Florida Principal, Athletic Director Could Go to Jail for Prayer Before Lunch

One of the commonly repeated errors is that the God of the Declaration and, subsequently, the Constitution was a deist idea of God. To refute this I will refer to the Declaration itself and see.

"We ,therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions..."

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

Alright, the deist essentially believes that God created the world and now is hands off. He set it in motion and now has nothing to do with it. He's not really interested in the lives of men, He does not supernaturally intervene, but rather allows the laws of nature to run the show. Ok, but they appealed to God for hte rectitude of their intentions, which I take to mean that they laid their cause for Him to judge, with the implication being that if God judged it to be unjust they would lose. They also relied on the protection of divine providence. Problem is the deist doesn't believe in divine providence. The deist believes that things run according to the course of nature.

I cannot see how the Declaration, asserting that rights are gotten from God, is built upon a deist God, but rather must be built upon the very God of heaven that you and I worship.

 

Hey, that is very similar to posts I have seen of yours that say SBC churches can't be trusted.

 

It should not have gotten to the court in the first place.

The ACLU should have been stopped before it even became an issue.
But no one can compete with an organization that gets whatever funds they need to persecute Christians from their supporters and the government (State governments).

In 2008 their revenues were over $134,000,000.00 with a membership of around 500,000.

As to a "guilty" verdict, I know at least one who will not accept it and one who put no limits on the right to pray.

Jesus Christ

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;


HankD​

 

Compare that to Jesus' admonition: "...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. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

If one takes the position that this is a case of the laws of God trumping the laws of man, then a Christian who believes the law or settlement is wrong should proudly say "Yes, I prayed in violation of the settlement", and take the punishment that comes with it. This isn't happenning here.

There is no mention of this in the Constitution. Despite that, it's immaterial to the OP topic. How many of you would be defending such a person if it were a case of a Muslim school official laying out prayer rugs and leading prayer? At least one of you would, but many of you wouldn't.

The same Jesus Christ who says "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God's what is God's".

 

First of all, man should do nothing proudly, but rather in humility. Secondly, did Daniel "proudly" shout out that he had violated the law of the king? No. He didn't do what he did in order to violate the law of the king, but to serve God. It appears these men did the same. Had they made the proclamation you described they would have been like the pharisees.

 

Fine. They should humbly acknowlege "Yes, I prayed in violation of the settlement", and take the punishment that comes with it. This isn't happenning here.

No, had they said "I prayed in public in violation of the settlement, but the law doesn't apply to me", they would have been like the pharisees. Acknowleging what one did, and being willing to take the punishment for it is not pharisaical.

 

Proudly proclaiming what one does is like the pharisees. That's what they did, and that's what we are all prone to do. Doing it in humility, not in order to violate the law of man but rather from a heart to serve God, that is godly. Peter didn't say, "you guys are right, you told not to preach Jesus. We did, go ahead and beat us." Instead they said that they couldn't but speak the things which they had seen. The rule that the authorities had made was ridiculous, and the apostles treated it as such. They didn't say, "we'll defy this and then take our punishment." Instead they went on about their business doing what was right and then saying what they did was right.

 

Your brother posted that saying.

Did Jesus die for you?

 

John Adams and Robert Treat Paine were not Christian, but deist universalists. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not Christians, but were deists. Charles Carrol was a Catholic, and many of the folks here don't consider Catholics to be Christian. 45 others were Congregationalists or Anglicans, and many folks here question wheter one or the other qualify as Christians. The percentage of nonchristians who signed the Declaration of Independence was as low as 10% and possibly as high as 40%. The percentage of nonchristians is higher for the Constitution.

The most interesting irony is that George Washington, the first President under the Constitution, was not a Christian, yet few Christians would question his greatness.

 

It would depend upon the circumstances. If those who would be offended by a muslim prayer were invited to leave I would have no objection.

Because we are now and always have been open to legal immigration we who are Christians should afford this common courtesy as well.

Prayer is given and belongs to God not Caesar.

As I said previously, the ACLU and other organizations who hate us (though they use a hypocritical word veil or mask (i.e. "Liberties") in their names)) find boderline cases or rare situations which are nebulous then spend a fortune to persecute/prosecute their victims in order to legislate all encompassing decisions or at least decisions of a wider scope than one that covers the "offense".

When they are done not only are their victims "punished" but (for instance) Bible studies or prayer meetings of willing participants are banned as well. Bibles and/or faith symbols are disallowed from schools. Plaques containing the Ten Commandments are pulled down, etc...

In the mean time those who promote the antichrist philosophy of secular humanism (such as the ACLU - IMO of course) and after they have banned the Bible, are allowed to "evangelize" our children with books like Heather Has Two Mommies and add classes on how to have safe sex to our children's and grandchildren's curiccula, go unpunished.

At many of these same schools a note must be brought from the parents for a child to have an aspirin but that same minor child can have an abortion without parental permission.

All this and much more, due to the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union membership and the morally bankrupt judges who support them and persecute these two men who (IMO) were intimidated.

Perhaps in your lifetime johnv, they will come after you and I just because we name the name of Christ.

HankD

 

It is not a "liberal fantasy" to state objective facts. Not that I expect you to display any sense of objectivity on this board.

 

I welcome it. I always conduct my personal faith in accordance with the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and in accordance with the teachings of Christ. If they come after me, they will lose.

 

You ability to insult is without question. Your ability to generate fantasy is equally unparalleled.

 

Are you suggesting that the ACLU receives federal tax dollars?

Tim Reynolds

 

johnv, I think we have struck an harmonic chord.

HankD

 

Hi Tim, they do not directly receive federal tax dollars. However they are allowed to receive money from State governments.

Revmitchell did not say "federal dollars". He used the term "government" which would be in line with receiving money from state governments.

The ACLU revenues for 2008 was to the tune of $134,000,000.00 plus.

HankD

 

Indeed, and it pleases the Holy Spirit when the brethren do so.