Thank you for doing this Jen! Like I said previously, I hope that I would have the courage to do the same thing if I had been in your place.

To peytonroad - Fortunately we don't live in a theocracy, if you want to live in a theocracy perhaps you should try Saudi Arabia or Iran.

If Peyton would've candy coated and took out the harsh words, would it be acceptable then since her view is different from most that posted?

While all of you that say you are Christians are amazed that prayer is said in court, I am amazed that you have made that choice. Those of you saying prayer shouldn't be permitted in court have made a choice. You do realize that, don't you? Christians pray and to deny that you are denying your own right as a Christian. To say prayer shouldn't be permitted, you are denying Christ. You are making a choice here. And what I don't understand about you, is that if you call yourself Christians, then have you read the Bible? Do you not understand what it says? Especially about accepting Christ and following HIS laws.

Why are you more concerned about some other religion being offended than standing up for your own? Why, if you are a Christian, are you all for getting rid of everything that has to do with HIM?

I've read here that you all are not Christians, so I'm speaking to the ones that call themselves Christians. If Christ is truly in your heart, then speak up FOR Him.

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full fr ontal view .. it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as 'The Father of Our Constitution' made the following statement:
'We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'

DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ'.

DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . an oligarchy .
the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
'Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.'

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

86% of this country claim to be Christians, yet they allow the other 14% to determine its laws. Where is the voice of the 86%? Why are you more concerned with political correctness than Christ? I suppose PC could also stand for "Purge Christ", is that what is happening?

Auntjen, I realize you're concerned about the rights of everyone, but what about the rights of Christians? I pray that you don't lend your hand to doing away with those. If you are a Christian, then you know in the end what your choice brings.

I am wondering why no one has commented on the fact that Congress opens daily with a prayer, either by the House Chaplain or a guest clergyperson. The link I posted is to the Office of the House Chaplain, who writes specifically of his religious beliefs. It also contains the daily prayer.

The Supreme Court itself opens with a daily invocation: "God save the United States and this honorable court." On the S.C. building in D.C. there is a giant freize over the entry which prominently features Moses the Lawgiver in its center, holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments.

So what is okay and what is "going too far"? How about the prayer offered at the Presidential Inauguration? It has, as far as I can remember, always been offered by a Protestant minister. President Obama had Rick Warren - a true evangelical - deliver the prayer to the nation.

No one is suggesting that it is proper for the government to deny Christians the right to pray. The question is whether a government official, acting in that capacity, can lead others in any prayer, Christian or otherwise. In the United States of America, we do not allow religious displays that appear to have the imprimatur of the government on any one religion. At the same time, we do not allow the government to suppress religious practice or belief. Thus, a public school teacher may not lead her students in prayer while in the capacity of her employment. The same teacher must allow students of any religion to pray if they wish to pray. The same teacher may teach Sunday School on her own time.

The "Did You Know" email cut and pasted above is almost entirely false, as two minutes with google or snopes will show.

I reject absolutely the idea that my status as a Christian requires me to attempt to subjugate anyone, or to support attempts to make the United States of America a theocracy. The sole determinant of my Christianity is my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my savior.

Generally speaking, I do not like to offend people, but my concern, and I believe that the concern of others who have written here, is oppression rather than offense.

I appreciate your post, lana.

Once again, Riosamba, you have so eloquently stated my own position that I am really not compelled to add much further.

The sole determinant of my Christianity is my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my savior.

Absolutely, unequivocally correct, and I will not permit anyone save for Christ Himself to sit in judgment of that which I hold in my heart.

Thank you also for the Snopes link. I don't have much patience with usually trite cut-and-paste email forwards such as this, especially when their veracity is partially or completely false.

Auntjen, you missed my point.

And I agree that only Christ knows our hearts and only Christ has the authority to judge us.

But still, you missed my point.

Thanks, Bumblebeez, I'm glad you understood.

don't have much patience with usually trite cut-and-paste email forwards such as this, especially when their veracity is partially or completely false.

Neither do I! I'm amazed that some people are so gullible. That would include my cousin and sister who send inaccurate info on a regular basis. They read what they want and disregard the truth.

Shee, Peyton was over the top. As were a few comments that followed hers.

I missed your point? Then tell me - what was your point? Your post was largely the copying and pasting of a non-factual email. You also told me that because I ascribe to a different line of thought than you, that I'm "denying" Christ. You made, either directly to me or to everyone here professing Christ, statements which began If you are a Christian which could lead one to feel you're questioning the sincerity of the claims we've made to know Him.

Why are you more concerned about some other religion being offended than standing up for your own? Why, if you are a Christian, are you all for getting rid of everything that has to do with HIM?

Apparently, you miss the point. Nowhere - not anywhere in anything I've said above do I state that I'm "all for getting rid of everything that has to do with HIM." That is a knee-jerking, grossly perverted interpretation of everything I have said. I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already did, but I will reiterate one more time: I am opposed to publicly-led prayer mandated by a government official in a court of law. I would not have objected to a the court calling for a moment of silence, and in that space of time, all would be equally free to pray, each in his own way, each to his own spiritual master - or not.

I have no need to "stand up" for my own religion. My God is infinite. He is inconceivably vast. I am but a frail and humble carbon-based life form and He does not depend upon me for His defense.

Natal - "as were a few comments that followed". I agree some of those weren't necessary. I still wonder how it would've went over had she of edited more and had a similar outline. It's an opinion and of course some of those tid bits are from the Bible.

This is one I wish I would've posted. I think it's important to know our own heart.

*wouldn't have*

DID YOU KNOW that you don't need to be a Christian to be a citizen of the United States?

Of course, He doesn't depend on you for His defense. You've made that perfectly clear.

LOL @ Terri ... and hey, vice versa too!

Why are you more concerned about some other religion being offended than standing up for your own?
. . .
Of course, He doesn't depend on you for His defense. You've made that perfectly clear.

Would it not stand to reason, then, that any "standing up for my own religion" that I might take it upon myself to engage in would have more to do with my own self-indulgence than glorifying God? (I'm not being snarky; I'm generally curious as to what you mean by what you've said.)

Auntjen,
Can you give me a scripture from the bible that defines your position specifically? Where does it say that you should not pray to Christ specifically so as to not offend the nonbeliever?

What if the judge was a hindu or muslim and wanted to acknowledge his faith in whatever capacity he saw fit before court started - would that not be offensive to Christians?

I think since Christianity is practiced by the majority of Americans, it tends to be the default mode of operation ie. prayers before sporting events etc.

Personally, I believe in free speech and wouldn't want to make anyone feel oppressed, but I have to admit to being a bit put out by religious groups who protest a Christmas manger, Christmas Tree, EAster bunny etc. on public property.

I think it's important to know our own heart.

Shee, are you unhappy with that statement? Because I think it says it all. It's really not anyone else's business. None of us have a right to sit in judgment of other religious beliefs. Yet, it happens all the time. We can be so self-righteous in the name of God.

It's happening within my own religion. I was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod). The Evangelical Lutheran church (the largest Lutheran denomination) last year voted to allow the ordination of gays and lesbians in committed relationships. The Missouri Synod Lutheran church says you can be a member if you're gay or lesbian, but you can't be clergy. Same religion, but two entirely different mindsets.

Boy, has this taken a turn for the worse. Kudos to you auntjen for being gracious to everyone who has posted.

lana1, I have met so many evangelicals like you. Once you all start preaching, I stop listening. It's all in the delivery.

I have always been curious as to why all of those have been "found" and/or "saved" feel the strong need to convert and transform those who don't necessarily see things as you do? I am well aware that you think yours is the only way. I just don't agree.

Caroleah, I totally agree about the Christmas tree, Christmas carols, etc. I have never been offended by anything to do with Christmas or Easter. I enjoy seeing the festivities and listening to the music. When someone I know is christian wishes me "Happy Holidays", I always wish them Merry Christmas. I wouldn't be offended if they wished me a "Merry Christmas". It happens all of the time and I have never been offended...ever!

The only reason I'm bothered with the scenario that Jen witnessed, is that every person in that courtroom seemed to be requested to join in on the prayer. I think it would be more appropriate for the judge to ask that all who wish to join in prayer, do so. I'm not a christian, but I respect every one's right to pray or not to pray as they believe. I would and have always shown respect while I have been at church for a wedding, funeral, etc.

What truly bothers me the most in this thread, was Peyton's statement of helping others who do not embrace Christ. She is an RN. Does this mean she would not assist in surgical procedure I was having because I am Jewish? It's a very frightening thought.

It bothers me that someone with authority and influence in a court of law can feel comfortable instructing their captive audience to pray as he/she prefers to pray.
It sounds like poor judgment to me.

Quote alert!

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

Ulysses S. Grant

For what it's worth I actually like what Marlene just said,"I think it would be more appropriate for the judge to ask that all who wish to join in prayer, do so." But if you think about it, the people who weren't ok with it didn't have to listen. Jen didn't want to and she didn't.

Natal - "I think it's important to know our own heart.
Shee, are you unhappy with that statement?"

What is that suppose to mean? You know what I meant.
Why even ask that question. Did I miss something? Was it already said above? If so, I didn't see it. Again, the whole point of my comment was basically that I don't think it would of went over any different had Peyton weighed her words better. Religion and politics are best left out of here. And I personally need to learn to stay out of them completely when they do.

I don't have the energy for this tonight. I'm sorry if I offeneded anyone.

I have no need to "stand up" for my own religion. My God is infinite. He is inconceivably vast. I am but a frail and humble carbon-based life form and He does not depend upon me for His defense.

THANK YOU for that statement Jen. I shall borrow that when confronted (yes, I am often confronted about my non-Christian/Jesus the Savior beliefs).

I've always been confused when some Christians claim their particular brand of Christianity should be the one that is espoused, rather than another. I was just absolutely shocked when my BILs wife wouldn't attend my fathers funeral because he was born into the Catholic church and she was afraid we'd have Mass (we didn't, my Father had left the church many, many years before). And when she told my children they wouldn't get into Heaven because they weren't baptised. Can you believe saying that to a CHILD? Her kids tormented my kids growing up with that statement. And they proclaimed to be Christian.

For the life of me, I don't understand why, if we're (for the most part) a nation of people who believe in the Higher Power, do we get so inflamed and angry about which one is the right one?

What is that suppose to mean? You know what I meant.

Whoa! I didn't take that statement negatively. I didn't understand your second post right after it where you said "wouldn't have". I thought you were referring to your comment about knowing your own heart and saying you wished you hadn't posted it. So, no ... obviously I didn't know what you meant ... but now I do. Thanks for the clarification.

I feel constrained to say - not that it matters or that anyone will recall what I wrote 40 posts back or so - that I used only dot.gov sites in posting about the Chaplain who opens Congress with a daily prayer, and about the Supreme Court, and about Rick Warren mentioning Jesus (in several languages) in his inaugural prayer.

And, as a Jew, I have never for a moment felt uncomfortable in this country, not with public prayer, nor with Christmas (which I love), nor in my status as part of a tiny minority (six million amidst three hundred million). Nor with the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who come to my door. They are guaranteed that right. If they were in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Iran, or China, they might die for doing this.

It may be fashionable, given the political tenor of these times, to try to prove that Christianity had little to do with the founding of this nation. But when reading the "history of our history", one finds that our idealistic morals and ethics trace to England, which looked to the Bible, particularly after the Protestant Reformation. Just as when studying our laws and system of government, we also find ourselves in England, which looked all the way back to Rome.

Auntjen - why don't you also send your letter to the local newspapers?

Sable_ca,

I believe that Thomas Jefferson, yes, that Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and generally recognized as a founding father of the country, would disagree with your statement about Christianity and the founding of this nation. I'll repeat the except from Jefferson's letter in my message above:

Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing.

He was referring to all religions, not Christian sects.

I am very offended by this entire thread. Maybe, I should send an e-mail to the Presiding Judge of Garden Web to express my intolerance of your intolerance on a decorating forum.
Gee, who would have thought that religion and politics on a decorating forum thread is NOT a good idea.

The next argument is going to be that "adults" should be able to discuss anything. As long as you agree with the majority that's fine.....if you don't, your'e labeled as immature.

Honestly, I thought this was a decorating forum, with side issues. To many of these conversation topics need to go to Kos or DU, where you can all agree.

Natal - Ah, I get what you're saying now and I feel like a jerk. I was correcting my spelling mistake above with the "wouldn't have". I took it as was your were being smart and it wasn't making sense to me. I'm sorry. It's hard to convey emotions through this computer.

"This is one I wish I wouldn't have(typo corrected) posted. I think it's important to know our own heart."
I think we're on the same page with the heart thing. We're responsible for ourselves.

Shee, please don't feel bad. I'm just glad we got it straight. ;)

Here is a quote from a man who makes me laugh and makes me think. I like it.

The fundamental religion of most of mankind is the faith that God has revealed Himself to us and not to the barbarians. Our tribe is the one God chose and so if we vanquish the other tribes and rain fire and destruction on them, we're only carrying out God's Will.

There is a countervailing faith that says that God is in and of the world and has bestowed vast gifts to be shared with others, and that our understanding of God is faint and incomplete and so we should walk softly and not assume too much.

~Garrison Keillor

Ok good. I feel better now. :)

Anyone else every wonder how some of these conversations would go with all of us face to face around a conference room table?

I think I'd have a harder time holding my tongue, shee. I can always write something to get it out of my system and just hit the back button before posting. :+)

Actually I think I'd love to sit around the table with all of you!

I like to think we'd be more thoughtful of one another and respectful of our differences. Seems that too often, the relative anonymity of posting online causes people to write things they might think twice before saying to someone's face. At any rate, I too would enjoy sitting around a table with everyone. With or without margaritas.

Suero - "I believe that Thomas Jefferson, yes that *Thomas Jefferson*, the third President of the United States, and generally recognized as a founding father of the country..." There is no need to be patronizing.

The fact that Jefferson was a Deist and generally disapproved of religious literalists does not indicate that the ethical underpinnings of our nation are not rooted in Judeo-Christianity. He was one among many, many "founders", some of whom were ministers, and almost ALL of whom knew their Bible (often in Hebrew and Greek) very well. He was indeed a great man, a great thinker, but it's ridiculous to conclude that our foundational prinicples did not derive from religion simply because some of the "fathers" were irreligious. Thousands of books and thousands of pages on the Internet attest to our beginnings. You can find quotes to prove your side, pro and con; you can even find writings that seek to disprove that some declarations were ever spoken.

And perhaps if Jefferson had studied his New Testament a bit more rigorously he would have refused to own slaves.

I think that it was very unfortunate to have brought this topic to this forum. Few subjects create more wrath and bitter feelings than that of the place of religion in America. I concur with what Magglepuss wrote. It's an unsuitable subject and has not been conducted without rancor and insults, with a few LOLs and winks thrown in. Frankly, I feel like typing "bump" 25 times, just to hasten its demise.

Actually, there are a few passages in the Bible that support and regulate slavery. They were often used by the pro-slavery side to support the institution. One passage even goes so far as to say the owner of a slave can beat that slave to the brink of death and not be punished if the slave does not die within 1 to 2 days!

To my knowlege, Jesus says nothing about slavery, neither pro or con.

I feel that this post is not so much about religion itself, as about the appropriateness of bringing religion into the courtroom. No one is prohibited from practising his/her religion in this country as a private citizen, so I am not sure that analogies as to what happened in Russia apply. Weren't citizens prohibited from practising religion in any venu there?

I think that the deep feelings that have arisen as a result of this post actually point out how uncomfortable religion can make people when they are not of one mind, and that in itself is a good reason to keep it OUT of a courtroom.

I am very offended by this entire thread. Maybe, I should send an e-mail to the Presiding Judge of Garden Web to express my intolerance of your intolerance on a decorating forum.
Gee, who would have thought that religion and politics on a decorating forum thread is NOT a good idea.

There is a huge difference between this thread on a public forum and Jen's experience in court. No one was compelled to read, or even open this thread.

It is interesting that only those who have deep Christian religious feelings would like to close this thread, as if they feel threatened by discussions about religion and its appropriateness in the courtroom or a public forum. As terriks wrote, no one had to even open this thread.

If a Jewish official or a Muslim, or maybe even a Catholic had said their equivalent of "Let us pray" in a courtroom or a public school, I think the Christians here would have been extremely offended, may have written a letter similar to Jenn's.

Very interesting thread, indeed. A very good insight into tolerence.

Re: Ten Commandments and Moses at Supreme Court--They are present and were put there as they apply to LAW and legal history, not religion. Confucius and Solon are represented on the frieze with Moses as well. Does that mean the US recognizes/follows the teachings of those who believed, for example, in the gods on Mount Olympus? No. This is, for me, the problem in trying to have a rational discussion when religion is brought into the mix. Other lawgivers present in the building are Octavian, Justinian, Mohammed, Solomon, Menes, and Hammurabi, to name a few. All are depicted for their contributions to law and justice, not religion. In fact, the title of the frieze on the Eastern side of the Supreme Court building is "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." It faces east because the idea of law as an element of civilization was inherited from earlier civilizations. I do hope everyone checked out the Snopes page. Many of the quotations above are simply made up or taken out of context for the purposes of someone's private beliefs. As is often stated and as was the intent of the Founders, we are a nation governed by laws, not men. Heaven help us if that ever changes.

The chaplin, it should be noted, is supposed to offer prayers that do not call on a diety specific to one religion, be it Mohammed or Jesus. I believe the same should be true of the Inaugural prayer.

I can only imagine the outrage had the official been a follower of Islam and had bowed down on the floor facing Mecca.

As has been said before, this thread was originally dealing with the question of whether or not a representative of the government should be permitted to choose to invoke a prayer from one particular religion in a court of law. The answer is no.

I don't find this discussion remotely threatening but it is non productive. You have no idea what I think as a Christian or what I find offensive and your suggestions are indeed pointless.

That's "tolerance."

Awww, can we move this to Hot Topics, puh-leeze?

(You go Auntjen!)

-Lena

Again,

Where does it say in the bible that you should not pray to Christ specifically so as to not offend the nonbeliever?

Peyton, you don't deserve an answer from anyone here. Your words have been extremely offensive!

Peyton, you can pray to Christ all you want, you won't offend me. You can pray in church, you can pray in your home, you can pray in your car, you can pray while standing in line at the grocery store, you can pray while cooking, you can pray while skydiving, you can pray in the library (so long as you do it quietly), you can pray while riding a unicycle, you can even pray in court, so long as you are not a government employee, leading everyone in the prayer of your choice.

Terriks said it better than I. Nothing to add. Well, except that, of course :)

Yes but is anyone ABLE to answer the question????

peyton, you are changing the subject. The debate has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

"It is interesting that only those who have deep Christian religious feelings would like to close this thread, as if they feel threatened by discussions about religion and its appropriatemess in the courtroom or a public forum. As terricks wrote, no one had to even open this thread." I am not a Christian, and am not threatened by discussions about religion. What I am threatened by is the attempt to eradicate any expression of religion from public venues in this country.

As to saying that no one had to open this thread - does that mean that someone like me should have looked at the word "prayer", thought "uh-oh" and stayed away? Or having opened it, should not have commented?

As to the thread being about the OP's letter to the courtroom - that's true. But only up to the ninth post, where the topic was taken beyond the court. Then people gradually began writing about schools, the Pledge, etc., making it a discussion about Christianity in public life. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. But it was inevitable that others would post with opposing attitudes, being as we have free speech in this country. And that's why the Garden Web has specific rules stated on almost every forum that discussions about religion and politics are not going to be tolerated and that Hot Topics was created for that purpose.

FWIW, Mohammed is not a deity; in fact, the suggestion that he is, is a grave offense to believers. That's why the religion of Muslims is called Islam and not Mohammedanism.

As for Jews and Muslims being offended by a prayer offered by a Christian - if the prayer doesn't mention Jesus, there can't possibly be any offense. Prayers by the three Abrahamic religions that only mention God are virtually interchangeable.

Barb5 - Slavery is indeed condoned (by lack of condemnation) in the Old Testament. That's why I wrote the New Testament. Anyone who reads the NT and comes away thinking that slavery is okay, has not understood the NT. Addressing your question about churches in the Soviet Union: Certain Russian Orthodox and Baptist churches were permitted to remain open. KGB men attended services and kept notes on who attended. Clergymen were expected to cooperate with the KGB; if not, they went to the Gulag. Communism in its inception was atheist, e.g. Marx's statement that "religion is the opium of the people" was taken seriously by the militant atheists. Stalin actually tried to get rid of the Orthodox Church, but was unsuccessful. You are right, though, in your belief that religion was hated; a practicing believer was watched, watched, watched, and public religiousity was against the law (although the word "law" and the USSR barely go together).

Whoops, you're right-my mistake-should have said prophet.