An open post to Barrack Obama on loyalty oaths and public prayer

[Kelvin Mace]

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

The "Pledge of Allegiance" is a loyalty oath, plain and simple. If anyone wishes to recite it of their own accord, then let them. To REQUIRE the pledge be recited is to require a MANDATORY loyalty oath, which violates the First Amendment. To require the recitation of a loyalty oath that contains "under God", a phrase inserted for purely religous reasons, violates the First Amerndment's establishment clause.

And let me clue you in on a little secret: Prayer has NEVER been outlawed in school. Students are free to pray any time they wish. What is outlawed is ORGANIZED prayer since this allows coercion of people who do not wish to have your religion, or anyone else's religion, inflicted upon them.

Also, I might point out that if you and the GOP nut jobs ever bothered to actually READ your Bible, you would learn that Jesus OPPOSED public prayer.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:5

There it is in your own damn rule book. DO NOT pray in public, pray in private. People who pray in public are hypocrites! By extension, people who demand other people pray in public (even "voluntarily") are demanding disobedience to God.

[dysfunctional press]

1. it definitely didn't take long for the luster to wear off obama...

and some people even want to consider him as presidential material in '08...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kelvin Mace]

16. The luster wore off Obama for me when he voted for

Rice to be Sec State. he was completely unqualified and ratrher than point this out, he got in line like a good little Bush Dem and sanctified her. Until Vichy Democrats stop siding with the enemy, we will lose.

[truebrit71]

2. Excellent post. Perhaps Obama should do a little more listening..

..and a WHOLE lot less talking until he has completed at least ONE full-term in office?

Nobody likes being lectured to by the new kid.

Barrack old buddy, you ain't all that....stop believing your own press clippings and start acting like a Democrat, m'kay?

[WA98296]

3. Great post. Thanks!

[daybreak]

4. ahhh, the grayness of true faith in God and Jesus Christ:

Many liberal Christians interpret Matthew 6:6 literally. Jesus believed that prayers are to be an intensely personal event between a person and God; no one else should be present. Prayer to him was a private matter. Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present.

Most conservative Christians tend to downplay Jesus' instruction about the importance of going off by oneself and pray alone and in secret. After all, if public prayer is not permitted, then just about every Christian service is seriously in error, with the possible exception of some by the Society of Friends (Quakers). Conservatives interpret Matthew 6:5 as not condemning public prayer. Rather, it criticizes only that prayer in public that is motivated by a desire to show off. Prayer "may be offered in any circumstances, however open, if not promoted by the spirit of ostentation...".

[Gabi Hayes]

5. thank you for that, and a cordial welcome to our little church

can you imagine having a colloquy with the likes of Falwell, Robertson, etal, on that subject?

[wryter2000]

8. Welcome to DU

:hi:

Nice post. I'll submit that a lot of the public prayer they attempt is an attempt to grandstand, though.

[delete_bush]

12. and I would submit to you that most who

pray in public are, in one way or another, showing off.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. I always love how the Cons

are so selective about interpretation. Literal is "literal" except when it inconveniences them or contradicts their prejudices. This is a good example.

[me b zola]

59. "Most conservative Christians tend to downplay Jesus"

I thought it most appropriate to end the statement there.

Since the rw created faux christian organizations 20 years ago (or so) with the intent to politicize religion, the teachings of Jesus and the message of the NT have been perverted, twisted, and left for dead.

[Vidar]

85. Well-stated. Welcome to DU.

[OnionPatch]

6. It seems to me like he's just

catapulting the GOP propaganda, the propaganda that the Dems HATE religion, when really, all we want is a government free from theocracy.

You are right about the praying in schools part, too. I get so sick when people try to insist that prayer is not allowed in schools. But I don't know why I'm so surprised that people can't figure out that it's *mandatory* school-led prayer that is offensive to some, not after-school Bible studies in the library. Everything is black and white with so many Americans these days. It's sad.

[truebrit71]

7. He's actually reinforcing M-Ann Coulter's point that we're Godless...

...well done Senator Obama, well done indeed.... :eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Precisely!

And while he said some other laudible things in the speach, once you give Ann Coulter cover, I stop listening to anything else you have to say.

[never cry wolf]

26. He's actually arguing the opposite

He's saying that liberal/progrevvive values coincide with religious values and we need to get the word out that the religious right spin is all BS.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Then don't endorse organized prayer in school

and don't require mandatory reciting of the pledge of allegiance.

[never cry wolf]

29. I don't see where he endorses it

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.
----------
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God;” I certainly didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and belittle and divide – they’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. He saying it should not be a threat, so we should allow it

No, it IS a threat, and we should NEVER allow it.

I don't teach math in people's churches, I would appreciate it if they would stop pushing God in my schools.

[never cry wolf]

40. He is NOT endorsing school organized prayer, period.

All he is saying is that if a group wants to use a public facility for a meeting it should not be seen as a threat if that group is a prayer group. He's not saying the schools should teach prayer or organize the meetings.

I hate the fundies as much as the next here. Personally at best I would call myself an agnostic but I do think Obama gets a bad rap on these boards and for the life of me I don't know why.

Seems almost rovian, imho.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. He is saying that using a school

for public prayer is OK. If he says it is not a threat, he is saying it is OK. If he believes it OK, he is endorsing it.

Please, spare me to "Rovian" crack. Argue the point on merits, don't question the motives of your opponent. That IS "Rovian".

[iconoclastNYC]

46. He's reinforcing the frame.

You don't bring up your opponents frames.

If he wants to talk about this he should castigate Republicans for using Religion as a weapon to divide the country.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. And should have used the argument I provided

in the OP to show that they are hypocrites and "false" Christians.

[truebrit71]

55. No he's not. He is PUBLICLY chastising fellow Democrats and the MSM...

...is running with it....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594189/

Obama should STFU!!!

[Bill McBlueState]

32. but some of us are

Many of us are godless and see nothing wrong with being godless.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. I'll drink to that.

But being open in our godless lives, thoughts and actions, we manage to toss off those pesky irrational faith-based belief systems which cause so much damage in the world.

[wryter2000]

9. To quote someone...

As long as there are algebra tests, there will always be prayer in schools.

[OnionPatch]

64. You are so right and I always wonder

how anyone can take God from someone else. A prayer said silently is still a prayer, and the most common type of prayer. I don't think the powers that be can control our minds (yet). Anyone who "loses" God because they don't recite the pledge with the words "under God" in it, must not have had God in the first place.

[never cry wolf]

10. TOTALLY misleading post, IMHO......

First, this was a speech given to the Sojourners Call For Renewal, a progressive religious gathering.

Second, the gist of the speech was how to get more votes and unidentify Christianity with the repukes.

Third, you did not post a link to the entire speech and instead posted 2 out of scores of paragraphs. Here's a couple more:

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness – in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy; it will also require changes in hearts and minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we have a problem of morality; there’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that government programs alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws; but I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs can bring quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.

I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished. But my bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence all young people for the act of sexual intimacy.

Be fair and read the entire marvelous speech BEFORE you all pass judgement.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/06/obama_on_faith_and_politics_an.html

[never cry wolf]

11. Some more of the speech

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I that the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who’s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Irrelevant

The speech continues to play on the notion that liberals are "godless" and we need to curry favor with relgions.

No matter what is said elsewhere, this is a continuation of this premise taht we need to reach out to the religous Right and that the Left spurns them.

Yes, we DO spurn the Religous Right and damn well we should.

[never cry wolf]

22. Totally relevant

The speech goes on to talk about how religious values ARE liberal/progressive values, universal values of our species. He talks basically how the religious right has hijacked, improperly, the claim of higher moral ground based upon religious values.

Some more context from his speech:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. I do not know any liberal politician who spurns

religion and demeans the religous.

If he wants to talk about the hypocrisy of the Right, great, but don't do so predictaed on the notion that the Left is not repectful of religion. Obama is endorsing prayer in school, and thus siding with the religous Right. He destroyed his credibility when he claims that organized prayer in school is not a breech of the Constitution as well as BAD public policy. Nothing else he has to say, no matter how much I agree with it, can get past allowing religous indoctrination in school or mandatory loyalty oaths.

[never cry wolf]

30. He is not endorsing school organized public prayer

Just saying the use of a room by a prayer group should not be seen as a threat. Is allowing the chess club facilities for use endorsing chess and a gaming indoctrination? And those sorts of groups for the most part are school organized.

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I that the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Please, let's not compare

chess to 2000 years of religous indoctrination and warfare.

No one is advocating people be killed for showing a likeness of Spasky, or claiming a knight opening is blasphemy at the chess club meeting. Chess is a game, as past time. Religion is religion. The Constiutution does not prohibit the government from endorsing chess, it does prohibit it from endorsing religion.

Allowing organized relgous groups to use public facilities is an endorsement of religion. It doesn't matter if you make the room available to EVERY religion on the planet, it is still endorsing RELIGION.

[never cry wolf]

41. A prayer is said at every opening session of congress

I don't particularly agree with it but there it is. I am sure Obama would also have no qualms allowing the use of public facilities by the local atheist society either.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. And it is wrong.

Perhaps someday, we will get rational and courageous leaders who will end the hypocritical practice.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. BTW, atheism is NOT a religion

so, it would not violate the Constitution for the government to endorse it.

[spooky3]

100. I'm not a lawyer but I am not sure about your endorsement point.

It might be seen as interference with people's rights to engage in religion freely. The Constitution essentially tells the government to stay out of it, which to me includes not taking a position at all.

[OnionPatch]

65. My question is this

Who?....What Dem thinks it's a threat for a prayer meeting to be held in a school room by a group of students that are there voluntarily? I want to know. Because I've never heard a liberal take issue with this type of religious expression. Must be those same liberals who want to outlaw the Bible. :sarcasm: I've never met a one of them but the GOP and now Obama say they're out there....

[never cry wolf]

79. There are a few who have posted on this thread

Either that or they mis-understand Obama's position which is exaactly as you describe it.

[WyLoochka]

92. I am opposed to prayer clubs in public schools

They can be use to prosyletize to other children without the consent of the parents. Kids can be presssured over not "joining the prayer club."

Disallowing prayer clubs is fair to everyone, including the fundie kids. Kids can meet for prayer after school at a different location, no one is stopping them. They don't need to use the school facilities supported by my tax dollars. The reason the righties are insistent on this is so that they can prosyletize - that's what they do - they never shut up about it.

Opens up a Pandora's Box that the Framers of the Constitution intended to keep shut.

[spooky3]

94. Obama is WRONG about use of rooms by prayer groups.

1) Fed. law currently requires that these groups be treated like any other school group. Please see these guidelines (found in a few seconds of Yahoo searching--I am sure that someone on Obama's staff could have done the same thing--and may have, which is an even worse thing to consider) used by a typical public school system that cites the law. (and there are certainly plenty of private church-related schools that provide more opportunities for prayer)

http://www.fcps.edu/DHR/employees/oec/relguide.htm

Here is an excerpt:

Under the 1984 federal Equal Access Act, a secondary school that allows one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time may not deny equal access to or discriminate against students on the basis of religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings. Student prayer groups meeting on school property under this definition do not have to be authorized by the School Board as do school-sponsored clubs and organizations. Although the Equal Access Act applies only to our middle and high schools, other federal law extends these principles to our elementary schools.

During the noninstructional portion of the school day, students wanting to pray aloud or in the company of others may do so without advance permission in areas open to students, such as the cafeteria during lunch hours, and school grounds during class breaks and before and after school. If the students request classroom or other building space during the noninstructional portion of the school day, the request should be granted in the same way as such requests are granted for other student gatherings not related to the curriculum. The request should be directed to the principal.

Student groups meeting for prayer must comply with the following conditions, regardless of whether they are informal gatherings or student clubs:

* meetings are voluntary and student initiated
* the group is not sponsored by the school, the government (or its agents), or employees
* employees or agents of the school are present at meetings of the student prayer groups only in a nonparticipatory capacity for supervision purposes only
* the meeting does not materially or substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school, and
* nonschool persons do not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of the student groups.

During instructional time, students are expected to be in class and will not be granted permission to leave the classroom for prayer activities on school grounds, except to the extent that (1) students may be absent from class for other noncurricular activities, or (2) not excusing the student would result in a substantial burden on the student’s religious exercise. Principals should consult with the Office of Equity and Compliance (OEC) before releasing students for these reasons.


2) Precisely which Democrats feel "threatened" by these principles and practices as stated in the example above? What are they doing about it--trying to overturn the laws? Or are those who have concerns few and far between OR are they concerned about very different issues than what Obama claims?

[never cry wolf]

95. You make Obama's point for him

1) Prayer groups ARE currently allowed.

2) There have been hundreds of posts here today by DUers who feel threatened by what they perceive Obama claims.

[spooky3]

98. Please provide evidence to back up your claim.

Your logic escapes me, and you (and he) did not answer the questions I raised in my post. So I'll try it again, with different words, in response to your points !) and 2).

1) Therefore, why is it an issue? Why is HE making it an issue?

"Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

WHO (among elected Democrats) is taking ACTION to change this law or otherwise behaving as if they feel "threatened?" Without this evidence, he is constructing a straw man/woman. This is objectionable, especially when it echoes Republican talking points.

2) What is the evidence on the DU board that DUers are feeling threatened? Are you saying the fact that many DUers are challenging some of his positions as either factually incorrect, or representing values they do not share, constitutes "feeling threatened"?

[never cry wolf]

101. Read his entire speech

1) He is claiming, as you are, that it should NOT be an issue. He never said, nor am I aware of any elected Dem officials taking action to change the law. Inferring that there is an actual movement to do so is in itself a strawman. There are many on the left, however, that think any school prayer is a government endorsement of religion.

2) Again, I feel that many posters here misinterpret Obama's statement but one small example of many on this thread (out of maybe a half dozen threads spawned by the speech}:

36. He saying it should not be a threat, so we should allow it Updated at 10:15 AM

No, it IS a threat, and we should NEVER allow it.

I don't teach math in people's churches, I would appreciate it if they would stop pushing God in my schools.

[druidity33]

75. context...

Let me start by saying i've not been a fan of Bama's decisions in the past... he seems really sneaky to me. But in this context you have to think that he's talking to parishioners here. He's trying to identify this "problem of perception" to them so that they can counter it. I agree that by even implying it (liberals are godless) it was a bad frame job... but he portrays himself as a religious man and he was giving a speech to religious people.

I have mixed feelings about public prayer and loyalty oaths. I believe in many things but basic to my tenets is that old wiccan adage "do what thou wilt and harm none". It seems to me that Obama is responding to something in particular (maybe a school banning a prayer group?) with the school prayer issue. In my mind, and i think legally, there would be a HUGE difference between allowing a Prayer Club the same amount of space as let's say the Glee Club, or the Chess Club, for after school activities and having the Principal and School Board hold mandatory Prayer rallies, or lead a morning prayer in the "name of" JC, Amen, etc. Key word there is ORGANISED. What you mean by it is very different from what Bama is implying, despite your deductions.

As for the Pledge... i had to say it every day. Forcing children to say it is wrong, but doesn't it foster a connection between everyone? There's nothing like the pledge to make a kid reflect on being an American, to ask Parents who need to come up with answers. Though it is an oath, it's not like it's enforcible... they're not going to come take me away because i didn't say the pledge in the 5th grade or try me for treason because i "took the oath" and yet somehow purchased a Japanese car. So it think you're overreacting with that part. Most kids today say the thing in one long stringed sylabbic word without thought or reflection. Without .5 second edits or video game graphics, i doubt you're likely to get too many of our youth of today to spend any time thinking about the pledge of allegiance... except maybe Ava Lowery, but she's light years ahead of her peers.

just my 2 cents, fwiw...

[Kelvin Mace]

78. Part of this

is about framing the "liberals are godless" like it is a bad thing.

If having a god means subscribing to the venon-filled rantings and hat-mongering of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Frist, Santorum, et al, then by all means, atheism is the way to go.

As to pledges, I think such "rote" indoctrination is just that, indoctrination. We are FAR better served instilling children with a sense of ethics (start by not lying to them) than a sense of patriotism.

[OnionPatch]

63. Yup. It's almost like he's agreeing that we are "Godless"

It ticks me off that he's reinforcing a lot of misconceptions about Democrats and Christianity. For example, he says we shouldn't be threatened by Bible meetings in school. I don't know any Dem who objects to Bible meetings in schools if they are not mandatory and are treated like any other optional extra-curricular activity. (Ok there may be some somewhere, but I don't know them.)

So, Obama, chide us for not getting our message out, sure, but don't be repeating the same old BS lies the right does about us. How about setting some of them straight instead. Like making it clear that we are against mandatory teacher-led prayer, not a group having Bible meetings in the library.

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Actually, I object

to religious clubs. No matter the conditions, it is an endorsement of religion. There is a place for Bible studies and religous clubs, it is called a church.

[OnionPatch]

84. Well, you're the first

I've met to think that way. I disagree with you that it's an endorsment of religion. If a school can have a Democratic club, a Republican club, a vegetarian club, a hot rod club, a philosophy club, a computer club.....why not a Bible study club? I see it as freedom of speech. No one forces the kids to go to a Bible study. If they did, that's when I would oppose it vehemently.

As far as your other post on being Godless...I DO agree with you that it's not a bad thing. I have many athiest friends who are wonderful, ethical people. Believers have no monopoly on morality. The "Godless" have as much right to representation from their government as the rest of us. I've been on the athiest side of the aisle myself for some time phases of my life and to be honest, I'm a little suspicious of those who have never found themselves wondering or even doubting at least once.

[gaspee]

23. I read the whole thing

And I still disagree with him. "A hole in the heart" can not be filled with prayer. For some people maybe. Having caring, living, breathing people around to make a difference in support systems is much more effective than the invisible "father" in the sky. People with social support do better psycholgically and economically. Prayer isn't the only way to achieve that.

I'm insulted that so many people think the non-religious are defective. It's the underlying theme to all this religion crap.

[hfojvt]

13. I do not believe that is accurate, in many ways

You say that "prayer has never been outlawed in school" but I believe that there have been cases where people sued to prevent student religious organizations or Boy Scouts from meeting on school property. That some on the left feel the first amendment means that religion needs to be pushed into a closet, that it's not enough for schools to "not promote a religion" but that religion, like drug deals, should not happen within 500 feet of a school.

Having associated with many GOP nut jobs, I can assure you that they read their Bibles - alot. Probably too much. As one Bible study leader said "all of us here know alot about Bible teachings, the difficulty is putting them into practice." But none of us are going to take advice from somebody who calls it our "own damn rule book".

[Kelvin Mace]

24. School prayer

You say that "prayer has never been outlawed in school" but I believe that there have been cases where people sued to prevent student religious organizations or Boy Scouts from meeting on school property. That some on the left feel the first amendment means that religion needs to be pushed into a closet, that it's not enough for schools to "not promote a religion" but that religion, like drug deals, should not happen within 500 feet of a school.

Public institutions have NO business facilitating organized prayer, PERIOD. If I let a "Bible study" group use the facilities, then I am helping promote a religion. If folks want to have a Bible study, there are about 100,000 churches (exempt from taxation) which they can go and hold a study.

What they want is to prosletize, then claim to be a victim when told, "No".

If you read the Bible and claim to follow its teachings (good luck, given the contradictions), then it IS your "own damn rule book". Either you do what it says, or you don't. If you don't, then don't come lecture me about being a "Christian" and following the rules.

Schools are places of learning, not places of religous indoctrination.

[hfojvt]

38. well, at least you did not disagree with me

If students or parents want to form religious clubs, they should have just as much right to do so as any other club. If allowing that is "promoting" a religion, then isn't allowing a GLBT club also "promoting" an agenda? To use a church for such a club would make it lose it's ecumenical status - it would become a Lutheran club, a Catholic club, a Baptist club, instead of promoting more understanding and tolerance between sects.

"If you read the Bible and claim to follow its teachings (good luck, given the contradictions), then it IS your "own damn rule book"."

No, it's not. Your use of the pejorative adjective "damn" indicated that you do not have much, if any, respect for the book. Thus, although you may be proficient at quoting it for your own purposes, nobody who does respect the book will listen to the advice, for how to live by it, from somebody who does not respect it.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Not the same

First, the Constitution does not prohibit government from establishing a state GLBT anything. It does prohibit government from establishing a state religion.

Second, people can form religous clubs, they are called churches and they have no place in schools.

Third, many chuches I know have GLBT support groups (clubs by some definitions) and have not lost their ecumenical status.

No, it's not. Your use of the pejorative adjective "damn" indicated that you do not have much, if any, respect for the book. Thus, although you may be proficient at quoting it for your own purposes, nobody who does respect the book will listen to the advice, for how to live by it, from somebody who does not respect it.

You are right, I have little respect for a book which endorses child killing, rape, murder and child molesting. As to SOME of its teachings, I live quite well by them, thank you kindly, but not because this book says I should.

I am much more impressed with an altruistic atheist than an altruistic Christian. The athiest acts out or pure nobility, the Christian out of fear of punishment, or promise of reward.

The fact that I don't "respect" a document does not make my comments or judgements about it invalid.

I pointed to a passage that CLEARLY states that public prayer is hypocritical and commands true believers to pray in secret. How does my "repect" for the book render this point wrong? If I go and get a priest or other church functionary to point this out, does it become automatically right?

2+2=4 does not become false just because a person who has no respect for math points out that it is true.

[hfojvt]

62. unfortunately most things are not as clear as math

However, it is obvious to me that a person who does not respect math is unlikely to know what they are talking about when they start arguing with a math major. Unlikely, but not impossible. So if you harangue a bunch of math professors or even undergraduate math majors, who claim to be students of calculus, with your insight into Newton's principia mathematica, which you think is a crock of sh*t, you are unlikely to impress them because you are unlikely to know what you are talking about.

You are "straining at gnats, while swallowing camels" pointing out the "motes in Christian's eyes while ignoring the log in your own."

But really, I prefer to argue simply in favor of altruism, rather than atheism vs. christianity. However, Christianity is a belief system which encourages altruism (with alot of other phlogiston and kitsch which seems to have taken over a long, long time ago) whereas atheism is a belief system which encourages scoffing at both Christianity and altruism.

It is funny though, if they tried to prevent a GLBT club from forming in the school, you would probably think they were bigots and persecuting gays. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not going to be shared by everybody, probably not even by a majority of voters. It seems to me that it does not spring necessarily from an objective study of constitutional law, but from a hostility to religion, something which is not shared by a majority of Americans.

[Kelvin Mace]

69. I have no "log" in my eye

Religion is NOT math, which is why we don't need it in schools. There is almost universal agreement on mathematical curriculum and certainly upon what is right and wrong. The same is true of grammar, spelling, most history, chemistry, biology, and phys ed.

Religion, on the other hand, is contradictory, divisive, disruptive and few can agree on the ground rules, never mind other dogmatic ideology. This is why religion has NO place in public schools.

I am not hostile to most religions, just most religions who wish to compel others to follow their point of view or else. Chistianiy is a wonderful philosophy, and it will be very interesting to see what happens when more people actually practice it.

Jesus did not ask Rome to permit him to teach in schools. He went out and taught those willing to listen.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. The individual you are discussing this with

believes that the SCOTUS decision taking mandatory prayer out of public schools was "wrongly decided". He believes, as I'm sure he'll tell you if you ask him, that it should be "up to the voters"- which means that, yes, in places where most of the kids are Christians it should be okay to FORCE all the kids to pray to Jesus.

He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I'm telling you where he's coming from to spare you from wasting any more time with him on this.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. "It's doubtful"... BULLSHIT. I *knew* it was wrong when I was 6 years old

I knew I was an atheist, and I knew it wasn't right to force- (anyone who thinks it's not forced is kidding themselves) me to say those words.

Feh.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Religion, in my opinion

is a personal vice. As long as you don't try to inflict yours on me or the Republic, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I'm with you 100%. I look at it like that ad capaign for Vegas.

"What happens in your head- STAYS in your head"

[melnjones]

17. I'm not really a fan of big public praying...

However, I'm also not a fan of restricting others' rights to do so.

on edit...
Regarding the Pledge. I'm a Christian who does not say the pledge. I will stand with others and place my hand over my heart out of respect, but I don't say it. Gets me in trouble sometimes. I don't say it for several reasons. One, I don't like the added "under God" part. It doesn't need to be there. Two, although I love my country very much, I pledge allegiance to a loving and wonderful God, not a country that seems to pervert much of what God's word tells us and claim it for political motives. Three, a pledge is not something to be taken lightly, yet we require that small children learn it and recite it, often in schools, and including immigrant children. I have a HUGE issue with forcing immigrant children to say the pledge. Words MEAN something. We sometimes forget that.

I often get frustrated that I don't see more Dems taking a stand with me against the expectation that any good American should say the pledge.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. I don't see anything restricting people's right to pray

If folks wish to bow their head in the lunch room and say grace, there is no law against it. If folks wish to pray before a test, nothing stops them.

However, you cannot have organized prayer where someone compels people to pray. Even if you claim such a request is "voluntary", it simply IS NOT. People, especially children, feel pressured not to stand out and will be punished by their peers for anything that deviates from the group norm.

Again, schools are places of learning, not places of religious indoctrination.

[Ganja Ninja]

20. Does this phrase sound familiar?

"I didn't leave the party the party left me."

Hilliary a Barak need to pay attention to what's happening to Holy Joe in Connecticut. Keep going to the right and you'll be leaving your base behind.

[gaspee]

21. Wrong, Senator

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."



Sorry Senator, but I did feel oppressed when made to say it. I've been an atheist by choice (not indoctrination) since I was about 8 or so. And I didn't say the pledge. Never was an issue, but I hated it.

Loved the moment of silence though. I got my homework finished during it.

This catering to the so called "pious" really pisses me off. Isn't it enough to say to them, "I respect your religious choices and will never try to abridge them, but also will not give special treatment. Isn't that what living in a pluralistic society all about.

This bending over backward for these people really, really turns me off and pisses me off.

[never cry wolf]

25. Please read the whole speech

All he is saying in that paragraph is that we need to pick our fights and that there are many more important ones.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

35. It is spelled Barack, not Barrack re subject line of OP n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

39. Oops

sorry.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. I have said this before... I do not trust him at all. Since his vote

for Rice I questioned if he is really a GOP plant. Seriously. Look at who the GOP ran against him. They let him float right in.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. A plant?

No. A fool who listens to beltway insiders and consultatnts, yes.

[iconoclastNYC]

48. And who are those beltway insiders and consultants?

And could they be double dipping? I don't trust them. Anyone from DC is compromised by the Church of Conservatism where taking bribes in communion and you worship at the alter of Corporatism.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. And why not a plant? It's very possible and can be very easily done.

And a fool? Obama is not a fool.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. If he listens to the DC

"conventional wisdom" on how Dems should act, he us a fool. Such wisdom continues to lose elections by giving voters a choice between conservatives and conservative light candidates.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. Just think about this. Rev. Moon has had some of his Moonies

infiltrate our Congress, how hard would it be for the GOP to do the same thing and run one of their own, a mancharian candidate as a Dem?

(My ref to Rev. Moon refers to the fact that he was crowned Messiah in the Dirksen Senate bldg with the blessings of Sen. Warner amongst others)

[Kelvin Mace]

70. Well, they haven't exactly "infiltrated" congress

if we know who they are.

The "Manchurian Candidate" was a good movie, but it was fiction. I know I waste my breath trying to explain to folks that such conspiracies are unlikely in the extreme, but so it goes.

[rinsd]

56. LOL

This never cease to amaze me. Someone who does not believe in a system of beliefs which have many different variations screams hypocrisy because a rule is not followed to the tee.

Hey be thankful most Christians aren't bibilical literalists, the world would indeed be a scary place.

[Kelvin Mace]

73. The people causing most of the problems in the world

are the literalists. I point out that rather than try to embrace these people, we should expose their hypocrisy, not seek accomodation.

[earth mom]

57. Obama is an idiot and very likely a GOP plant as stated upthread.

I haven't trusted him since he voted for Rice and this just adds more fuel to the fire.
BTW-Hasn't he read the constitution-EVER?! :crazy:

[Ksec]

58. attacking Barrack is why we lose

Attacking our own about their "loyalty" seems to say more about the attacker. Lets talk about loyalty and how we turn on anyone who doesnt toe your percieved line. The other side can disagree, but they dont completely turn on someone because they dont measure up. Thats why they win. Thats why we will probably end up losing again. Save the examples. I can throw out hundreds but I refuse to play those games.

[Bretttido]

60. Totally Agree!

Guess what sheeple, Obama is not the reason democrats have lost elections. Simply because he makes ONE fucking statement you don't agree with, you label him as a covert secret GOP insider? Get real! This kind of conspiracy nut-job thought process pisses me off to no end!
:grr:

[Kelvin Mace]

74. Please note

that I disagree with anyone who claims Obama is a "plant" by the GOP.

Also, it is this contant attempt to court the RW nuts on religous issue that is ONE of the reason we lose elections, not THE issue.

I would still vote for Obama, but these types of statements do not make me a happy camper, and the moment a true liberal came along Obama would be history.

[Ksec]

83. true liberal

Maybe you can describe this perfect liberal or true Liberal . This idea that in order to make the list, one must be a true Liberal. not good. Being a true Liberal means you are not a Liberal, but a person who believes only what you believe. Liberal means being liberal, not conservative. Perhaps we should all step back and realize what a real Liberal is or isnt. A Liberal is a person who can adapt and change in a changing world. He ISNT a stiff defined robot.

[Bretttido]

93. Well said Ksec

[Kelvin Mace]

71. So, I must agree with Obama, no matter what he says

because he has a "D" after his name? I guess I should agree with Lieberman too because he has claims to be a Dem even though he continuously side with Bush. We should all stand up and salute Biden every time he votes a special favor into law for his good friends at MBNA.

Sorry, not going to happen. Would I vote for Obama if he were in my state?. Yes, as I would have damn little choice. But I'll be DAMNED if I will sit quietly and let him spout such utter nonsense uncontested.

[Monkeyman]

80. Yep all he was saying is dems should embrace faith

[Kelvin Mace]

82. No, we should embrace rational, ethical faiths

not just any ol' faith that comes along no matter how anti-peace, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-family, pro-corporate, and pro-facist.

[never cry wolf]

96. You really didn't read the entire speech, did you?

or if you did you certainly didn't "get" it. This statement of yours is antithetical of what he was saying, totally opposite....

[Warren DeMontague]

90. And that means...

...what?

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I haven't "completely turned" on him

but I'll be happy to call him on it when he's wrong. And here, at least in parts of his speech, he was wrong.

Maybe the "reason that we lose" is because we obviously pander instead of standing up for things.

[Generator]

61. Good post and Obama doesn't get it

He thinks that if Democrats just show they love GOD, are not hostile to GOD, we will reap in the votes from those that are voting Republican. As someone down thread said, wrong frame.

First of all-99.9% of those that are voting for religious issues are Christian. Period. It's under a Christian God. And that's it. That's the only GOD they want to see prayed to and represented. He's kidding himself if he thinks they want open Koran night at the high school gym.

The biggest "GOD" issues are homosexuality and abortion.They hate them Gays. That isn't going to change if we let prayer in the school. Unless the Dems become more Republican and say no rights for Gays-then we get those votes. Because the fear of gay marriage brings them to the polls. FEAR. Now if we just say no to Gays, and ban abortion, we can get all the Republican votes we want! Maybe we should do that! That's just what it was like around here on November 5th of 2004. Let's give up all our values for votes!

If we just give them what they want-they will vote for us. If we just become them! It's so simple. But you see-we believe in separation of church and state. Period. The end. It's not negotiable. If it is-then we don't believe in separation of church and state.

"Under God" never bothered me so much as "and justice for all." Even as a child I knew that was a crock-propaganda and I HATE propaganda. Why doesn't every one? If there was justice for all-we wouldn't have to boast about it-it would just be. A loyalty oath is creepy. I don't think most children even think about it. It's meaningless. And really the "under God" is meaningless too. So if we just give this up-this silly idea that separation of state from religion is real-we can have them votes-but the other side isn't as dumb as the Democratic strategists. That's the real problem. They know we still like Gay people, want abortion legal, and don't want everyone to be Christian just like them. Sorry, Obama, but they have to evolve. And if that means forty years of the American Taliban so be it. MY values are not wrong.

WE are not the ones forcing anyone to be or believe anything. They are. They want you to have all the children your body gives you no matter what, never have sex unless in a straight marriage and believe in hell, Jesus, and GOD sentencing you to this hell forever if you don't believe.


SORRY. I say no.

[robinlynne]

66. absolutely true.

[Nothing Without Hope]

67. Obama is positioning himself to win a bigger election,

just as Hillary Clinton is. Too bad - I had such high hopes for him. They didn't last long, once he got into office.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Exactly!

That's what pisses me off.

True liberals will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER get votes from the Fundmentalists. They worship a hateful, vindictive and psychotic god who wishes to destroy everything liberals stand for.

Some folks seem to believe that tolerance of religious beliefs means accepting hatred just because someone claims it is their religious belief. Hatred is incompatible with and always unacceptable, just like pedophilia is NEVER acceptable in any "tolerant" society.

[Philosoraptor]

76. Well now don't go taking the bible literallly...(kidding)

[tbyg52]

77. I do so feel oppressed!

That's why I don't say the pledge at work. (You can figure out what kind of work.) I used to say it and leave out those two words added during the McCarthy era, but I got yelled at for that. So now I don't say it at all.

As for organized prayer in schools, Obama is too young, I guess, or not raised in the "right" part of the country, to remember mandatory school prayer meetings in the auditorium. Oh, you could opt out. You could sit in the principal's office. I'm the only one who ever did (surprise, surprise).

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Welcome to DU, tbyg52!

:hi: :toast: :hi:

[tbyg52]

102. Thanks!

People sure are friendly around here! Appreciate it!

[KyuzoGator]

81. Matthew 6 has lots of interesting insight on today's "Christians." nt

[mikelewis]

87. "I like your Christ..."

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Gandhi

Just as Zel Miller and Joe Lieberman enjoy pretending to be Democrats, some pretend to be Christians. To be a Christian, you must follow Christ. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dobson, et alii, serve Mammon not Christ. If "the Love of money is the root of all evil", then it's clear who these "Christians" worship. I can call myself a Muslim all day long, it wouldn't make me one if I didn't believe in or follow the path of Mohammed. Religion is not evil, the people who use it for evil are evil. We have our Pharisee and Seducee, just as Jesus did in his day but our problems arise when those who follow the book refuse to read it.

[Disturbed]

97. Should Muslim students be allowed to

lay their prayer rugs on the classroom floor and pray? Would Budhists be allowed to chant in class along with the Hare Krishnas while the Christian student recite their prayers?

[mikelewis]

99. Why would that be a problem?

As long as the prayers were at an appointed time, I see no problem with it. There is only one God after all and no matter how you talk to him/her/it, the important thing is the prayer. An intolerant religion is a religion that God does not tolerate. In fact, I think that would be a blessed prayer session.

[Vidar]

86. K&R.