There Ought to Be a Law...

Reply #1 August 17, 2004 2:09 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Interesting idea. I see, daily, how the secular side of American culture has been able to push religion to the sidelines and attempt to hedge it's influence. It is a sorry state of affairs, but people are free to do as they wish. A Sunday statute like one prohibiting the sale of alcohol could be introduced on the local, then perhaps the county level. It will be up to the people to decide how successful that is. Perhaps if there is enough support and enough success with this it will spread to other towns and counties.

Part of the reason religion is so hindered in attracting new blood is because of the limitations people feel under the yoke of spirituality. Many people feel they are missing out on the "good stuff" offered by the secular world ( promiscuity, drugs, the time and commitment of attending church ) I know many football Dads who say goodbye to the wife and kids Sunday mornings to stay at home and watch football. We've suffered a lack of leadership from men, particularly, in the last few decades and the rest of the family has followed. There are many other factors, as you know, but it is important for us to keep the faith and push for what we can in the face of a Godless society.

Reply #2 August 17, 2004 2:32 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and disagree with you that there should be a law...

You yourself say -

Perhaps in the interest of fairness I should say that I don't believe kids should have a say in whether they go to Sunday School. That is, to me, a parental responsibility.

I completely agree with you on this. But, this does not call for a law. It calls for parents to make a decision and stick with it. This is not a matter, I feel, for the government to decide or to make easier to decide. If the parent feels the Sunday School should take priority, then they should choose it. If the church/parish feels this is important, they should make a stronger effort to bring the flock closer (the fun night they had was a good feeling out event - now they need to adjust tactics as they see fit). This may include adjusting when the Sunday School takes place. It's sad that the families don't try to make the coaches change the schedule, but that's really their responsibility, not that of the government, in my opinion.

By denying outside activities, you would not necessarily make Sunday School more popular or increase attendance. You may actually cause a rift with the families because of this. To some people, the team activites are very important. And team activities are not devoid of values, either. They teach, among other things, teamwork, problem solving, and cooperation. Those are values (just not-necessarily spiritually geared values).

You make very good points and I agree with most everything you say here, with the exception of actually needing a law to curb the Sunday morning activities. There are other ways to solve the problem than to have a public figure say - 'You can't do this." There is a big difference between liquor laws and Sunday morning sporting events. It is truly a sad statement on our society that spirituality takes a back seat to sports, but that is a society issue not a govenmental issue.

In addition to the arguments against this that you bring up yourself, you also run the risk of getting people riled up over the separation of church and state. Legislating in favor of an organized religion will cause people to buck right away. Even if the reasons are well placed and well thought out.

The only other part of the article that I take exception to is this -

I'm suggesting we level the playing field between a society that says it has values (you do have values, don't you?) and the ability of someone to run youth sports on Sunday mornings.

This may not be your intention, but it seems that you are insinuating that the reader may not have values if they don't agree with you here, or that their values are no good if they don't agree.

Good post, though! You score an Insightful from me.

Reply #3 August 17, 2004 2:58 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

A Law? It's up to the PARENTS to make sure the kids get any religous upbringing. Some choose to see they do, Some do not. The same with sports. The problem nowadays is some parents refuse to actually PARENT their kids, and cave into them and let them choose what they do. Kids don't have the tools to know what they should and shouldn't do when it comes to things like this.

I used to bitch and moan about the stuff my mom made me do when i was a kid. As an adult, i understand why.

Reply #4 August 17, 2004 3:07 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

As someone who doesn't particularly like neither sports nor religion, I think I can atbitrate between the two pretty fairly >8).

That said, a law like that probably wouldn't fly if only because not everyone is Christian. If I wanted my kids to be able to play sports, as an atheist I would be annoyed if they were suddenly barred from doing so on Sunday because you want to encourage Sunday School, when you could encourage or enforce it yourself, as has been said, without forcing the restriction on other faiths/lack thereof.

Furthermore, I wonder why nobody thought to simply change times around? Does religion have to based on strict traditionalism so much that you have to have a Sunday School on Sunday morning? Why not make it a Saturday School? Or a Sunday Night School? Or whatever you wish.

Or why not educate your kids in the faith you espouse yourself, at times that you decide, rather than depend on your church to do it each Sunday morning?

Just my opinion.

Reply #5 August 17, 2004 3:21 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

chiprj:
The main reason I pose the question is for discussion. "You do have values, don't you?" is not an insinuation that the reader does not have values but rather because they do have values will consider Sunday School important even if they themselves are not of the faith. The importance of making a law in regards to this is that it gives parents a bit of an edge. They can encourage their children with it rather than being placed in a "if you loved me you'd take me so I can play" situation.

As for separation of church and state, that is not the issue here. If the town (as an example) says "no youth football before 12 noon on Sunday" that doesn't say force them to go to church or tell them what church to go to. It simply states that the town (as a government) has a right to set aside time so that families might spend time together. Now, I might "prefer" them in church, but that is not stated in the regulation.

Thanks for your kind words.

Reply #6 August 17, 2004 3:26 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Lord Shitzu:

There are alternatives to Sunday School and much of what a parent does is something that should be left to them. However, you see how the path society is walking down eventually comes to the point where Christian education can not be done by churches on Sunday morning (most churches take all kind of grief if they try to have educational programs outside of Sunday morning).

We already are in a situation in the schools where values education is totally deemphasized and religion is essentially prevented from influencing the educational process. Where do values get taught? Are you really suggesting that if a parent chooses not to teach values that we will sacrifice the children on the altar of indifference?

Reply #7 August 17, 2004 3:31 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

thatoneguyinslc:

Yes, I agree it is up to the parents. But, let me ask you. We give tax breaks for having children, right? Don't you think "encouraging" parents with a law like this would help them to spend time with their children. No, not every parent will. But some will and that is much more than what I saw amongst the ones I saw at the meeting with the kids.

As for you, you seem to have turned out ok. I guess the flack-jacket worked ok for your parents... hehehe. J/K

Reply #8 August 17, 2004 3:40 PM from PolMach Forums Top

what a bunch of antisemitic pigs. i am jewish, and our services are on saturday. so how about no football on saturday? the government of towns has ABSOLUTELY no right regulating when things can or cannot be done. if its a city funded thing, thats different, and it is up to them. but they cannot discriminate via religion.

basically this old crispe fool is saying we should all head the values of christianity, and spend our sundays as christians would. i am glad you feel that way, but how dare you try to say everyone else should live that way? your post is so filled with unbelieveable lunacies that its hard to comprehend. you are a sad excuse for a human being, and hopefully you find some religious anti-semitic friends to spend your last dying days with.

Reply #9 August 17, 2004 3:48 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

We already are in a situation in the schools where values education is totally deemphasized and religion is essentially prevented from influencing the educational process. Where do values get taught? Are you really suggesting that if a parent chooses not to teach values that we will sacrifice the children on the altar of indifference?

At first I was confused about what you meant by the last statement, but I see your point now, still, consider that if a parent chooses not to teach values to his or her child, and the child happens not to be Christian, or the parent does not encourage the child to pursue his or her religion, then you're back to square one.

You say that parents should teach their kids values, but if they fail to, at least Sunday school can help, fair enough, but what if the child has no inclination to go to Sunday school. You can't force him or her to, as you yourself stated, because that would be going too far to forcing beliefs on his or her, but how will banning sports on Sunday morning force children to be taught moral values?

Surely it won't really solve anything. I hope you can see what I am trying to say, because I have made it a little too confusing for its own good.

I honestly believe that it is a parent's responsibility to teach their child morality, and that in fact they do that merely by being there and leading by example. I've never been much of a Church-going person, and my parents allowed me to choose whatever religion or lack thereof that I wanted, they never had to go out of their way to sit down and tell me right from wrong, it's just something I picked up from their own decency. And I certainly consider myself a pretty good person at present, by any widespread standards.

Reply #10 August 17, 2004 4:09 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Sorry, but my own thoughts are that you have no business to tell any one what they do with their Sundays.

If I wish to spend part of my weekend going to Church and/or taking my kids to Sunday School or something similar, that's fine. But, on the other hand, if I choose to worship in my own way, without the formality of an organized religion or church, and if I choose to allow my children to learn about religion in their own way, then that is my right (and theirs).

I'm much more in favor of aboloshing any laws that restrict business and other activities on Sundays, as I find in life that I get more and more frustrated with businesses that are not open when it's convenient for me and my busy lifestyle.

If Chick-fil-a didn't make some of the best tasting food on the planet, I'd boycott them out-of-business (I've been known to singularly drive companies out of business by my boycotts just ask Montgomery Wards, and a few other companies that I used to deal with) just for their policy of being closed on Sundays.


On the other hand, if someone told me that they wanted to pass a law that forbid a company from making a choice to allow their employees to use Sunday to worship, I'd defend their rights to do so to the death.

Reply #11 August 17, 2004 4:39 PM from PolMach Forums Top

wow, a terp fan makes an intelligent comment. what is the world coming to wahooowaaa go cavs

Reply #12 August 17, 2004 4:43 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

On Wednesdays, the kids in my daughter's schools have the choice to attend "religion classes." The children that do so get to leave school early to do that. The ones that don't have to stay and read quietly or do homework for the remainder of the day because the teacher can't teach only half a class.

That just gets me riled up every year. My tax dollars are paying this teacher's salary to babysit my kid so that other kids can go learn about a belief that our family doesn't subscribe to. I feel like the teacher should continue to teach the class and those that toddle off to their worship should be responsible for the material they miss.

I grew up in a state who's blue laws shut everything down on Sunday. This totally did not encourage my folks to hang out with the kids. We didn't "DO" church. What did we do? We drove across the state line to go shopping. That was our family bonding time.

Religion and government just don't mix. At least, not well.

Reply #13 August 17, 2004 5:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

if the town (as an example) says "no youth football before 12 noon on Sunday" that doesn't say force them to go to church or tell them what church to go to. It simply states that the town (as a government) has a right to set aside time so that families might spend time together.

Perhaps, but it's still a pretty transparent effort. How would you feel if the town passed a law stating that employers are required to give their employees five 10-minute breaks a day, at specific times, during which the employees may do whatever they please? And those specific times "just happen" to line up with the times that devout muslims are supposed to be bowing to Mecca? There's nothing in the law that says "thou shalt prefer Islam", but it's still clear that the law is slanted in Islam's favor.
Although Aaron Shepard phrased his objection in just about the most offensive way possible, his underlying point is actually valid. You want to encourage Christian values with this law, he would prefer to encourage Jewish values, and Muslims would probably prefer something more like what I proposed. None of them is really appropriate as a matter of law.

Reply #14 August 17, 2004 5:30 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I knew I would take issue with this when I read the post...lol.

The problem is with the parents; if they refused to participate in a Sunday AM league, there would BE no Sunday AM league. I think that people who are dedicated to their faith, though, usually get their priorities straight. People who aren't dedicated to their faith will find some other reason not to be there for services either.

And it's not "anti-semitic" to not mention the Jewish perspective, for the record, any more than it's "anti-pagan" to not mention the pagan perspective. Want a Jewish perspective? Write your own damn blog...lol

Reply #15 August 17, 2004 6:10 PM from PolMach Forums Top

i was just giving an example. i dont want government to favor me, or any other religion. it should be completely unbiased. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE exists for a reason.

now, maybe what I said could be offensive, but he deserves no less. I am tired of these religious conservatives trying to impose their sets of morals and beliefs on the rest of the world. you want to do something, you do it. doesnt mean others have to.

Reply #16 August 17, 2004 6:32 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Aaron Shepard:

First, allow me to apologise to you for what you obviously thought was an insult. I have many Jewish friends including a Rabbi and consider myself very open minded about faith. Remember, I threw this question out to the bloggers to get ideas and opinions, not to voice a single idea, take it or leave it.

I'm sure you have things about your synagogue (if you attend) that you might like to change too.

That being said, Separation of Church and State is not an issue in this case anymore than giving tax breaks for having children is a church and state issue. The concept is to slow life down a tad to give parents time with their children which would "encourage" them to come to Sunday School, not destroy civilization by forcing every businessman to open his store at 9:05, give emplyees 2 hours of breaks and close his business and 11:05.

Finally, the values of Christianity and Judaism are not that much different and I honor Jewish traditions of religious Bible study. The thing is that society has gone way too far towards allowing freedom to be THE value we cherish and this is something that is very dangerous. I can easily see how if Moses went up the mountain today and came down to see the Golden Calf people would be screaming that God had no right to criticise their freedom of religious expression.

Can you imagine the lawsuits? Oy vey!

Reply #17 August 17, 2004 6:42 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Gideon:

Well, as I said in the blog, I was one of those parents, the child turned out fine and yes, there were times when I said, "no, you can't do _________, you're going to Sunday School." If you look at the statistics (oh boy, now I'll really P.O. someone) in the 50's and 60's the majority of children went to some form of Christian education. Where I grew up they had a rule that if you didn't attend church you couldn't play in 2 church (council of churches, including a synagogue) sponsored youth leagues.

Today there are no such youth leagues where I grew up and no one would dare sponsor them because of the separation of church and state issues.

You know from other posts that my concern is that we have gone way too far and if parents are going to have a chance to teach values we need to slow down the pace so that they have a chance. I hear every week about how little time there is to be a family but no one seems interested in doing anything about it. So I suggest a way and some people think I am the scum of the earth.

Which I suppose is why no one even tries to help. Who needs the agony?

Reply #18 August 17, 2004 6:52 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

terpfan 1980:

Well, my area has a history that might interest you. Where I live the businesses (like most businesses in the U.S. in those days) gave Saturday afternoon off but not Saturday morning. But workers would come to church hungover on Sunday and wouldn't listen to the sermons (which upper class business owners thought was shameful in that day and age). So they decided to give them Saturday morning so that they would drink Friday night and be ready for church on Sunday. Thus, the 5 day work week was established in the U.S. One of the prime movers in this was none other than the guy who founded Kodak.

I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding a way to put them out of business, hehehe.

You see, I lean your way in that I prize freedom, but not above God. He's not running a democracy and has final say in the disposition of your and my soul. He didn't stress values so much for 5000 years (as recorded in the Bible) so that we could run around now shouting that we "deserve" our blessings and will act as we want when we want. Even if you don't believe in God you can see how values are important to living a good life.

But instead....... Scott Peterson and Mark Hacking and Kobe Bryant and and and and.........

Reply #19 August 17, 2004 7:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The importance of making a law in regards to this is that it gives parents a bit of an edge. They can encourage their children with it rather than being placed in a "if you loved me you'd take me so I can play" situation.

Again, I would point out your own words that this is the parent's responsibility, not the governments. I don't believe that they need the help or an edge. Parents can be effective in teaching the values of a spiritual education, without a law being made. Instead of the child giving the if you love me line, the parents can impress upon them the if you love God...

Also, some parents have decided (for better or worse) that the outside activities are more important/worthwhile/beneficial to their children. Whether this decision is made because of a lack of (or different) faith (or maybe they choose to take care of the spiritual education in a different way) telling them that they can't allow their children to take part in organized activities during 'church time' is not the governments right.

And while you are correct to point out that no one would be forced to spend the 'free time' (is it really free if you restrict what can be done?) in the church, the law would be made to favor one particular faith. Even with the best of intentions, this is not a good area for the government to step in. It still (at best) blurs the line between church and state. The law would, in effect, be biased towards christian beliefs.

This is very different from the example posted about chik-fil-a. Their corporate policy is to not be open on Sunday. That is the right of the owner. No governmental agency is forcing them to close. It would be wrong for the government to force them to open on Sundays.

Perhaps the change could be made if the church reached out to it's community of parents and impressed upon them the importance of Sunday School. If enough parents can be convinced, then the activities would take a hit in attendance. That in turn could cause a change in the schedule. The point is, the parents have to make the effort and the change. Not the government. In all honesty, the government has no business telling me I can't let my child play football or cheerlead on Sunday mornings. My church could tell me that but not the government.

It simply states that the town (as a government) has a right to set aside time so that families might spend time together.

I don't think that the town has that right. While the government has the right to take a child away from an abusive home, the government has no right to tell me when to spend time with my family. That's my choice. If you counter that the government isn't telling me that I have to spend the time with my family, then why can't I allow my kids to play ball? I mean, if I don't take them to Sunday School and I don't actively spend the time with them and allow them to, say, play video games, then the law is not doing any good, even by giving me a leg up. The law would not be solving the basic problem.

And while I'm sure there are parents who drop the kids off to the Sunday morning babysitter (coach), there are probably parents that take the time to watch their child play as an oppurtunity to enjoy quality time.

Reply #20 August 17, 2004 8:08 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Crispe - I'm sorry, but as pointed out in the thread above, favoring one man's religon over another is just cause for trouble.

I believe in a higher authority, but I also believe that if that higher authority is as loving of "us" as we are told, then he doesn't require us to go to church and prove how holy we are.

In any instance, I don't need the government to tell me that I should take Sunday off instead of Wednesday, or Saturday instead of Sunday.

I also don't need it to decide for me that Seventh Day Adventist is the proper religon, or that Buddha is the only way, or worse yet that Wahabism and Allah rule the world and we must all bow to mecca.

That is what you are asking for though, and what you would get.


I believe that our children have a right -- at our discretion -- to be sent to a private school with "public dollars" (vouchers) if we so choose, and I believe that our children have a right to take a moment of silence and use it for prayer. I believe that our children should say the Pledge of Allegiance (as it exists now) including saying "one nation under god" while still allowing that children that don't want to say "under god" may say the pledge while leaving out those words.

With that all said, I also believe that government doesn't belong in the business of religon, and that NO ONE may tell me what my work schedule or play schedule should be except those that I specifically negotiate with.


After you (Crispe) get rules passed that outlaw the use of Sundays for anything other than Church, I'll have to hunt you down and hurt you for doing away with NFL Football games, Sunday afternoon baseball games, Matinee pricing at the local Muvico for Sunday's early showings, the loss of my opportunities to use the local hardware store for my household repair needs or for getting supplies to continue to build my backyard chapel and house of worship or any number of other reasons why.

Reply #21 August 17, 2004 8:40 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Terpfan 1980:

Well, I wasn't advocating anything other than Sunday morning. BTW, I do not agree with vouchers because it creates an unequal educational system when the purpose of public education is to do the opposite. However, I understand that frustration also.

I also am against government intervention in religion but I think there is a sense that government can "encourage" through law social change and indeed has in the past. Incentives are given all the time. For example, go into the military, get money for college. It's an incentive that encourages values and can be used at religious institutions. Is this government intervention in religion?

At one time there were strict rules against selling most goods and services on Sundays. The blue laws have long since past (even Canada) since freedom is seen as such a valuable commodity. But we are headed for a showdown in our society that sooner or later must occur between the freedom we prize so highly and the social breakdowns we sense but would be powerless to stop.

Reply #22 August 17, 2004 10:26 PM from PolMach Forums Top

CrispE - be careful hoping for the government to encourage anything.

The government could encourage (and is trying to now actually) non-smoking by raising the taxes on them until the taxes are so onerous no one smokes, or people only smoked black market or smuggled cigarettes or other materials.

The government could encourage all citizens to change their diets to save themselves from obesity and leave us with foods that have no taste and are later found to be carcinogenic or in some other way unhealthy for us.

The government could decide that we need to be encouraged to support the arts and do so by offering more grants supporting "art" that depicts Christ having sexual relations with the Virgin Mother, or "art" that is made from feces, or performance art that involves the use of urine.


All of these things probably sound good to someone that feels they aren't such radical ideas. Let the government "encourage" social change. If we still had Bubba in office, the social change you are thinking of could be changes such as national recognition of marriage between same-sexed individuals.

If we let some members of society have the social change they want, abortion on demand, even for minors even without parental consent or notification wouldn't even be blinked at. It would just be normal.


So again, are you so sure you want the government to involve itself in this -- or any other -- area?

Reply #23 August 18, 2004 1:23 AM from PolMach Forums Top

was outraged by this. Obviously there is no sense among parents that faith requires participation in Christian education and it's much easier to get Jane and Johnny to go to sports programs than church.

I am outraged that you would even think of forbidding Sunday sports for Sunday School. I've been playing sports since I was 6 years old, and I attended Sunday School from the age of 4 to 8. First of all, I learned more "family values" from a six-week sports season than I ever learned in those four years of Sunday School. By playing sports, I actually get to spend time with my family. At Sunday School, I was shoved off into a classroom while my parents went to church service and my sister was in a class for younger kids. When I play sports, my parents can come watch me play or help coach and I can play with my sister. Second of all, outlawing sports (or any other activity for that matter) in favor of "family values" insinuates that the only values worth having are Christian values. I am a Christian, but I completely and utterly oppose forcing (or "encouraging") my beliefs or my religious practices on anyone else. It's not my place (or the government's place) to tell anyone how much time to spend with family, what their priorities should be, and how they spend their time. Also, extra family time may not be as beneficial as you think. A lot of people don't have the luxury of having a family that gets along well. Going to Sunday School and being a Christian isn't going to stop parents from fighting or prevent divorces or other domestic problems. If it did, then there would be no divorced church-goer on the face of the earth.

I think the fact that such "encouragement" obviously favors the Christian religion has been discussed enough, so I won't talk about that. The government shouldn't favor or give extra support to one religion over others.

One more thing...I currently play on a 18 and under competitive softball team that plays year-round (and most of our tournaments are on Saturdays and Sundays). A couple players on my team have had no problem fitting church into their schedules. They still attend church and Sunday School-like activities on Sundays. They just go at different times or find another church in the city we are playing in at the time. Truly devout Christians shouldn't have a problem finding the time for church. So maybe the reason less kids are going to Sunday isn't sports. Maybe people just don't want to go anymore because they feel they aren't getting the type of family time they want. Sports is just an easy excuse for not going to church.

Reply #24 August 18, 2004 7:25 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Softballchicky32:

Perhaps you haven't read all the comments but the intention of the blog was not to outrage but to open to comment what people would think of the idea. Many, like you felt I was insinuating that should "foist" church or Christian values upon everyone in such measure by governmental design. That was NOT the intention.

The purpose of a blog (at least for me) is to open up to one another's ideas about what is going on in our lives, society and minds about issues of the day, what is going on in the world. No criticism of you or your lifestyle was intended. Personally I am 52 and have attended Christian education most of my life. I also play golf, tennis and many other sports. The 2 (sports and faith) are not an "either or" situation. They go hand in hand. BUT: hand in hand requires that both get time. Not one or the other.

Reply #25 August 18, 2004 10:23 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

little_whip:
Wow, a defender... (And a fellow Baptist to boot, hehehe). Thanks.... They will be withdrawing the tanks from around my house any day now, hehehe.