Posted 1 month, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
I believe I can bring some reason to this “tempest in a teapot” debate over the use of an invocation before City Council meetings. While I do not agree with Ms. Landman’s atheistic viewpoint, I do agree with her proposed solution: a moment of silence.
I believe there is common wisdom and grace. Certainly, in this pluralistic society, religious and non-religious people can agree on the importance of seeking wisdom. Undoubtedly, that wisdom can be found through quiet study, private reflection, meditation, and yes, even prayer. A moment of silence would meet the needs of all involved.
Christians can show deference on this topic and celebrate common ground. There are times when silent prayer is preferable (Matt. 6:5,6). This is one of those times.
CHARLES BONNET
Grand Junction
34 Responses to “Sometimes silent prayer is best”
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Bonnet - Well said!
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A moment of silence…
What a wonderful concept.
Just think, EVERY GROUP OF WHINERS will all shut up and sit down for just one moment!
Too bad the only ‘moment of silence’ we will ever find is when the reasonable intelligent people will sit back in disgust.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Before we make the decision that it is reasonable to surrender to the atheist wishes on this one, tiny, little local issue, I would just remind you of the recent efforts to ban “In God we trust” from our currency, the ban on the display of the Ten Commandments, the atheists plan to remove the words “One nation under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance, and all their other efforts to remove any religious reference in our nation. Remember, before you decide to surrender that their efforts are ongoing. And what they are really asking for is a piecemeal surrender to their Godless agenda. And the little, tiny thing they are asking for now will just another brick in their wall.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: And the little, tiny thing they are asking for now will just another brick in their wall.
The “tiny little thing” asked is to stop acting in defiance of the constitution and the laws of the land. Maybe that is tiny to you AP but not to me.
And you are mistaken when you keep referring to atheists as the instigators. We have already had at least one letter writer of the Jewish faith respond and I am sure there are others. Also those of other faiths must feel the same way and I personally know Christians who want the city Council to stop this defiance of the law . I imagine there are many such.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP (post 3). Forgive me for taking on a Willis style for a moment.
Blah, blah, blah.
Boo hoo, poor mean Godless atheists taking away your right to be sanctimonious in the public square.
Get over it, will ya?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Doesn’t look like a “willis” style to me tonya.
Not a bit of truth and honesty in your entire post.
Did you learn that from the head liar, classless moron?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh yes, it is admittedly immature and the author believes every word of it is true and screw what anyone else thinks.
… that makes it Willis style!
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh, a gene junior in the making….
wow, I’m underimpressed….
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You will recall that the original request was to come into compliance and it was explained repeatedly in the paper and on this forum that what was meant was to eliminate, not the invocation, but rather the mention of any specific religious deity. Now it would appear that the original request has gone through an evolution and has now become a request for a moment of silence to replace the invocation. Some would have you believe that those wishing to eliminate the invocation are in a majority. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Grand Junction City Manager, the city council has received overwhelming public support for retaining the invocation.
And as an example of how Americans feel about separation of church and state, it was announced today that the Texas Legislature, in a bipartisan vote of 167 to 3 approved the teaching of Bible courses in public schools. This vote says a great deal about the will of the American people.
The atheist request has already become a slippery slope. And it was an atheist group that made the request, wasn’t it?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis: “oh, a gene junior in the making…”
You wish.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: ” Some would have you believe that those wishing to eliminate the invocation are in a majority. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Grand Junction City Manager, the city council has received overwhelming public support for retaining the invocation.”
What has that got to do with anything? The Constitution protects the rights of the minority. As recently as the 1950’s the southern states would have voted to deprive black people of their fundamental constitutional rights by an overwhelming majority.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Actually, the moment of silence was one of the options in the original request. The request has not evolved or changed in the slightest. I don’t know anyone who has said that those wishing to eliminate it are in the majority. That does not mean it is still not the correct thing to do.
This is not an issue where majority rules. An action is either Constitutional or it isn’t. The city council invocations as currently practiced have been determined not to be, and this has been admitted by the city officials. Whether most of the people want to keep it is, unfortunately, immaterial. If you want to change that, change the Constitution.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP stated: “And as an example of how Americans feel about separation of church and state, it was announced today that the Texas Legislature, in a bipartisan vote of 167 to 3 approved the teaching of Bible courses in public schools.”
And this will be overturned, if not by the Texas Supreme Court, then either by one of the federal district courts or the Supreme Court. And, since when has Texas been any type of leader in anything resembling anything of an intellectual nature? True, their is, one individual once in a while who breaks out of the intellectual dreadnaught in that state, but the state is known for the callous disregard for the welfare of its own people.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
What it has to do with is the will of the American people just as I stated. Are you saying that the United States Constitution requires that there cannot be an invocation? Of course not, or at least I hope, of course not. I think your issue has to do with specific religious deities, but I do recognize that such requests do have a way of changing. They are, after all, only requests, aren’t they?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, no we know why little bobbie, from Delta, doesn’t live in Texas.
Even the women know more about what it takes to be a man the bobbie does.
oh… ” True, their is, one individual once..”
‘their’ or there?
Wrong word in the wrong context, not a ‘typo’.
Grammar dyslexia?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
pssst, bobbie?
Its spelled dreadnought…
Just for future reference you know old chap?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hi, Scott. I think you have overlooked the obvious. We don’t really need to change the constitution. We simply need to change the high courts interpretation of the constitution, and you will probably disagree, but I think that does have something to do with the will of the American people, as to who sits on the high court.
And I would also like to take this opportunity to address Willis and Class who were recently arguing over whether Christians were on the right side or the wrong side of the slavery issue. The answer is both. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians, just like there are good Atheists and bad Atheists. And because I know that someone is going to ask me to prove that, I would simply point to Scott as an example of a good Atheist, but that is of course only one Christian’s opinion. Mine. And I don’t claim to be a majority, but I do stand by than opinion. Do you think it is because I am looking at him as a person?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “We simply need to change the high courts interpretation of the constitution….”
The individual is correct but, does he mean ‘changing it’ like the NAZI Party did in Germany? There also, the ‘interpretation’ was changed, to conform to the party ideology.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Changing the interpretation is of course one option, but given that it has been consistently interpreted this way for twenty-five years and the amount of precedent that currently exists, that would be a difficult proposition.
It’s always possible, though.
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. laitres,
That is quite an opinion you have of an entire state. I am sure they will appreciate your caveat that there is an intelligent Texan which emerges from time to time. Whether or not the decision will be overturned remains to be seen. You may wish it so, but that does not make it so. How about them Cowboys, huh? They can play some football, but then I guess the team probably just reflects the diversity of the state. My understanding is, believe it or not, not all the players are native Texans. And let me remind you of the Texas motto “I know you’re not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway”. Planning a trip anytime soon?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. laitres,
This doesn’t have anything to do with the subject matter. But just out of curiosity, what is this obsession you have with Nazis? I noticed that any time someone disagrees with you, you automatically make reference to Nazis. Do you do it to demonize your opponent, or is it just a Freudian thing? It is just that it keeps recurring and I have to believe you do it for some reason. Do you think you could just switch over and just start calling those who disagree with you Texans? It is pretty clear that you have the same high opinion of both. And it is so irritating when I have to half agree with you, about Nazis, of course
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ap states: “This doesn’t have anything to do with the subject matter.”
Actually it has everything to do with with the subject matter, in fact it goes to the very core of it when one advocates ‘re-interpreting’the U.S. Constitution to say what people want it to say.
As to the reference to Germany, one must question what AP knows about the country during the NAZI period or, is his knowledge limited to merely knowing about it and ‘it was bad’. As far as attempting to demonize individuals with such references, some of us choose to leave such tactics to the many ‘talking heads’ who use terms only for their emotional content, without any real understanding of them; one such classic comes to mind, ‘liberal fascist’.
If AP is interested, I could provide the title of several books where he can begin to study the subject matter of fascism in Germany, but I doubt if they would even be read.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
pssst, bobbie?
Its spelled dreadnought…
Just for future reference you know old chap?
Pssst, Willis.
The dictionary says this word can be correctly spelled as either dreadnaught or dreadnought. I don’t think anyone who doesn’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s” should go around lecturing others on their spelling and grammar. Just for future reference, you know, old chap.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 8:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Psssst, futurequest….
I’m being shunned.
You might get in trouble talking to me….
Just for future reference you know?
(And I do know the difference. My voice recognization software sometimes misses the finesse…)
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis_Leon_Johnson
“I’m being shunned.”
I only read these posts sporadically, but that doesn’t surprise me. A number of your posts in the past were way over the line in terms of common civility, even taking into account the rough-and-tumble nature of online forums. Personally, I think you should make a sincere apology to a lot of the other posters for what you’ve said in the past. I’m not suggesting that you change any of your opinions or beliefs, just the way you express them. Quite frankly, your posts in the past, and those of some others, have dragged the level of conversation in this forum so low that I don’t enjoy this site. If you present your opinions and thoughts in a respectful way, others will listen to you respectfully, although they will have the right to express their opinions and thoughts, too. As Dennis Miller says: “Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dearest futurequest…
” I only read these posts sporadically, ” you are a wise person.
” Personally, I think you should make a sincere apology to a lot of the other posters for what you’ve said in the past. ”
More like they should apologize to me. As you stated, you don’t get out much, so you really don’t have a clue.
” As Dennis Miller says: “Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.” ”
And, wise person that you are, you are wrong in your assumptions that it is I who is at fault.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Does this mean that I can leave messages and not be told that just because I’m young that I don’t know anything?
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, that may be the case Alexander.
But we will wait and see for now.
Good to see you back on here though.
Willis
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alex: “Does this mean that I can leave messages and not be told that just because I’m young that I don’t know anything?”
??????? Afraid you lost me there. What does any of the above have to do with you Alexander?
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Futurequest,
I, too, at one point, bailed on this forum. I guess post #26 may explain why. I really enjoy the give and take of ideas in this format and find it distressing to have to wade through so much childish vitriol, but I came back because I decided that it would be folly to allow one immature poster to deny me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with a group that is generally very bright, thoughful, and respectful.
I simply have chosen to refuse to respond to childish insults and irrelevant babble.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc posted: “I, too, at one point, bailed on this forum. I guess post #26 may explain why. I really enjoy the give and take of ideas in this format and find it distressing to have to wade through so much childish vitriol, but I came back because I decided that it would be folly to allow one immature poster to deny me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with a group that is generally very bright, thoughful, and respectful.”
The difficulty may be that some are attempting to avail themselves of this facility as a ‘forum’ for serious discussion about ideas, concepts and matters of concern to everyone, while others consider it but another ‘chat room’ or, as some of us consider such things, an opportunity to ‘gossip’ and, ‘Look at me, I’m here’. As dc so aptly recommends, the latter are better not even acknowledged, either directly or indirectly. One individual in particular, although by means the only one, is deserving of such treatment. Otherwise, such individuals are allowed, and do, direct the conversation, both the content and intellectual level of the discource. That said, we welcome dc back to the FORUM.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks RL,
I do, indeed, hope that it can be kept at the “Forum” level. I am engaged in a very interesting discussion with Bullish on another thread. This site can be interesting….sans snipers.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Classof52, in response to my question, you asked what any of this had to do with me. My new question is what does any of the messages have to do with you anymore than they have to do with me?
I asked if I could leave messages without being told I am too young. Your message back told my that I can not without getting putdown by you. You are an old man and do not have any courtesy for anybody else, either young or old.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander: “Mr Classof52, in response to my question, you asked what any of this had to do with me. My new question is what does any of the messages have to do with you anymore than they have to do with me?
I asked if I could leave messages without being told I am too young. Your message back told my that I can not without getting putdown by you. You are an old man and do not have any courtesy for anybody else, either young or old.”
Putdown???? what putdown?
I merely asked what did all of the above messages (before yours) about the whole WLJ situation have to do with anyone telling you that you are too young? I did not see the connection and was asking for information. You are seeing “putdowns” in every response, even when they don’t exist.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.