The Future of SCCOR
June 4th, 2009 by Bill ColleyI’m going to share some of my feedback. I’ve now had 3 members ask me what the heck I’m trying to do. First, I’m trying to save the organization. It won’t grow if the focus becomes faith and not change in government. As I’ve said, I go to church for matters of faith. I joined SCCOR and promoted its efforts to get the attention of a government no longer accountable to its people. Its entire people. Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. I can also tell you many, many people have approached me over the last two weeks with the same concerns. If you want a small Christian organization you’ve got one. If you want a large organization of taxpaying fellow Americans who can flex some political muscle then I suggest you get back to the founding ideal of the group. I’ve got my own views on faith and I’ve got the liberty to make the choice. I don’t need you looking out for my soul. It’s my personal responsibility.
Did you see John Atkins remarks about Eric? Some are offended because John was blunt but have told me he was spot on. Even if you don’t like John don’t let that cloud your judgment.
Leave the over-the-top criticisms to the talk radio hosts and get back to working the prime directive.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I really hope you can address such issues at the meetings in the future.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
This is not sepparation of church and state, it simply keeping ones faith close to the heart while working to promote a better government. We have the necessity now to work for a government based on the strengthening Constitution not one which destroys it. Let’s put our efforts in putting this country on the path of recovery, we can argue about our differences of faith later.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
So Bill have you now backed away from your suggestion to say the Lord’s prayer at SCCOR meetings? I am not following your logic here. Certainly the Lord’s prayer (spoken by Jesus I believe) would offend Jews and Zoroastrians. Again, see my prior (as yet to be posted) comment on your last post.
As for John Atkins. He was flat wrong. Public officials should not go after the reputation of private citizens…PERIOD! Mr. Bodenweiser’s final response on Jud’s network confirmed the problem with John’s attack. Mr. Bodenweiser clearly regrets the items sold in his father’s stores and his criticism of the casino in Millsboro is due to the damage he has witnessed as a result of gambling. That undermines Mr. Atkins entire argument.
to follow Mr. Atkins’ logic a person must be “without sin” before he can comment on any issue. If that is the case I know of many politicians who would be without a voice on many important issues.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Dear Sussex. What isn’t clear about facetious comments? Clearly the faithful at SCCOR are aware some churches have different versions of the prayer. How would Eric and the rest feel if I said we recite the Catholic version? My guess is this never entered their minds. Are they telling the non evangelicals a protestant version is superior? I don’t think so but again I bet they wouldn’t be comfortable if the prayers offered were all Catholic. Are we willing to accept Mormon prayers? From a Mormon members perspective their prayer is just as good and perhaps better, after all, it’s why they are Mormons and not Catholics.
I do know one thing. All of the people are in the room for a love of country. It appears the only common bond.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Bill, tell us straight, in clear concise terms what your position is. Are you now saying prayers should not be conducted at SCCOR meetings?
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it seems that you are stirring the pot but offering no solutions. Here was your original statement on prayer; “For the record, I like prayer and I often pray. I also like the idea of saying a prayer at meetings. In fact I’m disappointed we don’t end with one as well.”
Are you now backing away from that statement. Are you suggesting that because no one can agree on whose prayer to use all prayer should be excluded. I am not faulting you for taking such a position, in fact it seems the most logical one, but right now I am unclear on what your position is.
As an atheist I don’t believe in prayer but at the same time I am not going to make a fuss if someone wants to open a meeting with one. But what happens when a less tolerant atheist shows up and demands all prayers cease? That is why it would seem most logical to have no prayer at the meetings.
Otherwise it seems to me that in an effort to be inclusive of everyone you would end up offending everyone. Interested in hearing from you.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I’ve no issue with believers sharing their intentions with their God. It’s their liberty. I’ve written reams on the subject and have clearly stated I don’t want an independent organization appropriated by Elmer Gantry for his personal agenda. The people who founded the organization did so because they want more responsive government. Saving souls wasn’t on the original menu. If folks so choose to be saved I can say God bless them. It’s also their own personal liberty. Jesus made the offer and gave people a choice. Muhammad offered no choice but instead coercion.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Hey Bill. You still haven’t answered the question. Why are you dancing around the issue.
I am not asking you if you have an issue with believers sharing their intentions with their God.
I am not asking your opinion about “Elmer Gantry” appropriating meetings for a personal agenda.
I am simply asking you whether you believe prayers should be offered at SCCOR meetings or not? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. After all I thought this whole issue was about prayer in the first place.