published Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Bedfellows

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

44
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Clay,you don't understand. God is on the side of the Christian fundamentalists,not the Taliban fundamentalists.

October 4, 2009 at 12:57 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

Pitiful....

October 4, 2009 at 7:57 a.m.
InspectorBucket said...

I wonder if this cartoon means anything or nothing for scantily-clad young women attending coed institutions and speaking out in public view?

I doubt it matters at all.

Americans in general practice a lukewarm and complacent sort of religion, one that emphasizes self-help and comfort rather than a thorough and considered moral interrogation of the larger society.

These young women have learned enough conformity to fit right in.

Just keep telling the audience exactly what it wants to hear.

Flatter Caliban with his own image.

But by any gods you pay lip service to never ever call for true introspection and reform.

Keep tearing up and trampling upon those banners. It has more to do with Pride and Vanity than Truth evidently.

October 4, 2009 at 8:45 a.m.
woody said...

Principles, that's what we are, or at least should be, talking about. There is no real need to teach the Bible in school, or even quote from the Bible. What we need are people teaching our children, who exhibit good moral character. Which should also include the ability to admonish and, yes, even punish this or that child in such a way in keeping with Biblical principles.

However, all this would be of no use at all, if those very same children are being led astray or allowed to stray on their own at home. So, yes, I guess it still, as always, takes a village to raise a child.

We may advocate separation of church and state, but separating ourselves from our creator is a bad precedent to set. Why go to church on Sunday, if we are only going to forget His teachings and principles the rest of the week?

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

October 4, 2009 at 8:52 a.m.
Clara said...

I'll have to think about this one for a while. Or go stick my head in the sand, or something.

October 4, 2009 at 8:59 a.m.
rolando said...

'Bout all I got out of that one, Inspector, is you want to see our lovely young women dressed in burkas, barefoot and pregnant, and walking three steps behind their owners...or something like that.

Yes, we practice self-help, not dependence; comfort for all including ourselves, not death to the unbelievers; self-imposed moral constraints, not socially-induced and encouraged hedonism. Our practices and beliefs and a few others are what made America great her first couple hundred years; our government's drift away from those principles since the far-reaching, precedent-setting 1947 SCOTUS decision is the root cause of her downfall today.

Which is NOT to say we must or even should have a gov't approved official religion. We left that in England way back when... If anyone out there believes we should, they are most assuredly in the minority here and are probably Muslims.

Clay was right on THAT part in any case.

October 4, 2009 at 9:14 a.m.
rolando said...

woody, are you SURE you are not turning conservative? /smile

It might be just me but you have been making a whole lot of sense this last week or so.

October 4, 2009 at 9:18 a.m.
InspectorBucket said...

You are pretending to be thick, Rolando, and whatever your game I will acknowledge your ironic reading of my ironies.

My point, plainly lettered in black or red, is that these people encouraging the desecration (check your dictionary) know little and care less about scriptural truth.

Self-help as you invoke the term would be laudable. We need more earnestness in our culture.

But American religiosity tends to flatter and encourage false comforts.

The burka-type constraints are not my wish. I like a winsome lass.

But several millennia of Abrahamic prohibitions tends to curb what might please the old Adam.

October 4, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.

Clay, thanks for pointing our the obvious that so many have been refusing to see. Birds of a feather, brethren, birds of a feather.

October 4, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.
OllieH said...

Granted, the banners erected by the cheerleaders at the LFO High School football games is far less ominous than the sharia law imposed by the Taliban, but both are examples of the religious beliefs of some, being forced on all.

Now, I am not comparing the cheerleaders with the Taliban in any way, and I don't see this cartoon doing that either. But those who see no problem with a meshing of church and state are endorsing a position that would find support among that Islamic faction in Afghanistan.

Regardless of what many believe, we have well-established laws to separate church and state in this country. And although the constitution does not use those specific words (an argument I find frustratingly disingenuous), the establishment clause of the first amendment eludes to it expressly.

The imposition of religion into our civic structure is far more profound than many would like to admit. The episode at LFO is just the latest, and one of the most blatant examples of the breach in the separation between church and state.

Nobody wants to have the rituals or scriptures of another faith imposed on them. But we seem to think nothing of imposing our own observances and dogma on others. It happens all the time. You can't talk to someone in the grocery store or drive down the street without being exposed to some form of proselytizing. But the one place we should expect the absence of such preaching is in public institutions.

Unfortunately, those expectations are not being met. We are still regularly subjected to religious beliefs by opening public meetings, school graduations, and legislative functions with prayer, we make reference to a faith-based deity on our currency, base state law on religious observances (try to buy beer before noon on Sunday), and we cheapen the teaching of science by introducing a faith-based alternative to the theory of evolution.

In Article VI, section 3, of the Constitution states that, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The sad fact is, such an oath being imposed, de facto, every election cycle. Any candidate who doesn't ascribe to a belief in some kind of omnipotent creator is doomed to defeat by an electorate that believes in such mysticism. The private religious beliefs of a political candidate are no longer private. The electorate demands information about a candidate that an employer is forbidden (by law) to require from a prospective employee.

Elected officials may not have to take a religious oath to hold office, but, for all practical purposes, they have to take one to get elected. That seems to me to be a distinction without much difference.

Church, meet state.

October 4, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Thank you OllieH for a very thoughtful post.

October 4, 2009 at 1:49 p.m.
frumpster65 said...

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways...Pick a side stick to your convictions and beliefs and make your voice heard when you have the opportunity... "The only thing it takes for evil to persist is for a few good men to do nothing"

October 4, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
rolando said...

Inspector, you are obtuse to the point of obscurity.

That wasn't irony you wrote, it was obfuscation.

You must prefer sharia law over Western ideals. [All that free-thought and expression here... No need for mullahs for interpretation.]

I ask you, which people desecrating what? The players crashing through the signs? The cheerleaders selecting the passages and painting them? The fans cheering either or both? The referees blowing their whistles? The sportscasters calling the plays? None of the above? All of the above?

Please. Drop the affectation and spell it out for the slower ones in the crowd...

October 4, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.
woody said...

Actually, Rolando, it could be you who is leaning a bit to the left. But I mean no harm in that statement.

I, too, have been a little stunned we have seen 'eye-to-eye', so to speak, a few times of late, but then I have always attempted to see the 'other guy's' point of view in order to have a broader outlook on life.

However, in today's instance, I don't feel as though I have taken a Conservative turn, because if you know your Bible well enough God has a Liberal side as well. I can't quote chapter and verse like some, but being able to differentiate right from wrong isn't a 'Left or Right' thing, it's being able to see the "Big Picture."

As an aside to frumpster65, you say "double-minded" I say open-minded.

Thank you again for your time and attention, Woody

October 4, 2009 at 4:33 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

The truth (reality) hurts.

October 4, 2009 at 4:49 p.m.
Clara said...

Would it be possible for all candidates to swear to an oath of office that would require a great deal of soul-searching, examination with a lie detector, and a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists?

How does one present an oath that would claim world-wide moral standards, or even United States moral standards which have a world-wide base of varying race influences and traditions.

How in the world would that oath be compiled? How would it be enforced? How would it be worded? There isn't anyone on this earth, free of religion or bias, who really knows what is morally or ethically completely right for the job.

I'm not literate or articulate enough to think of even a simple oath.

How to get candidates that are not self-seeking, or wanting power and control,and whose REAL main concern would be seeing what is good for the people, and not a person that drags down the ideas of good government?

October 4, 2009 at 6:46 p.m.
rrmurry said...

I always enjoy the Rolando / Woody show after the Clay's cartoons. Thanks for continuing the conversation and allowing the readers to think more about the issues of Clay's choosing.

Choosing neither traditional side of this issue, I choose the side of being able to think for myself regardless of the surroundings; thus no one is able to "force their views on me" unless I want to pay attention to them. So the "forcing" argument only demonstrates an admission that people believe they do not possess the ability to think critically, and a sign will magically make them change their belief system.

But since the conversation here turned to conservative v. liberal (again), I offer something to consider, from an old professor of mine who said, "God never wins in a democracy; unless it's a vote after great tribulation and for the purpose of self-preservation."

The professor's point? Conservative or Liberal doesn't really matter to God. People from both sides are focused only on themselves. Thus, the reason for a Savior.

As a former athlete and coach, I had a dilemma with quoting the Lord's Prayer in the locker room before the game. The thought that God would choose one team over another is odd to me, as we asked for our "daily bread"-usually understood by the players as a victory.

To add to the confusion, all week long coaches would preach "let's go out and kill those guys" and then pray before the game. Kind of anti-climatic, and confusing theology.

Oh, and did you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding documents of the United States. It was in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, and was intended to ensure them that the government should not and would not interfere with the religious freedom of individuals in the United States.

October 4, 2009 at 7:06 p.m.
ricardo said...

Good points, OllieH

October 4, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.
Abe said...

I'll agree to have prayer in the schools, if you'll agree that the prayer will be the Shema Yisrael.

October 4, 2009 at 7:40 p.m.
Clara said...

Abe,

I found this in Wikipedia:

"The Gospel of Mark 12:29 mentions that Jesus considered the Shema the greatest of all the commandments: "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, 'Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord'" (KJV).

It is a rather long treatise and open to question.

This was probably written by a Rabinical scholar?

At least, from the translation, I understand the Shema Yisrael.

October 4, 2009 at 8:54 p.m.
rolando said...

If the 75% [give or take] of the US population who are Christian agree, Abe, so be it.

Otherwise, no.

Prayer is not prohibited in any case. Only formalized officially led prayer was outlawed by the SCOTUS. Overzealous implementation by lower courts and the Law of Unforeseen Consequences extended this and led us to this point.

October 4, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.
rolando said...

Matthew, Mark and John referred to Jesus as "rabbi"...He was Jewish, after all. So it could be said that a "Rabinical scholar" used the term.

It was the second sentence of His full quote that carries today's broader, more inclusive meaning of "the most important commandment". Jesus addressed the world in His teachings, not just a "select" few...which was His mission and His calling.

October 4, 2009 at 9:35 p.m.
ricardo said...

No more religious indoctrination in public schools.

October 4, 2009 at 11:03 p.m.
alprova said...

rrmurray wrote: "Oh, and did you know the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding documents of the United States. It was in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, and was intended to ensure them that the government should not and would not interfere with the religious freedom of individuals in the United States."

Is that your total interpretation? Are you sure? Are you sure that it was not also to mean that religious people should not and would not interfere with the rights of others from unwelcome religious expression that may differ from their own?

Why not read the entire paragraph to get a glimpse into EXACTLY what the man not only said, but what he indeed did mean;

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Do you understand what he wrote?

He believed that religion is a matter between man and his God. He believed that EVERY man has the right to their religious opinion and that it should be at all times, a private matter.

Jefferson was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. While President, he discontinued religious holidays set aside for fasting and thanksgiving.

In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill to kill an attempt by some to provide taxes for religious education. He wrote;

"... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

The passed bill, known as the "1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" caused him much criticism, because he additionally penned challenges to Biblical "truths", such as the "Great Flood" and the theological (Biblical) age of the Earth.

Jefferson was a wise and completely misunderstood man. He was deeply religious, but he clearly understood believed that religious influence in Government was a big no-no.

October 5, 2009 at 12:44 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Separation of church is unconstitutional because it's a Biblical doctrine--separation of Moses and Aaron, separation of David and Zadok, separation of Jesus and Pilate... And grammatically, "establishment" is the noun, modified by "of religion," so the next clause forbids forbidding the free exercise of an ESTABLISHMENT of religion. If Lakeview establishes a religion, Congress cannot make laws about this. More seriously, separation of church and state is one thing; separation of mosque and state is a different thing. Would you rather be ruled by the Taliban, or by Saint Oliver Cromwell the Great? For all our flaws, can you name one Muslim country that's as well governed as the United States, or as Lakeview and Fort Oglethorpe? And imposing atheism imposes a point of view, a religion. I'd rather pay for schooling that teaches the Bible and praying than for schooling that does not, but paying for schooling that does not is forced upon me. When scientists create something from nothing, and life from chemicals, and one species from another, in ways that nature without brains can plausibly have done, then it may be time to teach evolution as an option. (Even then it might not be time to tax non-evolutionists to pay for the teaching of evolution.) Censorship of Christianity is tyranny; it is not freedom. Too true a lot of US Christianity is in name only. Why is there no prayer in schools? Because churches are houses of preaching and singing, not houses of prayer.

October 5, 2009 at 2:24 a.m.
alprova said...

This is what happens EVERY time the issue comes up. The arguments get totally absurd.

There is not so much as one law on the books to prevent anyone from practicing any ESTABLISHED and recognized religion of their choice, even while on any public school property within this nation.

What the laws do state, is that students and faculty members will do it privately and quietly, and without infringing on the rights of others. It's that simple.

Allow me to put this issue into some context that perhaps even Andrew may hopefully understand. Have you ever had members of other religious affiliations knock on your front door, wanting to share their beliefs with you? Do you invite them into your home, or do you rebuff them because you know that their beliefs are not quite in line with your own? Or worse, are you rude enough that you attempt to proselytize a proselytizer?

Who's right and who's wrong? That all depends on who is asked the question. Everyone who has a religious opinion, will likely have a different one when pressed for specific answers, and everyone thinks that they are right.

Andrew chooses some outrageous words. No one is "censoring" Christianity. It is not "tyrannical" to demand that you keep your religious expressions private and contained to circumstances where they are welcome and requested. Is it too much to ask that you proud people just simply mind your own business?

Andrew believes that churches are houses of "preaching and singing," and not "houses of prayer." I've been to many churches in my time, and I never got out of one of them without at least a couple of prayers being part of the program.

When were public schools defined by anyone as "houses of prayer?"

October 5, 2009 at 6:31 a.m.
aces25 said...

This cartoon is ridiculous. I understand the comparison that is trying to be made, but do we really want to associate cheerleaders making Bible verse signs to the characterization of an extremist Islamic group?

Perhaps Clay needs a few more cups of coffee to better convey his ideas.

Too many people are caught up in the appropriate context of "separation of church and state," which does originate from the letter Jefferson wrote to Danbury. The letter, in its own context, was meant to address that the government would show no preference with respect to a sect of the Christian church. With respect to this allow, that is what the letter intended with no further conclusions to be drawn from it. That is why I have a problem with the 1947 Supreme Court ruling because the letter is used as crutch to push separation of church and state through to a point that it was no longer intended.

Now Jefferson did believe that the government should tread lightly on government involvement on religion, but it was mostly in the context of Christianity. Think of how this country came to be in the first place. The biggest reason most people left England for the colonies is freedom to exercise their sect of Christianity without persecution from the Church of England. Soon other breaking points, most notably taxation without representation, would lead to our founding fathers composing a Declaration that people have inalienable rights endowed by their... Creator.

October 5, 2009 at 8:52 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not bible-believing christians; they were deists.

Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution.

Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws.

The supreme god of the deists removed itself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that it assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man.

A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the christian religion.

Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the bible, or even the divine inspiration of the bible.

October 5, 2009 at 9:54 a.m.
rrmurry said...

alprova -

Yes I have read the entire letter. I know it's meaning. And you prove the point I was making.

You would be more persuasive in your argument if you would refrain from thinking you know someone else's (Jefferson's in this case) heart, when you make a claim (based on your personal interpretation of his private letter):

"He [Jefferson] believed that religion is a matter between man and his God. He believed that EVERY man has the right to their religious opinion and that it should be at all times, a private matter."

I think you think I am taking one side over another. I'm not. I don't really care, I'm simply making an observational statement. People go off half-cocked claiming that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional issue. It's not. It is interpretations of Amendment #1 which has been interpreted in different ways throughout our nation's history, depending upon the mood of the people.

We once prayed in school, now we don't, and some want it back. One can make nearly any argument for and against with enough persuasive ingenuity. After all look at who we elect for public office. It's not about their beliefs, it's about the power to persuade the voters.

Politics is proselytizing don't you think?

eeeeeek - You are correct. Most were deist who believed in a cosmic start, but an uninterested god. Yet all spoke of the value of Judeo-Christian tradition in the structuring of civil law and justice.

October 5, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.
toonfan said...

It's absolutely ridiculous to deny the validity of the church/state separation just because those exact words do not appear in the Constitution. It's not judicial activism to interpret constitutional intent. That's what the Supreme Court is charged to do.

Unfortunately for the Bible thumpers, the establishment clause of the first amendment has, on many occasions, been interpreted to enforce such a separation.

October 5, 2009 at 11:35 a.m.
EPD1979 said...

Okay, Look. If people don't agree to pray at school, or show any kind of christianitys' worth, then they shouldn't be allowed to show their religious acts either. Keep yuor Buddah and your "holy Cows" away....but I belive in America and it's rights to freedom of speech and religion. If you want to show that you are a Christian fly your colors!!! Be proud of it, but if you want to show you worship cows and a fat guy's belly button, then show it and be proud of it, but I will tell you this. I am a Christian before I am an american...who ever doesn't like that can shun me in any way you want to. It's not like you are going to do or say anything a Christian has never seen and heard......but I serve the lord before I serve my country and I am proud to fly my christian banner, which is the cross that Jesus himself died on and suffered on to save us all from eternal death.
I love Jesus and YES! I am a Jesus Freak! Get over it!

October 5, 2009 at 12:26 p.m.
Livn4life said...

Laugh Clay, we get the picture. But you are NOT really fooling anyone!

October 5, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.
Clara said...

eeeeeek, rrmurry,

Interesting!

Clay,

You have expressed the problem nicely.

I'm not about to burn down any synogogues, temples, churches, mosques, or storefronts. I'm not comfortable with a lot of the teaching, but a great many of the proposals offered are delusional.

Even the pastor of the long-established church I attend when I can, admits to doubt on some of the precepts in Judo-Christianity. At least he had the honesty, strength, and forthrightness to admit it, for whatever reason. No one wants him gone although I'm sure some of the members are forced to think of how their brains have been compartmentalized.

I think a set of standards of moral, ethical, behaviour is necessary, but I don't know if it should be decided by religions. I wouldn't know who the people would be to put it together. And whose and what standards are we qualified to judge in the secular arena. Obviously not the politicians. Sigh!

October 5, 2009 at 1:07 p.m.

Illegal?–Liberty Bell’s scripture Leviticus 25:10, “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof…By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania for the State House in Philada” was state Sponsored, Endorsed, Ordained, & Established.

Illegal?–Declaration of Independence keywords/phrases like "CREATOR, GOD, DIVINE Providence, Supreme JUDGE of the World" & teaching of The CREATOR’s CREATIONism in public schools.

?–US Constitution’s Ordained & Established government endorsement of our “LORD” in Article VII... which “LORD”? So much for 2 Corinthians 3:17 “Where the Spirit of the LORD is there is liberty.” Without the LORD is there true liberty, freedom, or Independence?

?–National Anthem’s (The Star-Spangled Banner) last verse sung at public school sporting events because it ends with PRAYER. Keywords/phrases are “Blest, Heaven, Praise The Power, IN GOD IS OUR TRUST”.

?–My Country Tis’ of Thee’s last verse ends in PRAYER. “Our Fathers’ GOD to thee, AUTHOR of LIBERTY, to Thee we sing…with FREEDOM’S HOLY LIGHT, protect us by Thy Might, great GOD, our KING.”

?–In 1777, Congress facing a national shortage of “BIBLES FOR OUR SCHOOLS…ordered 20,000 copies…to be imported into…the States of the Union” for use as PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS.

?–The Federal Judiciary Act Oath of 1789 or the Oath of Political/Judicial Office ends with "so help me GOD", with one's hand on The Holy Bible was/is meant to show the principle foundations of our government have always been ESTABLISHED on America's JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS Heritage & “We the People” agree to accept this One Truth from The Word of God.

?–“This is a CHRISTian nation” by the US Supreme Court’s unanimous & still never overturned decision on Feb 29, 1892, concerning Holy Trinity Church with 87 Judeo-Christian historical precedents in 1 case. Begin reading case at, “But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion (Judeo-Christianity) can be imputed to any legislation state or national, because this is a religious people.” Best read in it’s entirety.

Illegal?–America’s Denominations of Judeo-Christian Religion & Religious Speech was ordained, established, and government endorsed, so much for the false premise of ‘The Establishments Clause’ to rid US of these self-evident truths. Pilgrim Protestants came to America to escape religious persecution by state oppression not to see religious expression suppressed by the state illegally “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as Jefferson’s Danbury letter was meant to keep the state out of the church & NOT THE CHURCH OUT OF THE STATE. Politics has its’ own religion infecting the judicial oligarchy just as science embracing evolutionary fables religiously faithfully believing everything came from nothing is secular humanism’s intellectual malpractice. George Washington, “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of JESUS CHRIST.”

October 5, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.
moonpie said...

I fear fundamentalists of all ilks.

That goes for Christians, Muslims, scientists, Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans to name a few.

Inflexibility breeds distrust and hostility.

October 5, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.
SBrauer said...

Hey, EPD1979, You've said it like it is. I'm proud of you and am with you. Wonder why they're all so scared? Afraid of where they might end up?

October 5, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.

We know by now Bennett has a very sick sense of "humor". Most of the commenters prove the Christians right. There is absolutely no 'tolerance' for Christianity and zero comments from the twisted ones re: Islam = 23 civil wars globally, with the intention to wrest land and power from the indigenous peoples. Nothing to do with US 'intervention' BTW.

No mention of the accepted rape, torture and degradation of women and children in Muslim countries. No comment regarding heads cut off, children, women and men blown up in cafes and buses, hotels and embassies. This is recent history for those of you who want to bring up the UnChristian Spanish Crusades. Tell us what Christians have been blowing people up, calling them infidels, crying death to the Jews and to Israel, cutting off our soldiers and journalists heads?

And the comments regarding the twisted version of our Constitution and our forefathers/mothers? All deists and atheists? The history of our founders would argue otherwise and the greatest President who ever lived, Abraham Lincoln, a Bible reading Christian and a Republican, would give you guys the toe of his boot in reponse to your revisionist comments.

Wow, talk about living in a bubble here! Some of us have lived in plenty of places in N. America where Christianity is banned, any mention of God (where else do you think morals and ethical laws come from-your imaginations?) unless it is Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, atheist, La Raza etc., is completely forbidden in many schools. Those Cheerleaders weren't preaching in the classroom and weren't doing anything unusual that their school hadn't done before.

October 5, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.
alprova said...

We could argue the finer points of the separation of church and state for the next millennium and those on each side will hold their same opinions.

The arguments were made a long time ago in front of the Supreme Court, and they handed down their decisions. What's done is done.

The Bible banners are banned from the LFO football field and they will not be returning to the LFO football field.

End of story.

As to the rest, anyone who wants to pray at school still can. Anyone who wants to crack open a Bible on their own time still can. Not one person is being prevented from being as deeply religious as they desire.

Proselytizing however, will have to be done off of school grounds, and rightfully so.

October 5, 2009 at 6:36 p.m.
alprova said...

canaryinthecoalmine mused: "Tell us what Christians have been blowing people up, calling them infidels, crying death to the Jews and to Israel, cutting off our soldiers and journalists heads?"

I'm sure you are aware that most anyone who works at a family planning clinic lives in constant fear of those God fearin' home grown terrorists, who would put a bullet in them and praise Gawd Almighty when they do it.

It hasn't been that many years ago that black people were hanged for the least of excuses, by men who donned sheets and read Bible verses while they burned crosses.

And there are plenty of them around in the south STILL.

October 5, 2009 at 6:43 p.m.
ricardo said...

It's sad how these cheerleaders are being used as tools of the religious right. I wonder if they even know?

October 5, 2009 at 8:12 p.m.
myrnapaul87 said...

As long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools. As long as there are humans, church and state will never be separate!

October 5, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

America is full of christian terrorists

Off the top of my head I can name Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma City Bomber. Also Paul Hill, of Army of God fame, killing spree were so revered they even had a Paul Hill Days event where they reenacted the killings.

A quick search brought up David Robert McMenemy attempted to destroy Edgerton Women’s Health Center in Davenport, IA by dousing his car in gasoline and driving it through the front door. Fortunately, no one was hurt because he reconsidered lighting himself on fire for God at the last moment. The clinic he attempted to destroy does not even perform abortions.

There are many acts across the nation and the world.

Unfortunately, the "librul" media avoids referring such acts as christian terrorism in America.

Speaking of sheet wearers.... for the suggested donation of $81.85 the American Family Association will send you 5.5 foot burning... er christmas cross just to show how much love and compassion is really in your heart. https://store.afa.net/pc-10000310-11-christmas-cross.aspx

October 5, 2009 at 9:08 p.m.
bigDaddy said...

The problem we have right now is that the Government absolutely interferes with religion. The Government should never tell people what to believe or how to practice it. By squashing Christianity, the Government is failing to separate church and state; the state is deciding which religions to honer and how people practice their religion.

If you are Muslim, your religion is much more likely to be "respected" by the liberals than if you are Christian. Liberals: LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!! Just because you hate Christians doesn't mean that the government has to mandate it.

October 5, 2009 at 9:39 p.m.
alprova said...

Nobody HATES Christians!!! Well...some people do.

The problem is that some of you people just don't know your boundaries, you don't know when to shut-up, and you don't know when to back off.

Have you ever had someone walk up to you with really bad breath, and they just have to be within inches of your face to converse with you? You step back a couple of feet and they just gotta close that gap again. If they don't get the message the first time, I won't tell them that their breath is horrible, but I will tell them to give me a comfort zone or the conversation is over.

What turns people off to Christianity is the constant pushing of the issue of your religion on others. Is it hard for some of you people to believe that others find your attempts to be insulting to them?

LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!!?

Try honoring your own request.

October 5, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.