Will Christians be protected from Gay social goals?

[Mere_Christian]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

[East of Eden]

I could be wrong, but I still think that any law which is based on sectarian religious beliefs will be struck down by the Supreme Court, even a conservative Court.

The California Supreme Court just voted 6-1 that the referendum banning gay marriage is constitutional.

[McCulloch]

I could be wrong, but I still think that any law which is based on sectarian religious beliefs will be struck down by the Supreme Court, even a conservative Court.

The California Supreme Court just voted 6-1 that the referendum banning gay marriage is constitutional.

This is odd though:

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the courts decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it.
...
The language of Chief Justice Georges decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Instead, he wrote, our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

[cnorman18]

Do YOU believe that people should be legally required to pray when and as the government directs them to?

Like Congress? If they feel strongly against it, (not many kids would be, unless they're being manipulated by parents with an axe to grind, like Madyln Murray O'Hare's kid, now a pastor, BTW) they should be excused. The 'government' is the wishes of the local school district.

That was tried, and it was established that the kids who opted to leave and not participate were being held up to ridicule and coerced to keep their mouths shut and participate by fundamentalists like yourself (and your remarks above indicate that you're fine with that sort of harassment). It was therefore ruled that any activity which forces anyone to even risk ridicule and ostracism in order to avoid participation is not "voluntary."

You didn't answer the question:

Do YOU believe that people should be legally required to pray when and as the government directs them to?

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to exclude gays. Was that "government by whim" as well?

No, the Boy Scouts are a private organization.

Exactly! Churches, private organizations, families, and the like may discriminate against gays all they like. The law, which applies to everyone, and the Federal and State governments, which are not private organizations, may not.

Congress routinely exempts itself from legislation, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over its internal practices.

So Congress could theoretically require its members to be Methodists?

Sure, if they don't mind being voted out of office en masse at the next election by all the voters who are not Methodists - and most of those who are. That denomination doesn't go in for forcing others to follow its beliefs. I should know; I was a Methodist minister for some years.

The #1 rule for Congressmen and Senators is "don't flush your reelection down the toilet." That would do it.

That it establishes religion at all, which government-mandated prayer inarguably does, makes it unconstitutional.

Which religion is thereby established?

Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs.

A resolution of Congress is not a binding law; it amounts to a publicly stated opinion, and has no legal impact.

A nonsectarian voluntary prayer in school is some kind of binding law?

Absolutely yes. If students must either participate or expose themselves to pressure from other students to do so, that is not "voluntary." If it is required by school officials who are appointed officers of the State government (which school administrators inarguably are), it amounts to a binding law.

No one was or is required to participate in public prayer at Thanksgiving. That was not true of school prayer.

So let it be voluntary. I believe kids in MA have been allowed to opt out of the homosexual agenda classes.

If you want to have prayer in a separate class that kids sign up for, I'm OK with it. If you want to have the State require all kids to pray or else publicly announce that they are different, and are therefore fair game for the other kids to harass - which we both know kids cannot be prevented from doing - forget it.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine how the principles of the Constitution are to be applied, even on matters where that document is not explicit.

And they determined wrongly, in my opinion.

When you are a Justice of the Supreme Court, your opinion will matter.

That is your opinion. It remains to be seen if you are right. Those who thought that the Bible supported slavery were no less certain than you - and they could make a better case for it.

The Bible nowhere prohibits freeing of slaves as it prohibits homosexual activity.

Don't be fatuous. The Bible rather famously doesn't prohibit slavery, either.

As my Bible commentary sensibly says, "Both the OT and NT included regulations for societal situations such as slavery and divorce, which were the results of the hardness of hearts. Such regulations did not encourage or condone such situations but were divinely-given, practical ways of dealing with the realities of the day."

Saying that the Bible doesn't condone slavery is a plain falsehood. There are provisions for a Hebrew slave who chooses to remain a slave to do so; that is hardly a case of "hardness of heart."

Since it's clear that other cases of "hardness of heart," e.g., neglecting the poor and orphaned, are prohibited with strong sanctions and by Divine command, the fact that the Bible does not treat slavery in the same way - and not incidentally, nowhere denounces slaveowners as sinners or slaveowning or slavetrading as sins - makes it clear that as far as the Bible is concerned, slavery was perfectly moral and OK.

Let me make this clear to you; those were the clear standards of the day. They no longer apply. Everybody can see that both of those statements are absolutely true. Admit it or not, no one applies Biblical law literally and verbatim any more, not even fundamentalists; and claiming that that should be the guideline for current law is hypocritical and Biblically unsupportable.

If homosexual sex should be legally outlawed, so should Sabbath-breaking, disobeying one's parents, using God's name in vain, and divorce absent adultery; and all of those should carry the death penalty. The Biblical injunction to that effect is clear.

If you have a special axe to grind about gay marriage, it's not because it's in the Bible. Lots of other sins, and sins which are committed hundreds of times more often, are in the Bible too.

My point is that the religious beliefs of others is none of YOUR business, and the Constitution prohibits the imposition of religious beliefs or practices on anyone.

So that would apply to the Christian Left who support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, correct?

If they attempt to force non-gays to engage in same-sex marriages, or to force churches to sanction and perform such marriages, or to prohibit anyone from saying that gay sex is sinful, absolutely. Those who propose that those beliefs should be written into law are equally wrong and their efforts equally unconstitutional.

And you would be wrong. Politically, I identify myself as primarily conservative. I just don't believe that religious beliefs ought to be enforced by law - and I also think of that as a conservative position. I believe in freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly. I also very much believe in the Second Amendment, and the other eight as well, including the Fourth, that of "equal protection under the law," which I think a ban on gay marriage violates and under which provision such bans will eventually be overturned.

I strongly believe that you should have the right to believe and practice as you choose and campaign for any legislation you like; but I do not believe that imposing sectarian religious beliefs upon those who do not share them is either right or Constitutional, and I oppose efforts directed to that end.

As I asked above, does your opposition to this 'imposition' extend to liberal Christians wanting gay marriage because their religious interpretation supports it?

Absolutely. See above. As soon as anyone is forced to participate in or perform a gay marriage, I will be at the front of the picket line beside you. But that isn't happening.

The Civil Rights Act did not compel anyone to love and praise and admire African-Americans, to become best friends with them, or even to like them. It did not, in fact, outlaw bigotry and hatred. It prohibited anyone from discriminating against African-Americans, limiting or restricting their rights, or otherwise doing them harm on account of their race.

No one is telling you that you have to do any of the above for gays; but you do not have the right to restrict their rights on account of the Bible, either.

Nice try, but I think people should have the right to decide that issue for themselves.

Like in the referendums on gay marriage?

No; individually. The majority doesn't get to decide if the minority has rights.

No one is being forced into same-sex marriages; no churches are being forced to perform or sanctify such marriages; no one is even being forced to stop saying that they think homosexuality is sinful.

I wish that were the case. See the video on the right side of this link regarding Ms. Arlene Elshinnany, it pretty much answers the OP:
http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law.

When those laws are passed and applied in that way - i.e., when pastors are being arrested and jailed for preaching against homosexuality - let me know. As it stands now, it hasn't happened, and I don't think we'll ever see a prosecutor who is politically suicidal enough to try it.

Ad hominem refers to an argument that does not address the issues, but the character or other attributes of the person making it. That has not happened here, except perhaps when you assumed that I was a political liberal who opposed Christianity on principle.

When you question the 'bias' of a source instead of the facts presented, you are making an ad hominem argument.

Sorry, no. It's pertinent to the credibility of the source. That's why it is perfectly legal to inquire into whether a witness has an interest in the outcome of a trial in a court of law. In fact, it's grounds for a charge of attorney malpractice if that isn't done.

[East of Eden]

That was tried, and it was established that the kids who opted to leave and not participate were being held up to ridicule and coerced to keep their mouths shut and participate by fundamentalists like yourself (and your remarks above indicate that you're fine with that sort of harassment). It was therefore ruled that any activity which forces anyone to even risk ridicule and ostracism in order to avoid participation is not "voluntary."

Which has what to do with the Constitution? By that reasoning the MA gay propaganda course needs to be cancelled.

Do YOU believe that people should be legally required to pray when and as the government directs them to?

Of course not, I've been saying 'voluntary' all along here.

Exactly! Churches, private organizations, families, and the like may discriminate against gays all they like. The law, which applies to everyone, and the Federal and State governments, which are not private organizations, may not.

The US Congress which has daily prayers isn't a private organization, unless you're saying the Constitution doesn't apply there. The Supreme Court also uses an invocation.

The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs.

Show me that in the Constitution. There is no such thing as separation of belief and state to be found there.

Absolutely yes. If students must either participate or expose themselves to pressure from other students to do so, that is not "voluntary." If it is required by school officials who are appointed officers of the State government (which school administrators inarguably are), it amounts to a binding law.

Nobody is saying it should be required, as far as the 'pressure' from other students, if it really is an issue, it needs to be controlled, same as any other bullying or harrassment in school.

When you are a Justice of the Supreme Court, your opinion will matter.

Funny, even in liberal California their Supreme Court just did agree with my opinion.

Don't be fatuous. The Bible rather famously doesn't prohibit slavery, either.

One third of the Roman Empire was slaves, was Jesus supposed to cure that on top of His mission to reconcile man to God by His substitutionary death on the Cross?

Saying that the Bible doesn't condone slavery is a plain falsehood. There are provisions for a Hebrew slave who chooses to remain a slave to do so; that is hardly a case of "hardness of heart."

I thought liberals were all for 'choice'?

Since it's clear that other cases of "hardness of heart," e.g., neglecting the poor and orphaned, are prohibited with strong sanctions and by Divine command, the fact that the Bible does not treat slavery in the same way - and not incidentally, nowhere denounces slaveowners as sinners or slaveowning or slavetrading as sins -

Are you sure you were a minister? In the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are ungodly and sinful and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and homosexuals, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10). William Wilberforce understood that, and thankfully succeeded in turning his religious views into law.

If homosexual sex should be legally outlawed,

I'm not calling for that, why bring up a straw-man argument?

The Civil Rights Act did not compel anyone to love and praise and admire African-Americans, to become best friends with them, or even to like them. It did not, in fact, outlaw bigotry and hatred. It prohibited anyone from discriminating against African-Americans, limiting or restricting their rights, or otherwise doing them harm on account of their race.

It is ridiculous to compare sexual behavior with race. How about a special category for guys who like blonds?

No; individually. The majority doesn't get to decide if the minority has rights.

As said above the CA Supreme Court disagrees.

I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law.

Glad to hear it.

[East of Eden]

I could be wrong, but I still think that any law which is based on sectarian religious beliefs will be struck down by the Supreme Court, even a conservative Court.

The California Supreme Court just voted 6-1 that the referendum banning gay marriage is constitutional.

This is odd though:

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the courts decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it.
...
The language of Chief Justice Georges decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Instead, he wrote, our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

I applaud that judge for putting the rule of law above his own personal opinions. That he would have voted against prop. 8 is irrelevant to his interpretation of the CA Constitution.

[cnorman18]

That was tried, and it was established that the kids who opted to leave and not participate were being held up to ridicule and coerced to keep their mouths shut and participate by fundamentalists like yourself (and your remarks above indicate that you're fine with that sort of harassment). It was therefore ruled that any activity which forces anyone to even risk ridicule and ostracism in order to avoid participation is not "voluntary."

Which has what to do with the Constitution? By that reasoning the MA gay propaganda course needs to be cancelled.

The fact that the public prayer was not truly voluntary was what made it unconstitutional; the fact that students may opt out of the class in question without making a public display of their dissident views means that it IS voluntary.

Do YOU believe that people should be legally required to pray when and as the government directs them to?

Of course not, I've been saying 'voluntary' all along here.

Then you should have no problem with the Supreme Court's decision. Truly voluntary prayer is perfectly legal, always has been, and remains unaffected by that ruling.

Exactly! Churches, private organizations, families, and the like may discriminate against gays all they like. The law, which applies to everyone, and the Federal and State governments, which are not private organizations, may not.

The US Congress which has daily prayers isn't a private organization, unless you're saying the Constitution doesn't apply there. The Supreme Court also uses an invocation.

I already said that; the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the internal practices of Congress any more than Congress can interfere with the deliberations of the Court. In other words, your objection here is a non sequitur and dodges the point.

Private organizations, like churches, are unaffected by the legalization of gay marriage. Public organizations (and neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress are that; they are elected or appointed offices) are not.

The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs.

Show me that in the Constitution. There is no such thing as separation of belief and state to be found there.

The First Amendment has been interpreted in precisely that way by the Supreme Court, which is given the authority to do that by the Constitution itself. In American law, that is the end of the matter and there is no appeal - short of impeachment of the Justices involved and/or Constitutional amendment.

In other words, if the Court says that's in the Constitution, it is. Period. They get to decide that, and that IS in the Constitution.

Absolutely yes. If students must either participate or expose themselves to pressure from other students to do so, that is not "voluntary." If it is required by school officials who are appointed officers of the State government (which school administrators inarguably are), it amounts to a binding law.

Nobody is saying it should be required...

Of course you are. Voluntary prayer is legal in public schools and always has been. What you want is for ALL students to be led in compulsory prayer, with those who do not wish to participate forced to stand up and declare themselves members of a minority that many, if not most, other students have been taught to despise and/or proselytize. That is both illegal and morally and ethically wrong.

...as far as the 'pressure' from other students, if it really is an issue, it needs to be controlled, same as any other bullying or harrassment in school.

I was a middle-school teacher for 26 years. Good luck with that.

Requiring an 11-year-old to stand up in front of his majority-Christian peers and announce that he doesn't believe in God is tantamount to having him say, "Everybody make fun of me and beat me up," and you know that. You also know that 999 out of every 1000 kids who are atheists or come from atheist families would prefer to participate in compulsory prayer rather than take that chance - which is the only possible objective here.

As I say, truly voluntary prayer is legal and available right now for any kid who wants to participate. The public middle school where I taught had a morning prayer group that gathered at the flagpole before classes began every day, and prayer and Bible study groups that met in the building after school. No restrictions, no limitations. Why isn't that enough?

The only possible concern here is the wish to force kids to pray who don't want to, whether because they don't believe, don't feel that committed to their religion, or in fact belong to other religions ("nondenominational" prayers are generally nondenominationally Christian).

When you are a Justice of the Supreme Court, your opinion will matter.

Funny, even in liberal California their Supreme Court just did agree with my opinion.

Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected, and no doubt were reluctant to defy popular opinion to that degree. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed for life, and don't need to be worried about reelection. We'll see what happens when the case gets there.

Note also that the 18,000 or so gay marriages that have already taken place in California remain in place, valid, and legal under that ruling.

Don't be fatuous. The Bible rather famously doesn't prohibit slavery, either.

One third of the Roman Empire was slaves, was Jesus supposed to cure that on top of His mission to reconcile man to God by His substitutionary death on the Cross?

Who's talking about Jesus? I'm a Jew; I don't give a rat's tail about anything Jesus did or didn't do. I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

Saying that the Bible doesn't condone slavery is a plain falsehood. There are provisions for a Hebrew slave who chooses to remain a slave to do so; that is hardly a case of "hardness of heart."

I thought liberals were all for 'choice'?

Non sequitur again. (1) We are talking about slavery, which that passage explicitly endorses as legal and non-sinful; (2) you are once again assuming that I am a "liberal"; and (3) you are attempting to change the subject.

Since it's clear that other cases of "hardness of heart," e.g., neglecting the poor and orphaned, are prohibited with strong sanctions and by Divine command, the fact that the Bible does not treat slavery in the same way - and not incidentally, nowhere denounces slaveowners as sinners or slaveowning or slavetrading as sins -

Are you sure you were a minister? In the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are ungodly and sinful and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and homosexuals, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10). William Wilberforce understood that, and thankfully succeeded in turning his religious views into law.

First; that one, single reference is the only such reference in the whole Christian Bible. In the OT, there are none at all.

Second; that translation is inaccurate. Most English-language versions have "menstealers" or "kidnappers," which is the literal meaning of the Greek. That would not be a surprise; kidnapping people to either sell them into slavery or hold them for ransom was a capital crime even in OT times; buying and selling, not to mention owning, slaves was not.

The Civil Rights Act did not compel anyone to love and praise and admire African-Americans, to become best friends with them, or even to like them. It did not, in fact, outlaw bigotry and hatred. It prohibited anyone from discriminating against African-Americans, limiting or restricting their rights, or otherwise doing them harm on account of their race.

It is ridiculous to compare sexual behavior with race. How about a special category for guys who like blonds?

Non sequitur again. Since we're talking about denying civil rights to a particular group, the comparison is entirely apt.

No; individually. The majority doesn't get to decide if the minority has rights.

As said above the CA Supreme Court disagrees.

And if the U. S. Supreme Court disagrees as well, that will stand.

I already oppose "hate crime" legislation being used to suppress free speech, and I also think that the application of such laws in that way is as clearly unconstitutional and wrong as enforcing anyone's religious beliefs by law.

Glad to hear it.

Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?

[East of Eden]

The fact that the public prayer was not truly voluntary was what made it unconstitutional; the fact that students may opt out of the class in question without making a public display of their dissident views means that it IS voluntary.

I doubt it goes unnoticed when the MA students are not present for that course.

I already said that; the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the internal practices of Congress any more than Congress can interfere with the deliberations of the Court. In other words, your objection here is a non sequitur and dodges the point.

Justice Stewart, in his dissent of the 1962 ruling, didn't think it a 'non-sequiter', http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_stew.html

The First Amendment has been interpreted in precisely that way by the Supreme Court, which is given the authority to do that by the Constitution itself.

Yes, I know what they decided, my point is they did so wrongly. They are essentially saying 'God' is unconstitutional. Why would not the reciting of the Pledge of Allegience be unconstitutional under this tortured reasoning? The effect of this decision has been to accelerate the movement away from public schools to other alternatives.

Of course you are. Voluntary prayer is legal in public schools and always has been. What you want is for ALL students to be led in compulsory prayer, with those who do not wish to participate forced to stand up and declare themselves members of a minority that many, if not most, other students have been taught to despise and/or proselytize.

Where a local school district wants school prayer, it should be allowed, rather than allow the tyranny of the minority prevail. Christians don't despise non-Christians any more than non-Christians despise Christians.

That is both illegal and morally and ethically wrong.

I disagree on all three.

Requiring an 11-year-old to stand up in front of his majority-Christian peers and announce that he doesn't believe in God is tantamount to having him say, "Everybody make fun of me and beat me up," and you know that.

I would be there are more kids being beaten up (not to mention shot or raped) today than when we had prayer in schools. Amazing you see this as a problem when we have such violence in our schools, not to mention some districts where the HS drop-out rate is 50%.

Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected, and no doubt were reluctant to defy popular opinion to that degree.

Pure speculation, and an insult to the CA court.

Who's talking about Jesus? I'm a Jew; I don't give a rat's tail about anything Jesus did or didn't do. I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

Divorce is sinful too, but the Bible allowed it because of the hardness of men's hearts.

First; that one, single reference is the only such reference in the whole Christian Bible.

So why did you say there were none?

Second; that translation is inaccurate. Most English-language versions have "menstealers" or "kidnappers," which is the literal meaning of the Greek.

Isn't that how African slaves were originally obtained, either by white slave-traders of other Africans or Arabs?

And if the U. S. Supreme Court disagrees as well, that will stand.

Don't hold your breath.

Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?

You mean democracy?

[Carico]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

We won't be. The "Hate Crimes" passed the house and how goes to the Senate. if it pass (which it will) it will become illegal for anyone to publicly oppose homosexuality and gay marriage. that violates the 1st and 2nd amendments. In fact, Miss California almost lost her title because she had a different opinion than homosexuals. That's discrimination and intolerance, the very thing that the gay community claimed to fight for. So society doesn't want us to lead homosexuals to heaven. They want us to lead them straight on the path to hell.

[cnorman18]

The fact that the public prayer was not truly voluntary was what made it unconstitutional; the fact that students may opt out of the class in question without making a public display of their dissident views means that it IS voluntary.

I doubt it goes unnoticed when the MA students are not present for that course.

Unless all the students in the school are in the same classroom at the same time, how would anyone know who's in the other sections?

You're quibbling. Signing up for a class isn't a public declaration.

I already said that; the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the internal practices of Congress any more than Congress can interfere with the deliberations of the Court. In other words, your objection here is a non sequitur and dodges the point.

Justice Stewart, in his dissent of the 1962 ruling, didn't think it a 'non-sequiter', http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_stew.html

Dissenting opinions don't have the force of law, now do they?

The First Amendment has been interpreted in precisely that way by the Supreme Court, which is given the authority to do that by the Constitution itself.

Yes, I know what they decided, my point is they did so wrongly. They are essentially saying 'God' is unconstitutional. Why would not the reciting of the Pledge of Allegience be unconstitutional under this tortured reasoning?

There is, of course, litigation on that matter ongoing as we speak.

The effect of this decision has been to accelerate the movement away from public schools to other alternatives.

And the problem with that would be what?

If a person wishes his or her child to be taught in a particular manner, from a particular religious point of view, that parent has that right; but that right is properly exercised in a private-school setting among others who share that point of view. That is perfectly legal, and ought to be. Attempting to impose that point of view upon ALL students in a public school is not.

Of course you are. Voluntary prayer is legal in public schools and always has been. What you want is for ALL students to be led in compulsory prayer, with those who do not wish to participate forced to stand up and declare themselves members of a minority that many, if not most, other students have been taught to despise and/or proselytize.

Where a local school district wants school prayer, it should be allowed, rather than allow the tyranny of the minority prevail.

But you are okay with the tyranny of the majority? What's wrong with this picture?

More to the point, why did you delete and ignore my remarks proving that voluntary prayer IS legal and available in public school, and my question as to why that isn't enough?

Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?

Christians don't despise non-Christians any more than non-Christians despise Christians.

Non-Christians don't teach their children that Christians are going to Hell; but let that go. In modern times, you may be right.

Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does
not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that? How about in a school (and there are some) where the majority of students are Muslims?

That is both illegal and morally and ethically wrong.

I disagree on all three.

That is your right.

Requiring an 11-year-old to stand up in front of his majority-Christian peers and announce that he doesn't believe in God is tantamount to having him say, "Everybody make fun of me and beat me up," and you know that.

I would bet there are more kids being beaten up (not to mention shot or raped) today than when we had prayer in schools.

That is not a response; that is a distractor. There is no evidence that the rise in violence has anything to do with the issue of school prayer. As a veteran educator, I can tell you that it has more to do with the lack of effective discipline. Further, when I was a kid, we had compulsory prayer and Bible reading every day, but voluntary prayer groups in the schools did not exist. I would bet that there is more actual prayer, as opposed to pro forma rote recitation, in the schools today than there was then.

Amazing you see this as a problem when we have such violence in our schools, not to mention some districts where the HS drop-out rate is 50%.

Very well; I will ask you the same question. In light of all that, why are you so concerned with the absence of prayer in the public schools - especially since it is not absent?

You are obviously dodging the question.

Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected, and no doubt were reluctant to defy popular opinion to that degree.

Pure speculation, and an insult to the CA court.

Considering that the California court is the most liberal circuit in the nation, and has the highest percentage of rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems a reasonable explanation to me.

Who's talking about Jesus? I'm a Jew; I don't give a rat's tail about anything Jesus did or didn't do. I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

Divorce is sinful too, but the Bible allowed it because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Jesus didn't; he declared divorce absent adultery to be adultery itself.

First; that one, single reference is the only such reference in the whole Christian Bible.

So why did you say there were none?

Because of the next thing I said; there are, in fact, no passages in Scripture, either yours or mine, that declare slaveowning or slavery itself to be sinful. Kidnapping is quite another thing, and was prohibited in the OT long before Jesus's day.

Also, if Paul thought slavery itself was sinful, why did he advise slaves to be obedient to their masters? The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

Second; that translation is inaccurate. Most English-language versions have "menstealers" or "kidnappers," which is the literal meaning of the Greek.

Isn't that how African slaves were originally obtained, either by white slave-traders of other Africans or Arabs?

Certainly; but that, as I said, was prohibited in the OT already, while slave-owning was not. In the Roman Empire, most slaves were born so, and the OT acknowledges that and in fact confirms that they are to remain slaves.

Sorry. Any fair reading of the Bible will show that slavery was accepted and endorsed by it.

And if the U. S. Supreme Court disagrees as well, that will stand.

Don't hold your breath.

I'm not. Are you?

Then why don't you apply that same standard to enforcing your own beliefs by law?

You mean democracy?

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

[Carico]

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

The last I heard, we live in a democracy where people can express their opinions. I, as a Christian don't feel that the secular world is imposing its beliefs on me. Yet non-Christians feel we are imposing our beliefs on them. That's called conviction. (An inner knowledge of guilt.)

That's why homosexuals feel threatened by Christians and need the approval of society to feel good about their behavior. I don't stand on street corners and demand that anyone approve of my sex life. Homosexuals feel the tremendous need to demand that others approve of their sex lives. That shows a knowledge of inner guilt right there.