churchs. But I don't believe that I like the fact that what is preached is preached to a people that lived many an era ago. I do think that people can get well along with one another without the need to be preached to. Others may find that without that, they cannot live quietly. I will not base my life on any one single thought, I am diverse, as are the experiences in my life. I will compile my belief from that of many.

So, what would you say to the person that wrote the poem? Would you comfort them? Explain that they don't need that silly stuff? Would you try and convert what little belief they might have left?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...?

nighty night for now.

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central

127

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 07, 2006

Peace

We can agree to disagree about Christianity / existence of God / life. But I think, as Adamness said, there should be seperation between government and religion, giving us the freedom to worship as we wish.

Rock on!!

128

Sleeping Dragon

on Jan 07, 2006

...and I would like to thank RabidRobot, Adamness, Starkers, Scorpio, Kona, EventHorizon and the others for a very engaging debate / discussion. Nice to know it can be done without underhanded ad hominem abusives.

129

Adamness

on Jan 07, 2006

I think the person who wrote the poem is flat wrong. They were basically saying that any display of religion or spirituality is banned from schools, which isn't true at all. When I was in high school, people used to pray a lot. There were a couple Christian youth groups, there was a Jewish group, which I was actually in, and there was a group of Muslims that prayed in the library throughout the day. I was friend with people in all the religious groups, and none of them felt as if they were being restricted. And I'm sure it's a similar situation in many, many other schools around the country.

The only thing that is banned, in terms of religion, is for the school to teach a religion, or to lead prayer, or to support atheism. Schools, and the government as a whole should be completely neutral when it comes to religion and sprituality, or lack thereof.

Obviously the person who wrote the poem doesn't know their rights and feels discriminated against. And yet, it is clear that the author thinks that colored hair, piercings, profanity, pre-marital sex and witches should be banned, or at least looked down upon.

I don't want to offend anyone here who agrees with this poem, but the author is just as prejudiced as they feel the schools are. Crazy hair and tattoos don't affect anyone but the person wearing them, while the school having forced prayer or whatnot affects everyone, and is illegal.

Crazy hair and profanity and piercings are protected under the Bill of Rights, as is the right to pray. However for the government to have prayer in schools, would be the same thing as making everyone color their hair blue and get a nose ring.

As I said, if you want the government to establish religion, or to enforce prayer, get an amendment to the Constitution passed. And if you want crazy hair and pre-marital sex banned, then get another amendment passed.

Protecting our rights is important, but overprotecting them is dangerous.

130

Adamness

on Jan 07, 2006

And thank you too SD

131

on Jan 07, 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.

Your definition of word "deny" sure is different than mine.

Ok let's use different word. I believe that god is same as santa, tooth fairy or easter bunny. Basically, it's just a meme that has been around, changing a lot, for last thousands of years.

Based on google:

Definitions of deny on the Web:

declare untrue; contradict; "He denied the allegations"; "She denied that she had taken money"
refuse to accept or believe; "He denied his fatal illness"
refuse to grant, as of a petition or request; "The dean denied the students' request for more physics courses"; "the prisoners were denied the right to exercise for more than 2 hours a day"
refuse to let have; "She denies me every pleasure"; "he denies her her weekly allowance"
deny oneself (something); restrain, especially from indulging in some pleasure; "She denied herself wine and spirits"
traverse: deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a legal suit
refuse to recognize or acknowledge; "Peter denied Jesus"

Apparently, I used the first meaning while you used the second meaning.

132

starkers

on Jan 07, 2006

Some of you may feel that my vision is blurred or impeded because I do not live in the U.S, and therefore not directly affected by the events/changes occurring there.
However, here in OZ, we have lil Johnny with his cronies and cohorts doing precisely the same things.....amending the Australian Constitution to suit his own agenda.
If he were doing it for the common good, for Australian Citizens from all races, colours, creeds and backgrounds, I'd have no problem with it.....but he's simply not doing that.

I read here and in other sources that The U.S. Constitution is going through similar unwelcomed changes, so yeah, I can fully sympathise with those who are offended, disadvantaged and simply displaced by the decisions of political figures who have their heads up their arses and no idea of real issues affecting real people. As with our crowd in Parliament House in Canberra, your crowd on Captitol Hill can't see past the walls of their offices/assembly rooms, etc.

Now I'm not familiar with the U.S. Constitution, having not read through it properly, and I may or may not agree with some aspects, I don't know, but I still firmly believe that it is every U.S. Citizen's right to fight for and defend that Constitution, so that it may not/cannot be altered or amended to disadvantage or exclude anyone....moreover that it cannot legislate on faith or religious beliefs, or the practice and/or non practice thereof. I say this because Australians need to do the same as we are confronted with the very same issues and are being decimated by the 'so-called' political correctness that creates division rather than social unity. That's why politics and religion should never be uttered in the same breath, and particularly not in the same room as a bunch of miscreant politicians who'd swear support and allegiance to any minority group purely to collect a few extra votes on polling day. In doing so, they create and incite racial and religious intolerance in communities that otherwise would just go about their normal business. The recent riots in Sydney's Bondi beach are testament to that fact. Given recent events in Britain, I'm sure Fuzzy Logic would agree that Tony Blair and his cronies have equally ballsed up there as well. It has become, sadly, a worldwide problem.

There is nothing wrong with patriotism, believing in and fighting to preserve one's Constitution, for that is what helps to give us an identity, a sense of belonging, a belief in a oneness that unites those of a common land, nationality, if you like. It's our heritage for Christ's sake, something to be proud of, and without it, do we have a future...or just an end? Irrespective of country/nationality, we all have a right to be proud of our heritage.

Having said that, I cannot and do not believe, subscribe or contribute to the concept /theory or idea of different races. Scientific evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all belong to the same species of homo sapiens,man/human. Regardless of skin pigmentation, eye colour, hair colour and height, etc, we are all of the same origins....brothers and sisters, if you like (and I'll have no incest coimments here, thank you), and that makes us all racially the same. Our differences historically arise due to atmospheric/weather conditions, environmental and cultural variations, yet underneath we are identical....human beings, and therefore we should respectfully treat eachother as such. I'd just like to have a word with the self proclaimed god who said it was otherwise...cos he/she clearly got it wrong.

As for God, by the way, being the creator of all things, is the same God that all Christians; Jews, Buddists; Muslims and Hindus worship (another can of worms opened).
The principles are generally the same, but some cultures and religions have slightly different perceptions of Him, using different language and descriptions to express their faith, etc....and there's nothing wrong with that when we are accepting, tolerant and understanding of one another.

Of course this is not a perfect world, and there will always be exceptions due to mankind being given a free will, but essentially there's more good than evil.

133

Adamness

on Jan 07, 2006

Yeah. I'm not sure about all those religions worshipping that one God, especially since Buddhists don't worship any god, and Hindus have a bunch of gods.

I think we established that religion and government should always be seperated. And yet, why can't the rest of this country, and other countries see this?

I should be President. Do I have your votes?

134

47songs

on Jan 07, 2006

You've got mine!!

135

starkers

on Jan 08, 2006

Yeah. I'm not sure about all those religions worshipping that one God, especially since Buddhists don't worship any god, and Hindus have a bunch of gods.

Adamness, I think maybe you missed my actual meaning, as I was referring more to the ideals/principles, rather than an entity or deity/deities.

I think we established that religion and government should always be seperated.

Yes we did, but there are other areas government should be separated from, and I was just expressing my personal view....in essence, that politicians purely exploit religion and minority groups to further their ambitions/careers, just as those they exploit, in turn, seek to manipulate and exploit them/the system. There is one solution, however, separate government from all public affairs, economic and fiscal matters, financial, religious and military matters, also.

Sorry, can't vote for ya tho, not a u.s. citizen for one.....for two, I just don't like, believe, trust or respect politicians full stop, so we're better off the way we are.

Come across a few good pollies once....mate took me to a cemetery where several reside

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!