For 2A - and All

[Railroad]

My son sent this to me via e-mail today. I don't know when the "Thursday" happened, but the following is as apropos now as it was then.

DARRELL SCOTT TESTIMONY

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!


"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. "Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes-He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

 

[Tigerlily]

Oh my RR that brought tears straight out of my eyes and onto my cheeks. It is oh so true though. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Tonio]

I hate to spoil the party, but...

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/scott.htm

Darrell Scott, father of student killed in the Columbine High shootings, gave testimony to a House judiciary sub-committee... True.
The media worked to suppress his testimony... False.

Scott was not delivering testimony to a crowded House chamber full of incredulous, unprepared, and shocked Congressmen; he was talking to a few sub-committee members and a stenographer. He was only one of many people who gave testimony to the Subcommittee on Crime, and it's unlikely that most Congressmen heard what he said, or even knew that he had testified. His words certainly didn't prompt outrage from an unreceptive audience, as implied here...

Much of his testimony was directed at creating the misleading impression that prayer is banned in public schools. (It isn't — only prayer organized or led by school officials is prohibited. Students in public schools can pray whenever they want, so long as they don't disrupt ordinary classroom activities. )

"The media" didn't prevent anyone from hearing Mr. Scott's speech; most news outlets simply didn't give it much coverage because it wasn't particularly newsworthy. As noted above, Mr. Scott really didn't offer much of substance, and what he did have to say had already been said earlier and louder by many others. Also as noted above, Mr. Scott was merely one of many people who gave testimony in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime in the wake of the Littleton shootings. Other parents of shooting victims spoke as well, but you won't find that fact acknowledged here, much less any indication of what they said. Why should their words be any less important than Darrell Scott's? ...In spite of all that, Darrell Scott's speech was reported by the Associated Press and picked up by several big-city newspapers, hardly evidence of a hostile "media" conspiracy to suppress it and thereby prevent the world at large from hearing it.

When someone speaks words that we truly need to hear, it isn't necessary to lie about them to get our attention.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Tonio,
I regret to inform you that the majority of what is posted by RR is true. Only this item is called out as false by snopes.[font=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]

What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well.

The rest of the snopes article is opinion of the snopes editor including the snipet you quote. Snopes has often proved itself to be liberal leaning in its opinion.
[/font]

 

[Tonio]

2A, I've never thought of Snopes as liberal, since they debunk phony e-mails criticizing Republicans as well as those criticizing Democrats.

When I read the Darrell Scott e-mail, I got the impression that the author regards Christians as victims. I don't like claims of victimhood. In this case, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's rhetoric.

While I think prayer in general is laudatory, I don't believe that returning to mandated teacher-led prayer in school will magically cure all of America's problems. I understand why many people feel that way--it's part of human nature to long for easy, comfortable explanations to horrific events such as Columbine and 9/11. I've been guilty of that, too. But I believe that there are no easy, comfortable explanations for anything.

 

[Bogart]

Four year old SPAM is the best SPAM

 

[Railroad]

I don't really care if the guy really said all that or not; the sentiments expressed in that piece are certainly what I like to hear and believe.

This guy didn't say Christians were the victims; he was alluding to the moral decay that might have been slowed by prayer in schools, making kids take a short while at the beginning of the day to be quiet and think, if not meditate. Also, the kids would be naturally thinking about the difference between good and evil. Nothing wrong with that from where I sit.

Can't you people let something good and right come in here and stay unmolested? This was an uplifting piece that I felt would warm 2A's heart. You don't have to agree with it, but you don't have to ruin it, either.

 

[Bogart]

you people

You're lucky Johnny Cochran is dead.

 

[Railroad]

You're lucky Johnny Cochran is dead.

Aren't we all!

 

[Tonio]

making kids take a short while at the beginning of the day to be quiet and think, if not meditate. Also, the kids would be naturally thinking about the difference between good and evil. Nothing wrong with that from where I sit.

There is a lot of merit in giving students time for quiet meditation, as long as the teachers aren't using the time to push a specific religion on the kids.

Think of it this way--if mandated teacher-led prayer was done in a religion other than Christianity, wouldn't you be upset that the school was pushing notions of good or evil on your kids that may conflict with your family's belief system?

Can't you people let something good and right come in here and stay unmolested?

I understand your point. You're reading it from the standpoint of someone who believes that Christianity is the "one true faith." That is certainly the author's viewpoint. My own belief is that there is no such thing as a one true faith, and that religious faith is a very personal thing. When I read that "we all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc," I feel like I'm being told that humans are inherently evil and worthless. I don't know if that's the author's meaning, of course.

 

[Railroad]

There is a lot of merit in giving students time for quiet meditation, as long as the teachers aren't using the time to push a specific religion on the kids.

Think of it this way--if mandated teacher-led prayer was done in a religion other than Christianity, wouldn't you be upset that the school was pushing notions of good or evil on your kids that may conflict with your family's belief system?


I understand your point. You're reading it from the standpoint of someone who believes that Christianity is the "one true faith." That is certainly the author's viewpoint. My own belief is that there is no such thing as a one true faith, and that religious faith is a very personal thing. When I read that "we all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc," I feel like I'm being told that humans are inherently evil and worthless. I don't know if that's the author's meaning, of course.

You knew THIS was coming - it's becoming trite here: This is America, a country based on Christian values and principles.

Tonio, I've said what I needed to say here. I'll drop this thread like a hot rock and the rest of you slug it out. I'll stay out of it, because I get too upset about this topic.

 

[Tonio]

I get too upset about this topic.

You have every right to get upset. Please think about how upset I feel as a parent, when I hear people advocating the use of public schools to push a certain religious viewpoint on my kids. Granted, there are a lot worse religious viewpoints that the schools could push--one that comes to mind is jihadist Islam. But that's not the point. My point is, how could anything justify going against parents' wishes regarding their children's religious beliefs?

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A, I've never thought of Snopes as liberal, since they debunk phony e-mails criticizing Republicans as well as those criticizing Democrats.

Then you aren't reading well. The snopes editors always come down on the non-Christian and anti-gun side. This particular article did both.

When I read the Darrell Scott e-mail, I got the impression that the author regards Christians as victims. I don't like claims of victimhood. In this case, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's rhetoric.

While I think prayer in general is laudatory, I don't believe that returning to mandated teacher-led prayer in school will magically cure all of America's problems. I understand why many people feel that way--it's part of human nature to long for easy, comfortable explanations to horrific events such as Columbine and 9/11. I've been guilty of that, too. But I believe that there are no easy, comfortable explanations for anything.

You and many others miss it. Christian prayer was mandatory in public school from the beginning of public schools. If the student did not want to participate, they were to be silent and respectful.

When I was in public school in Prince George's County, we didn't have this kind of nonsense going on. Some of us even took our guns to school so we could hunt before and after school. We wouldn't dream of using a gun in an altercation. It just was not done.

We were disciplined by the whole community. If I did something wrong, I could expect to get a swat from Mrs. Phelps or Mrs. Land and another one when I got home.

Too many pseudo parents (Parents that are parents only because of biology, not parents in terms of nurturing and guidance. The ones that would rather be their kids friend than discipline them when necessary.) have no regard for God or man, especially the younger generations. They are "me first" people. How can society expect their children be any better. And it is societies fault for insisting God be taken out of the life of everyone they can influence.

The United States is beginning to reap what it has sown. Expect it to only get worse.

 

[2ndAmendment]

My own belief is that there is no such thing as a one true faith, and that religious faith is a very personal thing. When I read that "we all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc," I feel like I'm being told that humans are inherently evil and worthless. I don't know if that's the author's meaning, of course.

And there is the crux of the problem. You are a non believer and as such, will not understand the things of the Spirit until you become a believer. We don't seek understanding so we can believe. We believe so that we can understand.

humans are inherently evil and worthless

You are half right. People are inherently evil. Watch little children at play. They are selfish, bellicose, and mean left to their own volition without intervention by a parent or teacher. But people are not worthless in God's estimation. If people were worthless, then He would not have sacrificed Himself on a cross for the sins of all who accept His gift.

 

[paxetonic]

Democracy: A legacy

It is important to remember that our government is a democracy. It is founded upon the principle that the people of this country were capable of governing themselves. That means that the government is subject to the prevailing views and principles of its citizens. Our forefathers understood this and that is why they declared separation of religion from state. It must be noted that the prevailing religious view at the time the constitution and its amendments were instituted was Christianity. The founders' faith was an inheritance left by their parents.

Now, fast-forward to present times. We see an argument regarding separation of religion from state at all levels of our democracy. The prevailing view is that the government should be divorced from anything that has religious connotations. Unfortunately, this view may actually fully manifest itself in our government before the "trend" passes. However, for those who wish to reverse this course, the first step is to start with the children. It will be the children that inherit the government we build today. It will be the manifestation of righteous values (Christianity is implied here, for me) in our children that will keep our society together.

We have a mixed blessing when it comes to our democratic government. The advantage is that we, as a society, get to leave our impact on the future. The disadvantage is that we do not get to feel or experience this impact so that we may make any necessary adjustments. In short, our legacy is our government, but like a true legacy we do not get to experience it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It is important to remember that our government is a democracy. It is founded upon the principle that the people of this country were capable of governing themselves. That means that the government is subject to the prevailing views and principles of its citizens. Our forefathers understood this and that is why they declared separation of religion from state. It must be noted that the prevailing religious view at the time the constitution and its amendments were instituted was Christianity. The founders' faith was an inheritance left by their parents.

Now, fast-forward to present times. We see an argument regarding separation of religion from state at all levels of our democracy. The prevailing view is that the government should be divorced from anything that has religious connotations. Unfortunately, this view may actually fully manifest itself in our government before the "trend" passes. However, for those who wish to reverse this course, the first step is to start with the children. It will be the children that inherit the government we build today. It will be the manifestation of righteous values (Christianity is implied here, for me) in our children that will keep our society together.

We have a mixed blessing when it comes to our democratic government. The advantage is that we, as a society, get to leave our impact on the future. The disadvantage is that we do not get to feel or experience this impact so that we may make any necessary adjustments. In short, our legacy is our government, but like a true legacy we do not get to experience it.

You are wrong. Our government is not a democracy. It is a republic; we have representatives; the people do not have referendums on all laws and bills as in a democracy. The government was design to NOT be subject to the whims and the prevailing "political wind", so that there would be stability.

The liberal "separation of church and state" now used by the media and other liberals is not a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making any law regarding the establishment a religion or prohibiting the free practice of religion.

 

[paxetonic]

Splitting Hairs...

2A--

I don't disagree with your statement about the First Amendment ; however, what does the Constitution say about endorsing a religion or implied endorsement of a religion? I don't ask this to be fesitious. I am not and do not pretend to be an expert on law.

It is without question that there are a multitude of references to religion in a myriad documents at all levels of government. If one were to split hairs on this subject, as the liberals are generally inclined to do, each reference would need to be sought out and removed. Is it practical, feasible, or even possible? I think not. Personally, I find this particular thought comforting and reassures me that my religous values are safely guarded by these said documents of endorsement (whether explicitly stated or implied).

I don't care that the politicians wish to make a deeper line in the sand regarding this issue. I do care whether they impose on my personal lrights berties. Thus far, I have not seen anything proposed by either side that would do this. That it breaks my heart to see how our society is shunning God is true. If anything, I'd like to see the opposite happen; the embracement of God. My faith tells me that my hopes and dreams in this matter will, in time, come to pass. Until that time, I am content to do the Lord's will as best I can. I intend, by the grace of God, to pass my principles of faith to any children I may be fortunate enough to have. It is in this light that I made my previous post to this thread.

 

[Tonio]

It is without question that there are a multitude of references to religion in a myriad documents at all levels of government. If one were to split hairs on this subject, as the liberals are generally inclined to do, each reference would need to be sought out and removed.

That's where I believe liberals and conservatives are both wrong. It's isn't about eliminating all religion from government, as I see it. It's about keeping government neutral among the different faiths.

Here's an example--the Detention Center in St. Mary's recently handed out Bibles to all inmates. Now, if the intent was to try to convert inmates to Christianity, government has no business doing that, even though some of the inmates might benefit from conversion. I think the constitutional approach would be to make a limited number of books available from many different faiths. I have no problem with giving out religious books in prison, as long as they aren't from only one faith.

 

[paxetonic]

Neutrality...

That's where I believe liberals and conservatives are both wrong. It's isn't about eliminating all religion from government, as I see it. It's about keeping government neutral among the different faiths.

Sure, the government should be neutral. However, your explanation of this neutrality (as given in your example) is not feasible. Would you agree that on this topic that neutrality neither benefits nor costs the government anything? Why spend time, money, and effort on taking a neutral stand on something if it costs nothing to do so? A neutral stand on religion certainly does not benefit the government; your example, in fact, costs resources. Even my statement of splitting hairs and removing all religious connotations is impractical from the point of view of the government's neutrality. Given that neutrality implies inaction, purposelessness, and passiveness, it would be difficult to justify spending resources on pursuing this neutrality. However, if you distort the statement of neutrality enough and give it purpose you might end up with something like a mission to remove religious connotations within the government. Hence, you are now able to expend resources as you see fit. This ties into political expenditure and job security of politicians, which I won't get into here (it is beyond the scope of this thread). One must admit, it is a cunning and deceptive little device politicians use. One marvels at it's brilliance.

 

[Tonio]

Would you agree that on this topic that neutrality neither benefits nor costs the government anything? Why spend time, money, and effort on taking a neutral stand on something if it costs nothing to do so?

Why should cost even be an issue? I'm talking about an issue of constitutional principle. If an umpire in a baseball game took a bribe to favor a certain team, he would benefit financially, but at the cost of his professional ethics.

You might have a point if it's only the government that's buying the religious books. Purely as a matter of practicality, I wouldn't use government money at all. I would invite outside organizations such as the Gideons to donate religious books to prisoners. Again, all such organizations from all faiths would be invited to donate, even the Wiccans despised by that judge mentioned in the other thread.