Conquer Club

deronimo wrote:If you want to pray then pray.

If you don't want to pray then enjoy whatever else you want to do with that time.

It seems that different administrations are going to participate or not participate according to the belief of whoever is president at the time. We all need to deal with it.

Of course. And, nothing in our laws prevents our leaders from practicing their religions. Its just when they do so as politicians, then we sometimes have problems. It is a balance, but one that works.

I never realized that this day of prayer was a national proclomation. To me, that is actually sad. The government should not be the one that had to take the lead in this. It should have, should come from within each and every church, on their own.

If the National Day of Prayer involves one penny of taxpayers' money then it's out of line. Period. If not then quitcher bitching.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:If the National Day of Prayer involves one penny of taxpayers' money then it's out of line. Period. If not then quitcher bitching.


Honibaz

Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

jonesthecurl wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:If the National Day of Prayer involves one penny of taxpayers' money then it's out of line. Period. If not then quitcher bitching.
Honibaz

Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

I'm not sure. It sounded vaguely familiar.

jonesthecurl wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:If the National Day of Prayer involves one penny of taxpayers' money then it's out of line. Period. If not then quitcher bitching.


Honibaz

Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

The news, among other places. And b.k. voiced a primary argument in the pending lawsuit.

jonesthecurl wrote:Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

Last year the right had a field day when B.H.O. decided not to attend the public event that formed around this day.

Then there was a thing around the same time that the "sponsors" of the public event were also the same mysterious group that supported the death penalty for homosexuals in one of those African nations.

Other than that; no.

Matthew 6:5-7

Lionz wrote:Matthew 6:5-7

Which comes right after Matthew 6:2-4. Thanks!

What about Matthew 6:2-4?

Lionz wrote:What about Matthew 6:2-4?

It comes right before Matthew 6:5-7. I thought I said that.

tzor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

Last year the right had a field day when B.H.O. decided not to attend the public event that formed around this day.

Then there was a thing around the same time that the "sponsors" of the public event were also the same mysterious group that supported the death penalty for homosexuals in one of those African nations.

Other than that; no.

Now that you say that, the first one does ring a bell.

tzor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Good point.
Anyone else here never heard of it outside this thread?

Last year the right had a field day when B.H.O. decided not to attend the public event that formed around this day.

Then there was a thing around the same time that the "sponsors" of the public event were also the same mysterious group that supported the death penalty for homosexuals in one of those African nations.

You refer to the Family.