Broken Arrow accused of constitutional violation

[bleedinorange]

Wouldn't these school related examples extend into the "medical treatment without parental permission" arena? Counseling on unwanted pregnancies, birth control, and other medical issues happens regularly irrespective of the parents wishes. Even homosexual practices are discussed. What makes a spiritual matter so different? I'm not for this particular practice at all but I fail to see why this is such a stand alone hair-on-fire issue.

 

[ScooberJake]

I honestly appreciate the responses. I don't mean to be disrespectful if I have been. I just still haven't found an adequate answer to my question on where science and religion disagree, how can someone 'follow' both?

Sure, no problem. I don't think the Bible and science disagree. Do you have a specific example?

I don't think I believe in a God of the gaps. I believe in a God of everything. God doesn't just operate here and there where science doesn't, or to suspend science. He created the universe and everything in it, including the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Science itself exists only within God's creation and his power. He alone has the power and the justification to break them whenever he chooses.

I'll say that I somewhat echo your sentiment, but on the other side. I'm engineer, I like and study science, and although I'm not a particle physicist I've read books by some of the prevailing minds (at least as of 10 years ago Hawking and Kaku, mostly, haven't kept up lately). And the more I look beyond the basics of Newton, the more I see a world that can't be explained by science. I see physicists coming up with wild theories to try to get past the problems. It seems like they have to suspend science in order to come up with a "scientific" way to explain things. Again, singularities and all. Or I see clearly illogical theories taken as near fact because there is no reasonable explanation.

Ultimately, I see a world that points to and exemplifies the God of the Bible, but by design can't fully prove his existence.

 

[CowboyJD]

Wouldn't these school related examples extend into the "medical treatment without parental permission" arena? Counseling on unwanted pregnancies, birth control, and other medical issues happens regularly irrespective of the parents wishes. Even homosexual practices are discussed. What makes a spiritual matter so different? I'm not for this particular practice at all but I fail to see why this is such a stand alone hair-on-fire issue.

The First Amendment makes a spiritual, more specifically religious practice, so different. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, the courts have extended that to endorsement of a particular religion.

That's why it's a "stand alone" issue. 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about a parent's right to keep their children from getting counseling on "medical issues" from wherever they choose to listen.

 

[TheMonkey]

I'll say that's very convenient of God to do that. He created the laws of the universe only to suspend them later. I'd say that's poor planning, lol. And beyond that, if this is the case it makes science irrelevant. You can't follow science if the rules can be suspended at will. It's whole schtick is that it's a process that's repeatable and follows empirical evidence. If someone truly believes that God suspends the laws of nature then you have to become a strict biblical literalist, don't you?

As for your second paragraph, you've got a 'God of the gaps'. Just because science cant explain something yet doesn't mean it's God. Germ theory is just 'God' until it's not. Relativity too. God gets put into smaller and smaller corners. And one day if science could explain everything, where would that leave God?


I honestly appreciate the responses. I don't mean to be disrespectful if I have been. I just still haven't found an adequate answer to my question on where science and religion disagree, how can someone 'follow' both?

You might appreciated this. It’s an updated version of a talk/experience I heard him give live about 10 years ago. I think he’s giving an even newer version of this talk on his tour this year.

He bridges science and the Bible with an appreciation and fascination for both. He gives some context for believing in and applying the Bible with an intellectual honesty that doesn’t compromise scientific integrity. A lot of Christians think he’s a heretic.

 

[wrenhal]

I would still say "what's the big deal", but that's just me. And if someone did say that to one of the religions you mentioned but didn't say it for Christianity then I'd say they were a hypocrite.

And I get that there's a potential conflict of interest. But the thread title is 'constitutional violation' and I just don't see that. The bolded part above is hypothetical. We don't know what happened. And the article made it seem like it was completely voluntary. Besides that, what's your hard rule here? "You can't talk about religion ever if you are a coach or teacher"? Because that's not gonna fly.

You don't see a difference between a coach or teacher talking about religion in a general sense and baptizing someone to devote their life to Christ?


You think a parental reaction would be the same for:
Hey Johnny, how was school today?
Good, coach talked to us today about Mohammad and Islam.
-or-
Hey Johnny, how was school today?
Good, coach talked to us today about Mohammad and Islam. it was interesting and I really like coach so he asked for volunteers and I have now said my testimony to Islam in front of those with the faith so I am now a Muslim!

Finally, the reason it is possibly a constitutional violation IS because of the potential conflict of interest. Our forefathers wanted true freedom of religion and knew that members of government are influential. That is the point.

I think you are reading into this. Did it say that the coach talked to them about Christianity on school time? Or was this an extension of an FCA event and thus done outside of practice because of that?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[ScooberJake]

He bridges science and the Bible with an appreciation and fascination for both. He gives some context for believing in and applying the Bible with an intellectual honesty that doesn’t compromise scientific integrity. A lot of Christians think he’s a heretic.

I used the previous version of this when leading a college group Bible study about 10 years ago. Louis Giglio does one that is in the same vein, though not quite as rigorous on the science. I like a lot of Rob Bell's thoughts, though I strongly disagree with some of his theology. But I think we are a bit too quick to brand someone a heretic these days. Similar divisiveness that we see in the rest of our culture. Apparently I'm only allowed to recommend a book by someone if I also completely agree with and endorse everything that person has ever said in their entire life!

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

It's called separation of church and state. The courts have been specific and consistent about this.

So where's the outrage? Or are we going to say that he was "just talking about religion, not promoting it"?

 

[Binman4OSU]

It is also of note..the man who recorded it and posted it online was Pastor Brian Preston......Youth and student pastor of Battle Creek Church in BA.....no mention as why he was there

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

Sure, no problem. I don't think the Bible and science disagree. Do you have a specific example?

I don't think I believe in a God of the gaps. I believe in a God of everything. God doesn't just operate here and there where science doesn't, or to suspend science. He created the universe and everything in it, including the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Science itself exists only within God's creation and his power. He alone has the power and the justification to break them whenever he chooses.

I'll say that I somewhat echo your sentiment, but on the other side. I'm engineer, I like and study science, and although I'm not a particle physicist I've read books by some of the prevailing minds (at least as of 10 years ago Hawking and Kaku, mostly, haven't kept up lately). And the more I look beyond the basics of Newton, the more I see a world that can't be explained by science. I see physicists coming up with wild theories to try to get past the problems. It seems like they have to suspend science in order to come up with a "scientific" way to explain things. Again, singularities and all. Or I see clearly illogical theories taken as near fact because there is no reasonable explanation.

Ultimately, I see a world that points to and exemplifies the God of the Bible, but by design can't fully prove his existence.

I find these types of conversation so interesting. You, an engineer, taking a completely different view after reading the same info as me. I really do love it. Thank you.

Agree to disagree on the world explained by science. But I do have an example on your question of the Bible an science, I had mentioned it in an earlier post:

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:52–53. Dead people just walking around. You and I both know the dead don't get up and walk around. No way, no how. So between science and religion, which wins out here? Do you believe the dead walked around?

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

It is also of note..the man who recorded it and posted it online was Pastor Brian Preston......Youth and student pastor of Battle Creek Church in BA.....no mention as why he was there

Premeditated for sure.

 

[oks10]

It is also of note..the man who recorded it and posted it online was Pastor Brian Preston......Youth and student pastor of Battle Creek Church in BA.....no mention as why he was there

Well in the video you can see both him and another man in a FCA shirt doing the baptisms. Soooo, kinda obvious why he was there...

 

[llcoolw]

I find these types of conversation so interesting. You, an engineer, taking a completely different view after reading the same info as me. I really do love it. Thank you.

Agree to disagree on the world explained by science. But I do have an example on your question of the Bible an science, I had mentioned it in an earlier post:

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:52–53. Dead people just walking around. You and I both know the dead don't get up and walk around. No way, no how. So between science and religion, which wins out here? Do you believe the dead walked around?

If science has taught us anything, all is possible. And possible has explanations.
https://www.timesnownews.com/the-bu...in-morgue-during-blood-drain-embalming/688115

Modern day version. Son of God? Who knows? But if he has an excellent social media following, maybe people will wait for his return 1000 years from now.

 

[Binman4OSU]

Well in the video you can see both him and another man in a FCA shirt doing the baptisms. Soooo, kinda obvious why he was there...

From BA school webpage.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA)
Sponsor: Alex Cochran
FCA is an interdenominational Christian organization geared toward student athletes; however, any student is welcome! Reach out to Mr. Cochran for more information.
FCA will meet every other Friday morning at 7:05 a.m. in the indoor facility. Donuts and milk provided. We will eat donuts, play a game, and listen to a guest speaker.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

It's starting to sound like this was a pre planned FCA event done after, not during, a school function and that the coach participated in, did not instigate, said event. Again where exactly is the constitutional violation.

 

[ScooberJake]

Dead people just walking around. You and I both know the dead don't get up and walk around. No way, no how. So between science and religion, which wins out here? Do you believe the dead walked around?

Yes, I believe that actually happened. Of course there is no scientific explanation for it. I believe God caused it to happen, as only God can. I recognize that the argument that "God worked a miracle" doesn't carry much weight to folks who don't believe, and in a back and forth discussion it probably seems like a crutch of an argument. But at some point (or many points, rather) that's what the Christian view boils down to: God at work in the world.

And I personally believe that's not only required to explain the virgin birth and people rising from the dead, but to explain so many other things. Science tells us that life does not come from non-life, and yet it did. How? Science tells us that the universe once did not exist and then had a beginning. Did it cause itself to spring forth from nothing? Something that doesn't exist doesn't have agency, and neither does "chance". I find only one credible explanation, and it's not in science. But I don't think it conflicts with science, it's just not included in science.

 

[cableok]

My question — If no Broken Arrow parent complained and no record of any Broken Arrow student complaining…why did KRMG pick up this story about a Wisconsin-based group upset about what they saw posted on Facebook from the Battle Creek FCA pastor?

 

[CowboyJD]

It's starting to sound like this was a pre planned FCA event done after, not during, a school function and that the coach participated in, did not instigate, said event. Again where exactly is the constitutional violation.

"Starting to sound".....Lol.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

"Starting to sound".....Lol.

If you know the specifics, please share.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

My question — If no Broken Arrow parent complained and no record of any Broken Arrow student complaining…why did KRMG pick up this story about a Wisconsin-based group upset about what they saw posted on Facebook from the Battle Creek FCA pastor?

This is what happens when the demand for being offended is greater than the supply.

 

[CowboyJD]

If you know the specifics, please share.

I'm laughing at your determination....without knowing the specifics as well....that it "sounds like" whatever you're wanting it to "sound like".

And then asking based upon what you think it "sounds like" to convince you of where the constitutional violation is.

I don't know what all the facts are or whether it was a constitutional violation.....neither do you. The difference between us is that I am not making a judgment call based upon what it "sounds like" to me.