>Samuel Thompson wrote:
>I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not
>going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho
>song in December.

>I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out
>and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher
>taught his theory of evolution.

These are pretty disingenuous. The point of Mr. Thompson’s first two sentences is to prove that he’s basically an easy-going kind of guy, and that he puts up with these minor impositions on his sensibilities, so we should all put up with the minor imposition of state-sponsored prayer. However, his first example is completely bogus. Santa Claus has become part and parcel of the Christian tradition in this country. Why would Mr. Thompson object? That’s not an imposition on him. He should pick a more challenging example to prove his tolerance. For example, what would he do if his 2nd-grader’s teacher was leading her class in Pagan observances of the winter solstice and disparaging Christian traditions?

His second example is equally bogus. He didn’t take his high school teacher to court because he’d probably lose. Not agreeing with Darwin is like not agreeing with gravity. If you’re going to disagree with a scientific theory, you need to challenge it scientifically, not legally. However, this comment is wrong on a second level. Many Christians do choose to fight the teaching of evolution in schools. In recent history, creationists have been much more active in the courts, elections, and school systems than has anyone involved in limiting school-sponsored prayer.

>Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will
>not be endangered because someone says a 30-
>second prayer before a football game. So what's
>the big deal?

>It's not like somebody is up there reading the
>entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a
>God they believe in and asking him to grant
>safety to the players on the field and the fans
>going home from the game.

People like Mr. Thompson constantly misstate the issue, through either ignorance or deliberate deception. The “big deal” is not that someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. Nobody has any problem with that. Nobody is trying to stop that. Mr. Thompson is free to say all the prayers he wants, at any time, for any purpose.

This rhetorical device is called a “straw man argument.” Mr. Thompson misstates the issue, then argues against the misstatement. This is done when there is no good argument against the real issue. He chooses to misstate the issue as “they’re trying to take away our right to pray!” Anyone who says that is an idiot, and doesn’t deserve respect. What should be taken away is any thought on Mr. Thompson’s part that everyone should have to listen to his religious beliefs, merely because he is in the majority.

The issue is state- or school-sponsored religious observances. What people argue against is Mr. Thompson’s desire to publicly broadcast his prayers to captive audiences. If prayer is effective, then they will work if Mr. Thompson just whispers them to himself. His desire to publicly broadcast his prayers has less to do with his right to pray and more to do with his own vanity, or his desire for a sense of belonging, or his desire to convert others. If his argument is that prayer doesn’t work unless it’s said aloud to everyone gathered, then he should probably take that up with his God.

>"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
>Yes, and this is the United States of America, a
>country founded on Christian principles.

Another bogus argument. This country was founded by Christians using fundamental values and principles that are shared with many religions. If being “founded on Christian principles” makes us special, then please point out how the legal system of England or Japan or Russia is morally different from ours. They all prohibit murder, thievery, fraud, etc. That’s common sense and common morality. The thinking of our founding fathers was rooted in a specific set of values and principles that they were familiar with, but those values and principles are universal. However, one of the most important things that does make the United States different than every other country is the Establishment clause in our Bill of Rights. That’s what’s uniquely American.

As an aside, many Christians try to argue both sides of one coin (although Mr. Thompson is not guilty of that brand of illogic here). They will argue on the one hand that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and so “under God” is just a reflection of our Christian heritage. On the other hand, they will argue that “under God” is generic, and doesn’t promote any particular religion. They can’t have it both ways.

>And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our
>very own phone book, Christian churches
>outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So
>what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare
>Krishna? If I went to a football game in
>Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish
>prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
>I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I
>went to a ping pong match in China, I would
>expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

>And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother
>me one bit. When in Rome...

I don’t understand. Because Christians are in the majority here, it’s fine if they want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else? It’s OK just so long as we’re willing to hear other types of prayers when we’re on vacation? How does this litany of practices in foreign countries support his argument? Is it supposed to show that he’s tolerant of the majority views of various cultures? How bold! How brave! It’s easy (and worthless) to show tolerance towards the majority, especially when they live somewhere else.

Maybe he’s under the impression that our Constitution is based on the principle of “majority rules.” If so, he needs to go back to school. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. If Christian churches outnumber others by such a wide margin, then it’s that much more important to ensure that our public institutions are not being used to establish religious beliefs. Remember, Mr. Thompson is a citizen of a country that professes separation of church and state. He should be more concerned that a vocal minority is trying to subvert that principle.

>"But what about the atheists?" is another
>argument. What about them?

>Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not
>going to pass the collection plate. Just humor
>us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much,
>bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to
>the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call
>your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will
>make that call. One or two will tell thousands
>what they can and cannot do. I don't think a
>short prayer at a football game is going to
>shake the world's foundations.

Good. Then he really won’t mind when that Pagan teacher tells his 2nd-grader, every day for an entire year, “It’s OK if you don’t think like the rest of us, little Suzie – you just go over there and stand in the corner and wait while the rest of us perform our holy obligations – you can just think whatever you want, or hum to yourself, or whatever – we’ll pray for you, too.” If Mr. Thompson can honestly say that he wouldn’t mind his daughter being made to feel like an immoral outcast every day by an authority figure (as well as her peers), then I will believe him. I have a feeling that he couldn’t do it.

>Christians are just sick and tired of turning
>the other cheek while our courts strip us of all
>our rights.

So, the people who want to force everyone to listen to their prayers are the victims, and the people who want to defend the Constitution are the bad guys. That’s an interesting bit of projection.

>Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray
>before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
>Our Bible tells us just to pray without
>ceasing. Now a handful of people and their
>lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Another straw man argument. But a heart-breaking one. His grandparents will be so disappointed in us. Please, Mr. Thompson, repeat after me, slowly: absolutely no one has told you to cease praying.

Mr. Thompson is very indignant that his rights are being taken away, yet he fails to mention the big one: his right to force others to listen to his prayers. That’s the only “right” that’s being threatened, but he doesn’t bring it up. I wonder why?

>God, help us. And if that last sentence offends
>you, well..........just sue me. The silent
>majority has been silent too long..

(Here he’s talking about the “silent majority” that wants to keep using loudspeakers to pray.)

>it's time we let that one or two who scream loud
>enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't
>care what they want.. it is time the majority
>rules. It's time we tell them, you don't have
>to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of
>allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or
>attend services that honor Him. That is your
>right, and we will honor your right.. but by
>golly you are no longer going to take our rights
>away ..

The purpose of this paragraph is to make a link in his readers’ minds: that a few people who don’t believe in God want to stop everyone else from praying, saying the pledge of allegiance, and going to church. That’s completely bogus, but it’s sure easy to get everyone hot and bothered when he frames the issue that way. He fails to answer the real question (because he has no valid argument): how does honoring the Establishment clause take anyone’s rights away?

>We are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN! After
>all, the God you have the right to denounce is
>on our side!

Mr. Thompson will win only by destroying the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. As for God taking sides – show me some proof. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

>God bless us one and all, especially those who
>denounce Him...

I’ve been paying a lot of attention to this debate, and I haven’t heard one person on either side denounce God. Apparently, Mr. Thompson feels the need to demonize his opposition. Again, he’s trying to make false linkages in his readers’ minds: those who support the Constitution are denouncing God.

>God bless America, despite all her faults..
>still the greatest nation of all.....

(Except for that “separation of church and state” part…that’s not so good.)

>God bless our service men who are fighting to
>protect our right to pray and worship God...

>May 2003 be the year the silent majority is
>heard and we put God back as the foundation of
>our families and institutions.

This statement bears a second look: “…the year the silent majority…put[s] God back as the foundation of our families….” Having God as the foundation of a family is a private decision. Does Mr. Thompson really want the majority to be able to force that on everyone? I think he let his enthusiasm get the better of him, and he let slip what his true intentions are.

>Keep looking up......In God WE Trust

>If you agree with this, please pass it on. If
>not, delete it!!

I’d rather not. I think it’s better to try to enlighten people when they are wrong.