Comments for: “Sackcloth And Asses: Birmingham Mayor Schedules Prayer Of Repentance”

Where is the money for these 2,000 sacks coming from? (Hopefully not the city’s operating budget…)

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

— Matthew (no relation) 6:5-6

Matt #1

“Sackcloth and Asses”? Ok by me, but it’s probably not what you intended.

I think it’s exactly what the writer intended.

“Sack” would seem to be the appropriate word?

This mayor must be senile and not understand that he lives in the United States with something called the Constitution that came with an attachment called the Bill of Rights.

I hope that he is senile. That would go a long way to explain such ridiculous behavior. If he is not senile, he must just be a plain old traitor spurred on by his religion.

Why does Alabama continue to embarrass itself when it comes to church/state issues?

Crime is a problem cities have been facing for decades. You’d think the mayor would try some real-world solutions first.

“MelM says:

“Sackcloth and Asses”? Ok by me, but it’s probably not what you intended.”

I don’t see anything about AU that would indicate they don’t intend that wording toward people of faith. They’ve always been more about ridiculing than persuading.

Steve, if you can’t handle AU protecting the First Amendment, “there’s always Prevacid.”

(Hmm, I wonder where I got that intellectually powerful comment from? Hmmm… A moron named Steve? Bingo!!!)

Btw, the “asses” bit is HILARIOUS.

Matt #1

RE: They’ve always been more about ridiculing than persuading…

One horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

(But only in self-defense.)

I think they should make up commemorative “sack cloth tee shirts.”

“My parents went to the day of prayer and all I got was this lousy sack”

Looks like the mayor is trying to pass the buck.

Actually, the event is tragic and hilarious at the same time. What’s next; maybe reviving the burnt offering?

Steve,

Your portrayal of AU is paranoid.

You should probably re-think your comment and clarify if you mean AU, the organization, or AU as represented by those who post comments relating to the various articles. All the official articles that I have read are respectful, professional and never ridiculing. Certainly, many of those who post to these boards take delight in poking holes in the phlogiston-filled balloon that religion is. I might even be one of those impious infidels lacking all remorse. (Yeah, I know being Christian is maddening in a country when you no longer have the political clout to incinerate infidels like me. Blasphemy isn’t even a crime any more! But hey, it is good for the whole martyr for Jesus self-image thing. And that, my friend, is priceless.)

Steve Griffin said: “I don’t see anything about AU that would indicate they don’t intend that wording toward people of faith. They’ve always been more about ridiculing than persuading.”

A case of the pot calling the kettle black.

“According to the Birmingham News, Langford announced at the city council meeting on Monday that he is dismayed by crime and other problems facing the city and he’s thinks it’s time to turn to prayer.”

It sounds to me like this mayor is distressed because he has been unable to solve the city’s crime problems. Worried that an angry citizenry will vote him out of office, he has turned to this publicity stunt. I hope the people of Birmingham see incompetence for what it is.

MelM says: “Actually, the event is tragic and hilarious at the same time. What’s next; maybe reviving the burnt offering?”

MelM, those are my thoughts exactly. I also think Dave C’s assessment is spot on. “Publicity stunt” is a good description of this inane display.

Above Us Only Sky: Thanks for starting my day with a grin and a giggle. I needed that!

Steve,

RE: They’ve always been more about ridiculing than persuading…

I disagree. The words “bullying” and “intimidating’ are more appropriate.

Bullying? Intimidating? Oh no, we “use our words”. And our inside voices not our outside voices.

Yes, jomo, anyone who stands for religious liberty should certainly be called “bullies” and “intimidating.” Do you honestly believe that those opposed to dominionist, revisionist, fundamentalist Christianity can be described this way? I’m sure it would be much easier if we all just lie down and let religion rule. (dripping sarcasm)

jomo said: The words “bullying” and “intimidating’ are more appropriate.

Would this not be a classic case of what psychologists call transferance?

Albatross, I’m not a psychologist, but my guess would be that you’re correct. Transference seems to be at the top of the RR’s “most commonly used tactics” list these days.

It is astounding, Jax. I can see in my mind’s eye all the sheeple people nodding their heads in agreement to the idea that it is “everyone else” who intimidates, bullies, pushes, presses, sneaks, lies, distorts in order for “their beliefs” to be the law…all against the divine plan of God!

I’ll say again:

Dear God, please save me…from your (so-called) followers.

Hmph! Please don’t stereotype all believers as RR fanatics salivating for theocracy and persecution. We rational Christians dislike the RR as much as you do. And don’t forget that AU is run by an ordained minister.

Dave C–

Not to be a picky, bullying sort of atheist, but I don’t think “rational Christians” is really an apt turn of phrase, since belief in any sort of supernaturalism is inherently irrational.

Now, those irrationalists who believe in “live and let live” and in protecting the rights of others, by ALL means, I’d call them, at least, “civilized Christians.”

Not being religious, I’m probably not the best to discuss religion and rationality. Making allowance for faith, which does not claim to be rational, can we characterize some religion or another as being so?

On another discussion I saw this definition of “Deism”: the belief in God based on reason and nature. Jefferson was a diest and did not believe in revealed religion. I’ve heard that he also thought Jesus was a great moral teacher - as long as you were willing to edit the Gospels.

So some think you can have a religion based on reason and nature, and some think that Jesus was a great moral example and teacher - combine the two and you might call yourself a rational Christian.

Gary L. Day,

re: “belief in any sort of supernaturalism is inherently irrational”

As is my general demeanor just about everyday, I again today find myself cranky toward all things religious, and you sir, just got my vote for President of the United States.

(Well, let me amend that. If the RR ever does seize control, they will likely monitor how one votes.)

Now, don’t everyone get in a snit. We all have irrational aspects to our personality. Once, I didn’t hit the mute button when Celine Dion was on TV. Another time I tried to clear 200 yards of water with a 7-wood. Still don’t know what I was thinking.

Sky - I think we could be best friends! Thanks again for making me giggle almost uncontrollably while reading your post. Especially the Celine Dion comment.
In spite of the fact that I have had a black candle burning today (to disperse negativity) I have also found myself cranky towards (most) religions.
My take on religion? I sincerely believe that the whole purpose of religion is to give us guidance and comfort while we are in this life and the hope for something better after. If your religion does that for you, and no one and nothing is being harmed in the process, great. But please, don’t try to force your religious views on me. I have my own spiritual path that makes me quite happy. If you disagree with my views, oh well.
My late brother and I used to have some heated debates on a variety of subjects. We were each others favorite debate opponent. We loved each other dearly, and at the end of all of our debate sessions, we both laughingly agreed that everyone is entitled to their own stupid half-assed opinions. As we should agree here.

“…everyone is entitled to their own stupid half-assed opinions. As we should agree here.”

Elizabeth D., I’m in agreement. I’ve arrived at my own beliefs via a long and colorful path. I wouldn’t change any of it and I look forward to whatever comes next. Regardless of my personal views on the subject of religion, I am passionate about protecting the rights of every American to follow her/his path of choice.

Elizabeth D,

Well, picking on Celine Dion may be my calling. It must be tough to be her.

Your comments reminded me of some of the opening comments of Thomas Paine in his Age of Reason:

“I hope for happiness beyond this life”

and later,

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”

He was, no doubt, a pretty good human.

http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/reason/reason1.htm

Dave C says: Hmph! Please don’t stereotype all believers as RR fanatics salivating for theocracy and persecution.

Sorry, Dave C. By sheeple people, I mean those who have little capacity to think for themselves. Clearly, radical religious rightists.

gary l. day says: Now, those irrationalists who believe in “live and let live” and in protecting the rights of others, by ALL means, I’d call them, at least, “civilized Christians.”

Or, how about whatever they call themselves? I know…how about Freethinkers? Wait, is their a specific creed for freethinking?

Sky - LOL!

Elizabeth - sorry for the loss of your debate partner. Everyone should have at least one with whom they can have the most heated of discussions that can be concluded with a kiss and a hand shake, and a vow of still loving without seeing eye to eye.

Jax, right beside you in defending all, whatever their chosen path (as long as they don’t try to stiff it down my throat.)

Sky - good Thomas Paine quotes. I have always been particularly fond of Jefferson’s: “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
It describes me and my beliefs perfectly.

Thanks, Jax, I too am passionate about protecting religious freedoms.
Sky, Picking on Celine Dion is somewhat of a hobby - she provides endless material for us, yes?
Albatross, Thank you for your kind words. I miss my brother immensely. I am a reunited adoptee ( a saga in itself). I only had my brother in my life for a short time, about a year and a half. But in that short time we became quite close, and became debate opponents very quickly. I miss his sharp wit, and the laughter and promise of unending love at the end of each debate. “You’re my brother/sister, and I’ll always love you, but I’ll never agree with you on…………….
Hmmmm - perhaps the world would be a more pleasant place to live if we could all adopt that view?

Elizabeth, in the words of John Lennon: Imagine.

I’ve got a better idea. Joseph Conn should shut his elitist, intolerant, bigoted mouth and let people pray if they want to pray.

Neal, shouldn’t you be praying instead of practicing reading?

“…Joseph Conn should shut his elitist, intolerant, bigoted mouth…”

Such Christian language, Neal (sarcasm alert).

Neal is a troll…or a psycho.

Alan, where is my t-shirt?? What are you running, some kind of internet scam, or what??

(hee hee)

Well, it’s official the Mayor has lost his mind, literally has let religion drive him crazy.

Oh I can see Bishop Long rt in the mist of it. He’s struggling w/his desire for homosexuality - (My take My spin).

And the Mayor is so Christian ‘if you can’t wear a sack cloth don’t come if you’re too cute to put ASHES on your face stay at home. That’s scary.

Here comes WACO TX all over again.
Drink up boys and girls the cyanide is good - yum yum!

Sounds like a bust. I read a news report that said “more than 1,000″ showed up, not enough to fill the 2,000 ordered and available sackcloths.

Still, if you have over 1,000 folks who thinks this stuff helps, someone is going to need a real large net to catch this many local locos.

LOL - your comments are always so truthful and funny Above Us Only Sky.

I would love to learn more about our Government policies reguarding “Separation of church and State” I have read the Bill of Rights and did not see it, or anything that said “Government officials have no authority to meddle in religion”. Can anyone direct me to where our founding father wrote this. Thanks

Hi Bart!

The concept of the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment.

To learn more about our government’s policies in that regard, check out Supreme Court decisions over the past 50 years. Summary: The government can not only not endorse a specific religion but it also can’t endorse religion in general over nonreligion.

You’re welcome!

Matt #1

Bart,

Many of the doctrines that we Americans hold near and dear are not listed in the Constitution. The following link had a pretty good list:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Thank God for Larry Langford. He may seem peculiar in his actions but he’s actually showing some humbleness. Staff and supporters of AU should read 2 Chronicles 7:14. Maybe one day you’ll wake up and realize it’s not Christians who are in bondage but the non-believer. Hopefully you won’t wait until your forced to bend you knees and confess, along side Satan, that Jesus Christ is Lord. Ron

You know, Ron Sherlin, if the day comes where I’m “forced” to bend my knees, alongside Satan, and confess that JC is Lord - I hope it wasn’t my govt tax dollars that put the weight of forced bending upon my shoulders.

I’d hate to believe I contributed to the theocracy you wish to see.

Ron , exactly who is it that is going to “force” me to bend my knee and “confess” something I that I don’t believe? What you don’t seem to understand is that just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. You also don’t seem to understand that in America we can be any religion we want to be, or no religion at all. Freedom of religion is one of the wonderful things this country was founded on. Just because my beliefs are different from yours doesn’t make one of us right and one of us wrong, it just means we have different beliefs.
Like Albatross, I sincerely hope that my tax dollars will never be used to establish a theocracy.

Our tax dollars will never be used to force a religion. One of the best things about religion today is it sets some moral guidelines, something that this country could really use right now. Just take a look around at what this country has become since people started trying to sweep religion under the rug. The major jump in school crimes did not start until prayer was removed. I am not saying everyone should believe the same thing. I just think people should stop trying to destroy the moral fabric of society. How does a simple prayer hurt anyone?

Bart, one does not have to be religious to have moral guidelines. No one is trying to sweep religion under the rug, as you say.A simple prayer hurts no one, as long as they are not being forced to listen to the “simple prayer”.
How is not having someone else’s religion forced on them destroying the moral fabric of society?

Without some kind of religion who sets your moral guidelines? What keeps you from changing those guidelines to fit the current situation? I am not trying to say that without religion you are automatically evil, or people with religion are saints. I am saying religion can offers stability, good morals, hope, and respect for others. I am not for forcing a religion on anyone. I would hate to have something I don’t believe in forced on me. It is just frustrating that every time a government representative turns to their faith every one acts like they have committed a crime, and instantly begins to judge them and ridicule them. Has anyone been forced to attend this prayer meeting?

I, personally, would like to see the evidence that lack of prayer makes for immorality.

Correction, Bart, our tax dollars are most certainly being used to force religion…until opposition steps up, and stops it. One example is abstinence-only education.

You say one of the great things about religion is that it sets some moral guidelines - I ask you: WHOSE religious guidelines do you want? How about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You OK with instilling their ideals, prayers as your moral compass?

I set my moral guidelines, Bart. Empathy, compassion, and caring are not derived from God, but are inherent, unless you’ve been trained to believe that without God, you are without these traits.

Bart, govt officials takes oaths to treat all of their constituents equally, giving no preference to one over another, religiously, or any other way. Putting one’s own faith on public display, and asking others to join you, is an endorsement of your own faith.

I agree with you (well kind of) on the things you believe that religion can offer to those who choose it. However, there is no logic in saying that those who do not choose religion are WITHOUT “stability, good morals, hope, and respect for others.” What a silly argument to try and make, and you’d be hard-pressed for any valid information to support that conclusion.

Abstinence-only education does not have anything to do with religion, it is just good since. Who thinks it is a good idea for young teenage kids to be sexually active and fourteen year old girls getting pregnant? As for the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” I guess I would have to read their doctrines to understand what they are about. However the more mainstream religions i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Muslim all offers some pretty good moral guidelines.

So what happens if you change your mind? If you set your morals you can change them right?

A large part of what makes a person who they are is their belief system or religion. To ask someone to run an office without using their personal views on life to guide them is silly. For the same reason you are here speaking your mind they are going to speak theirs. Just because you vote for someone does not mean you agree with everything they do or say. If they want to hold a prayer meeting then so be it, as long as no one is forced or discriminated against.

I find it incredibly telling that nowhere in this post - in the media article, in the AU remarks, and in the comments - is it mentioned that Mayor Langford is a Democrat.

Oh, thanks, Jay. Totally irrelevant, as most of the contributors here could care less about party affiliation. It’s about the Constitution, and that, Jay doesn’t speak to party affiliation.

Bart, abstinence-only education was used as an example because quite frankly, if one does a little digging, the programs are ALMOST always from Christian organizations. Obviously, you’ve never had the opportunity to take a good look at any of the curricula, or if you have, the Judeo-Christian “values” just didn’t bother you.

There is probably no one who thinks that fourteen yr olds getting pregnant is a good idea. As for the sexually active part, there isn’t any amount of “Just Say No,” instruction that you’re going to give that will change the reality. However, teaching beyond the scare tactics of the RR, who come through clearly in ab-only programs, could help reduce pregnancy and STD transmission.

Also, Bart, whether one believes in God or not, people “change their minds” every day. I’ve found, though, that the religious lack a personal responsibility for their actions because they think someone died for their “sin.”

Albatross - Thank you! You just said everything I was thinking.
BTW, Bart, when you were mentioning (mainstream) religions who you believe to have “pretty good moral guidelines) you left out my religion, Paganism, which has been around longer than any of the religions you mentioned, and has incredibly high “moral guidelines”. You see, I and most Pagans believe that each of us is responsible for our actions, and that we should harm none. That includes ourselves, others and the environment. Pretty “high moral standards” to live up to, yes?

Bart says: “I am saying religion can offers stability, good morals, hope, and respect for others.”

Bart, you don’t seem to realize, for the most part, the religious right in America does not reflect good morals or respect for others. The face of Christianity in America has been taken over by a group of narrow-minded, power hungry bigots who care more about the dollars in your wallet than they do about your soul. They demonstrate an “any means to an end” mentality, which means that all of those “values” they promote are pushed by the wayside as they try to achieve their goal of theocracy.

Bart wrote: How does a simple prayer hurt anyone?

Well, it could hurt the participants’ chances of getting into heaven, as they would be violating Jesus’s directive concerning how to pray:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” — Matthew 6:5-6

Matt #1

Ron Sherlin wrote: “Hopefully you won’t wait until your forced to bend you knees and confess, along side Satan, that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

Ron, many AU members are Christian. The executive director is a Christian minister. Please stop making stupid assumptions.

Matt #1

Bart wrote: The major jump in school crimes did not start until prayer was removed.

First, prayer was never removed. As long as there are tests, there will be prayers.

Oh, did you mean government-sponsored prayer? If so, yeah, that’s gone, being unconstitutional.

(Funny, Bart, you KNOW kids can pray on their own, don’t you. And yet you tried to make it sound as if kids CAN’T pray at all. Isn’t being intentionally deceptive a sin, Bart?)

Now, back to your silly claim about school violence. Even if you could show an increase in school violence after government-sponsored prayer was ruled unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean the latter caused the former. Just because event A comes before event B doesn’t mean A caused B.

Here, let me show you how lame your “logic” is: The words “under God” were added to the pledge of allegiance in the late 1950s. Let’s hypothetically say, for the sake of argument, that school violence increased after the late 1950s. Therefore, per Bart Logic, adding “under God” caused more school violence. Do you agree, Bart?

Matt #1

Albatross: I do agree that people who do what they want and think it is ok because Jesus died for their sins is a hypocrite, but that does not classify all Christians. Why does it matter what organization is promoting abstinence with teenagers?

Elizabeth: I apologize for leaving out Paganism.

Jax: I have to blame a lot of that on the groups who are always fighting to remove religion from the public eye. A lot of religious people tend to be passive and avoid fighting for their beliefs. That just leaves the few that don’t might a good debate or to firmly stand up for their rights, and the people who wish to exploit the power that religion can have on people.

Matt: Nothing in the scripture you quoted says anything about hurting “the participants’ chances of getting into heaven”. It only says that the blessing they receive for praying in public is the acknowledgment of it by the public. If you pray in private if front of the Father only you will be blessed. My take is that if you pray privately your not doing it for the public recognition, but for your relationship with God. That is not to say that a group or public lead prayer is bad or will diminish your chances of the after life of your faith.

Matt: Could you point out where I was “intentionally deceptive”? Don’t try to twist what I wrote into something it is not. So at what time during school are kids allowed to pray? If the school allowed 15min for their students to pray if they wish would that be ok, or would that time be considered government sponsored? That leaves students to only pray before or after school right?

Bart says: “Jax: I have to blame a lot of that on the groups who are always fighting to remove religion from the public eye. A lot of religious people tend to be passive and avoid fighting for their beliefs. That just leaves the few that don’t might a good debate or to firmly stand up for their rights, and the people who wish to exploit the power that religion can have on people. “

You blame “groups” that you claim are trying to remove religion from the public eye for the hypocritical behavior of Christian leaders in America? (What groups are these, by the way?) Are we to understand that Christian leaders are not to be held responsible for their behavior?

Jax: Where did I say that Christian leaders can not be held responsible? Being a Christian is a way of life. Just because some one claims to be a Christian does not mean they always act like one. Everyone should be held responsible for their actions.

Bart says: “Where did I say that Christian leaders can not be held responsible? Being a Christian is a way of life. Just because some one claims to be a Christian does not mean they always act like one. Everyone should be held responsible for their actions.”

Perhaps I misconstrued your previous comment: “I have to blame a lot of that on the groups who are always fighting to remove religion from the public eye.”

What blame do you put on these alleged groups relative to the misconduct of religious leaders?

Bart wrote: Could you point out where I was “intentionally deceptive”?

Sure, when you wrote “prayer was removed.” [Actually, I must admit that there's an alternative: You could just be stupid.]

Bart wrote: So at what time during school are kids allowed to pray?

They can pray any time they like. (I’m beginning to think we should go with alternative #2.)

Matt #1

Bart wrote: It only says that the blessing they receive for praying in public is the acknowledgment of it by the public.

That’s what it says? Really? You must have missed the part where Jesus called them “hypocrites.” Conclusion: This mayor and his ilk are hypocrites.

Hey, Bart, I’m still waiting for your response to my question about “under God” and school violence. Please let me know if you agree with Bart Logic in that scenario. Thanks bunches.

Matt #1

Bart,

re: “The major jump in school crimes did not start until prayer was removed.”

Are you sure about all that? Prayer prevents crime?

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

Pay special attention to page 38 of the linked PDF. It seems that the murder rate peaked in 1933, the height of the Great Depression. Currently, it is about half of that. Does crime have more to do with poverty or prayer? The only reason I ask is because once the Depression ended, crime seemed to lessen. Of course, that could be because people started praying a whole lot more.

Your statement is some sort of shortcut to thinking, a nice little glittering generality that you can utter and relieves you of the responsibility of thinking. When it comes to historical fluctuations in the crime rate, before you factor in prayer, you might want to consider the impact of:

1. A changing and more mobile society
2. Better international infrastructures allowing for easier importation of drugs
3. Employment patterns begin requiring both parents to work
4. Increasing industrialization
5. Emerging mass media and imagery
6. Increasing accuracy and detail in crime statistics
7. Increasing population density

To name a few.

You know, before the Supreme Court ruling of 1963, the South still had separate drinking fountains. Once the ruling came out, Jim Crow South started to die. Cause and effect! Prayer in school caused racism!

Bart, kids in public schools can pray during breaks between classes or during lunch time. Why should class time be spent on something not related to the class, like prayers? Geometry class should be spent on geometry, biology class should be spent on biology, etc.

I apologize for the delay, but I do have a life outside of the internet.

Matt: I would like to thank you for reinforcing my earlier point about morals. For you to call me stupid and not even know anything about me, and to call “This mayor and his ilk” hypocrites and not know them or their intentions you are showing a pretty low moral standard for yourself.

Hypocrite by definition is a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings or a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. So how is it you know the intentions of the mayor, or his personal beliefs?

“Prayer in the south caused racism!”? What? A lot of factors played into racism in the south, but prayer was not one of them. I do not even see how you made that assumption.

Sorry about the “Prayer in the South” thing. I misread it, but I still have the same reply. How exactly did prayer in schools cause racism?

Bart, I’m just telling you what Jesus said. Ignore it at your own peril, my friend.

Bart wrote: How exactly did prayer in schools cause racism?

I’m telling you guys, it’s gotta be alternative #2.

Still waiting for your answer about “under God” and school violence, Bart. However, judging by your response to Sky, I’m not holding out a lot of hope for a light bulb to go on.

Matt #1

Bart, I’m still waiting for you to explain how these alleged groups you’ve referred to are somehow responsible for the misconduct of religious leaders.

I can see this conversation is not going anywhere fast.

Matt: Why do you not just answer my question instead of repeating it and referring to me as stupid? I will ask it again. How exactly did prayer in schools cause racism?

As for the other question about “under God” I do not see where anything I wrote would indicate that I think putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance caused an increase in school violence. It is really just the opposite. I think putting God in school would decrease violence. I am aware that people will be people and their will always be violence that fluctuates with changes in society.

Jax, I did not say any one was responsible for the misconduct of religious leaders, and I did answer that question and you asked “What blame do you put on these alleged groups relative to the misconduct of religious leaders?” Back to my earlier statement, I said that religious people tend to be somewhat passive. That only leaves the few outspoken ones, and it opens the door for pseudo religious people to use religion for their own gain. I did not directly blame anyone for the misconduct of religious leaders. If they are a true religious leader their misconduct should be very minimal, but everyone sins.

Alternative #2 wrote “As for the other question about “under God” I do not see where anything I wrote would indicate that I think putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance caused an increase in school violence.”

Ahh, then you admit that just because one event (such as placing “under God” in the pledge of allegiance) comes before another (school violence) doesn’t mean that the first caused the second.

Excellent! We’re making progress!

Thus, you have now implicitly conceded that, likewise, just because another event (the Supreme Court ruling that stopped government-sponsored prayer came before a second event (school violence) doesn’t mean that the first caused the second.

Wow, it took a while, but we finally got Bart on the logic train. Toot toot! Full speed ahead.

But . . . we all know Bart will make the exact same stupid argument in the future. Fundies have a tendency to not learn. But it was fun trying.

Matt #1

Matt, have you ever thought that you may not be on the “logic train” and I am trying my best to help? I admit that was a stupid question, sure you have not because you KNOW your right and I am wrong.

No, I do not believe the act of removing government sponsored prayer from schools single handedly began all the violence in schools today. It was however a start. You see it is not one thing or another, but all the little things that add up. Stop prayer, teachers can no longer punish students, just look at TV shows of today for teenagers apposed to shows that teenagers watched in the 70’s. The moral standard of society is fading fast.

Bart, I’m just glad that you have now retracted your stupid claim that “The major jump in school crimes did not start until prayer was removed.”

I appreciate your willingness to admit when you’re wrong.

Matt #1

Bart, for the record:

4/30 12:48 pm. Jax says: Bart, you don’t seem to realize, for the most part, the religious right in America does not reflect good morals or respect for others. The face of Christianity in America has been taken over by a group of narrow-minded, power hungry bigots who care more about the dollars in your wallet than they do about your soul. They demonstrate an “any means to an end” mentality, which means that all of those “values” they promote are pushed by the wayside as they try to achieve their goal of theocracy.

4/30 2:33 pm: Bart says: “Jax: I have to blame a lot of that on the groups who are always fighting to remove religion from the public eye. A lot of religious people tend to be passive and avoid fighting for their beliefs. That just leaves the few that don’t might a good debate or to firmly stand up for their rights, and the people who wish to exploit the power that religion can have on people. “

Please clarify: the “groups who are always fighting to remove religion from the public eye” are “the few (religious people) that don’t might[sic] a good debate or to firmly stand up for their rights, and the people who wish to exploit the power that religion can have on people”?

Bart, neither of those options makes any sense at all. Neither of the groups you describe seems to have any desire to remove religion from the public eye. In fact, they appear to be in opposition to just that.

Bart says: … just look at TV shows of today for teenagers apposed to shows that teenagers watched in the 70’s.

OMG! So fight the FCC for goodness sake. What do TV shows have to do with prayer in the public schools, and prayer sponsored by the Mayor - the govt?? AND!! have you never seen That 70’s Show? It kind of touches on the real life issues that the Brady Bunch glossed over…things like sex, drugs…

Um, getting back to the original topic of this thread….

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....mayor_dc_1

It seems the hypothesis that “more God” = “more moral” is in trouble. Because it’s demonstrably false.

Albatross, “That 70’s show” is much worse than “The Brady Bunch.” The Brady Bunch may have touched on issues involving sex and drugs, but they usually ended with good morals. On That 70’s Show they sit in a circle and smoke pot, drink, have sex, and it is not even considered a bad thing. You should watch one episode of each and then tell me if they are anything alike.

You totally missed the point I was trying to make. If you look at what is “acceptable” behavior today as opposed to “acceptable” behavior 20 years ago it has drastically changed. When I was in high school teacher were allowed to paddle students who misbehaved, the coach said a prayer before and after each football game, and parents demanded respect from their children. Other than the occasional little fight their was almost no violence in the school. Today’s schools are much different. It is nothing to hear about a student with a gun, teacher’s hands are tied, and parents do not care. I work next to a school and it is nothing to hear 5 and 6 year olds cursing at each other. Prayer in schools would instill some morals, or maybe at least give kids a conscious to guide them.

Re: That 70’s Show v. The Brady Bunch

There, there, Bart, you’ve apparently missed my point. The Brady Bunch was hardly demonstrative of real life in the 70’s, but that is what you wish kids, people should watch today - according to your post. Even being a young ‘un during the 70’s,I still recognized that the Brady Bunch was a crock, dear. Wake up man!

I actually watched one of my daughter’s tv shows with her. It was awesome! The high school sex ed teacher was pointing out to the class that while condoms were highly effective against both pregnancy and STD transmission, they still had a failure rate. He did not bloat the rate. He then went on to explain why birth control pills alone could prove somewhat hazardous in regard to disease, even though highly effective (if used properly) against pregnancy. Anyway, I could go on and on about what teenagers should know, and how I hope my daughter has a teacher just like this tv character, if not just to back up what she’s already been taught. You, however,are advocating for tv shows of the 70’s as representative of the moral fabric of the nation in the 70’s. False. Outright false. What do you think of the tv show I watched with my daughter?

Maybe you believe prayer would change violence, sex, drugs, attitude. I think prayer in school is unconstitutional to my child’s religious liberties. I am not in opposition to a moment of silent reflection. So I guess now, to convince me that NO prayer is the cause of violence or swearing, or correlative to non-violence and not swearing, or even that prayer does anything, provide the evidence. (By the way, I agree with you on the changes in time, violence, etc, but time does change things. As I’ve stated, I disagree that prayer is the answer to curing the problems. I attribute much bad behavior to poverty. This is not to suggest that rich folk do not partake in some really bad activities, nor to suggest that ALL poor people do.)

Were many Christian “up in arms” when a Hindu opened the House (or was it Senate) session with prayer? Would they be in opposition to the principal leading the student body in Hindu prayer over the loud speaker?

Rick R, thanks for that link. I guess the mayor was “dismayed” by his own crimes and used those people to pray for his sins. But it still didn’t work.

Bart displays that typical “nostalgia for the good old days where men were men, girls were pretty (and knew their place) and God was in his heaven and all was right with the world”.
So typical of religious conservatives.

The decade usually wrapped in this golden nostalgia is the 50’s. The truly weird part is that Bart seems to be all misty-eyed over the 70’s, the most hedonistic decade of the 20th century. Go figure.