This is just a simple question for Tommy Coleman and Brandon Jones. Please tell us how you have been personally harmed by the tradition of prayer at the commission meetings. I know the court decisions that have been made, but that is not my question. Share with us how you have been personally harmed by these prayers.
You can't speak for others as we are wise enough to speak for ourselves. Have you been harmed or are you looking for your few minutes of fame?
N.D Kennedy Sr.
* * *
I totally agree that it harms nothing. If it does I’ve been harmed all my whole life.
I really think these two individuals have very little to do with their time but to cost taxpayers money. I think the majority are being pushed by a few into trying to force feed something that is simply not going away (the right to pray).
If this is really harming them maybe they should excuse themselves from the opening of the commission meeting, which I’m sure they are always in attendance, and go to the hall for a moment of silence. I guess I am getting older as I used to just laugh it away the way some people act, but I find it hard to keep my mouth shut at what people dig up that just seems like are so trivial like they have so little to do they are just sitting around seeing what they can come up with to cause disruption.
I think some just want to get on the news. It kind of reminds me of Judge Judy (ridicuuulous)
Phil Dyar Sr.
* * *
I think the better question would be to ask Christians how removing prayer from the commission meeting would harm them? No one is telling Christians that they cannot pray. They can pray at their home, in their cars, at their church, while they are walking down the street; but public officials are elected to represent the people, and to begin a commission meeting with a prayer representing one faith is inappropriate, and snubs noses at all the other faiths.
I would also like to ask those Christians who are so up in arms over this issue, why a moment of silence would not be acceptable? Those few Christians who are angry about this
issue seem to have a problem recognizing that the religious world does not revolve solely around Christianity. It is just one of many faiths, and an elected official should not use a political meeting to preach his or her religious beliefs.
* * *
If the Freedom from Religion (FFR) group was congruent, it wouldn't matter that most of the prayers in 2012 were a conversation with Jesus/God, would it? Why would it be pacifying for the County Commission to have prayers that are more inclusive? Wouldn't FFR be against all expressions of religion regardless of which person/place/thing was the object of the religious expression?
Christianity will always be this country's heritage and has enjoyed a courtesy by citizens of all faiths or lack of faith. There was at least an acknowledgment of the significance of Christian faith in the founding of the country. But Christianity does not receive this pass anymore due to the change in the spiritual make up of U.S. citizens. That's not a surprising outcome. I don't know the percentages, so this is illustrative. If Christianity used to represent the faith 80 percent of U.S. citizens, then it would naturally receive more tolerance by those who don't believe in Christ. But as the percentage of Christians continues to decrease, the tolerance from other faiths or non-faiths would become less common place regarding Christian dominance in public settings. Contextualize this. If at a County Commission meeting 20 percent of those in attendance are thinking, "I don't really buy this belief, but I understand its roots in the U.S.," as opposed to 80 percent of the people thinking that, you will natural hear more complaints as the percentages shift away from Christianity.
Christians, you may want to consider the results over time of minimizing the activity of the Great Commission (The Bible, Matthew 28:16-20).
Why are Christians intolerant? Good question. I'm a Christian, and there are two issues for me.
1) I am to respect others' choice to reject that Jesus Christ is God and that the Bible contains truth in regards to leading people into a redeeming relationship with God the Creator. In this area, I am to love all people and respect their decision without trying to convince them of anything. This is how I define respect in relation to faith, and I can offer tolerance. This also happens to be Christ's behavior as a minority leader when he was alive. While his heart broke for his creation to accept his authority, He's always been a big fan of letting people make a personal choice.
2) I can't decide to pray generic prayers to the air or to someone other than the God of the Bible. That would be disingenuous and a rejection of my God. But if our government regulates public prayer, I can let another person pray who believes different than me without feeling the need to protest or file a law suit. I don't like the thought of government's control of prayer, but if that becomes law, then as a citizen I will "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, i.e. I will comply with the law (The Bible, Matthew 22:21).
It is a lot for everyone tho think about, and think we must.
* * *
You appear to be using the scriptures incorrectly here. When our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars he was referring to the paying of taxes and the example that he used was the money with which the taxes was paid with bore the inscription of Caesar. The question had been put to him by one of his disciples was should we as believers pay taxes and the answer was yes and the above mentioned example was given.
Now when it comes to the matter of prayer the scriptures plainly shows that the state has no authority in regulating the spiritual matters of this world as answered by Peter in the book of Acts when the religious officials of the day told him to no longer pray in the name of Jesus and Peter responded that we should in this instance obey God and not man.