Why not let him compete? Because the competition is about human body against human body. If he wants to compete without his prosthetics, that's fine, but with them, he's running under different conditions toe everyone else. What happens in a few years time where prosthetics give an undisputed advantage to runners? Where do you draw the line? You can't have one set of rules for one person and another set for someone else; you can't let sentimentality trump fairness, otherwise the competition is devalued to the point of meaninglessness.
And for all the people talking about how inspirational this is, surely his actions are devaluing the Paralympics? I would find it a lot more inspiring if times in the Paralympics started getting faster than Olympic records.
Oh please. This isn't a human rights issue; it's an issue of what a competition is about. If you're so keen for the handicapped to compete in able-bodied sports, why not the other way round? Because it wouldn't be fair, right? Well this is just applying the same criteria. Handicapped people are in no way being separated from society; everyone is being given the opportunity to compete in a competition where no-one has an advantage by virtue of having been born with or without certain bits of their body. In fact, if you're saying that a competition doesn't really count unless it involves able-bodied people, what are you saying about the value of handicapped competition and by implication the value of handicapped people?
Your claim was the religion "is about accepting assertions as true without any logical or evidential basis". That some people have inconsistencies in their belief or between their belief and practice does not change the fact that Judaism and Christianity are dependent on evidence; it simply means that some 'Christians' aren't terribly good Christians (which shouldn't really come as any surprise).
What Religion provides in exchange for the fealty of the adherent is not to be underestimated:
1. A universal belief system that doesn't change, and thusly requiring no critical thinking skills.
This just touches on the complexity involved.
No, it doesn't even begin to if you genuinely think that religion involves dropping all critical thinking. Certainly every minister and professor of theology I know would be appalled at such a suggestion. It most certainly goes against the training ministers receive here in Northern Ireland.
This is almost certainly why you disagree with and dislike Dakwins in the ways you do. Religion and science are NOT reconcilable. Religion is about accepting assertions as true without any logical or evidential basis, and acting/organizing/living accordingly. Science is about accepting no assertions without a solid logical and evidential basis. They are very nearly the antithesis of one another.
It is possible you are confusing religion with what is commonly termed "spiritualism." Spiritualism is largely the celebration of mystery, and is therefore essentially the enjoyment of agnosticism. This is not at all what the vast majority of organized Abrahamic religion is. For examples of spiritualism confused with religion, see Christopher Hitchens's critical analysis of individuals who call themselves Christian while adhering to none Christianity's doctrine.
It sounds more like you're confusing religion and spiritualism. Certainly, your description of religion bears no resemblance to Christianity and Judaism both of which emphasise their historicity. People are urged to trust God on the basis of his past actions and belief in Jesus is contingent upon a historical resurrection. Paul is very clear that if the resurrection was not a historical event, then Christianity is meaningless and Christians are ot be pitied above all others for putting their faith in nonsense and lying about God.
Perhaps your claims about Christianity could do with a great application of logic and examination of evidence.
The religious factions has gotten too much power over the education. End result will be that the children will grow up not knowing what makes the light work, how the picture in the TV gets there and assuming that just because the teacher said man was created from the image of God that's the only truth.
Don't be daft. People may question evolution, but they're not questioning any of the rest of that stuff and have no basis to question it. In fact James Clerk Maxwell, and Michael Faraday, who gave us those wonderful equations that describe how a light works, were evangelical Christians.
This kind of objection seems to come up all the time and is usually answered pretty quickly. It's not fraud because it's generally allowed for in the small print and utilities work off a similar principle. If everyone in the country started drawing as much power as the connection to their house an handle, there would be electricity shortages. IF everyone tried to use their phones at the same time, people wouldn't be able to get through. Every new year that become pretty obvious as billions of text messages get sent out at once and multi-hour delays kick in.
I don't think that anybody really has a problem with that. I just can't figure out why people are upset when those who don't share some of their less universal moral proclivities try to stop them
Fair enough, though I tend to see more of people being upset when people express a (sometimes less) universal moral proclivity when it has a basis in religion. There's a lot of fault all round really.
The extended set is where things get a little sketchy.
Agreed. I'm thankful that I don't have to worry about it. Could end up pastoring to people who do someday though.
One side thinks that their understanding of an invisible entity makes for good public policy and the other side thinks they're nuts. Putting it to a vote simply results in resentment and "culture wars" over an issue that wouldn't even register on the radar of a society whose deity didn't care about cheese consumption.
Succinctly put. I'm curious about which issues it is Huckabee wants to challenge. Obviously the cheese thing is really an issue for religious people. Something let abortion or gay marriage or adoption would be more directly related to the functioning of society and consequently where it would be important to have a legislative position, rather than just one of personal duty or morality.
I can't imagine that most of the Huckabee supporters would be so keen on the idea if a front runner was pushing a constitutional amendment to make Islam the national religion, even if he promised to go through the official constitutional channels. My guess is that they'd be calling for a little less religion and a little more inclusiveness.
Probably. Personally I'm against the idea of national religions. Don't think the gospel needs protecting or favouring by anyone and Constantine didn't really help the church in the long run. Must read more about Calvin and Geneva some day though and see if that changes my opinion at all. Us Presbyterians have generally had a rather fraught relationship with the state though and been somewhat persecuted for not going along with the established church, so I fully sympathise with anyone who doesn't want a national religion. At the same time though, I think some countries would be better off if they acknowledged the place of Christianity in the national culture, heritage and history. The UK does a pretty poor job of that. Though some in America seem to overstate the case regarding the Founding Fathers. Strike me as a bunch of Deists who in all likelihood rejected the gospel and could at best be described as cultural 'Christians with Judeo-Christian morals for the most part.
Amending the Constitution is, quite frankly, the nuclear option, and I don't see a good reason to do it unless things are really screwed up. Legislation is where you make policy. The Constitution is how you outline how the government works. We don't put our current whims in the Constitution because that's not where it goes. It's abusing the root password. Anything can happen when you do it, so doing it willy nilly to enforce your ancillary moral hang-ups is something that I regard as poor leadership in a pluralistic society.
That's a reasonable viewpoint, though the argument could be made that different people will define 'really screwed up' in different ways, which brings about a bit of tension.
Anyway, thanks for a calm, cordial, coherent discussion. Most refreshing and helpful in refining my own views on the subject.
Certainly, there are times when that is the case. Of course, we're not likely to be getting the whole story since the media likes to go for the sensational, rather than the mundane, so goodness knows what's really going on/gone on in the family. It could be simply rebellion against the fact that his dad is a minister. Seems to drive some kids crazy. Alternatively, there could well be some dodgy stuff going on.
Why should something have to be justified in a secular sense? Surely people should be free to propose legislation regardless of secular/religious sensibilities and then leave it to the public/elected officials to decide on whether or not it should become law. Once it is proposed, then a debate can be had about whether it has any place in public governance, but surely the essence of democracy is that everyone has a voice and can bring that voice to the table and have their ideas listened to, discussed and a decision taken as to whether they are of benefit to society, rather than dismissing the idea before it is even brought forwards?
Incidentally, I'm a Presbyterain ministry student who drinks and occasionally goes bowling (proceeded by a trip to McDonalds) on a Sunday with my youth fellowship group.
You illustrate the reason why religion should be kept out of politics: people falsely assume that if a candidate professes to be religious, he must have "moral principles".
Actually I'm saying that people are guided by their morals, Christian morality is influenced by religious belief and that it is wrong to say that they renders their morality invalid as a basis for proposing legislation and the like.
The danger of having religion in politics is that candidates seem to use religion to cover up a lack of ethics. And politicians do, again and again.
That doesn't mean that democracies should prevent religious people from expressing their world view. That goes against the essence of a democracy.
Furthermore, I think anybody who needs an external authority to tell them that they shouldn't kill, steal, or harm others, is morally flawed
I wasn't suggesting Christians need an external authority. The Bible makes it clear that we all have a conscience which we fail to acknowledge 100% of the time and that it is at times deficient. Given that people are not perfectly moral, a perfect external moral authority does a better job of informing about what is moral and what is not.
So, religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for the level of moral and ethical depth we need to demand from a president.
Do you mean by that that only atheists have sufficient moral and ethical depth to run a country?
You illustrate the reason why religion should be kept out of politics: people falsely assume that if a candidate professes to be religious, he must have "moral principles".
Take the world 'religious', replace it with 'atheist' and examine what you've been saying.
You can't really say that the Constitution is not a product of its time. There was nothing special about its writers and its had to be amended a few times. I agree that Christians shouldn't force morals down people's throats, but certain immoral acts should be legislated against and it is moral to protect certain rights. An argument that could be made about abortion is that the rights of the unborn child are being protected and therefore it would be valid to present it as an issue to be incorporated into the Constitution. Whether or not it would make it through the legislative process is another matter, but in a democracy, people should have the right to make such proposals. Indeed, to suggest that laws/bills/amendments reflecting a Christian (or indeed any religious) world view can be brought forward and subjected to the democratic legislative process is itself a denial of religious freedom because all people bring their world view to the table when they propose laws and it is fundamentally wrong that only one group (atheists) be allowed to present laws reflecting their world view for consideration.
The thing is that in a democracy, people propose legislation that they believe is right and vote for what they believe is right. Atheists do this (presumably) on the basis of reason and conscience. Christians are also influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Both atheists and Christians have their own world view and their own opinion on what should be law. What then is the difference between an atheist working through the established democratic process to bring about the legislation they think is best for the country and a Christian working through the established democratic process to being about legislation they think is best for the country?
You see, Huckabee may want to change the Constitution, but I'd bet that he plans to do that using the same process that has resulted in amendments being made in the past. He might fail, he might succeed, but that's true of any attempted amendment. But the very fact that he would go through that process is an indication that the USA is a democracy, not a theocracy. Any change he makes could be undone by whoever takes his place.
If you say that the Constitution cannot be amended by people with a Christian world view, or indeed that legislation cannot be proposed by those with any sort of religious world view, but only by those with an atheistic world view, then you are in fact guilty of the very thing Huckabee is accused of: denying freedom of religious belief and expression.
well, the only problem I have with Huckabee that while he espouses that in his statements you end up looking at his 'personal' life with his 'personal' morals and his family, who supposedly should 'learn' from those teaching has a kid who was caught torturing small animals for fun.
18 year olds don't always reflect their parents' morality and teaching and if he did do it, there is no reason to believe he thought it was a Christian thing to do. Does look like there was a bit of an attempt to cover it up though.
No major republican points that out as a problem, but when President Clinton screwed around with an intern it was the world was ending.
The president committing adultery with an intern is pretty different to a presidential candidate's 18 year old son being investigated for potential animal cruelty. If the candidate had been caught doing it himself, it would be a better comparison, or if he had incited his son to do so.
I want a good administrator, I want someone who can manage a bunch of whiney ass cry babies that one one hand want everything solved for them, and on the other everything given to them on a silver platter.
I agree and don't think it is necessary for someone to be a Christian in order to be a good official. Both Jesus and Paul seem to take that stance quite clearly, along with a number of Old Testament figures.
Because back then they did it based on what should be codified as law, not what was 'moral'? I have plenty of moral beliefs, they shouldn't all be law and they certainly shouldn't be constitutional, as that devalues the importance of the constitution.
I agree that not all morality should be legislated, but the legislation we have should be moral and if a law seems to be immoral or unethical, then it should be changed. I'm not American and don't really know the history of the Constitution in terms of amendments, etc. but hypothetically, if it was originally written that black people couldn't vote and was later amended, that would be an issue of morality to a certain extent.
Morals change.
Morals do, but does morality? I would argue that there are certain moral absolutes.
We shouldn't need to update the constitution to reflect that when we could just not change it in the first place.
I'm not sure I follow you're reason there. It looks like you've said that you shouldn't need to update the Constitution because it's possible for you to not change it. That doesn't seem to be a reason why changing it would be wrong. There've already been quite a few amendments haven't there, so clearly there has been a need to change it in the past and could arguably be in the future. Its writers weren't the most enlightened people ever to walk the earth.
Huckabee forgot the whole freedom of religion part in the constitution.
Really? When did he say he would forcibly convert everyone to Christianity? He said something about changing the Constitution, but seeking to change what you believe to be immoral and making it more moral is not a desire unique to Christians and he never said that this would infringe upon the freedom of people to worship in the way they choose (or to not worship at all). Would you be angry at anyone who thinks the Constitution should be changed to match their moral standards? What makes the moral standards of a few guys who died a couple fo hundred yeas ago so much superior and unquestionable?
stop bringing Christianity into government and politics
If we swapped 'Christianity' for 'personal moral principles' would you still say it? If yes, do you think a president should have no moral compass or strong sense of principles of their own? If no, then what is the problem when moral principles stem from religious belief?
There's quite a difference between having a religious president and living in a theocracy. The USA and UK have had a number of religious leaders, but never been theocracies. Plenty of figures in leadership have strong principles or views on morals and ethics. Why is this fine for an atheist, but evil and terrifying insanity in the case of a Christian?
Why is Huckabee nuts? Do you think the Constitution shouldn't be changed? If so, then why do you think they got everything right back then? If it's because he thinks the moral standards should better line up with God's, then what's the difference between him wanting to change the Constitution and someone else who wants to change it to match up with their own moral standards?
A Christian is someone who follows Christ. Christ's teachings are recorded in the Bible and we have records of the early church's thoughts on the matter. Mormonism deviates significantly from the doctrines that have historically been held by Christians. The groups that they have doctrinal similarities with were all regarded as heretics.
Isn't this more like communism than socialism? Socialism tends to be distributing the cost of essential or important services among the populace - things like health care and education. Music doesn't really fall into that category.
Having your internet connection choice dependent on your musical habits is absurd since the primary reason for the existence and purchase of broadband services is not music sharing.
While many of the values are similar (hence a few big conservative evangelicals endorsing Romney and not Huckabees), the doctrinal differences aren't subtleties, they're major issues about the nature and person(s) of God. The Christian position is that Mormons are not saved and on practical level, things don't get much more serious than that.
There's the small matter there or prayer being conversation between man and God, not man and man. Jesus was pretty big ont he whole 'repent and believe' thing and sent his disciples out several times to preach to people and left them with the instruction to make disciples of all nations. There's also the whole berating Israel for not being a light to the nations thing. Evangelism is central to Christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not let him compete? Because the competition is about human body against human body. If he wants to compete without his prosthetics, that's fine, but with them, he's running under different conditions toe everyone else. What happens in a few years time where prosthetics give an undisputed advantage to runners? Where do you draw the line? You can't have one set of rules for one person and another set for someone else; you can't let sentimentality trump fairness, otherwise the competition is devalued to the point of meaninglessness. And for all the people talking about how inspirational this is, surely his actions are devaluing the Paralympics? I would find it a lot more inspiring if times in the Paralympics started getting faster than Olympic records.
Oh please. This isn't a human rights issue; it's an issue of what a competition is about. If you're so keen for the handicapped to compete in able-bodied sports, why not the other way round? Because it wouldn't be fair, right? Well this is just applying the same criteria. Handicapped people are in no way being separated from society; everyone is being given the opportunity to compete in a competition where no-one has an advantage by virtue of having been born with or without certain bits of their body. In fact, if you're saying that a competition doesn't really count unless it involves able-bodied people, what are you saying about the value of handicapped competition and by implication the value of handicapped people?
Your claim was the religion "is about accepting assertions as true without any logical or evidential basis". That some people have inconsistencies in their belief or between their belief and practice does not change the fact that Judaism and Christianity are dependent on evidence; it simply means that some 'Christians' aren't terribly good Christians (which shouldn't really come as any surprise).
No, it doesn't even begin to if you genuinely think that religion involves dropping all critical thinking. Certainly every minister and professor of theology I know would be appalled at such a suggestion. It most certainly goes against the training ministers receive here in Northern Ireland.
I'm curious, do you think that Michael Faraday or James Clerk Maxwell were nutjobs or reasonable men?
It sounds more like you're confusing religion and spiritualism. Certainly, your description of religion bears no resemblance to Christianity and Judaism both of which emphasise their historicity. People are urged to trust God on the basis of his past actions and belief in Jesus is contingent upon a historical resurrection. Paul is very clear that if the resurrection was not a historical event, then Christianity is meaningless and Christians are ot be pitied above all others for putting their faith in nonsense and lying about God.
Perhaps your claims about Christianity could do with a great application of logic and examination of evidence.
Don't be daft. People may question evolution, but they're not questioning any of the rest of that stuff and have no basis to question it. In fact James Clerk Maxwell, and Michael Faraday, who gave us those wonderful equations that describe how a light works, were evangelical Christians.
This kind of objection seems to come up all the time and is usually answered pretty quickly. It's not fraud because it's generally allowed for in the small print and utilities work off a similar principle. If everyone in the country started drawing as much power as the connection to their house an handle, there would be electricity shortages. IF everyone tried to use their phones at the same time, people wouldn't be able to get through. Every new year that become pretty obvious as billions of text messages get sent out at once and multi-hour delays kick in.
Fair enough, though I tend to see more of people being upset when people express a (sometimes less) universal moral proclivity when it has a basis in religion. There's a lot of fault all round really.
Agreed. I'm thankful that I don't have to worry about it. Could end up pastoring to people who do someday though.
Succinctly put. I'm curious about which issues it is Huckabee wants to challenge. Obviously the cheese thing is really an issue for religious people. Something let abortion or gay marriage or adoption would be more directly related to the functioning of society and consequently where it would be important to have a legislative position, rather than just one of personal duty or morality.
Probably. Personally I'm against the idea of national religions. Don't think the gospel needs protecting or favouring by anyone and Constantine didn't really help the church in the long run. Must read more about Calvin and Geneva some day though and see if that changes my opinion at all. Us Presbyterians have generally had a rather fraught relationship with the state though and been somewhat persecuted for not going along with the established church, so I fully sympathise with anyone who doesn't want a national religion. At the same time though, I think some countries would be better off if they acknowledged the place of Christianity in the national culture, heritage and history. The UK does a pretty poor job of that. Though some in America seem to overstate the case regarding the Founding Fathers. Strike me as a bunch of Deists who in all likelihood rejected the gospel and could at best be described as cultural 'Christians with Judeo-Christian morals for the most part.
That's a reasonable viewpoint, though the argument could be made that different people will define 'really screwed up' in different ways, which brings about a bit of tension.
Anyway, thanks for a calm, cordial, coherent discussion. Most refreshing and helpful in refining my own views on the subject.
Certainly, there are times when that is the case. Of course, we're not likely to be getting the whole story since the media likes to go for the sensational, rather than the mundane, so goodness knows what's really going on/gone on in the family. It could be simply rebellion against the fact that his dad is a minister. Seems to drive some kids crazy. Alternatively, there could well be some dodgy stuff going on.
Why should something have to be justified in a secular sense? Surely people should be free to propose legislation regardless of secular/religious sensibilities and then leave it to the public/elected officials to decide on whether or not it should become law. Once it is proposed, then a debate can be had about whether it has any place in public governance, but surely the essence of democracy is that everyone has a voice and can bring that voice to the table and have their ideas listened to, discussed and a decision taken as to whether they are of benefit to society, rather than dismissing the idea before it is even brought forwards?
Incidentally, I'm a Presbyterain ministry student who drinks and occasionally goes bowling (proceeded by a trip to McDonalds) on a Sunday with my youth fellowship group.
Actually I'm saying that people are guided by their morals, Christian morality is influenced by religious belief and that it is wrong to say that they renders their morality invalid as a basis for proposing legislation and the like.
That doesn't mean that democracies should prevent religious people from expressing their world view. That goes against the essence of a democracy.
I wasn't suggesting Christians need an external authority. The Bible makes it clear that we all have a conscience which we fail to acknowledge 100% of the time and that it is at times deficient. Given that people are not perfectly moral, a perfect external moral authority does a better job of informing about what is moral and what is not.
Do you mean by that that only atheists have sufficient moral and ethical depth to run a country?
You illustrate the reason why religion should be kept out of politics: people falsely assume that if a candidate professes to be religious, he must have "moral principles".
Take the world 'religious', replace it with 'atheist' and examine what you've been saying.
You can't really say that the Constitution is not a product of its time. There was nothing special about its writers and its had to be amended a few times. I agree that Christians shouldn't force morals down people's throats, but certain immoral acts should be legislated against and it is moral to protect certain rights. An argument that could be made about abortion is that the rights of the unborn child are being protected and therefore it would be valid to present it as an issue to be incorporated into the Constitution. Whether or not it would make it through the legislative process is another matter, but in a democracy, people should have the right to make such proposals. Indeed, to suggest that laws/bills/amendments reflecting a Christian (or indeed any religious) world view can be brought forward and subjected to the democratic legislative process is itself a denial of religious freedom because all people bring their world view to the table when they propose laws and it is fundamentally wrong that only one group (atheists) be allowed to present laws reflecting their world view for consideration.
The thing is that in a democracy, people propose legislation that they believe is right and vote for what they believe is right. Atheists do this (presumably) on the basis of reason and conscience. Christians are also influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Both atheists and Christians have their own world view and their own opinion on what should be law. What then is the difference between an atheist working through the established democratic process to bring about the legislation they think is best for the country and a Christian working through the established democratic process to being about legislation they think is best for the country?
You see, Huckabee may want to change the Constitution, but I'd bet that he plans to do that using the same process that has resulted in amendments being made in the past. He might fail, he might succeed, but that's true of any attempted amendment. But the very fact that he would go through that process is an indication that the USA is a democracy, not a theocracy. Any change he makes could be undone by whoever takes his place.
If you say that the Constitution cannot be amended by people with a Christian world view, or indeed that legislation cannot be proposed by those with any sort of religious world view, but only by those with an atheistic world view, then you are in fact guilty of the very thing Huckabee is accused of: denying freedom of religious belief and expression.
18 year olds don't always reflect their parents' morality and teaching and if he did do it, there is no reason to believe he thought it was a Christian thing to do. Does look like there was a bit of an attempt to cover it up though.
The president committing adultery with an intern is pretty different to a presidential candidate's 18 year old son being investigated for potential animal cruelty. If the candidate had been caught doing it himself, it would be a better comparison, or if he had incited his son to do so.
I agree and don't think it is necessary for someone to be a Christian in order to be a good official. Both Jesus and Paul seem to take that stance quite clearly, along with a number of Old Testament figures.
I agree that not all morality should be legislated, but the legislation we have should be moral and if a law seems to be immoral or unethical, then it should be changed. I'm not American and don't really know the history of the Constitution in terms of amendments, etc. but hypothetically, if it was originally written that black people couldn't vote and was later amended, that would be an issue of morality to a certain extent.
Morals do, but does morality? I would argue that there are certain moral absolutes.
I'm not sure I follow you're reason there. It looks like you've said that you shouldn't need to update the Constitution because it's possible for you to not change it. That doesn't seem to be a reason why changing it would be wrong. There've already been quite a few amendments haven't there, so clearly there has been a need to change it in the past and could arguably be in the future. Its writers weren't the most enlightened people ever to walk the earth.
Really? When did he say he would forcibly convert everyone to Christianity? He said something about changing the Constitution, but seeking to change what you believe to be immoral and making it more moral is not a desire unique to Christians and he never said that this would infringe upon the freedom of people to worship in the way they choose (or to not worship at all). Would you be angry at anyone who thinks the Constitution should be changed to match their moral standards? What makes the moral standards of a few guys who died a couple fo hundred yeas ago so much superior and unquestionable?
If we swapped 'Christianity' for 'personal moral principles' would you still say it? If yes, do you think a president should have no moral compass or strong sense of principles of their own? If no, then what is the problem when moral principles stem from religious belief?
There's quite a difference between having a religious president and living in a theocracy. The USA and UK have had a number of religious leaders, but never been theocracies. Plenty of figures in leadership have strong principles or views on morals and ethics. Why is this fine for an atheist, but evil and terrifying insanity in the case of a Christian?
Why is Huckabee nuts? Do you think the Constitution shouldn't be changed? If so, then why do you think they got everything right back then? If it's because he thinks the moral standards should better line up with God's, then what's the difference between him wanting to change the Constitution and someone else who wants to change it to match up with their own moral standards?
A Christian is someone who follows Christ. Christ's teachings are recorded in the Bible and we have records of the early church's thoughts on the matter. Mormonism deviates significantly from the doctrines that have historically been held by Christians. The groups that they have doctrinal similarities with were all regarded as heretics.
Isn't this more like communism than socialism? Socialism tends to be distributing the cost of essential or important services among the populace - things like health care and education. Music doesn't really fall into that category.
Having your internet connection choice dependent on your musical habits is absurd since the primary reason for the existence and purchase of broadband services is not music sharing.
While many of the values are similar (hence a few big conservative evangelicals endorsing Romney and not Huckabees), the doctrinal differences aren't subtleties, they're major issues about the nature and person(s) of God. The Christian position is that Mormons are not saved and on practical level, things don't get much more serious than that.
There's the small matter there or prayer being conversation between man and God, not man and man. Jesus was pretty big ont he whole 'repent and believe' thing and sent his disciples out several times to preach to people and left them with the instruction to make disciples of all nations. There's also the whole berating Israel for not being a light to the nations thing. Evangelism is central to Christianity.