My favorite -- Timeslide
If you prefer one of these views to the standard view, just bookmark the view you like.
King James remains the only "orthodox text" Leonard said, as he told of one pastor relating a conflict in an associational meeting because "one of the young preachers stood up and announced he was NIV positive."
Our democracy depends on lively, informed, healthy political debate. No American wants a society where nothing is challenged and everything goes. Debate is the life's blood of our way of life. If you have a better idea, put it on the table and let's see if it can stand up to rigorous scrutiny.Well said.
It is not the other group or the other person who is responsible for gutter language in our national debate, or for the shameless and often baseless attacks on individuals. It is any of us who engage in such tactics or fail to challenge them when and where we encounter them.
Facts -- try to get people from opposing perspectives to agree on the basic facts of the issue under contention.Cox said this was a helpful process to increase mutual understanding but was not a panacea for resolving moral conflict.
Logic -- examine the strength of the moral reasoning used by each perspective. Is the reasoning valid, fair and consistently applied in other circumstances or situations.
Loyalties -- discover how each perspective ranks their loyalties. What loyalty is given highest priority -- God, faith community, country, family, self, etc.?
Worldview -- try to get opposing perspectives to view the world and the issue from the perspective of the other.
"We're dealing with poor people who don't have the resources to go to their country of origin, wait a period of time – no way to support themselves, no way to provide for their families, no way to keep current on their house payments," he told us during an interview in his Little Rock office.Unconscionably, many of those in the anti-immigrant community call themselves Christian.
Taylor said there is "no logical reason" to advocate for the undocumented to go to the back of the line "except that we want to inflict suffering on these people."
The soft-spoken bishop said the back-of-the-line argument shows "at least ignorance. It may be malice -– make people pay, make people hurt."
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. -- I John 3:16-18
The framing of the hearing also was faulty because, while the government is the right body to combat terrorism, including terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, it is the wrong body to conduct an inquiry into a religious community as such. Governmental officials certainly do not have to ignore the context in which acts of terrorism occur, but they should always make clear that their mission is -- simply but crucially -- to prevent violence and threats of violence, whatever the motivation for it. The government is not competent to investigate religious beliefs and religious communities as such.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences in denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?
Does it place obedience to Christ above life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Mark 8:34-35)? Does it love its enemies and not resist evil persons or does it respond to them the same way as do non-Christian nations? If the latter, is its ruler infallible in all areas or only in the decision to go to war? Are its weapons different from the weapons of the world (2 Cor 10:3-4)? Does it refuse to possess weapons that can destroy entire populations indiscriminately, or to to export conventional weapons to other nations to use for their own agendas? Does it overcome evil with good? Does it feed its enemies when they are hungry and give them drink when they are thirsty? Does it refuse to rejoice at the downfall of its enemies? Does it trust in God rather than the pre-Christian rationalization that the end justifies the means? Does it reject torture regardless of its effectiveness? Must it have a strong military in order to “trust” in God? Or can it even be an authority that bears the sword if all who take up the sword will perish by the sword?
40 years ago, the valedictorian of my graduation class in Albuquerque, NM used his valedictory address to spread his belief in the wisdom and value of Buddhism as a way of life. It made me so angry that I nearly got up and walked out. Whether or not it was a violation of the First Amendment, it was inconsiderate and rude for him to deliver a religious message to a captive audience. It was the only time during all the years of my public school education that I was not free to debate, rebut or offer a different point of view when matters of religious beliefs and values were presented.
Graduations are not open public forums where everyone is given an opportunity to speak. They are limited public forums. The valedictorian is the only student permitted to speak. The rest of the students comprise a captive audience of students who are expected to sit passively and remain silent while the valedictorian is speaking.
The bill you are considering creates a limited forum like the one I was forced to endure at my graduation -– every day of the school year. Every day it will afford a very small and select number of students an opportunity to speak to a captive audience and spread whatever religious messages that they choose.
This bill does not promote open discussions, civil dialogue or understanding about religion. It clearly restricts the right of free speech to a favored or popular few. Every day it will force some students to endure prayers, sermons and religious messages that may violate their deepest religious convictions and moral conscience.
In my opinion, this legislation will create the kind of conflict in our public schools that is certain to lead to confrontation, altercation, and litigation.
I urge you to vote against HB 1001. All talk about religion in our public schools should be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect, open discussion and where everyone is free to speak.