Point of order: I’m an atheist, and have been since I realized the past wasn’t a magical place; gods are grouped in with wizards and dragons as far as I’m concerned. Even though I was made to say the Lord’s Prayer up until the fourth grade, I never felt religion was being shoved down my throat. I thought of it as a mental blue blanket, if anything, and one that my school had decreed fourth-graders no longer needed (turns out, it was more complicated and political than that). My atheism isn’t a result of anything but the critical thinking skills any child should have by about age 7.
Were I American I might feel differently, but as it is, I’m an atheist because to be otherwise makes little sense. I’m not pushing back against anything.
Maybe the issue here is that GEEPERS feels that Christians have a right to ignore non-Christians and act as if they don’t exist. So whenever atheists or gays or non-Biblical-literalist-Christians assert that they also have rights that need to be respected, they are trampling, trampling I tell you, on the rights of Christians to act as if they are above the law because their beliefs are universal. And their right to do that is guaranteed under amendment number…
Wow. Go back and reread that paragraph. Take your time. It’s no wonder that you have such a poor comprehension of law and your religion. If you can’t understand a paragraph with a rhetorical twist at the end, how do you expect to follow two centuries of jurisprudence or to glean the meaning of life from the collected oral history of desert nomads, translated into 17th century English?
Your lack of self-awareness is staggering. How is this banner, which uses specifically Christian wording, and directly replaced the Lord’s Prayer, not an establishment of a preferred religion, but when a private business prints a comic book with a gay character, you are forced to “accept a homosexual message”? Please note that I used quotes there because what you wrote was literally insane. You are so comfortably entrenched in the power structure of the privileged majority, you wouldn’t recognize persecution if it came up and crucified you.
I have a feeling that if this same message contained the word Allah and ended the prayer in the same way that a muslim would, that GEEPERS would have a much different stance when he was being forced to recite it in a public place just because others held the view.
Wow - you found a quote from a member of Congress who misunderstands the Constitution just like you do! Just to go over it again, the restrictions on government power found in the Bill of Rights, are restrictions on government power, and don’t restrict what private institutions can do. Vanderbilt University can indeed practice religious discrimination if they so choose.
I just looked up Rep. Diane Black’s bio, and her background is in nursing, not in law. I would have been shocked if she had any legal education after saying something so stupid. Also, she’s from Tennessee.
ETA: I didn’t intend to be insulting to any members from Tennessee. But you have to admit your elected representatives are skewed towards the kooky end.
Which is ironic in that Antiochan and Syrian Orthodox Christians have been addressing the Triune God of Christianity as “Allah” since long before Mohammed was born.
I’ve skimmed through this thread, and I’ve seen this claim made over and over.
It is quite patently wrong.
Point 1 - It isn’t from The Lord’s prayer. The actual phrase is usually translated as “our father who art in heaven.” That is a different phrase. Note how the words come in a different order?
Point 2 - The Lord’s prayer was created by a Jew, delivered to a crowd of Jews, and recorded by Jews. Not exactly “specifically Christian” is it?
Point 3 - The term “heavenly father” or similar phrases is common to a great many religions. Jupiter, Zeus, Osiris, Odin and Shiva were/are called “father” by their followers, and all live in a place whose name might be translated as “heaven.” You can even find the specific phrase “heavenly father” for some of them if you look.
Point 4 - contrary to some claims in this thread, there are at least someMuslims who say that Allah is the “heavenly father.”
Lets have no more of this nonsense, please. It isn’t a specifically Christian prayer.
Then explain why it’s only Christians who are so mortally offended by it’s removal.
Offended to the extent of threatening violence against a teenager and her family.
Demanding she leave the state.
You say you’ve seen the claim made over and over, but you seem to have misunderstood it and missed all the discussion. Nobody said the phrase “our heavenly father” appears in The Lord’s Prayer. I said and other posters said that the phrase is obviously Christian because similar wording appears on multiple occasions in the New Testament, including in The Lord’s Prayer. There are references to “heavenly father” in Matthew 6 (three times), Matthew 15 and 18 and Luke 11.
Yes, it’s specifically Christian. Notice how it’s in the New Testament and spoken by the guy the Christians say was the Messiah? This isn’t even an argument.
GEEPERS already tried this. It was not any more convincing the first time.
Uh…
The author isn’t a Muslim. Even if he were, I wouldn’t be very impressed by the soft-headed mush on that page. If you could find me a quote in the Quran that referred to Allah as something like “heavenly father,” that would actually mean something. But it’s already been established that there is no such quote, and I don’t see one in the Old Testament either.
There was a separate claim made that the banner was created to replace the reciting or display of The Lord’s Prayer. I don’t think I’ve seen a cite, but the timing works since the banner was hung just after the relevant Supreme Court decisions in the early '60s. But that would speak further to its deliberately Christian purpose.
Please note this: I don’t generally care very much about nreligion. Mostly it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. That prayer is unimportant to me. It doesn’t inspire me. It doesn’t offend me either. It’s harmless. I don’t care.
What I do care about is the right of free speech. People should be allowed to follow their own choice of religion, or no religion, even in schools. They should be allowed to pray, if they want to. Some people might find that prayer inspirational. They ought to be allowed to hang up a banner. I fully support their moral right to do so.
But there’s this stupid selfish little child. She’s an atheist, and hates all religion. She hates it so much that she sets out to destroy other people’s rights to pray. She sues to get a simple, harmless litlle prayer taken out of her sight. She doesn’t like religion, and everyone around her must conform to her opinion.
I don’t pretend to know American constitutional law. Maybe she is technically within the letter of the law to do this. But she sure as hell is morally wrong. I object to this, not as an attack on Christians, but as an attack on freedom of speech. Her actions have harmed Christians, but also Jews, Buddhists and Atheists too.