a E-mail i received. how sad

[docruger]

Aug 21, 2009 48 AM Subject: the first of three defendants charged with illegally praying Body: From the Desk of:
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in the federal court serving Northern
Florida, the first of three defendants charged with illegally
praying (or merely encouraging prayer) over a meal will
face Judge Casey Rodgers.

Michelle Winkler, a Santa Rosa County clerical assistant asked
her husband to bless a meal at a privately sponsored "Employee
of the Year" banquet held at a rented, off-campus facility
well after school hours. But the prying eyes of the ACLU
took note, and Michelle now faces stiff fines and censure!

Mrs. Winkler is charged with civil contempt, but her school's
principal, Frank Lay, and its athletic director, Robert Freeman,
face CRIMINAL charges before the same judge on September 17.

Although the potential penalties are not as severe in
Michelle's case, the core issues are much the same.
This historic battle begins tomorrow in Pensacola!

We have spread the word of the ACLU's outrageous attempt to
criminalize Christianity in America in every way we can. We
have appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, and scores of
other national broadcast outlets, and will continue doing so.

We were on Fox News discussing Michelle's plight again just
this morning. But now I need your help in two very important
ways:

ACTION ITEM ONE: Please pray! There's a reason the ACLU
doesn't want prayer in public places - they can't make
headway on their secular, statist agenda when we pray!
And Michelle Winkler needs prayers from brothers and
sisters across America to stand strong tomorrow. Just
imagine being in her place!

ACTION ITEM TWO: Tell as many Christian friends as possible
about this pivotal battle for the soul of our Nation, and ask
them to join you in prayer! Even if you've already done
some forwarding (and thank you so much for that), please
do even more today! This call to prayer must get out to a
much wider audience!

I cannot emphasize strongly enough what a crucially important
group of cases this is! The future of American law and our
precious freedom of religious expression literally hang in the
balance in this small Florida Panhandle community.

You can learn more about this historic battle and help Liberty
Counsel stand up to the bullies of the ACLU by going here:

LIBERTY COUNSEL

[Rubix^3]

After googling a bit to read background stories there is some missing info here that I think is pertinent to the case; mainly that the ACLU filed against the school for institutionalized praying back in Jan. and a court ruled an injunction against the school--meaning the school admin. was to cease prayer at school functions. ACLU could have a case because those employees and administrators who prayed, did so in violation of a prior court injunction. This could be bad for the defendants, depending on how the court views the context and venue they were publicly praying at.
This is just objective fact about the case. My personal take; I find this deeply distressing, not as a Christian, but as an American. I will be watching this to see how it unfolds. I imagine this will blow up as a political issue really fast...
Sigh...
Thanks Joe for sharing.

[cp478]

this is deeply distressing to me just in the fact that people should be tolerant and respectful of other peoples beliefs. instead of trying to stop people from praying, what is wrong with merely helping people and institutions to realize to respect and observe everyones beliefs that may be involved.

[suretolose]

If someone wants to say a quite prayer over there meal, there should not be a problem with that even with a pending court case. It is one of the principles this country was founded on. The fact is someone still reported it and found it offensive. The same people that do not tolerate this action, call me intolerant because I want border security or want less taxes for welfare.

[SmokeRings]

I personally see nothing wrong with saying a silent prayer over your meal in public. But when this woman asked her husband to "bless" the food at their table, where other people were assumingly sitting, that could make someone very uncomfortable, especially if it is not their belief to do this. I think what they did here was unfair to the other people sitting with them, or around them.
If people want to pray thats fine. But keep it to yourself, when someone makes it a public thing, i think it goes beyond them just wanting to pray.

just my

[cp478]

yes, buts what would be so wrong by just saying now i am going to bless this food under my beliefs and i invite anyone of other beliefs to do the same?

[eyesack]

lol WTF is this country coming to? Now don't get me wrong, I'm all about spirituality, but I'd prefer people keep their preferred brand to themselves. However, I'm very open, really; I was raised Jewish, have been to church, dabbled in Buddhism, and now follow a non-religion based program of spirituality. The fact that I've been allowed these rights not only as an American, but as a human being is what I think the phrase inalienable rights means! Is it really going to kill someone to watch or hear someone else say thank you to a higher power for another meal that they have the privilege to eat? Ah well... I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of religious war.

[sboyajian]

Originally Posted by SmokeRings

I personally see nothing wrong with saying a silent prayer over your meal in public. But when this woman asked her husband to "bless" the food at their table, where other people were assumingly sitting, that could make someone very uncomfortable, especially if it is not their belief to do this. I think what they did here was unfair to the other people sitting with them, or around them.
If people want to pray thats fine. But keep it to yourself, when someone makes it a public thing, i think it goes beyond them just wanting to pray.

just my

This.

For what it's worth, some people like to pray or bless their meal. I choose not to. Many in my family don't, including ones who are fairly religious.

When we used to have meals with my Sister in Law, she had a simple solution. Close her eyes, bow her head and say a silent prayer to herself.

That is what they should have done. Blessing the food and forcing the prayer to be for all, is in fact not appropriate. You say to be "tolerant" of others beliefs, but by doing what they did, they forced their beliefs on everyone else. That is Tolerant Irony.

[Snomoskier]

Demonizing the American Civil Liberties Union is standard right wing bigotry. The ACLU in it's defense of individual's rights has more christian ideals than the in your face praying types that are usually very self righteous and condesending. Freedom of religion is for individuals and religion should not be imposed on others especially if the person imposing it is in a position of authority. I'll take my freedom of religion in the form of freedom from religion.

[Bigtotoro]

But it was not a "silent prayer". It was verbalized during a company function. Which indicates implied consent from the company. Personally, it doesn't not bother me. It is amusing how the phrases "respect our beliefs" and "don't push your beliefs on us" mean different things to different people.

[sboyajian]

Originally Posted by Bigtotoro

But it was not a "silent prayer". It was verbalized during a company function. Which indicates implied consent from the company. Personally, it doesn't not bother me. It is amusing how the phrases "respect our beliefs" and "don't push your beliefs on us" mean different things to different people.

The keyword as you said yourself is: COMPANY.

I've never seen a company that everyone believes in the same principals and religions. That being said, this was a school.. and not a catholic school or a hebrew school. Just a regular old school. I can almost guarantee there are different belief systems in there.

Just because the people leading the prayer agree with it, does not mean it's "implied consent"..

Implied Consent would be if this happened at a Church or a private catholic school. You walk through those doors anticipating prayer.

[Bigtotoro]

Originally Posted by sboyajian

The keyword as you said yourself is: COMPANY.

I've never seen a company that everyone believes in the same principals and religions. That being said, this was a school.. and not a catholic school or a hebrew school. Just a regular old school. I can almost guarantee there are different belief systems in there.

Just because the people leading the prayer agree with it, does not mean it's "implied consent"..

Implied Consent would be if this happened at a Church or a private catholic school. You walk through those doors anticipating prayer.

You misunderstand me. By implied consent, I was indicating that since that has taken place at a company function, that this sort of activity can be construed as company approved. Therefore, the entire company can be held at fault.

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by Snomoskier

Demonizing the American Civil Liberties Union is standard right wing bigotry. The ACLU in it's defense of individual's rights has more christian ideals than the in your face praying types that are usually very self righteous and condesending. Freedom of religion is for individuals and religion should not be imposed on others especially if the person imposing it is in a position of authority. I'll take my freedom of religion in the form of freedom from religion.

One more post of this nature will result in the thread being locked!

[Rubix^3]

Ok, the conversations been had...
Lets go Joe Jam guys!

[SmokeRings]

Im glad this is done.
Joes Jam it is!!!