merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) (04/06/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >As I read it, the Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot make a LAW >establishing a STATE RELIGION. It also says that CONGRESS cannot make a >LAW abridging the practice of a religion. Got it on line, here's the first: 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. >The Constitution also reserves for the states all rights not assigned to >the Congress. The states AND THE PEOPLE. 9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. >So, what does allowing people to pray at graduation ceremonies have to >do with the 1st Ammendment? Congress isn't passing a law stating that >there shall be prayers at graduation ceremonies! They (hopefully) >aren't passing a law that prevents them either. The issue is not "allowing" people to pray; people can pray at graduation ceremonies all they want. The issue is having someone up at the microphone *lead everyone in prayer*, at the *behest of the state*, which is an establishment of religion by the state. The state is upholding *one particular* religion over all others. Would you object to someone leading all the students in: a Christian prayer? a Jewish prayer? a Moslem prayer? a Wiccan prayer? a Satanist prayer? or an atheist leading all the students to recite "there is no god, there is no god..."? If your answer to these questions are not ALL "yes" or "no", you are answering *depending on whether you like the religious views being presented*, and are "allowing" only *those religious views you approve of*. >It even appears to me that if A STATE wanted to establish a STATE >RELIGION that that right has been reserved for them. (Extreme, I'll >grant you, but constitutional the way I read it!) It was, and Massachusetts (for one, at least) HAD a state religion. But if you read all of the constitution, you would've found the 14th amendment: 14th Amendment Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State -> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges -> or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction -> the equal protection of the laws. <other sections deleted> The parts marked -> are most appropriate. The 14th prevents states from establishing official state religions. >As I read it, the new Congress wanted to make sure that this new country >didn't establish a state religion as England had, this would make sense >since so many of our founders had left England so they could freely >practice their religion. That was a large part of it. Official prayers at graduation ceremonies feel a lot like a state religion to me. After all, no one else gets to present their religious views, only the people invited by *the state*. >Does anyone know when this present >interpretation of the 1st Ammendment became vogue? Does the name Thomas Jefferson ring a bell? Granted, it wasn't until the 1950s that most justices agreed. --- Merlyn LeRoy
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/09/91)
[This responds to a discussion on prayer at graduation ceremonies. I believe the original question was why the constitution, which seems only to prohibit a federally-established church, is interpreted as preventing religion activities at state-sponsored events. Merlyn LeRoy believes it is a consequence of the 14th amendment, and suggests that the problem is not in allowing individuals to pray at graduation, but in having someone lead a prayer, thus upholding one specific religion over all others. --clh] Well, at my HS graduation, the pastor from the local Presbyterian church got up and gave the invocation. We were not *led* by the pastor. Noone had to sign up to be Presbyterians afterwards. The invocations I have heard over the years have really been quite non-sectarian. But, true, they were addressed to the Judeo-Christian God, and not to Satan. I would say that in an area which was predominantly or significantly Islamic the school board would advise the person delivering the invocation to make sure not to offend these people. In an area that was primarily made up of Satan worshippers, prayers to Satan would be unavoidable. I suspect that if such an area existed, most Christians wouldn't be attending that school. In an area primarily made up of athiests, there would be no need to have people repeat "There is no God..." over and over, (who would be listening to them?) (It wouldn't be a prayer.) Most likely, nothing would be said regarding the existance or non-existance of a diety. Those Christians who found themselves in the gathering would most likely pray silently to their God. But, these are my thoughts, regardless of them, I don't see what an Invocation at a HS graduation has to do with the Constitution of the United States. > 14th Amendment > Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, > and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the > United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State >-> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges >-> or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any > State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without > due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction >-> the equal protection of the laws. ><other sections deleted> Nope, I still don't see it. No *law* has been made by the state *requiring* invocations at HS graduations. If the state were to pass a law banning invocations at graduations, that IMHO would be unconstitutional. Present reasoning seems to be that "the state" and "religion" must be kept separate. And yet, Churches are tax-exempt. Congress starts each session with an Invocation. The Supreme Court itself starts with an Invocation. We have the tradition of witnesses in court, and elected officials taking oaths with one hand raised, and the other hand on the Bible. Our currency claims a trust in God. The pledge of allegiance I learned claimed that we were "One Nation, Under God". All of these seem contrary to the prevalent interpretation of the Constitution. Now, two possibilities: (There may be more). 1. The founders wrote the Constitution. It was almost immediately mis-interpreted. Since that time, we have come closer and closer to the true intent of the founders. 2. The founders wrote the Constiturion. It was correctly interpreted, and we have persistantly and consistantly strayed from the founders original intent. Which one do you think is more likely? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) (04/14/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Well, at my HS graduation, the pastor from the local Presbyterian church >got up and gave the invocation. We were not *led* by the pastor. Was anyone else allowed to give some kind of invocation? Or only people invited by the state? How do people get invited? >..The invocations I have >heard over the years have really been quite non-sectarian. But, true, >they were addressed to the Judeo-Christian God, and not to Satan. Hardly non-sectarian, then. Not a specific brand of Christianity, but not Islam, not Hinduism, not Wicca, not a lot of things. And if Jesus was ever mentioned, strike the Juedo- part. >I would say that in an area which was predominantly or significantly Islamic >the school board would advise the person delivering the invocation to >make sure not to offend these people. How white of you. If it was PREDOMINANTLY Islamic, wouldn't you expect a Mullah from the local Mosque? Or, again, are only Christians allowed to speak at graduation? >In an area that was primarily made up of Satan worshippers, prayers to >Satan would be unavoidable. I suspect that if such an area existed, >most Christians wouldn't be attending that school. If it were primarily Satan worshippers, wouldn't they invite a Satanist to speak at graduation? Again, you seem to allow *only* Christians to "speak", and maybe not offend other faiths; you don't even entertain the thought of a non-Christian (oh, maybe Jewish) speaker - then, it suddenly becomes a-Christian-speaking-but-not-offending-the-Muslims or no-one- speaking-but-the-Satanists-in-the-audience-are-praying-because-it's- unavoidable. You have never mentioned a U.S. school allowing a Muslim prayer or a Satanist prayer... Would you object to either of these? >In an area primarily made up of athiests, there would be no need to have >people repeat "There is no God..." over and over, (who would be >listening to them?) (It wouldn't be a prayer.) No need? Who are you to determine this? Why do the Christians have a "need" but the atheists don't? Mind if *we* are allowed to make these decisions? Now it's atheists-have-no-need-so-we-don't-need-to-allow-an- atheist-speaker. >Most likely, nothing >would be said regarding the existance or non-existance of a diety. Exactly. Right now, when Christians speak, something *is* said regarding the existance of a diety. Now, you are not allowing the negative opinion to be voiced. >Those Christians who found themselves in the gathering would most likely >pray silently to their God. My point exactly. Let the Christians pray to their god, the Muslims to theirs, the Satanists to theirs... You seem to allow Christians to speak, and NO ONE ELSE. >But, these are my thoughts, regardless of them, I don't see what an >Invocation at a HS graduation has to do with the Constitution of the >United States. Public high schools are run by the state government. >No *law* has been made by the state *requiring* invocations at HS graduations. But there are things governments are prohibited from doing. School prayer is one; I would argue that graduations prayers are the same thing. >If the state were to pass a law banning invocations at graduations, that >IMHO would be unconstitutional. Why? The state is not infringing on anyone's religion. It is merely not allowing a particular religious invocation at a public, secular event. There are plenty of public events that DON'T have any kind of prayer attached to them. Is this an infringement? >Present reasoning seems to be that "the state" and "religion" must be >kept separate. And yet, Churches are tax-exempt. They are defined as automatically tax-exempt, but it would be legal for a state to not automatically exempt them. There was a recent SC decision on Jimmy Swaggart ministries being taxed for religious materials; the materials can be taxed like anything else, or they may be exempted - states have the power to do either. >Congress starts each >session with an Invocation. The Supreme Court itself starts with an >Invocation. We have the tradition of witnesses in court, and elected >officials taking oaths with one hand raised, and the other hand on the >Bible. I don't think Congress or the S.C. ought to start with a particular religious invocation. As for oaths, it is not required to swear or use the Bible (or any book) to become president, for example. There is a case making its way to the S.C. now, concerning an atheist in Texas refusing to swear on the Bible for jury duty. >All of these seem >contrary to the prevalent interpretation of the Constitution. >Now, two possibilities: (There may be more). >1. The founders wrote the Constitution. It was almost immediately >mis-interpreted. Since that time, we have come closer and closer to the >true intent of the founders. >2. The founders wrote the Constiturion. It was correctly interpreted, >and we have persistantly and consistantly strayed from the founders >original intent. >Which one do you think is more likely? 3. The founders wrote the constitution, and disagreed about practically everything. We continue to do so. --- Merlyn LeRoy [Possibly these postings crossed. Tom has already responded that in an area that was predominately Satanist, Satanist prayers would be unaviodable (and Christian parents probably wouldn't use the public schools). --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.07.38.1991.5489@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
+
+Well, at my HS graduation, the pastor from the local Presbyterian church
+got up and gave the invocation. We were not *led* by the pastor. Noone
+had to sign up to be Presbyterians afterwards. The invocations I have
And if a person got up a 'led' the gathering with 'by the Air, Wind,
Fire, and Earth, we are assembled' you would bring down the house
with cries of 'paganism' and 'satanism'. As long as these
invocations are either close to your Christian beliefs or do not
pass beyond worhtless platitudes, you comfortable. The answer is to
eshew any religiousness rather than give support any one in a
government sponsored gathering.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edutblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.21.02.14.38.1991.19709@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >And if a person got up a 'led' the gathering with 'by the Air, Wind, >Fire, and Earth, we are assembled' you would bring down the house >with cries of 'paganism' and 'satanism'. As long as these >invocations are either close to your Christian beliefs or do not >pass beyond worhtless platitudes, you comfortable. The answer is to >eshew any religiousness rather than give support any one in a >government sponsored gathering. No, actually I wouldn't bring down the house. As long as I (or my theoretical children) were not forced to participate that's fine. If (for instance) my school district were in an area with a high degree of Satan worshipers, and prayers to Satan were common at graduations and other key assemblies then I would send my children to school elsewhere. I think what people seem to have forgotten is that in a democracy it is not the government on one side and the people on the other. The government is supposed to represent the people. If *the people* in an area wish prayers at their graduation services, then it is the buisiness of the government (in it's role of representative) to see that it happens. If "the people" oppose Invocations at graduation, then the government should see that such a practice is discontinued. A school board too is a representational democracy. The voters in a school district elect board members who they feel will represent their views and concerns. If the school board is out-of-touch with the will of the people, then they should be voted out of office. I can understand the desire not to have imposed morning prayers at public school. I myself would not want to see a state-approved morning prayer recited in unison by the students. However, an Invocation or a Blessing at a graduation? It's not unisonal, and those who disagree are quite free to (quietly) ignore the speaker. Parents who wanted their children to be raised free of the taint of Christianity could explain to them that the belief in God is irrational, however, out of respect for our fellow citizens, we allow them to practice their rituals, so long as they do not impose their beliefs on us. Despite all of this however, I still don't see what any of it has to do with the Constitution of the United States. *No law has been passed* for or against prayers at graduations. Until such time I don't see how the Constitution comes into play. I invite you to read the document yourself. Additionally, as I have pointed out before, this absolute "separation of Church and State", (a phrase I find nowhere in the Constitution by the way), also seems contrary to the practices of our government in the past. (Ex. "In God We Trust" on our currency.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.18.56.1991.2587@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: +I think what people seem to have forgotten is that in a democracy it is +not the government on one side and the people on the other. The +government is supposed to represent the people. If *the people* in an +area wish prayers at their graduation services, then it is the buisiness Here is the 'problem' with the current level of 'democracy'. In the past presidential election less than 50% of the elgible voters turned out, some 53% of those voted for Bush(I ignore the electorial collage, since I trying to indicate what the 'people' want). Hence less than 25% of the 'voter' population actually expressed support for Bush. I don't have a recent local election tally for the San Diego area but what I recall of last November's election was not significantly different, i.e 50% voter turnout. We all know that not all the population is elgible to vote so the net effect is that less than 25%, say 15-20% of the population actually effects the 'democratic' discisions. To give a perspective, in ancient Athens, some 50000 citizens were elgible to vote on issues before the Assembly. But on any particular day or issue only some 6000(even then a rare event) would turn out to vote. Or about 10 percent of the citizen population. So things seem not to change much. (It would be interresting to see such numbers from other countries). At this point you may say 'what's the point', well the point is that a vocal group expressing 'evil threatens our young' will in fact be able to direct the course of the school board or library system independent of the factual basis of the assertion. Even more should anyone argue aganist such a group, the critic is attack as being 'one of the evil ones'. A term, Groupthink, is used to express the development of a mind set among a group which incourages conformity and discourages criticism. Many of the people who state 'evil is taking over' practice this form of group control. However I would like to ask these same people, "If the Christian's God was able to 'protect' Christianity during the first 4 centuries, why does He need your laws and policing now?' In those 4 centuries, Christian's would allow themselves to be killed rather than become part of the state. Yet now many Christians seem to have the thought that 'they would rather kill than be killed'. If your recall all the rhetoric of 'We have to protect our selves from 'God-less Communism'. Well, Why? If the 'God-less' ones had 'conquered' the 'Christian' West how much sooner would the 'God-less' ones come in contact with the 'way and light'. But to sacrifice oneself and those near and dear would be to much for the Heavenly kingdom, the choice was for earthly safety. >of the government (in it's role of representative) to see that it >happens. If "the people" oppose Invocations at graduation, then the >government should see that such a practice is discontinued. ... >A school board too is a representational democracy. ... >I can understand the desire not to have imposed morning prayers at >public school. I myself would not want to see a state-approved morning >prayer recited in unison by the students. However, an Invocation or a >Blessing at a graduation? It's not unisonal, and those who disagree are >quite free to (quietly) ignore the speaker. ... >Despite all of this however, I still don't see what any of it has to do >with the Constitution of the United States. *No law has been passed* >for or against prayers at graduations. ... John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.12.02.1991.10910@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
Here is the 'problem' with the current level of 'democracy'. In the
past presidential election less than 50% of the elgible voters
turned out, some 53% of those voted for Bush(I ignore the electorial
collage, since I trying to indicate what the 'people' want). Hence
less than 25% of the 'voter' population actually expressed support
for Bush.
This is a red herring. The eligible people who did not vote were not
ignored. Their wishes *were* taken into account, and they *did*
affect the decision. Ignoring minor candidates for the moment, there
were three different preferences people could express: Bush, Mondale,
and "don't care". The people who don't attend the polls still "vote",
for they cast a virtual ballot of abstention. Those people who did
not vote do even better than we who do vote, for they always get their
choice. They cannot be disappointed with the result, for they
expressed a lack of concern in the result. Since slightly over 50% of
the population expressed a lack of concern for the result, we have
about 78% who are happy with Bush and about 73% (if your numbers are
correct) who would have been happy with Mondale.
-mibmerlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) (04/29/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >If (for instance) my school district were in an area with a high degree of >Satan worshipers, and prayers to Satan were common at graduations and >other key assemblies then I would send my children to school elsewhere. Suppose: 1) ALL area schools graduated with such prayers, or 2) You couldn't afford to send your children anywhere else, or 3) You didn't find out until halfway through the prayer? I find it quite possible that all surrounding schools would have graduation ceremonies praying to God, or even specifically to Jesus, if this is not struck down by the courts. Your "solution" is worthless in the Real World[TM], where sometimes you cannot avoid being subject to such "official" religion. You are telling people to leave their own neighborhood public schools (which THEY PAY FOR) if they dislike the particular religion being pushed by the local school authorities. How terribly fair-minded of you. --- Merlyn LeRoy
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.28.18.28.56.1991.20317@athos.rutgers.edu>, merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes: > > Suppose: > 1) ALL area schools graduated with such prayers, or > 2) You couldn't afford to send your children anywhere else, or > 3) You didn't find out until halfway through the prayer? > > I find it quite possible that all surrounding schools would > have graduation ceremonies praying to God, or even specifically > to Jesus, if this is not struck down by the courts. > > You are telling people to leave their own neighborhood public > schools (which THEY PAY FOR) if they dislike the particular religion > being pushed by the local school authorities. To a certain extent, this is what Christians are faced with all the time. The type of prayer that is usually offered at graduation ceremonies, school board meetings, etc., is usually hard to identify as Christian. I do not think that a Christian can participate in such prayer without putting his confession of faith in a questionable light. To what God is the prayer being offered? If we must have public schools, and it appears that we must, then I tend to think that if the schools are not overtly Christian (problem: what brand of Christianity? as well as the usual constitutional problems) then there must be no religion in the school. This, however, leads to schools that I would have to characterize as atheistic. So in trying to be fair and constitutional, I find myself paying for schools that now offer a rather hostile environment for Christians. (There is an unstated premise here, that religion, or its 'absence', affects a lot more in the education of a child than what we call religious teaching. It colors our view of history, science, social studies, sex education, you name it.) What I would like to see, although the current trend is in the opposite direction, is for more christian churches to provide christian schools, supported by offerings, so that middle and lower income families can afford to give their children a full-time christian education. I think that we can afford this; it is mostly a matter of priorities in our spending. Unfortunately, this abandons the tax monopoly held by the public schools to the atheists/agnostics/unbelievers. But I think this is better than accepting state funding of parochial schools, for that implies state control. Of course to the extent that Christians and others leave the public school system, that will lower our taxes (at least in theory, but don't hold your breath.) David H. Wagner DWagner@uh.edu a confessional Lutheran. [Andrew Greeley argues that long-run data shows that Catholic parochial schools are actually money-makers. I.e. that if you look at the influence they have on later membership in the church and giving levels, they are -- even in monetary terms -- a good investment. --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/10/91)
In article <May.3.03.33.44.1991.24648@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes:
+and constitutional, I find myself paying for schools that now offer
+a rather hostile environment for Christians. (There is an unstated
You, as a group, don't seem to mind paying for a large defence
budget which in all likelyhood if used would have kill far more
individuals than just the fielded troops. The Cold War arms race was
supported by numerous Christian preachers as 'God's will'. How
presumptous.
+What I would like to see, although the current trend is in the opposite
+direction, is for more christian churches to provide christian schools,
+supported by offerings, so that middle and lower income families can
Unfortunately, church schools are not 'free of sin'. You can easily
explain promiscuity at 'public school' due to the Adversary's
control of the situation. But what of the church school. Or don't
you believe church school students engage in sex, drugs and
rock-and-roll. It takes a great amount of 'maturity' to realize that
the preacher's son is an independent entity and his behavior does
not reflect on the father's. However, at 14 I could not discern the
moral code which imparted immunity to the P.K. and not to me. We both
smoked and drank, but when I was caught, I was kicked out. When he
was caught there was silence.
There lots of 'observations' from the other point of view which most
Christians seem to ignore. They seem to blithely go on unaware that
the world would not be any more perfect if there was prayer and
Bible reading in the schools. The major contribution that a church
school can contribute, if there is one, is the directness which
parents may address the faculty, and the control or contribution to
the direction of the school. But this is true for any private
school.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edumath1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/13/91)
In article <May.10.03.25.08.1991.6758@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > In article <May.3.03.33.44.1991.24648@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: > > +What I would like to see, although the current trend is in the opposite > +direction, is for more christian churches to provide christian schools, > +supported by offerings, so that middle and lower income families can > > Unfortunately, church schools are not 'free of sin'. You can easily > explain promiscuity at 'public school' due to the Adversary's > control of the situation. But what of the church school. Or don't > you believe church school students engage in sex, drugs and > rock-and-roll. I freely admit that church schools are not 'free if sin.' Nor of sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, etc. What they do have is the only effective weapon against sin, namely the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason, I believe that a Christian school provides a much healthier environment than atheistic schools. And I do think that there is less sex, drugs, etc, in Christian schools. > It takes a great amount of 'maturity' to realize that > the preacher's son is an independent entity and his behavior does > not reflect on the father's. However, at 14 I could not discern the > moral code which imparted immunity to the P.K. and not to me. We both > smoked and drank, but when I was caught, I was kicked out. When he > was caught there was silence. > I think I recognize that stuff like this goes on, and it is indeed regrettable. How common is it? I don't know. How do we compare this to public schools where common criminals are kept in school 'because it is better for them than prison?' > There lots of 'observations' from the other point of view which most > Christians seem to ignore. They seem to blithely go on unaware that > the world would not be any more perfect if there was prayer and > Bible reading in the schools. If you read my post, then I think you know that I am not in favor of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, for that would violate my conscience regarding the proper use of Christian fellowship. Furthermore I do not think unbelievers would make effective teachers of God's Word. In addition, I do not believe that it is the mission of the Christian church to make the world more perfect. Our mission is to preach the Gospel so that souls may be saved from eternal punishment, and receive eternal life instead. If the world becomes better in the process, then may God be praised, but I believe the world is destined for destruction on Judgement Day. (see Rev. 20). David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this subject are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/13/91)
I can't agree with your statement that the PK did not reflect badly on his father. When Paul was discussing the requirements for church office he said that officials should be incontrol of their houses. If a man is not able to handle his own house, how can he handle the matters of the church? ]Link HUdson
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.08.48.1991.12142@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >In addition, I do not believe that it is the mission of the Christian >church to make the world more perfect. Our mission is to preach the Gospel >so that souls may be saved from eternal punishment, and receive eternal >life instead. If the world becomes better in the process, then may God be >praised, but I believe the world is destined for destruction on Judgement >Day. (see Rev. 20). Also by me. No doubt there are verses that can be quoted (and soon will be), but my recollection is that Jesus said very little about preaching anything so that souls might be saved from eternal punishment. He did, however, say a great deal about feeding lambs, visiting the afflicted, helping "the widow and orphan" (a nice old-fashioned phrase meaning "welfare recipients") and doing other things which, to my mind, can be summed up as "making the world more perfect". Accordingly I do think that is the mission of the Christian church. And, as the Salvation Army will tell us, there's no point preaching to people who haven't had dinner. (This must really be my day for disagreeing with postings on this group -- three rebuttals in one noon-hour!) [I can think of three passages where Jesus sends people to preach: the sending of the 12, the sending of the 72, and the Great Commission. In 2 of 3 cases he threatens punishment for those who don't heed the preaching. In the sending of the 12 (Lk 9 and par), the threat is implied: If people don't listen to them, they are to shake off the dust as a warning. In the sending of the 72 (Lk 10), the threat of judgement to those who don't hear is quite clear and extensively described. The fate of Sodom will be better on Judgement Day. Nothing against feeding people, of course. Jesus did that as well... --clh]
mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.04.15.24.1991.14797@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
I can't agree with your statement that the PK did not reflect badly on
his father. When Paul was discussing the requirements for church
office he said that officials should be incontrol of their houses. If
a man is not able to handle his own house, how can he handle the
matters of the church?
Interesting concept. I don't believe a pastor is supposed to "handle"
a church (or a father a family, for that matter). The PCUSA says that
the "pastor is responsible for studying, teaching, and preaching the
Word, for administering Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for praying
with and for the congregation," and that, with "the elders, the pastor
is to encourage the people in the worship and service of God; to equip
and enable them for their tasks within the church and their mission in
the world; to exercise pastoral care, devoting special attention to
the poor, the sick, the troubled, and the dying; to participate in
governing responsibilities[....]," and with "the deacons, the pastor
is to share in the ministries of sympathy, witness and service".
The pastor, in other words is to share in the government of the church
with the elders of the church. I truly believe that only in this way
can the church be effectively governed. If it is only one person who
is responsible for the management of the church, then the people of
the church are not living up to their duty and the pastor is in
serious danger of autocracy.
I should add that I believe this to be consistent with the advice in
the pastoral letters, though Biblical literalists will doubtless
disagree.
-mibjclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.04.15.24.1991.14797@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
+I can't agree with your statement that the PK did not reflect badly on
+his father. When Paul was discussing the requirements for church
+office he said that officials should be incontrol of their houses. If
+a man is not able to handle his own house, how can he handle the
+matters of the church?
I think this is the basis for what I have observed in 'real'
churches in the behavior of the offspring of the Minister. Since it
is the attituded that the childern should be like the parent, mis
behavior of the childern is either overlooked or delt with more
quitely that with others. My strikes were I was the child of a
devorcee and not the child of a preacher. You will not know how many
times I heard phrases such as " well, you know he's the son of Mrs.
Clark and she's devorced". I use my example as here are two
individuals behavior which was essentially identical, independent of
parental condition.
Does this change? Well no. I when out with a woman who as a member
of a church. One small fact, her divroce from an abusive husband was
not final. The 'ladies' of the church clucked. Via the 'grape' vine
I heard the imfamous phrase, "well, she's a divorcee, and he's the
son of...". At the time the church had two or three on going
adultery situations amoung members 'in good standing'. Did I hear
any insinuations about these individuals, No.
What this says is that churches are just like any place else on
earth. But any where else on earth is not trying to seem 'above' all
that. Or if I go to a whorehouse I know I'm not trying to find a
life long partner. When I go to a church and find the same 'sins'
going on but swept under the carpet for appearance sake, what am I
to think?
One can argue that churches are for such sinners. But once inducted
the 'sinners' seem to forget where they came from.
I don't think a preacher's childern should be considered any
different that anyone else. Nor should their behavior be considered
a reflection of the parent after some point. The preacher's childern
know what life the preacher lives. As independent entities they have
the choice.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edutblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/17/91)
In article <May.10.03.25.08.1991.6758@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article <May.3.03.33.44.1991.24648@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >You, as a group, don't seem to mind paying for a large defence >budget which in all likelyhood if used would have kill far more >individuals than just the fielded troops. The Cold War arms race was >supported by numerous Christian preachers as 'God's will'. How >presumptous. Well, I for one do object to the amount that is spent on the military. I also think that this is a fairly common view. Take the new/old saw... When the kingdom comes, churches will have all the money they need, and the pentagon will have to have bakesales to pay for aircraft carriers. (Variants abound) Not all Christians supported the recent "Fiasco in the Gulf". A good many Christians spoke out against it. I spoke out against the upcoming hostilities in church before the air war had begun. I spoke out about the hypocrisy. I asked if anyone *wanted* the war, and then I asked why we were going to fight it. Two sons from our congregation were in Kuwait, and at least one nephew. Noone took me aside to say they disagreed. They agreed that what I said needed to be said. At a joint Ash Wednesday service with a local Presbyterian congregation, I sang a hymn from our new hymnal which calls upon the church to speak out for peace, and to demonstrate. People asked what song it was, and many said how well it expressed their feelings. A while after the air bombardment began, churches in the area began ringing their bells at 5:00 pm (midnight in the gulf) to mark the time the bombardments had begun, and to ask that the war would end. Oh, America has proven its bloodlust in this. There's no doubt about it, and the Church has been too passive, but I really don't think you've fairly represented the view of Christians. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (05/19/91)
Tom Blake recently spoke concerning his disatisfaction (to put it mildly) with what he found to be hipocrasy in the church with respect to the recent war in the gulf. I do not wish to debate with him the old matter of whether or not war for any cause is or can be considered a christian act, but I do wish to give him my opinion on another matter he mentioned, namely that no one in his congregation felt it necessasary to disagree with him. There are many reasons for this other than the implied everyone agreed with you. First, several churches are, in my opinion, quite liberal politically (for example, here in Tucson, one church sports a signfront which states "It's a sin to pay for nuclear weapons!" Second, many christians that I know will not openly confront other, loudly vocal members, either because they do not want to be in strife with a brother, or because they have learned that it does not pay to have a short conversation with someone who holds a point of view dogmatically (IMHO). So please, don't read other people's lack of confrontation as acceptance or agreement with your point of view. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.22.42.49.1991.13978@athos.rutgers.edu> krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) writes:
+respect to the recent war in the gulf. I do not wish to debate
+with him the old matter of whether or not war for any cause is or
+can be considered a christian act, but I do wish to give him my
And why not. The 'just' war seems to have been an invention of
Augustine to allow the 'state' to become compatible with
Christianity. Until Constantine's recognition and support of
Christianity, Christian writers seemed to advocate supporting the
state without compromising Christian principles(in particular emperor worship).
The reason for 'supporting' the state seemed to be in terms of a
stable state is more likely not to persecute Christians. But on many
occasions these writers seemed intent on the distruction of the
state. After Augustine it seems that the only martyrs were either
killed by barbarian hords or later reformers who conflicted with the
now Christian State much as the former Church fathers did with Pagan
Rome.
As for the argument that 'silence == approval' or 'silence !=
approval' that happens every where. I find it 'humorous' that so
many Christians lead off an attack against some other Christians by
the catchy label of 'liberal'. One would have to label the early
Christian martyrs as 'liberals' since they refused to maintain the
'status quo' or 'conserve' pagan values.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edukrueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.00.22.08.1991.635@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >And why not. The 'just' war seems to have been an invention of >Augustine to allow the 'state' to become compatible with >Christianity. I disagree. If Judaism has a historical influence on Christianity (and I think that it does, since our God is the same guy as theirs) God (in the OT) has decreed many wars. I think that that would make them 'just'. It seems obvious to me that our disagreement is simply that we have different requirements for what would constitute a 'just' war. >As for the argument that 'silence == approval' or 'silence != >approval' that happens every where. I find it 'humorous' that so >many Christians lead off an attack against some other Christians by >the catchy label of 'liberal'. One would have to label the early >Christian martyrs as 'liberals' since they refused to maintain the >'status quo' or 'conserve' pagan values. Pardon me. I use the term 'liberal church' to include mostly churches who do not believe that the Bible is inherently correct (by correct I mean that any seeming inconsistencies come from our lack of understanding) and that also do not believe that it is necessary to be born again to get to heaven (my evidence -- "You must be born again." -- Jesus). I often get myself into trouble because I use labels instead of making long qualifying statements at the beginning of each new discussion. I do not mean to 'attack' the liberal church. I simply do not believe that most members of those will be in heaven because they are not taught (in many cases - I know that there are exceptions) the things necessary for salvation. I have a good friend (a professor of physics) who is a very conscientious man and wishes only kindness and peace to all creatures, who is a member of that liberal church (the one with the "It's a sin to pay for nuclear weapons" sign) and I think that it is a shame if his church is spending so much time talking about social issues that it neglects to teach its members about the essentials of salvation. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other [Since you don't say what church it is I can't comment on the particular church you have in mind. But I can say that I've had extended experience with two churches generally considered "liberal" (Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Methodist), and in both the essentials of salvation are taught, in a form I believe you would recognize. Whether everyone learns is a separate issue. As a teacher myself (in both church and university) I have to say that there are plenty of things that are taught clearly but not learned... It is perfectly possible to reject inerrancy, and still preach the Gospel. Many -- indeed I suspect most -- Christians who reject inerrancy do not believe that there are significant errors in the Bible, recognize themselves as sinners, and put their trust in Christ. There are certainly a few hysterical political activists in these churches, but I suspect there are extremists of one sort or another in most churches. (Personally, I find the anti-abortion activists very unattractive representatives of Christianity. But I do not take this as evidence that they are not saved.) It is not clear to me that saying "it is a sin to pay for nuclear weapons" is incompatible with a clear grasp of the Gospel. While I am not myself a pacifist, I think it would be pretty bizarre to regard support of nuclear arms as essential to salvation. --clh]
kwilson@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Kent Wilson) (05/26/91)
In article <May.17.02.49.03.1991.27993@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >I spoke out about the hypocrisy. I asked if anyone *wanted* the war, >and then I asked why we were going to fight it. ... No one .. disagreed. Of course they did not disagree. Who *wants* a war? The question is not do you want war, it is should we go to war. >At a joint Ash Wednesday service with a local Presbyterian congregation, >I sang a hymn from our new hymnal which calls upon the church to speak >out for peace, and to demonstrate. ... >A while after the air bombardment began, churches in the area began >ringing their bells at 5:00 pm (midnight in the gulf) ... >... the Church has been too passive, but I really don't think you've >fairly represented the view of Christians. Gee Tom, if I ever have the opurtunity to see you being attacked by a madman hell-bent on murdering you, I do not think that I will intervene or call the police. I am just going to stand around and sing some hymns and call on the church to oppose the intervention of anyone who might try and rescue you. Kent ===============================================================================