Prayer Pansies

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes. We are a nation of wimps.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I'm going to be taking a break from our series to look at a situation that has happened recently concerning prayer at a high school graduation. Many of us when we graduated had a prayer said and the older you are, I would think it's more likely that that took place.

However, the Medina Valley School District in Texas has ordered that public prayer be prohibited at a high school graduation ceremony. (Link at bottom) Note that in the link when clicked, the judge says that if there is a prayer said, the family and their son will suffer irreparable harm.

What?!

So if someone dares mention the name of Jesus publicly (Except of course if they're using the name of the person that Christians hold in the highest esteem as the perfection of all that is good and holy) then this family will suffer great harm? Exactly what kind of harm are we talking about? Are we talking about being on a psychiatrist's couch for years saying "It was awful. They actually said 'Jesus' around me and prayed."

When some of us were growing up, we actually learned how to deal with that which did not go our way and did not try to shape the rest of the world to fit our particular tastes. There's nothing wrong with wanting to change the world, but this is simply forcing everyone else in the area to bow to the sensitivities of one family without cause.

This is along the lines of people who are told at their workplace to not say "Merry Christmas" but "Happy Holidays" lest someone get offended. If a Jew comes up to me and wishes me a happy Passover or a Muslim wishes me a happy Ramadan, I'm not going to be offended. I would in fact be happy to discuss their religious beliefs with them.

Strangely enough, this offense is never a big deal when it goes the other way. Jesus can be openly mocked and maligned anywhere, after all, that only offends Christians. If someone wants to mock Jesus, that's their right. I also have a right to respond to them, but the way to do it is not through bullying in the courts but in debating our worldviews.

There is also much mockery for Christian practice in the world. I know someone who is a devout Christian who recently got a job at a Wal-Mart where he works with several guys his age. He is a college student and he is often mocked because as a single man, he is a virgin and plans to stay that way until marriage, a common Christian practice.

Is what's being done to him wrong? You bet it is. Offensive? No doubt. Painful? Sure. What's the proper way to handle it? The way he's doing it. He's looking for reasons why he does think pre-marital sex is wrong and until then, just not giving in. If some people want to be jerks, let them be jerks. For now, he's dealing with something obviously wrong and he's not whining to the court system. He's growing up and taking it for the time being believing standing strong in his virtue will win out.

Instead, our culture has become so weak that we're crying out that the worst thing you can do to someone is offend them. There is no place for needless offenses of course, but there are some offenses that ought to just be overlooked instead of thinking that one has to be a victim entirely to one's circumstances.

This family however thinks it's more beneficial to treat their son like a child who must have everything go his way and make everyone else go without a simple prayer just because of the cause of offense. The early Christians were thrown to the lions and set on fire and in response, they wrote to the emperor and stated their case. They simply wanted toleration.

For the people who often speak the most about tolerance, you'd think they'd be willing to tolerate some. Apparently not. Tolerance is a great virtue, provided everyone else practice it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02...tion-ceremony/

[Leonhard]

The way you write makes me wonder if you'd take offense if someone wished you 'Happy Holidays'?

But on a more serious note, it seems this has something with the seperation of church and state, rather than something to do with hurting people's feelings. At least you'd have to supply citation from the judge, that the decision was made in order to be less offensive. I've only got your word for it right now, and it seems very dubious, I'd like it a lot if you could supply the source.

#edit - Nevermind spotted it at the bottom of your text, looking it up.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I wouldn't be offended, but neither would I be if they said Merry Christmas, which is fitting since Christmas is the name of the holiday.

[rogue06]

I'm deeply offended by the contents of this entire thread. Now I think I'm going to have a bit of lie down on the fainting couch since I feel a case of the vapors coming on.

[RumTumTugger]

The way you write makes me wonder if you'd take offense if someone wished you 'Happy Holidays'?

But on a more serious note, it seems this has something with the seperation of church and state, rather than something to do with hurting people's feelings. At least you'd have to supply citation from the judge, that the decision was made in order to be less offensive. I've only got your word for it right now, and it seems very dubious, I'd like it a lot if you could supply the source.

#edit - Nevermind spotted it at the bottom of your text, looking it up.

Leonhard this judges ruling was nothing but a curtailment on the rights of the students free speech which means his ruling was unconstitutional. all because one student was offended by another person using their free speech to show thier gratitude to God. this whole stupid "separation of church and state" which isn't even in the Constitution is some peoples way of denying other people their unalienable right of free speech.

btw the 5th circuit overturned this Idiot judges ruling so the valedictorian cna now start with prayer if she wants.

and to answer your question no I would not be offended but I would be sorely disappointed if someone didn't say Merry Christmas because they were afraid of these unsubstantiated threatened Lawsuits by the ACLU and their ilk.

this is all because people have decided that they have a right curtail others unalienable Rights because it offends them and even when it is not harmful to society. sorry you do not have an unalienable right to be protected from what offends you.

[Leonhard]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend Phoenix, if what you're saying its happening the way you're saying it, then that's definitely not fair. If its not just friendly teasing, but actual mockery, which I know is too common in the work force. I hope things turn out better for your friend.

And Rumtum I'll still wish you a happy holiday when the time comes, but only to tease you. In Denmark its a nonissue, plenty of irreligious people here and people are wishing eachother 'God Jul' which is equivalent to Merry Christmas. The term Jul comes from one of the old pagan winter solstice rituals that the church absorbed. Our schools don't have prayers sessions. My high school had a small club of evangelical Christians that managed to gather each day in a classroom by themselves for prayer and fellowship during a break. It wasn't considered a problem by anyone. I remember that we did have morning song in the early classes of elementary school, with songs ranging from very secular, to overtly religious.

I'm not an American, and I don't understand American law practice enough to comprehend the rulings in this case. However as I understand the Church and State separation, no public school can have a school-led prayer of the students. Just about all court cases involving school-led prayers in public schools in the US that I've read, have all ended with getting that practice removed. I'm not sure how that works for graduation speeches though since that seems up to the individual. Apparently it being overturned as you say, means it probably wasn't an issue, though they might take it to the supreme court. I still wish I could have hard evidence for the postulation that it was done to spare their son of emotional harm. I'm trying to track down a summary of the court case to see if the Judge actually said that it was 'to avoid emotional harm' and not a separation of church and state issue. I'm curious about the case, I want to know the legal steps. If any of you guys have any copies of court transcriptions, or summaries I'd love to have them.

I've gotten hold of another news article here, there's no mention of emotional harm and it clearly isn't just a case of a student not wanting prayer at the ceremony. Apparently the school had led the students in Christian prayer. If this practice is illegal, then I can't see why the Schultz aren't in their right to sue to school. Some conservative blogs are also asking the question "Why didn't he just sit down during prayer?" Beyond the question of legality of school-led prayers in light of the separation of church and state, it can't be the case that if something like that was taking place that it must be compulsory. If he was forcefully asked to do it, then I'd say he had the right to tell the teacher to put that order a certain place. Whether he actually did that, or knew that he was allowed to do that is another question. Its all a bit speculative since there's little information enough to tell exactly what happened. For the same reasons, most conservatives blogs thoughts about what kinds weaknesses of character led him to do this are speculative. Considering that this is Texas, then I think the kid demonstrates fortitude for not going with the flow of people around him, but standing up for what he believes in.