From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:50:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.090227.10316@athena.mit.edu> starpath@bard.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.221419.9773@iscsvax.uni.edu>  
>sperry2699@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> There should be a time set aside for those who wish to pray. Possibly
>> a break from the classroom.  Is it so bad to have 20 min set aside
>> for people to pray?

There are school districts out there that only have 15 minute lunches
for the students.  Budget restraints.


>	Well, yes, in fact it is.  Students that wish to pray can do so  
>during their lunch break, between classes, before school, after  
>school...any time which students may use to their liking.

In class too.  I pray at work and on the bus......God doesn't need
a set time to be contacted.

  If additional  
>time is then set aside for praying (for those who want to pray, of  
>course), then the school is essentially SUGGESTING prayer, not just  
>allowing it.


>	On the other hand, if time should be set aside for prayer, then  
>perhaps one should also create a time for tai chi or yoga, both of which  
>would be useful.

Very true and a good idea.  

  In order to be fair, one really should include time for  
>psychic channeling, animal sacrifice (in accordance with the law, of  
>course), peyote use, etc...remember, of course, that no child HAS to  
>participate.

Yes, these would all be great!

>
>> > working to defend the ability of students to distribute pro-life
>> > pamphlets in schools.  

>> 
>> Isn't that a good thing?  Shouldn't people be defending the pro-lifer's
>> rights?  Others do a good job of defending the pro-abortion side.
>	Certainly freedom of speech is important, and both sides should be  
>able to distribute information, as long as it does not interfere with the  
>educational process.
>
>> There is a lacking of traditional family values in this country. 

Traditional family values is a myth.  Prove to me it existed a hundred
years ago....

 If
>> you don't see that problem, then maybe you are part of it.
>	This is called ad hominem.  It is not only a logical fallacy, but  
>suggests that the author doesn't have any better response than to attack  
>the person, rather than the argument.
>	But, as to the point itself, it isn't clear to me whether you are  
>saying "if you don't see that there is a lack of traditional family  
>values" or "if you don't see that the lack of traditional family values is  
>a problem".  Perhaps if you clarified, the original author could better  
>respond.
>	Personally, I've seen a lot of traditional family values recently;  
>one friend of mine, who is 20, came back to school several weeks early,  
>because she felt that the only way to be able to practice her music was to  
>physically get away from the constant emotional abuse from her mother.   
>Another friend didn't want to go home at Christmas, because she thought  
>that her alcoholic mother (who has remained single because she feels that  
>divorce is sinful) might try to commit suicide again.
>	The sad part about human sociopsychology is that whenever people  
>are pressured into situations that they really don't want to be in (like  
>gay folks in straight marriages to keep the dogs away), really nasty  
>things happen.  "Traditional family values" traps people into doing things  
>that they really don't want to do.  Anyone want to guess at the ratio of  
>Christian to atheist parents that beat their kids?
>
>> > I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses to come by my door (as they
>> > did twice right after Christmas).  
>> 
>> They have the right to walk the streets and spread the twisted gospel
>> that they do (unfortunately).
>	That's most certainly true.  (Rude comments notwithstanding.)
>
>> > not have a well-meaning government decide what's morally best for me.
>> 
>> Good!  Then oppose the liberal government that we have and push for the
>> conservative stand!
>	Well, you've lost me.  I've never heard the democrats mention  
>prohibiting particular bedroom practices, for example.  Who made Sodomy  
>illegal, anyway?
>
>> Christianity is opressed in the U.S.
>	Could you explain this?
>
>> However, I've always heard that the opressed Church is the best!
>	This is a psychological tactic used to make oppressed Christians  
>feel better.  Do you think that only oppressed Christians will be in the  
>Rapture?  What does Jesus say about this?
>
>--
>David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
>you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
>and haughtness.
>	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc