Meeting to Begin with Moment of Silence

Meeting to Begin with Moment of Silence

There are 55 comments on the Fox 8 WGHP story from Feb 8, 2010, titled Meeting to Begin with Moment of Silence. In it, Fox 8 WGHP reports that:

Tonight's meeting of the Forsyth County Commissioners will begin with a moment of silence instead of the usual word of prayer.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox 8 WGHP.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 10

Lincolnshire, IL

#41 Feb 10, 2010
seller wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and by the way. You never explained what the historical significance was for the genocide and ethnic cleansing that took place. Would really love to hear that.
Sorry, but I don't understand the question. I didn't comment on any historical significance to genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Since: Jan 10

Lincolnshire, IL

#42 Feb 10, 2010
seller,
OK you pressed the point. You are correct. All one needs to do is read what Zorach states - rather than an interpretation. So that you don't lead people to believe your version of the Zorach v Clauson, here's the text. Please take careful note of the court's favorable position on "prayers in legislative halls". Unfortunately, this will have to be two separate posts due to the ruling's length.

There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Since: Jan 10

Lincolnshire, IL

#43 Feb 10, 2010
continued....
We would have to press the concept of separation of Church and State to these extremes to condemn the present law on constitutional grounds. We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.
Our individual preferences, however, are not the constitutional standard. The constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State. The problem, like many problems in constitutional law, is one of degree. But we cannot expand it unless separation of Church and State means that public institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accommodate the religious needs of the people. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.
seller

Asheboro, NC

#44 Feb 10, 2010
Blue Dog Dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't understand the question. I didn't comment on any historical significance to genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Christians keep bringing up that this country was founded on Christian morals and priciples. You said I didn't understand the historical significance. Since my examples were about the genocide and ethnic cleansing that took place.....

Since: Jan 10

Phoenix, AZ

#45 Feb 10, 2010
seller wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians keep bringing up that this country was founded on Christian morals and priciples. You said I didn't understand the historical significance. Since my examples were about the genocide and ethnic cleansing that took place.....
Oh. Now I understand. Sorry, I my comments weren't presented well. I was simply pointing out that those that founded country came here (primarily) for religous freedoms.
Wills

Burlington, NC

#46 Feb 10, 2010
River Otter wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep trying to pound this "founded as a Christian nation" sermon.
Well, why don't you put up or shut up. Where is your EVIDENCE for this claim you make?
By the way, this nation wasn't "founded" by Christians, it was founded tens of thousands of years ago by the Native Americans whom crossed the ice bridge.
You know, the indigenous people. The ones the Christians slaughtered, raped, robbed, tortured, and dehumanized when they came over to escape from religious PERSICUTION in Europe, bringing their religious baggage with them.
Put up your evidence or shove off.
Well aren't you a South Pole Elf. I think Santa has you on his Naughty list.

Since you brought it up:
The indigenous residents of North America were a stone-aged society with barely a written language, after "tens of thousands of years", and didn't have the concept of the wheel. Do not jump on your self-righteous Noble Savage pedestal without proper social relevance.

If this is an anti-Christian rant, or more properly an anti-Catholic rant, then say so. The Europeans brought with them Smallpox, and in turn, brought back syphilis.

Your emotional outburst has nothing to do with respect for the Almighty and how we can incorporate our beliefs in God helping us to better govern and help our fellow man.

What is your solution? What do you suggest our elected officials do?
seller

Asheboro, NC

#47 Feb 10, 2010
Blue Dog Dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Now I understand. Sorry, I my comments weren't presented well. I was simply pointing out that those that founded country came here (primarily) for religous freedoms.
So where in the courts ruling does it state that one can promote their religion when doing the business of all? It states the issue of separating church and state should be practiced, but gets complicated. When it does common sense should be used. Notice how the ruling reads..GOD, the Almighty, and that most people in this country believe in a supreme being. It never says Jesus, Allah, Buddah, or anything else. Just a generic term. HMMMMMM.
Anyway, anyone can still use the moment of silence to pray. The issue here is that Christians want the right to be the only religion recognized. Sounds pretty greedy and power hungry.

Since: Jan 10

Greensboro, NC

#48 Feb 11, 2010
seller wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians keep bringing up that this country was founded on Christian morals and priciples. You said I didn't understand the historical significance. Since my examples were about the genocide and ethnic cleansing that took place.....
These are not my words but maybe it will answer you question.
Why were the cities destroyed?
The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).
In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).
Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).

What about innocent adults?
Sadly, these were few and far between. If people grow up in a culture that accepts things like murder and rape, very few will listen to their conscience and go against what everyone else says. Children learn wrong things from their parents and the surrounding culture; as they mature, they become part of the culture and perpetuate it by participating in it and passing on its teachings to their children.
However, those who were righteous were spared from the destruction. In the destruction of Jericho, Rahab and her family were spared because she feared God and chose to help the Israelites (Josh 2:1-21, 6:22-25). Before the Amalekites were destroyed, their righteous neighbors were warned to move away (1 Sam 15:5-6). God promised not to destroy Sodom if there were but ten righteous people in the city (Gen 18:22-32), and in a later judgment against Jerusalem, promised to forgive the city if one righteous person was found in it (Jer 5:1).

Since: Jan 10

Greensboro, NC

#49 Feb 11, 2010
What about the children?
Small children did not share the guilt of their parents. The Bible describes small children as not knowing right from wrong (Is 7:15-16), and in some cases, this meant that they were spared the earthly punishment their elders received. For example, when the Israelites sinned during their wanderings in the desert, God forbid the adults from entering the promised land, but gave it to their children who were too young to be held responsible (Dt 1:34-39). The Bible also clearly teaches that one person is not held guilty for another's sin (Ezek 18). Therefore, the children who were killed would not face the same punishment in the afterlife as their parents.
Why were the children killed, if they weren't guilty? Apparently, they were considered as morally neutral, since they weren't yet old enough to be held accountable or to have done much right or wrong. While not as corrupt as their parents, they were part of the society that was judged, and shared its earthly (though not its eternal) fate.(Conversely, the family of a righteous person sometimes shared their relative's protection from earthly destruction; see Josh 6:22-25, Gen 19:12-13.) Often, when someone did something wrong and was punished while on earth, only the evildoer themselves was punished. However, when a person or a society committed massive evil, that evil was punished by the destruction of the entire family or city; in such cases, only those who had actively demonstrated their integrity could be saved (14:13-20). See also Does God punish children for their parents' sins?

Couldn't the children have died painlessly?
Why didn't God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death.
It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals - see Ex 23:28-29).

Since: Jan 10

Greensboro, NC

#50 Feb 11, 2010
Were the Israelites right to obey God's orders?
The Israelites personally knew God to be just, righteous and wise. Aside from knowing God through prayer and individual devotions, many generations of Israelites personally witnessed God's miracles. The generation that fought against the Midianites was the generation that had miraculously escaped from Egypt; the generation that fought the wars in the book of Joshua was only one generation later, and saw the parting of the Jordan River (Josh 3:7-17). Both generations experienced God's provision for them during the Exodus (Dt 29:5; manna was provided until the time of Joshua - Josh 5:12). Finally, Moses explicitly taught the Israelites that God "is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he" (Dt 32:4). These things gave them reason to trust God even when he commanded them to do something they might otherwise refuse to do. Furthermore, they understood that God has the authority to destroy a city, and that the best thing for them to do was to trust someone whose judgment and wisdom are far superior to their own. For more on this, see Is it right to obey God? and God's moral authority.
Some have argued that the Israelites should have decided that God's command was wrong and refused to carry it out. It is worth noting that God is unchanging (Mal 3:6), so the Israelites would have known that the just and righteous God they knew before was still just and righteous when he issued the command. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument that God could have issued an unjust command; for instance, ordering the Israelites to be sadistic by torturing babies and enjoying their pain. Sadism is inherently evil; there is no possible situation in which it could be right to take pleasure in torturing others.(The Israelites slew people with swords, which would have been one of the quickest ways at the time to kill someone, and were never told to enjoy killing; thus God's commanded genocide was not sadism.) Therefore the Israelites would have been justified in refusing to practice sadism. Killing a person, while often wrong, is not wrong in all situations; for example, it can be justified if necessary for self-defense. That is, it's not automatically wrong for God to issue an order to kill humans. Since the Israelites had good reason to believe in God's moral perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, the best choice for them would be to trust that God had a better understanding than they of the situation itself and the moral rules governing it. The only way for them to be justified in not obeying God's command would be if the command were inherently evil and impossible to justify (though it must be cautioned that humans with their imperfect understanding could incorrectly decide a command was inherently evil).

Since: Jan 10

Greensboro, NC

#51 Feb 11, 2010
How did the Israelites know it was God's command?
Some people have objected that the Israelites didn't directly receive a command from God, but were following their leader's orders, and thus they didn't know if God himself had commanded it or not. It's true that God gave the commands to the leaders of the Israelites, but in all the cases where the Israelites were told by a leader to destroy a population, they had plenty of prior evidence that the leader was in fact anointed by God and could be trusted to deliver God's commands. The three leaders who passed on these commands were Moses, Joshua, and Samuel. The Israelites literally saw for themselves that God spoke with Moses (Ex 33:7-11, 34:29-35), plus they had seen all the miracles that he performed. Joshua was chosen to succeed Moses, and God performed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan explictly so that the Israelites would know that God was with Joshua (Josh 3:7-17).(After Joshua's death, God spoke to the Israelites directly - see Judges 1:1-2.) And as for Samuel, "all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the Lord" (1 Sam 3:20).

Were the Israelites merely justifying their aggression/xenophobia?
When the Israelites destroyed a population, they were acting as God's tools, not taking matters into their own hands. God made it clear to them that he was the one behind their victories (Jdg 7:2-3, Josh 5:13-14). In many cases, the nations were defeated by miracles of God (Josh 6, 10:8-14), and in all cases the Israelites were victorious only because they were following God, who gave them the victory (Josh 10:42).
Furthermore, God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:1-6, "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations." He had also given them several laws concerning treatment of Gentiles/foreigners, including, "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Lev 19:33-34).(For more on this, see Exclusion of Gentiles in the Old Testament.) Only nations that were guilty of great wickedness were to be destroyed; the Israelites were instructed to first offer peaceful terms to other cities they attacked, and to only kill the men if they ended up going to war (Dt 20:10-15).
God held the Israelites accountable for their sins also. When they sinned, they were unable to win any battles (Josh 7:1-12). When they later fell into the same evil acts that the punished nations had committed, Jerusalem was beseiged and its inhabitants died or were exiled (see the article on Jeremiah).

Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?
Genocide, murder or any killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not justified. God alone has the right to take human life in cases other than defense. The only reason the Israelites were right to destroy cities in the OT is because they received a clear, direct command from God to do so. Any reason short of that, including humans deciding on their own that God wants them to kill others, is not enough to justify it.

Since: Jan 10

Greensboro, NC

#52 Feb 11, 2010
Were the Israelites right to obey God's orders?
The Israelites personally knew God to be just, righteous and wise. Aside from knowing God through prayer and individual devotions, many generations of Israelites personally witnessed God's miracles. The generation that fought against the Midianites was the generation that had miraculously escaped from Egypt; the generation that fought the wars in the book of Joshua was only one generation later, and saw the parting of the Jordan River (Josh 3:7-17). Both generations experienced God's provision for them during the Exodus (Dt 29:5; manna was provided until the time of Joshua - Josh 5:12). Finally, Moses explicitly taught the Israelites that God "is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he" (Dt 32:4). These things gave them reason to trust God even when he commanded them to do something they might otherwise refuse to do. Furthermore, they understood that God has the authority to destroy a city, and that the best thing for them to do was to trust someone whose judgment and wisdom are far superior to their own. For more on this, see Is it right to obey God? and God's moral authority.
Some have argued that the Israelites should have decided that God's command was wrong and refused to carry it out. It is worth noting that God is unchanging (Mal 3:6), so the Israelites would have known that the just and righteous God they knew before was still just and righteous when he issued the command. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument that God could have issued an unjust command; for instance, ordering the Israelites to be sadistic by torturing babies and enjoying their pain. Sadism is inherently evil; there is no possible situation in which it could be right to take pleasure in torturing others.(The Israelites slew people with swords, which would have been one of the quickest ways at the time to kill someone, and were never told to enjoy killing; thus God's commanded genocide was not sadism.) Therefore the Israelites would have been justified in refusing to practice sadism. Killing a person, while often wrong, is not wrong in all situations; for example, it can be justified if necessary for self-defense. That is, it's not automatically wrong for God to issue an order to kill humans. Since the Israelites had good reason to believe in God's moral perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, the best choice for them would be to trust that God had a better understanding than they of the situation itself and the moral rules governing it. The only way for them to be justified in not obeying God's command would be if the command were inherently

Since: Jan 10

United States

#53 Feb 11, 2010
seller wrote:
<quoted text>
So where in the courts ruling does it state that one can promote their religion when doing the business of all? It states the issue of separating church and state should be practiced, but gets complicated. When it does common sense should be used. Notice how the ruling reads..GOD, the Almighty, and that most people in this country believe in a supreme being. It never says Jesus, Allah, Buddah, or anything else. Just a generic term. HMMMMMM.
Anyway, anyone can still use the moment of silence to pray. The issue here is that Christians want the right to be the only religion recognized. Sounds pretty greedy and power hungry.
This has been my point and position from the start. Invocations should simply reference Almighty God, God, or Heavenly Father. These references apply universally to all, except for atheist, but the Supremes settled that one in Zorach as well.

So, let me ask the simple question to you... If the invocation was a prayer to Almighty God, are you OK with this? How about this... Almighty God, we come before you asking for your devine guidance as this elected body does the work of the people. Amen. It meets Constitutional muster. What say you?
mr rodwell

Greensboro, NC

#54 Feb 28, 2010
Blue Dog Dem wrote:
<quoted text>
This has been my point and position from the start. Invocations should simply reference Almighty God, God, or Heavenly Father. These references apply universally to all, except for atheist, but the Supremes settled that one in Zorach as well.
So, let me ask the simple question to you... If the invocation was a prayer to Almighty God, are you OK with this? How about this... Almighty God, we come before you asking for your devine guidance as this elected body does the work of the people. Amen. It meets Constitutional muster. What say you?
It meets my standards, however this issue is about being an American. Most religious idiots just don't get it! KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS! It doesn't matter what idiot in our past wrote about what they thought. Keep it fair for all! NO RELIGION MORON! Pray at home dumb @$$!

Since: Jan 10

Lincolnshire, IL

#55 Mar 2, 2010
mr rodwell wrote:
<quoted text>
It meets my standards, however this issue is about being an American. Most religious idiots just don't get it! KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS! It doesn't matter what idiot in our past wrote about what they thought. Keep it fair for all! NO RELIGION MORON! Pray at home dumb @$$!
Ahhhhhh.... the voice of reason and sophisticated logic has arrived. Thank you, Mr Rodwell for your in-depth analysis and eloquent commentary.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Forsyth County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Will Novant Health employees have to pass on su... (Sep '13) Sep '13 charles 1
News Incoming W-S police chief cleared in shooting o... (Jun '13) Jun '13 RCI 2
News Elkin police captain resigns for - personal rea... (May '13) May '13 Andrew 1
News NC jury trials could be waived in amendment change (May '13) May '13 Andrew 1
News Your View: Prayer without Jesus' name has no power (Feb '12) Jan '13 God is in Control 12
News Same-sex couples ask for marriage licenses in NC (Jan '13) Jan '13 Anonymous 3
News Awash in conflicting advice, elections board co... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Safetrucker 1
More from around the web