Explain the prayer in schools thing to me

[Teallaura]

Oops, sorry for the off topic post before - didn't realize it had changed.


Stop me if you've heard this...

A teacher had her class bring symbols of their religions for Show and Tell. The first little girl got up, displayed her symbol and said "I'm Jewish and this is a Star of David." The next little boy got up and proudly held up his symbol, saying, "I'm Catholic and this is a crucifix!". The next little girl came to the front with her symbol and said, "I'm Baptist and this is a cross."

The last little boy came to the front with a dish full of food. The teacher spoke as gently as she could, "Johnny, you were supposed to bring a symbol of your religion, dear." Johnny beamed proudly, "I did! I brought a casserole 'cause I'm a Methodist!"



Ya know, sometimes the worst teachers of the Christian faith are Christians...

[moreta]

Good one. Although it would work just as well for Baptists. I was raised as a Baptist, but spent about 10 years as a Methodist. I'll eat either place!!!!

[justgin]

Still, you did say, "if you don't have...such commandments..." Which seems, I think you'll agree, reasonable to think that a person may be saying that the only reason you might love as a Christian is simply because Jesus tells you to.

That's exactly what i'm saying. Can you think of a better reason to love your enemy? Would you naturally love your enemy apart from His command to do that?

Would you truly love all your Christian brothers and sisters no matter how much they may hurt you, apart from His command to love them? Why would Jesus bother to command His followers to do what they would desire to do anyway?

Your error was in assuming that i meant what i said strictly from a mechanistic "pharisaical/condescending" point of view, as though i were merely following instructions, not from a heart of sincere devotion.

[Teallaura]

15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...17&version=KJV


Keeping commandments isn't evidence of legalism. Legalism is interested in the letter, not the spirit, and shows itself in how commands are kept, not in the mere act of keeping them.

Further, we aren't all at the same spot on the path. For some, the first step in devotion is obeying a command merely because it is His command. I sincerely doubt anyone starts out with a heart of love for their enemies. That comes with maturity in the faith and the practice of loving one's enemies. Practice we get much the same way we get piano practice; at first because Mom said so, later because we love to play. So to first we love our enemies because Jesus said so; later because our hearts are so changed that we can't do anything else. Nothing wrong with obedience for its own sake as long as we don't stay there.

[SarahB]

ACLJ - I knew I'd remember it eventually...

Now I see why you use "prayer in public schools is not an establishment of religion". It's a disingenuous spin for the choir often used by the ACLJ on the Jay Sekulow Live show.

[Teallaura]

Now I see why you use "prayer in public schools is not an establishment of religion". It's a disingenuous spin for the choir often used by the ACLJ on the Jay Sekulow Live show.

Ooh, nice - can't deal with the message, go for the messenger. So sorry to disappoint but I ascribed to that argument - because it's true - before the ACLJ even existed and a good 8 years before I returned to the faith. I was a strong atheist when I first argued that point, in Constitutional Law 301, if I recall correctly.

A public school is not the United States' Congress - a fact that should be obvious even to a first grader. The First Amendment specifies Congress - and most of the Founding Fathers were more than literate enough to write what they meant (that and there was that whole Constitutional Convention where they hashed out every conceivable detail - plus the ratification that came afterwards...). It's ludicrous to believe that the word 'congress' means anything other than Congress. An activist Court decided that somehow 'congress' referred to any and all levels of government, Federal and state (somehow missing the reserved powers thing altogether) - it was a stupid ruling then and it's a stupid ruling now.

Now, got an argument that can survive basic reading comprehension and constitutional muster? Or would you prefer to go back to attacking the messenger? Come to think of it, if your knowledge of case law is anything like your knowledge of logic (it's called a fallacy) you are probably better off trying 'argument from outrage'. Still fallacious, of course, but at least you can make it sound good.





Um, I may not have been in the best mood for this....