From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<73956@hydra.gatech.EDU> <BxCytz.HGq@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<74181@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:02:14 GMT

To begin with, it's worth noting that Mr. Pitts has once again failed
to provide any evidence that Jesus supported governmentally organized
public prayers.  Mr. Pitts has also failed to give any coherent
reason why he, as a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus, ought to
support government-organized prayer in the public schools.

He again tries to pretend that when the government arranges a place in
a public school for the express purpose of public prayers, and the
government arranges a time during school hours for the express purpose
of public prayers, that the government is somehow not organizing public
prayers, if the people conducting the prayers are "volunteers."  He
shows a considerable lack of forthrightness when he writes:

>No you quibble - I don't advocate goverment-run prayers in the sense that
>others on the net seem to think.  I think government can and should allow
>for a time of organized prayer - not mandated officals leading in prayer.
>There is a difference.

If we were to take the above at face value, we might wonder what his
complaint is.  The government does, and always has, "allowed" time for
organized prayer.  There are plenty of churches where you can engage
in organized prayer every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.  What
he wants is much more than "allowing" time for prayer.  He wants the
government to *establish* time for organized prayer, on school
property, during school hours.  So why can't he say that?  Is he
ashamed of what he wants, or is he trying to pull the wool over
people's eyes?

>....As far as logistics
>goes, it might be easier to do this before homeroom or the beginning of 
>the day.

But students now have the right to meet for prayers before school, or 
after school; just like the math club, or the chess club, or the
debate club.  If that's what Mr. Pitts wants, he has it now.  So what,
exactly, is he asking for?

>Maybe *NOTHING* is in the eye of the beholder and you missed it.
>The Jewish religion in the time of Jesus was under Roman rule - they
>were sort of the official religion of that region and the church answered
>and appealed to Rome, as we see in the scriptures.  The whole of the
>temple/religious activities was carried out with Roman approval, including
>praying, which Jesus did in public.  The Romans didn't generally mess
>with the Jews, but they let them operate.  The temple prayers and activties
>could easily be said to be government supported.

No more than churches in modern America could be said to be government
supported.  Probably less so, in fact, since American churches have tax
exemptions.  Religion in general has much more favorable treatment in
the United States than in the Roman Empire, since our government is
forbidden to interfere with the "free exercise" of religion.  If
that's the kind of "approval" and "support" you want, you have it now.

As for Jesus praying in public, you have that right as well.  What you
want, though, is more than the right to pray in public -- you want the
government to make arrangements for you to pray in public.  Jesus
never asked for that from the Roman government, so why are you asking
for it from the United States government?

>Jesus supported prayer, but not prayer to be seen only by men.  However,
>He did prayer where men could see him.  Jesus wanted people to pray
>to the Father and not to be seen by men.  Jesus prayed in public.

Which is all very interesting, but none of it says anything about
government-organized public prayer.  Would you mind sticking to the
point?

>|>Here are my scriptures - the are not all about public pray, but they
>|>are about prayer - many instances of it.  

>|But the question is about public prayer, so why waste bandwidth by
>|including passages that aren't about public prayer?  And the question

>Many of them were about public prayer - you missed them.

I assure you I read all of them.  As you said yourself, many of them 
were *not* about public prayer.  Since we were talking about
governmentally organized public prayer, why did you include passages
which were not about public prayer at all?

>I am not for mandated public prayer, but government allowed public
>prayer in schools - it shows we as a nation recognized the need to 
>pray.  

Where does Jesus say that it's the business of the government to show
that "we as a nation" need to pray?  I don't recall anywhere that he
said it's Caesar's duty to inform us of the things to be rendered
unto God.

>Mr. Provine was asking his question in response to my comments.
>He is the one that tends to push the issue into the idea that allowing
>for an organized time for prayer in schools is the same as mandating 
>on all students an offically lead prayer by some potentially offending 
>party.  

No, he does not.  You caricature his representation of your views in
order to make your real position seem reasonable by comparison.  It is
precisely the idea that the government should establish an "organized
time for prayer in schools" that we ask you to defend.  It does you
no good to make believe that you are being asked to defend a much more
radical view, and then to deny that you hold that view.

>I advocate a time for prayer and suggest that places for each
>group of people who have similar beliefs should be or could be provided,
>so as to not force anothers prayers upon an unwilling student.

It also does you no good to try to hide your position under cover of
the passive voice.  As you well know, under your proposal the
*government* would establish a time for prayer, the *government* would
provide a place or places for students to pray.  Let's have no more of
this "could be provided," please.

>|...why waste bandwidth by
>|including passages about how Saul prayed, and Daniel prayed, and Ezra
>|prayed, and Elijah prayed?

>Why limit it to the gospels and just what Jesus said while he was on
>the earth?  We (Christians) believe the whole Bible is useful for 
>doctrine, correction, encouragement, and rebuke.

Fine.  Then you should use it according to the doctrine that the
passages you cite should be relevant to the argument you are making.
And you should correct your faulty reasoning.  And you should be
encouraged to be open and forthright in stating your position.  And you
should be rebuked for your repeated evasions and misrepresentations.

>|Apparently Mr. Pitts has one of those Bible search programs on his PC,

>Yes, I do - it is QuickVerse 2.0.

Thought so.

>|which can look for words like "prayer" and dump the passages
>|containing it into a file.  

>My friend, did you notice that there were less than (a lot less than)
>350 scriptures listed.  Yes I could have dumped them all, but the
>context, which maybe unknow to you, determined whether I included them
>or not.  Public prayer is often recorded in the Bible and I noted many
>of those instances.  Most of the other passages speak to how one is
>to pray.

But *none* of them had to do with Jesus' support for governmentally
organized public prayers.  Therefore none of them supported your
position.  You claim to be in favor of public school prayer because
you are a follower of Jesus, but you have said nothing to show that
Jesus would have supported that position, and nothing to show that a
follower of Jesus ought to support that position.

>|                           Such programs are an invention of the
>|Devil.  They discourage people from actually *reading* the Bible;

>Reading and studying the Bible helps one to know the context.  Try it.

That's my line.  *You* should try it.  Don't just go looking for
keywords.

>If you'd like to show me where I miss understand the passages I cited,
>then please do so - I'll be glad to learn the way of God, the Creator
>and Saviour, more perfectly.  However, it is much easier to say I 
>fail to know and understand the passages.  Which way did you pick?

What I said was that the Biblical passages you cited were irrelevant
to the conclusion you wished to support.  And so they were.  If you
deny that, take any one of the passages and show what it has to do
with Jesus' support for governmentally-organized public prayer.

>|And he'd learn even more if he took a course in elementary logic.

>Yep, attacking with blank statments like *NOTHING* and implying I
>don't read nor understand is truly logical.  Present your case.

Excuse me, but you were the one who was asked to present a case.  You
haven't done so.  You said nothing in support of your position.  You
said nothing which had anything to *do* with your position.  You didn't
answer the question.  When are you planning to do so?


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc