Aa
Written by a 15 year old boy.
Since the Pledge of Alegiance and the Lord's Prayer are not allowed in schools anymore because the word 'God' is mentioned, a kid in Arizona wrote the attached.
NEW SCHOOL PRAYER
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of him very odd
If scripture now the school recites
It violates The Bill Of Rights
And any time my hide I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now
Our hair can be orange, purple or green
Thats no offense; it's a freedom scene
The law i specific the law is precise
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice
For praying in a public hall
May offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate
God's name is prohibited by the state
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks
They've outlawed guns but First the Bible
To quote the Good Book makes me liable
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen
And the 'unwed daddy' our Senior King
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong
We're taught that such 'judgements' do not belong
We can get our condoms and birth controls
Study withchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed
No word of God must reach this crowd
It's scary here I must confess
When chaos reigns the schools a mess
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot;my soul please to take!
Amen
-----------------------------------------------------------
NEW SCHOOL PRAYER
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of him very odd
If scripture now the school recites
It violates The Bill Of Rights
And any time my hide I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now
Our hair can be orange, purple or green
Thats no offense; it's a freedom scene
The law i specific the law is precise
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice
For praying in a public hall
May offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate
God's name is prohibited by the state
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks
They've outlawed guns but First the Bible
To quote the Good Book makes me liable
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen
And the 'unwed daddy' our Senior King
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong
We're taught that such 'judgements' do not belong
We can get our condoms and birth controls
Study withchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed
No word of God must reach this crowd
It's scary here I must confess
When chaos reigns the schools a mess
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot;my soul please to take!
Amen
-----------------------------------------------------------
"founded by protestants seeking refuge from persecution"
Talking with my son just today about Lord Baltimore, who brought persecuted Catholics to Maryland, one of two Catholic colonies. Puritans, of course, in Mass. where, in a religious fervor, they murdered the old, ugly, unmarried, impoverished women without sons--after which Massachusetts' teenaged girls were never again hormonal or histrionic.
In Rhode Island, Roger Williams (a clergyman of the Church of England) was possibly the only founder who "got" the concept of religious tolerance. In his later years, his colonists became annoyed with him because, when they were out and about in the town, they saw Quakers and other strange people just walking down the street, like anybody.
That wasn't why they drove him out of Providence, though; he brought that on himself by continually suggesting to the younger town and church leadership that they honor the treaties he had--at great personal risk and effort--obtained with the Indians. So 16th century of him! The old guy had to go, together with his old wife and eight adult children--I'm sure it was just coincidence that his Providence home with most of his papers burned to the ground after they were gone, leaving the thin book of real religious tolerance in the colonies scarcely more than empty covers.
(In fairness, my son the historian thinks it wasn't quite that bleak--he thinks the Catholic colonies tolerated other religions, as well. A second opinion.)
Talking with my son just today about Lord Baltimore, who brought persecuted Catholics to Maryland, one of two Catholic colonies. Puritans, of course, in Mass. where, in a religious fervor, they murdered the old, ugly, unmarried, impoverished women without sons--after which Massachusetts' teenaged girls were never again hormonal or histrionic.
In Rhode Island, Roger Williams (a clergyman of the Church of England) was possibly the only founder who "got" the concept of religious tolerance. In his later years, his colonists became annoyed with him because, when they were out and about in the town, they saw Quakers and other strange people just walking down the street, like anybody.
That wasn't why they drove him out of Providence, though; he brought that on himself by continually suggesting to the younger town and church leadership that they honor the treaties he had--at great personal risk and effort--obtained with the Indians. So 16th century of him! The old guy had to go, together with his old wife and eight adult children--I'm sure it was just coincidence that his Providence home with most of his papers burned to the ground after they were gone, leaving the thin book of real religious tolerance in the colonies scarcely more than empty covers.
(In fairness, my son the historian thinks it wasn't quite that bleak--he thinks the Catholic colonies tolerated other religions, as well. A second opinion.)
Heh heh...I have to ask. Just what exactly is a sablezen? It sounds like a very sleek, pet-able enlightened cat. :)
Hey, I can jump across the fence like the best of 'em. I could argue that this country was founded by protestants seeking refuge from persecution and that a large part of the populace was christian then. So Allowing the putting up of Christmas trees on public/ city grounds is really just a recognition of our founding father's belief system. :)
Personally, I don't have a problem with that one. As long as it's done tastefully, of course. My biggest problem is that half the time the decorations are a garish eye sore. Walking through Battery Park Center downtown is literally a visual and aural assault.
And for the love of God, take those decorations down within a reasonable time! If your tree is still up in march, you're missing the point!!! :)
My biggest problem with Christmas is they've commercialized it to death. Stores start advertising Christmas sales before thanksgiving and turn the whole holiday into a meaningless bonanza of shopping desperation.
Hey, I can jump across the fence like the best of 'em. I could argue that this country was founded by protestants seeking refuge from persecution and that a large part of the populace was christian then. So Allowing the putting up of Christmas trees on public/ city grounds is really just a recognition of our founding father's belief system. :)
Personally, I don't have a problem with that one. As long as it's done tastefully, of course. My biggest problem is that half the time the decorations are a garish eye sore. Walking through Battery Park Center downtown is literally a visual and aural assault.
And for the love of God, take those decorations down within a reasonable time! If your tree is still up in march, you're missing the point!!! :)
My biggest problem with Christmas is they've commercialized it to death. Stores start advertising Christmas sales before thanksgiving and turn the whole holiday into a meaningless bonanza of shopping desperation.
"For example, near where I live - until December 17, 2004 in Pasco County, Florida there was a law banning the display of Christmas trees in county facilities..."
_____
Well, this isn't what you said earlier. This is a whole different thing. You have the right to put just about anything on your lawn, but not so much on mine--which is far from not being allowed to have Christmas decorations.
Since county property is not yours, or not entirely--a little bit yours, a little bit mine--your rights to do things to that are different. You see, if a religious group usurps the county's land for its religious observance, you are also putting that on MY (undivided) piece of the land, which prevents me from using my undivided portion of the common land for the historic use for which village commons were set aside in the first place, stabling my horse. Then you and I, each owning about a divided hundredth of one percent of the commons, have a dispute going about the use of our common land, and pretty soon the owners of the other 99.98% undivided interests are in the fight, and then it’s a great big mess.
Let’s suppose that to advance my argument, I assert that the use for which I call the land is a higher use, and has priority—in this case, because it is the original purpose to which the land was dedicated by the village. Then I’m saying, in effect, that your wish to use it is subservient to mine, so you have to go away, and I’ll be right down with my horse on a rope so she can eat the grass and fertilize it and put the land to the original use.
Meanwhile, a bunch of other part-owners get together and decide they like it the way it is, when they are in town they like to see an expanse of green in the summer and undisturbed snow in the winter. They don’t want it interrupted by either your display or my horse. Now, their wishes are contrary to both yours and mine, and they have, say, 50 owners in their group. You see where this is going, right?
That’s the only reason I thought you were setting up a straw man, because it sounded like you were saying you couldn’t put your religious displays on YOUR OWN land, and I thought some of the readers were erroneously taking it that way. Naturally, that argument would get you support from me and just about anyone. It’s an argument you win, hands down, but it’s not your original argument.
I answered as I did because I was afraid some of the readers read it that way, and would go away with the idea that they couldn’t put religious displays on their own land, which would of course support a thesis of religious persecution, and might discourage them from the private use and enjoyment of their own property. Only it ISN’T the real argument, is it, it’s a straw man, which is fine so long as everyone understands the outcome can’t be applied to public land, which has nothing to do with private land.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
_____
Well, this isn't what you said earlier. This is a whole different thing. You have the right to put just about anything on your lawn, but not so much on mine--which is far from not being allowed to have Christmas decorations.
Since county property is not yours, or not entirely--a little bit yours, a little bit mine--your rights to do things to that are different. You see, if a religious group usurps the county's land for its religious observance, you are also putting that on MY (undivided) piece of the land, which prevents me from using my undivided portion of the common land for the historic use for which village commons were set aside in the first place, stabling my horse. Then you and I, each owning about a divided hundredth of one percent of the commons, have a dispute going about the use of our common land, and pretty soon the owners of the other 99.98% undivided interests are in the fight, and then it’s a great big mess.
Let’s suppose that to advance my argument, I assert that the use for which I call the land is a higher use, and has priority—in this case, because it is the original purpose to which the land was dedicated by the village. Then I’m saying, in effect, that your wish to use it is subservient to mine, so you have to go away, and I’ll be right down with my horse on a rope so she can eat the grass and fertilize it and put the land to the original use.
Meanwhile, a bunch of other part-owners get together and decide they like it the way it is, when they are in town they like to see an expanse of green in the summer and undisturbed snow in the winter. They don’t want it interrupted by either your display or my horse. Now, their wishes are contrary to both yours and mine, and they have, say, 50 owners in their group. You see where this is going, right?
That’s the only reason I thought you were setting up a straw man, because it sounded like you were saying you couldn’t put your religious displays on YOUR OWN land, and I thought some of the readers were erroneously taking it that way. Naturally, that argument would get you support from me and just about anyone. It’s an argument you win, hands down, but it’s not your original argument.
I answered as I did because I was afraid some of the readers read it that way, and would go away with the idea that they couldn’t put religious displays on their own land, which would of course support a thesis of religious persecution, and might discourage them from the private use and enjoyment of their own property. Only it ISN’T the real argument, is it, it’s a straw man, which is fine so long as everyone understands the outcome can’t be applied to public land, which has nothing to do with private land.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Wow that is well written. Good observation from that 15 year old. Too true and sad...
I agree the government is interfering with individual practices by the passing of those laws. Heck, a lot of what you posted were further examples of the government passing laws prohibiting religious expression that I could have included earlier as examples.
In the case of abortion/gay marriage - I agree completely with what you wrote. (See, I can be reasonable. lol)
In the case of abortion/gay marriage - I agree completely with what you wrote. (See, I can be reasonable. lol)
There is a lot of commonality. Just an impasse when one side wants to completely dismiss the other as being completely inconsequential and not seek compromise. That's the root of the problem - neither side wants to compromise and instead resorts to passing/supporting laws to 'win' the argument.
This is the same principle/argument that revolves around the Patriot Act (and something that was hinted at earlier). The 'right' claims the laws are to protect the US, the 'left' says the laws simply take away liberties and are more harmful to the US. Although in the case of religion, the 'left' and 'right' sides are ironically switched with the 'left' claiming the laws protect the US and the 'right' claim the laws simply take away liberties.
It's a non-ending process with no moral high ground that just results in more and more laws and challenges to the constitution. At some point we just have to decide that passing all these federal/constitutional laws is almost always going to end with the result of taking liberty away from people across the board - not uphold liberty... and likewise, limiting government involvement (specifically federal involvement) with the passing of laws as much as possible ensures the greatest chance of continuing liberty.
The closer compromise is worked out to the personal level the better - the US is a republic for a reason and was designed to handle things in a better way than this.
I hope that maybe this response better explains my position and I'll be forgiven for posting again. lol
This is the same principle/argument that revolves around the Patriot Act (and something that was hinted at earlier). The 'right' claims the laws are to protect the US, the 'left' says the laws simply take away liberties and are more harmful to the US. Although in the case of religion, the 'left' and 'right' sides are ironically switched with the 'left' claiming the laws protect the US and the 'right' claim the laws simply take away liberties.
It's a non-ending process with no moral high ground that just results in more and more laws and challenges to the constitution. At some point we just have to decide that passing all these federal/constitutional laws is almost always going to end with the result of taking liberty away from people across the board - not uphold liberty... and likewise, limiting government involvement (specifically federal involvement) with the passing of laws as much as possible ensures the greatest chance of continuing liberty.
The closer compromise is worked out to the personal level the better - the US is a republic for a reason and was designed to handle things in a better way than this.
I hope that maybe this response better explains my position and I'll be forgiven for posting again. lol
You are reading content posted in the Addiction: Social Community
Is treating glaucoma with marijuana all hype, or can hemp actually help?
If you think marijuana has no ill effects on your health, this article from Missouri Medicine may make you think again.
Julia Aharonov, DO, reveals the quickest way to beat drug withdrawal.
Tricks to help you quit for good.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
