TOTALLY GEEKED!

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

RE: School tells girl she can't mention God in her assignments about her life.

Tinydancer · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:

I know but WYSIWYG kept talking about hypothetical children so I thought they were different...lol
If I pretend they aren't real maybe they'll disappear?

I tried that a few times when she was younger...It didn't work...lol

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Darn it!

WYSIWYG · Guru

Um, yea ... no. The Bible does not teach to only worship God in certain places or at certain times. "Turning off" one's Christianity just because it's not PC is offensive to God.

Matthew 10:32-33 KJV: "32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
- chef

______________________________

I never suggested anyone should deny God, or that they should only worship in certain places at certain times.

Beliefs reside in the heart, mind, and soul. They can and do exist without external acknowledgement of their existence. I am what I am 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year (except leap year, 366 days then). Not preaching where it's unwelcome doesn't change who I am or what I believe.

To "deny me before men" would be to renounce God or Jesus. Saying that using a different point of inspiration in a school project is denying God, is like saying it's robbing a bank to stand outside and not deposit money.

WYSIWYG · Guru

And here's another fact for you. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Allow the government to dictate every single part of our lives and when we can and can't have our Christianity and they will soon out law it all together. You have no problem being a part time Christian. Some of us are all the time Christians. And we don't want the government telling us we can't believe when we're in a certain place. And here's another fact for you. Allow all the Christians to be run off. Guess what will happen next? They'll need someone else to chase off. Might want to think about that. Right now you're not in the group people are trying to regulate. But one day you might find yourself in that position.
- Nobody Just Nobody

_________________________

I take offense at the suggestion that I am a "part time Christian". I shall however just turn the other cheek to you and wish you a good day.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So tell me again where it says I should love the sin?
- lilyofcourse

___________________________

To do so, I would have had to tell you that a first time. I have not. What I have said is that we should love the sinner while hating the sin.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I guess you didn't read the bolded. Nothing your hypothetical child could write in this assignment would change my childs thinking.
- Tinydancer

_________________________

I did read the bolded. You didn't read my reply. I was explaining my previous post and apologizing if I was in error.

WYSIWYG · Guru

You are quite the hypocrite. You would seem to have no trouble with the reverse which is happening.
- huskerbb

________________________

What "reverse"? The "reverse" in my post would have my hypothetical child extolling the virtues and beliefs that I had instilled in him or her to other children at school. And I said I wouldn't want that happening either because other parents would take issue with it. There is no hypocrisy in that.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Because this is a message board & not a public school.
- Lexxy

_______________________

Exactly. Different standards.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Sure, but you are wrong.
- huskerbb

_________________________

So you say. Others say differently. Who made you the arbiter of who is right and who is wrong?

WYSIWYG · Guru

this is a summary of religious rights in school.

et al
- Lawyerlady

________________________

I see that according to those rules her submission should be allowable.

That doesn't change my opinion that it's not a good idea to include religion in a graded assignment. I believe religion in school should stop when it leaves the student and directly interacts with the faculty. Wear a Cross or a Star of David or a Crescent and star as a pendant, dress as prescribed by your religion, pray (silently), even discuss religion amongst your similar believing peers, etc. But religion should not be handed in for a grade, unless it's a historical study of that religion.

This is just my opinion on the issue.

WYSIWYG · Guru

My apologies for the shotgunning of posts. There were a few that I wanted to answer, and as you all know I only get on-line in the late evening for a short while.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
Sure, but you are wrong.
- huskerbb

_________________________

So you say. Others say differently. Who made you the arbiter of who is right and who is wrong?

Because I'm the smartest man alive.

chef · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
Um, yea ... no. The Bible does not teach to only worship God in certain places or at certain times. "Turning off" one's Christianity just because it's not PC is offensive to God.

Matthew 10:32-33 KJV: "32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
- chef

______________________________

I never suggested anyone should deny God, or that they should only worship in certain places at certain times.

Beliefs reside in the heart, mind, and soul. They can and do exist without external acknowledgement of their existence. I am what I am 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year (except leap year, 366 days then). Not preaching where it's unwelcome doesn't change who I am or what I believe.

To "deny me before men" would be to renounce God or Jesus. Saying that using a different point of inspiration in a school project is denying God, is like saying it's robbing a bank to stand outside and not deposit money.

Yes, you did. From your post that I responded to: "Put God on your lawn, put God on your car (I had a "Jesus rides shotgun" bumper sticker on my last car), even put God in your business, so long as it's not forced on employees or patrons in violation of any laws, if you like." Your belief that God should only be worshipped as long as no one else is around is denying God.

Your example fails because one involves a Constitutionally protected right and the other doesn't. Also, if a person's inspiration is God, picking another point of inspiration would be denying God.

You are one of very few people I know who profess a belief in God yet want to keep Him hidden from the world. Why do you want to hide your belief in God? Are you ashamed of Him?

WYSIWYG · Guru

"God does not exist" is denying God.

"I believe in God, but don't feel the need to say it out loud or put it in print right now" is not denying God.

Are you denying God when you don't praise Him for the shower being hot? Are you denying Him because you don't open up about Him to the stranger on the bus? Are you denying Him when you don't give thanks before you pop the top on that can of soda you just got out of the machine? No.

It's not that I want to hide my belief. It's that there are places that I believe it to be inappropriate to display it in a way that's forceful towards others, because it could cause issues when other people might want to display their beliefs if I get to display mine, or because it comes in conflict with the Constitutional prohibition between mixing Church and State. It's not denying God to be respectful of others.

No. I am not ashamed of God. Why would I be ashamed of God? God is love, and charity, hope and faith. God is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the last best hope we mere mortals have. God, or at least Jesus, is whom we should all strive to model our actions after. Something that many Christians could do better at.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Sure, but you are wrong.
- huskerbb

_________________________

So you say. Others say differently. Who made you the arbiter of who is right and who is wrong?
Because I'm the smartest man alive.

LOL! I wouldn't go that far. But you are certainly the smartest man currently in this discussion.

chef · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"God does not exist" is denying God.

"I believe in God, but don't feel the need to say it out loud or put it in print right now" is not denying God.

Are you denying God when you don't praise Him for the shower being hot? Are you denying Him because you don't open up about Him to the stranger on the bus? Are you denying Him when you don't give thanks before you pop the top on that can of soda you just got out of the machine? No.

It's not that I want to hide my belief. It's that there are places that I believe it to be inappropriate to display it in a way that's forceful towards others, because it could cause issues when other people might want to display their beliefs if I get to display mine, or because it comes in conflict with the Constitutional prohibition between mixing Church and State. It's not denying God to be respectful of others.

No. I am not ashamed of God. Why would I be ashamed of God? God is love, and charity, hope and faith. God is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the last best hope we mere mortals have. God, or at least Jesus, is whom we should all strive to model our actions after. Something that many Christians could do better at.

It is never inappropriate to display your belief in God. You don't have to be forceful about it. Hiding your belief is denying God. Remember what Peter did?

Also, btw, the separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution. It was in a document by Thomas Jefferson.

WYSIWYG · Guru

It is never inappropriate to display your belief in God. You don't have to be forceful about it. Hiding your belief is denying God. Remember what Peter did?

Also, btw, the separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution. It was in a document by Thomas Jefferson.
-chef

_______________________________

I remember well what Peter did. He denied Christ 3 times, with his words, saying that he knew the man not.

A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him." But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said.
When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." Again he denied it.
those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!"

Those are all active denials as I have said the phrase "there is no God" would be a denial.

They are not the same as simply keeping God in your heart and instead of speaking or writing, showing your faith in God in your actions and deeds and being quiet.

Yes, the phrase itself was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, addressing their letter of grievance with infringements against their religious freedom by their State Legislature : "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Mr. Jefferson is explaining the intent behind the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYS - Do you find it curious that God SPOKE the world into existence? The voice is a very powerful thing. We are commanded to love God and also to praise and acknowledge Him. Not just silently but with our MOUTHS. Out loud.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
It is never inappropriate to display your belief in God. You don't have to be forceful about it. Hiding your belief is denying God. Remember what Peter did?

Also, btw, the separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution. It was in a document by Thomas Jefferson.
-chef

_______________________________

I remember well what Peter did. He denied Christ 3 times, with his words, saying that he knew the man not.

A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him." But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said.
When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." Again he denied it.
those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!"

Those are all active denials as I have said the phrase "there is no God" would be a denial.

They are not the same as simply keeping God in your heart and instead of speaking or writing, showing your faith in God in your actions and deeds and being quiet.

Yes, the phrase itself was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, addressing their letter of grievance with infringements against their religious freedom by their State Legislature : "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Mr. Jefferson is explaining the intent behind the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A phrase in a LETTER is NOT the Constitution of the United States. If that is the case, I am sure I can find lots of letters justifying anything I want to do.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, the Separation was about protecting churches FROM Govt interference. NOT the other way around. Hello.

chillepeppa · Regular

I always thought it went both ways. To protect both the church and the state from each other due to there being so many different religions nowadays... Can't have either of the influencing the other. This the need for a secular government.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
I always thought it went both ways. To protect both the church and the state from each other due to there being so many different religions nowadays... Can't have either of the influencing the other. This the need for a secular government.

No. The First Amendment reads....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

THAT is a one way street.

If a person were to be silenced about religion whereever it makes people "uncomfortable" - that would be the government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Tuesday 2nd of June 2015 08:54:19 AM

chillepeppa · Regular

Meh...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Meh...

Well, without those rights - we likely wouldn't have our Constitution. There was QUITE the argument over the fact that the Constitution did not go far enough to protect individual freedoms and it was likely not going to be ratified unless those concerns were addressed. Thus, we have the Bill of Rights to protect the people from over-reaching and over-bearing government. It is what makes us a free society.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And "meh", really? Over people fighting and losing their lives to overcome an oppresive government. After this country was founded by people fleeing their homes to get out from under religious persectution that could result in death?

It is very disrespectful to "meh" the freedoms of this country that were fought and won with BLOOD.

chillepeppa · Regular

No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.

That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?

She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.

chef · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
WYS - Do you find it curious that God SPOKE the world into existence? The voice is a very powerful thing. We are commanded to love God and also to praise and acknowledge Him. Not just silently but with our MOUTHS. Out loud.

Exactly.

chef · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I always thought it went both ways. To protect both the church and the state from each other due to there being so many different religions nowadays... Can't have either of the influencing the other. This the need for a secular government.
No. The First Amendment reads....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

THAT is a one way street.

If a person were to be silenced about religion whereever it makes people "uncomfortable" - that would be the government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Tuesday 2nd of June 2015 08:54:19 AM

Agreed.

burns07 · Guru

If a person were to be silenced about religion whereever it makes people "uncomfortable" - that would be the government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

precisely, as usual

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

when a student is given a " story of my life " assignment, how much more personal could one expect the finished product be ? what does the " staff " expect ? regardless of the specific assignment, to require that this child remove any references to their personal religion IS a violation of this young person's rights--what other answer is there ?--it's clear and it's wrong

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.

The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?

Lindley · Guru

I didn't read all the most so please forgive me if this has been said. It is one thing for the school to be practicing religion but another thing for someone writing about something in their life that is a big influence in their life. I wish schools will show a little more common sense.

WYSIWYG · Guru

WYS - Do you find it curious that God SPOKE the world into existence? The voice is a very powerful thing. We are commanded to love God and also to praise and acknowledge Him. Not just silently but with our MOUTHS. Out loud.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

______________________________

Not at all. God is after all, God. With God all things are possible. We are not God though, so our spoken word is nowhere near as powerful.

WYSIWYG · Guru

A phrase in a LETTER is NOT the Constitution of the United States. If that is the case, I am sure I can find lots of letters justifying anything I want to do
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_________________________

I understand that. However, President Jefferson was explaining to the Danbury Baptists the intent of the actual words in the First Amendment. He was there when it was pened and when the document was signed. I am certain he had a better understanding of what they meant than either you or I would. Would you agree with that?

WYSIWYG · Guru

And, the Separation was about protecting churches FROM Govt interference. NOT the other way around. Hello. - Lady Gaga Snerd

_______________________

I disagree. I believe that it was about protecting both from each other. One of the reasons the Colonies broke away from Britain was due to the government's ties with the Church of England. It wasn't just about taxation without representation.

WYSIWYG · Guru

No. The First Amendment reads....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

THAT is a one way street.
- Lawyerlady

____________________________

I agree with you that that's what the First Amendment says.

I disagree that it's a "one way street" because as well as they can't restrict our speech or prohibit the free exercise of our religion, they also can't make any "law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, they can't make a law mandating Christianity be taught in school or everyone must go to Church or anything else that's religion oriented.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?

We do have that safeguard in place.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?
We do have that safeguard in place.

But you don't care about it, apparently.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?
We do have that safeguard in place.
But you don't care about it, apparently.

Not as it is written in your constitution, no. I have one of my own, apperantly.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?
We do have that safeguard in place.
But you don't care about it, apparently.
Not as it is written in your constitution, no. I have one of my own, apperantly.

We are talking about the right, not the particular format. If the right is the same, or close, what difference does it make? NONE.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?
We do have that safeguard in place.
But you don't care about it, apparently.
Not as it is written in your constitution, no. I have one of my own, apperantly.
We are talking about the right, not the particular format. If the right is the same, or close, what difference does it make? NONE.

Considering the "meh" was made to a specific quote and it's interpretations from the american constitution, yes, it does.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
No, "meh' as in those rights don't affect me... Our separation goes both ways.
That is one of the most ignorant statements ever posted on this forum. Those rights don't affect you????

You would prefer to be forced to have a particular religion?
She's not in the United States, husker. She isn't a U.S. citizen.
The point still remains whether you would prefer to NOT have the right to choose your religion, or do you want that right?
We do have that safeguard in place.
But you don't care about it, apparently.
Not as it is written in your constitution, no. I have one of my own, apperantly.
We are talking about the right, not the particular format. If the right is the same, or close, what difference does it make? NONE.
Considering the "meh" was made to a specific quote and it's interpretations from the american constitution, yes, it does.

The right is essentially the same.