Perhaps the real power of prayer is how it influences and supports non-tolerance and even hatred.

Although I don't believe prayer is effective in accomplishing results, I think that taking it further by making one's prayer public is a sure way to create animosity and indicate the level of one's tolerance for other beliefs,and demonstrate the content of one's charachter.

Perhaps making one's prayer public is a good thing as it helps us to discern the kind of person/people and intellect, we are dealing with.

OK, I'll bite....But first a disclaimer...Redyke everyone knows you are brilliant so if you try to take advantage of me I'm walkin!

I can't even wrap my head around your statement "perhaps the real power of prayer is how it influences and supports non-tolerance and even hatred" because it sounds completely ridiculous...

IMHO prayer is personal.....If I do it, when I do it, how I do it, and why I do it, ALL PERSONAL....Maybe that is why it doesn't bother me when others do it in public and sometime I even find it comforting because I can sense those doing it are actually experiencing something that feels good to them.....In that respect prayer or praying is effective in accomplishing "positive" results....

To say taking prayer public is a sure way to create animosity, indicate the level of one's tolerance for another's beliefs, and demonstrate a persons "true" character is like saying tomorrow at 9:05 AM, Eastern Standard Time, the sky will fall.....

Wow, thanks for the complement, but I am not trying to take advantage. I can see I was not making a clear point. Silent prayer in a public place, doesn't bother me, in most cases, I can even be respectful and maintain silence while the person/people meditate. So I agree with you that prayer is a personal & private activity.


By making public, I meant 'announcing' or making the content of one's prayer a public matter.

If one chooses to do so the content can be used to determine the the level of one's tolerance for other beliefs,and demonstrate the content of one's charachter. It could effect how others will view and respond to the person or poeple involved with the prayer.

The article I posted was the exhibit I was using to support my view.

How would you react if people were publicly praying that you get cancer and die, just because you don't conform to morals dictated by their religious beliefs?

How do we tend react when religious beliefs allow and support total domination of women, including physical and mental abuse - especially if after the abuse the prayer includes the request that the woman be made submissive?

So maybe knowing what others pray for, will help us determine who/what we're dealing with. You think?


Edited to include:

Here's another point - when considering of all those 'silent' prayers that we are repectful of, how can we be sure that the prayer is benign? What if the person next to you is praying for violence to happen to you?

So in some regard, just knowing that those kinds of prayers are being offered, it's rather tolerant of us to be respectful in the face to such total disregard.

Either way, I will still tend to respect those who feel the need to interrupt activity for the purpose of prayer. I'd like to think that most poeple have good intentions and that deserves some level of respect, util it's proved otherwise.

I think we cant control what people think or feel, often times THEY cant even control it,, so I dont spend alot of time focused on it


unless/until it turns into ACTIONS,,,,

people can pray for good or bad, nothing can be done about that
I think people praying for good happens much more often than those praying for bad,, personally

but thats just me


as far as public prayer, I dont think its good or bad in and of itself, it can be great for people to sometimes congregate to pray together publicly as a way to let others know they arent alone, or to encourage others to pray themself

it can likewise be awful if it is used to isolate or belittle others

EXACTLY Harmony, EXACTLY...This is what I was trying to say.....I guess I didn't do a very good job....As to Redy's post...I understood what you meant by making it public, but here's the thing..Some people are always going to make public their religious views, their political views, their hatreds and their loves...Some will publicly endorse or denounce anything and everything if they are presented the opportunity...Some will make public threats, some will stand up and testify.....Some of us will be bothered by it, some will not......Like Harmony said, we can't control other people....

And, if someone was sitting beside me in a restaurant, a theater, on an airplane, anywhere, silently praying for my demise it would not matter chit to me because I would not know ......

Transparency is always good thing no matter the subject.....So yeah, I guess we can learn some things about the peeps who pray out loud in public...I guess we can learn some things about what they are praying about or for, but first we have to be willing to listen...really listen....

I would tend to agree with both of you.

With regard to the statement


it should be noted that those ACTIONS are everywhere around us.

While I know that there are many people who do not agree with such actions when it comes - particularly - to legislation which attempts to enter religious morality into the law, what non-religious see are those actions and they are taken with the support of millions of people.

That means that people who view their relious values as personal, often go unrecognized and instead get grouped by a label as being one of them.

Unless religion is benign to a society as a whole, there will be conflict and labels and little tolerance for any religious values.

Sorry, just stating the truth - as cliche as it sounds, many of longest and deepest friendships have been with deeply religious people. I know there is a difference between their ACTIONS and the ACTIONS of millions of others.

So like Msharmony, I tend to give respect first but that does little to address the problems of tolerance we face.

Good to have your responses. I know that both of you deserve my respect, even though we still may try to persuade each other to think in different ways.

Since every law is born from a system of values and beliefs, aren't they all legislating morality?...Is there really any difference between morality and religious morality?....Laws are not legislated "just" to be enforced when they are broken, they are also legislated to teach or influence us...Like it or not, laws play a part in shaping our beliefs and ACTIONS, good or bad....As far as I'm concerned, trying to seperate morality from law would not only be destructive, it would be impossible...Legislating morality is not the issue, deciding which moral system should be legal is the issue....

yes, and pinpointing what 'system' owns any particular moral,,,is also a dilemma

Here are some quotes from a recent article –The laws in the Middle East are based on morality which is dictated through religious belief. These are not laws I would willingly subscribe to, would you? Likewise, I do not subscribe to any law or proposed law that would limit my freedom and liberty and disenfranchises my equality no matter what morality that law stems from.


“When an article in the Egyptian criminal code says that if a woman has been beaten by her husband "with good intentions" no punitive damages can be obtained,…”

“Horrific news reports about 12-year-old girls dying in childbirth do little to stem the tide of child marriage there. Instead, demonstrations in support of child marriage outstrip those against it, fueled by clerical declarations that opponents of state-sanctioned pedophilia are apostates because the Prophet Mohammed, according to them, married his second wife, Aisha, when she was a child.”

Commenting on Saudi Arabia -
“15 girls died in a school fire in Mecca in 2002, after "morality police" barred them from fleeing the burning building -- and kept firefighters from rescuing them -- because the girls were not wearing headscarves and cloaks required in public. And nothing happened. No one was put on trial. Parents were silenced.”

“… the country where a gang-rape survivor was sentenced to jail for agreeing to get into a car with an unrelated male and needed a royal pardon; Saudi Arabia, where a woman who broke the ban on driving was sentenced to 10 lashes and again needed a royal pardon;”

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us?page=full



My understanding of “our” law is that it is created for the purpose of ensuring individual rights of liberty, freedom , and equality, as far as it is possible without infringing on the same rights of others, while still maintaining a civil society.

As for the educational value of our laws, it is true that sometimes a law is required to remind some people that other people are considered equal in the eye of the law – the Civil Rights Act, Age discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilites Act, they, and many others teach us that we should respect everyone in accordance with standards set forth by the founding premises for our country.

But I’m not sure that the law shapes our beliefs as much as our law (U.S.), is a reflection of what shapes our culture. The statutory laws noted as Acts, are congressional enactments which reflected a necessary change to keep up with the changes in the cultural climate. In addition to statutory law, there is common law, regulatory and judicial law. All of those components provide flexibility to allow for cultural change.

The examples of law, provided from the article are from countries in the Middle East in which religion dictates to law. That is a moral system of law. Our civil code is not based on such a rigid standard, rather it has developed over time as a direct response to changes in attitudes & cultural conditions.

However, there is one element if rigidity in our law and it is intentional, which is that the federal constitution and most of the state constitutions were created to be very difficult to change. This is why we find so many obscure laws still on the books – like how much a person can be fined for not cleaning up after their ‘hitched’ horse.

So it’s very important that when new statutory laws are enacted, that we make sure the morality within the new law meets the standards under which our country was formed and has taken shape, basically; freedom, liberty, justice, and equality.





I think we are basically in agreement but I would add that we are not looking for a moral system rather we are looking for legal avenues by which to extend the individual rights of liberty, freedom, and equality as far as it is possible without infringing on the same rights of others, while still maintaining a civil society.

would you like to elaborate?

sure, pinpointing whether value of human life stems from 'religion'

or if religion is one of MANY things that stem from the value of human life,,,

for instance



pinpointing whether the idea of a man and woman in marriage stems from 'religion' specifically, or if religion stemmed for a congregation of writers who already HAD that idea of marriage,,,,


,,just for a couple of examples,,

The first response where you compare Egyptian, Saudi, and Asian legislation to that of the US...this is apples to oranges and you know it....If you want to discuss Middle East law and how chitty it is, just say so Redy....

The second...Ensuring individual rights, freedoms, and equality "AS FAR AS POSSIBLE" w/o infringing on the same rights of "OTHERS" while still maintaining a "CIVIL" society is broad, vague when applied to the whole, and great use of semantics for saying "IF AND FOR THE MOST PART, you operate within the boundaries of law, these laws will "guide" you and keep you safe without robbing you of your individual rights and freedoms." Over time, by witnessing or experiencing the consequences of breaking law or obiding by law many will begin to chainge or "shape" their belief system in an effort to achieve harmony in their day to day life....Because beliefs, religion, and morality are the basis for authoring law, it makes sense that, over time, laws will influence, impact, or "shape" our beliefs.....

I’m not sure I understand what you are taking issue with.

In the United States, when changes or additions to law are proposed, what things should we consider or questions should we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?



Why does that matter? In other words, how does that influence what things we should consider, or questions we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?

While I know that there are many people who do not agree with such actions when it comes - particularly - to legislation which attempts to enter religious morality into the law


..this statement prompted my response about pinpointing morality or values as 'religious' or non religious



the questions to consider are left up to the majority, or the constitution, depending upon the issue at hand,,,

I think the comparison was just - it was an example in response to your statement shown here:

It was meant to demonstrate why there is a difference between morality that is strictly religiously based, and morality that is agreed upon by a diverse group of people.


There are many people in the U.S. who do not want their privacy or reproductive choices invaded or dictated over, based on a religious value, just as there are many who would not approve of legislation that exists in the Middle East.



No matter what the proposed legislation is, it has to be evaluated.

In countries where religion creates the policy there is one objective standard by which to make determinations which is sacred scripture. Of course scripture may be open to interpretation, but generally the actual ruler gets the last word on what interpretation to use.

In the U.S. there is no single objective test with which to determine whether or not proposed legislation meets with specific criteria. If such a test existed, women would not have the vote, African Americans would still be slaves, and so on.

What you see as vague, must be vague because attitudes and cultures change, so we have to be more inclusive of factors that were never of concern in the past.

The question I asked of Msharmony was:

In the United States, when changes or additions to law are proposed, what things should we consider or questions should we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?

I would ask you the same question – and I would add - has there ever been a time in the past or can we foresee a time in the future, in which a single, rigid and unchanging, objective test would suffice in all cases?



I don’t understand all of the above, however by looking at the last sentence quoted below :



I think you may not be in agreement with what I had said previously :


If that’s the case, I would like to understand why you don’t agree or maybe try to explain again what I didn’t understand from the paragraph.

Is there anything more personal than prayer? I can see that Jesus has a place telling people how to pray, since Jesus is God, but do people have any right to be in this incredibly personal part of someone's life? I think not.

But that's a side point, here is the meat of the argument: Try as I might, I could not find any reference to the name of this "women’s prayer group". Where is the skepticism? Are we sure this email was sent by a "women’s prayer group" and not some crackpot? Are we sure this email wasn't sent by the universally deplored Westboro Baptists"? Are we sure this email was sent at all? Since the answer to all three of those questions is "no", this story really is a non-story.

I agree, but that does not preclude discussion amongst the people.

When people openly admit that their reason for suggesting, authoring, co-authoring, or supporting a piece of legislation is religious, there is no doubt who is pin-pointing morality or values as originating with religion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting legislation simply because it happens to be consistent with one’s religious beliefs. However, if religious belief if the only reason for supporting legislation, then it may be legislation which is not agreeable to the wider population.

When that happens, there will be pinpointing, but it’s not the same thing as trying to restrict or limit the freedom of others. In such cases those who are pinpointed are often the offenders because they neither, loose nor gain anything whether the law exists or not.

They deserve to be put on the spot if for no other reason but that others have an opportunity to demonstrate why they think the behavior of those supporters is misguided.

In the United States, when changes or additions to law are proposed, what things should we consider or questions should we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?
Only one, is it constitutional

I would ask you the same question – and I would add - has there ever been a time in the past or can we foresee a time in the future, in which a single, rigid and unchanging, objective test would suffice in all cases?
No



I don’t understand all of the above, however by looking at the last sentence quoted below :



I think you may not be in agreement with what I had said previously :

Over time, law plays a part in shaping beliefs and beliefs are a reflection of culture, so not one or the other but both

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2012/04/mrff-press-release-womens-prayer-group-give-them-breast-cancer-in-jesus-name/

Do you expect this kind of thing to carried in main stream news? Well,I havn't checked on Fox - whould you belive them?

It doesn't matter - it was in news somewhere and I thought it opened a good discussion point. Thanks for participating.

- Edit - by the way, in the above url it states the group was anonymous.

The source didn't bother me. What bothered me was the lack of details. Can you honestly say that the lack of details doesn't bother you? Where is your sense of fairness?