|
On May 27 2011 14:49 Jerubaal wrote:
As I said before, you really should take a look at the history of the First Amendment to see how this has been interpreted through the years. To say HERP DERP First Amendment is an extremely simple way of understanding this.
I wouldn't recommend reading too many though because after a while you realize they are just going blah blah blah here's my biased opinion. :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
Lemon test
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement_test
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On May 27 2011 14:52 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:41 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 14:35 aguy38 wrote:On May 27 2011 14:34 meegrean wrote:
If I were him, I would have just stayed silent. Punishment far outweighs the benefits... Is he trying to be a martyr or something? If I were a betting man I would put money on it that he did it for attention and it just spiraled out of control to what it is now. For attention? He contacted the principal in private. Someone leaked his name. Do you honestly believe he told no one else?
Yeap.
|
On May 27 2011 14:50 sermokala wrote:Its far too late for me to point out the obvious response's about radio carbon dateing but I'll just link the wiki and be done with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating go down to calibration if your lazy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ And Yes I'm oursourceing my argument again If it was such a wildly accepted Theory then how come no one will allow debate other said "synthesis"
Even if you proved irreconcilably that carbon dating is grossly inaccurate, you've still accomplished nothing. The data acquired from those methods are still the best explanation to date, the theory of evolution still stands, the scientific method is in tact, the government institutions of the US are still separated from religion, Fowler was still fully in the legal right and I have no idea how how whatever ambiguous point you are trying to make is effected. You're derailing so hard and with such an age old debate that you must be trolling.
|
Real quick rundown of the legal difference between evolution and creationism.
Creationism theory is a religious theory hands down. As such it is not available to be backed by a government funded venue.
Evolution theory is a scientific theory which is different. Let us suppose we take a small leap an say that atheism is a religion. Even if atheism is a religion the theory of evolution is not attributed to the atheist beliefs but is a scientific theory (science is not a religion, legally or otherwise). Attributing evolution theory to atheism is equivalent to attributing trigonometry to atheism.
Theory of evolution is not attributed to a religion or quasi religious (atheism) entity and is therefore not affected by the freedom of religion amendment.
|
Sure he might have done it for attention or something and yes he could have sat through it but that doesn't matter, what matters is that it should have never happened in the first place. It is completly unconstitutional and personally i would agree that it shouldn't be allowed because the constitution exists for a reason, you can't pick and choose which parts you like and you need to learn to accept that sometimes your freedoms have to be limited to protect the rights of others.
|
uh oh the formatting is off so sometimes the quotes may be attributed to the wrong people but if you were in this conversation you know how it went
On May 27 2011 ?? : ?? Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 ?? : ?? EmeraldSparks wrote:On May 27 2011 14:36 Supamang wrote:On May 27 2011 14:16 EmeraldSparks wrote:On May 27 2011 14:15 Jswizzy wrote:On May 27 2011 14:05 StrangrDangr wrote:
If someone is an atheist, then they believe that praying is in fact nothing and is just a waste of time. So I am curious what is so wrong with having to sit and have 3 minutes of your time wasted if it comforts and appeases the vast majority of your friends and community. What is the possible downside? It seems selfish to put a few minutes of your time over the wishes of others. Clearly you are only looking at this from your own perspective. As an atheist I see prayer as beyond useless and the God that is being prayed to as a motivation for all kinds of actions that I don't agree with. People use God to justify all kinds of horrible crimes and actions why would I want to be forced to give into that and just go along with it? I don't care if you prayer but I wouldn't salute a fascist and I don't want to pray to a God who is used as a justification for evil. people use "its the right thing to do" as a justification or a lot of bad things or "the general welfare" or "the greater good" or "the well-being of humanity" are you now going to shun all the people who believe in these things Yeah yeah, a lot of shit happens when some shit is loosely connected to the matter at hand whatever man. We are not talking about "a lot of bad things." We are talking about the situation at hand, namely the kid being ostracized and threatened based on his beliefs and based on his desire to stand up for his own constitutional rights. Dont bring up some random bullshit about "the general welfare" or "the greater good" being used for bad things because that has nothing to do with this case (plus youre starting to tread dangerously close to "socialism" arguments). Stick to the points. the person i was talking to was actually talking about "all kinds of horrible crimes and actions" and somehow he started talking about fascism also but apparently i'm now the one derailing the conversation with random bullshit how exciting Fair enough. He did go off topic. But wait, somehow just because someone else does it means its ok for you to do it? Hmmm, im starting to see a pattern in your thought process here
the pattern is that i respond to what people say
not what people dont say or what i pretend they say
that would be illogical
On May 27 2011 14:36 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:16 EmeraldSparks wrote:On May 27 2011 14:25 mastergriggy wrote:
To sum up my rant, the article writer is a biased idiot, the kid didn't deserve to have been treated that way, and Christians, Atheists, and everyone on Team Liquid is likely to over react about this. yep you are the only one in teamliquid who is smart enough to give a measured response gold star for you ridiculous
okay if you really want one you can have a gold star too
|
On May 27 2011 14:54 rbx270j wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:52 maliceee wrote:On May 27 2011 14:41 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 14:35 aguy38 wrote:On May 27 2011 14:34 meegrean wrote:
If I were him, I would have just stayed silent. Punishment far outweighs the benefits... Is he trying to be a martyr or something? If I were a betting man I would put money on it that he did it for attention and it just spiraled out of control to what it is now. For attention? He contacted the principal in private. Someone leaked his name. Do you honestly believe he told no one else? You think he bragged to his obviously hardcore religious parents, or what?
I think that he told someone. Maybe it wasn't his parents. Maybe it was some other atheist in school or that cute girl. It might have been his best friend. All I know for sure is that he is a teenager and trust me, we are all idiots.
edit:anyway, back on topic the kid telling someone something doesn't really matter.
|
On May 27 2011 14:45 imBLIND wrote:
Why can't these people live side by side in peace? We have atheists asking to get punched, and on other days, some religious people are asking to get punched. Individual beliefs are getting in the way of the social norm.
If he didn't want to pray, he could've just taken a nap instead of going and threatening to inform the ACLU. This world isn't meant for the person. That's, unfortunately, isn't how this world works.
I'm going to have to defer to Team America's opinion on this one:
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And [you ...] are pussies. And [they are ...] asshole[s]. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
Translation: As the Supreme Court of (Penn I think?) eloquently stated before, rights in court only belong to the belligerent claimant. If you don't fight for your own rights, there is no obligation for someone else to. Relying on someone else (including U.S. Corp) to protect your rights to avoid a potential lawsuit for infringement only works if there's a "dick" somewhere ready to make a potentially unpopular stand.
|
seriously why is there so much debate about carbon dating and the existence (or lack of) of god in this thread
way to de-rail people
|
On May 27 2011 14:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
honestly, I wouldn't object to a public prayer if the majority wanted it even if it wasn't my religion
doesn't really bother me or offend me in any way (I'm non-religious and even when I was younger and religious, that kinda stuff didn't necessarily offend me)
sounds like he was just being a "party pooper" and kinda deserves "some" degree of mocking as any "party pooper" deserves
I'm not religious at all but if I was a guest in someone's home and they wanted to pray, why wouldn't I, especially if I was an atheist.
what is going to happen, is the god of atheism going to strike me with a lightning bolt for, dare I say it, letting a public prayer occur when it isn't supposed to?
let the people have their fun, I wouldn't want someone objecting to me if I wanted to perform some sort of harmless short ritual in public
Atheists believe in no gods, so no, you don't have to worry about being struck down by lightning.
|
On May 27 2011 14:59 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
honestly, I wouldn't object to a public prayer if the majority wanted it even if it wasn't my religion
doesn't really bother me or offend me in any way (I'm non-religious and even when I was younger and religious, that kinda stuff didn't necessarily offend me)
sounds like he was just being a "party pooper" and kinda deserves "some" degree of mocking as any "party pooper" deserves
I'm not religious at all but if I was a guest in someone's home and they wanted to pray, why wouldn't I, especially if I was an atheist.
what is going to happen, is the god of atheism going to strike me with a lightning bolt for, dare I say it, letting a public prayer occur when it isn't supposed to?
let the people have their fun, I wouldn't want someone objecting to me if I wanted to perform some sort of harmless short ritual in public Atheists believe in no gods, so no, you don't have to worry about being struck down by lightning.
the athiest secret police will come and put you in a gulag if you inappropriate pray
much more effective, reliable, and predictable than divine lightning
|
I think the most interesting part of this thread is the people who are saying that even though the law says one thing, Damon should have just kept his head down and not said anything. The idea of not doing the right thing because it's unpopular is really depressing, when you think about it.
Fowler was arguing in favor of the law, as established above by the Lemon Test, and the notion of separation of church and state as a whole. The school was inconvenienced, but only because it was breaking the law in the first place. Had the school followed federal law regarding the situation, none of this would have been necessary. But now a kid has basically been driven out of town for fighting for U.S. law in a city that probably, ironically, calls itself very patriotic and American.
|
On May 27 2011 14:59 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
honestly, I wouldn't object to a public prayer if the majority wanted it even if it wasn't my religion
doesn't really bother me or offend me in any way (I'm non-religious and even when I was younger and religious, that kinda stuff didn't necessarily offend me)
sounds like he was just being a "party pooper" and kinda deserves "some" degree of mocking as any "party pooper" deserves
I'm not religious at all but if I was a guest in someone's home and they wanted to pray, why wouldn't I, especially if I was an atheist.
what is going to happen, is the god of atheism going to strike me with a lightning bolt for, dare I say it, letting a public prayer occur when it isn't supposed to?
let the people have their fun, I wouldn't want someone objecting to me if I wanted to perform some sort of harmless short ritual in public Atheists believe in no gods, so no, you don't have to worry about being struck down by lightning.
Theres always the flying spaghetti monster...
|
On May 27 2011 14:54 Slaughter wrote:
Im an anthropologist so im pretty damn familiar with radiocarbon dating and its uses
This is why I love TL. ^^ Anywhere else you're arguing against random teenagers on the internet. On liquid you're arguing with an anthropologist on why he's wrong about carbon dating.
Evolution vs Creationism was a pretty random direction for this thread to go folks. It's all about opposition to perceived unjust laws remember? as well as the parents being dicks.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On May 27 2011 14:56 aguy38 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:54 rbx270j wrote:On May 27 2011 14:52 maliceee wrote:On May 27 2011 14:41 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 14:35 aguy38 wrote:On May 27 2011 14:34 meegrean wrote:
If I were him, I would have just stayed silent. Punishment far outweighs the benefits... Is he trying to be a martyr or something? If I were a betting man I would put money on it that he did it for attention and it just spiraled out of control to what it is now. For attention? He contacted the principal in private. Someone leaked his name. Do you honestly believe he told no one else? You think he bragged to his obviously hardcore religious parents, or what? I think that he told someone. Maybe it wasn't his parents. Maybe it was some other atheist in school or that cute girl. It might have been his best friend. All I know for sure is that he is a teenager and trust me, we are all idiots.
It could have also been the principal telling teachers or someone else. I mean, he told other school authorities:
- "We have to cancel the prayer"
- "Why?"
- "Because this kid Fowler is threatening legal actions if we don't."
See? instantly leaked.
All I know for sure is that they are grown ups, and they are all idiots. I mean, look at his parents, or that teacher that demeaned him!
|
On May 27 2011 14:59 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
honestly, I wouldn't object to a public prayer if the majority wanted it even if it wasn't my religion
doesn't really bother me or offend me in any way (I'm non-religious and even when I was younger and religious, that kinda stuff didn't necessarily offend me)
sounds like he was just being a "party pooper" and kinda deserves "some" degree of mocking as any "party pooper" deserves
I'm not religious at all but if I was a guest in someone's home and they wanted to pray, why wouldn't I, especially if I was an atheist.
what is going to happen, is the god of atheism going to strike me with a lightning bolt for, dare I say it, letting a public prayer occur when it isn't supposed to?
let the people have their fun, I wouldn't want someone objecting to me if I wanted to perform some sort of harmless short ritual in public Atheists believe in no gods, so no, you don't have to worry about being struck down by lightning.
I thought my sarcasm was obvious, unless you were just contributing to it
|
On May 27 2011 14:54 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:05 travis wrote:
There is something called separation of church and state. it was a pretty big deal way back when actual religious persecution was a problem it's not so much a big deal in the modern united states
This kid being tossed out of his community and family because of his (lack of) religion is religious persecution.
|
On May 27 2011 15:00 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:59 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 14:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
honestly, I wouldn't object to a public prayer if the majority wanted it even if it wasn't my religion
doesn't really bother me or offend me in any way (I'm non-religious and even when I was younger and religious, that kinda stuff didn't necessarily offend me)
sounds like he was just being a "party pooper" and kinda deserves "some" degree of mocking as any "party pooper" deserves
I'm not religious at all but if I was a guest in someone's home and they wanted to pray, why wouldn't I, especially if I was an atheist.
what is going to happen, is the god of atheism going to strike me with a lightning bolt for, dare I say it, letting a public prayer occur when it isn't supposed to?
let the people have their fun, I wouldn't want someone objecting to me if I wanted to perform some sort of harmless short ritual in public Atheists believe in no gods, so no, you don't have to worry about being struck down by lightning. Theres always the flying spaghetti monster...
belief in the flying spaghetti monster is illogical
athiests who believe in it are silly geese
On May 27 2011 15:00 Echophantom wrote:
I think the most interesting part of this thread is the people who are saying that even though the law says one thing, Damon should have just kept his head down and not said anything. The idea of not doing the right thing because it's unpopular is really depressing, when you think about it.
Fowler was arguing in favor of the law, as established above by the Lemon Test, and the notion of separation of church and state as a whole. The school was inconvenienced, but only because it was breaking the law in the first place. Had the school followed federal law regarding the situation, none of this would have been necessary. But now a kid has basically been driven out of town for fighting for U.S. law in a city that probably, ironically, calls itself very patriotic and American.
nothing more american than shredding the constitution
On May 27 2011 15:01 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 14:54 EmeraldSparks wrote:On May 27 2011 14:05 travis wrote:
There is something called separation of church and state. it was a pretty big deal way back when actual religious persecution was a problem it's not so much a big deal in the modern united states This kid being tossed out of his community and family because of his (lack of) religion is religious persecution.
but the fact that he is now dead to his community and family has cannot be prevented by the first amendment because his family and his community are not the federal government nor are they any level of government themselves meaning that the fourteenth amendments supremacy clause does not apply to them
they can ostracize whoever they like for whatever reasons they like
|
He made a mistake but teachers, students and even his own parents bullying him? I back the poor kid, Atheist for life!
|
On May 27 2011 15:00 Echophantom wrote:
I think the most interesting part of this thread is the people who are saying that even though the law says one thing, Damon should have just kept his head down and not said anything. The idea of not doing the right thing because it's unpopular is really depressing, when you think about it.
Fowler was arguing in favor of the law, as established above by the Lemon Test, and the notion of separation of church and state as a whole. The school was inconvenienced, but only because it was breaking the law in the first place. Had the school followed federal law regarding the situation, none of this would have been necessary. But now a kid has basically been driven out of town for fighting for U.S. law in a city that probably, ironically, calls itself very patriotic and American.
I think they are saying Fowler acted wrongly on moral grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
