On May 27 2011 13:47 Torte de Lini wrote: I think knowing his situation, he should have just obliged and pretended to pray. It's fine that he's standing up for his rights, but as you can see, he didn't gain as much as he lost especially if he knew (and he most likely did) that the surrounding community around him as well as the governing body, were heavily christian.
It's just a bad move on his part, he should have considered more than his individual rights that don't necessarily hurt or affect him to the extent or degree he is in now.
What a small and limited perception. If everyone thought like that we would still be living in caves because you'd feel cold for a few seconds if you try to move out.
What Fowler accomplished is much bigger than himself. Oh he lost his immediate short term financial support and a few uneducated morons will hate him for a few weeks. What will be of his life? ¬¬ On the other hand he gained much more life experience, long term respect, friends and helped improve his whole nation more than 99.9% of the people in this forum ever will.
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.
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."
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!
I will admit that is a possibility, I just don't find it very likely if for no other reason then they can get their asses sued, although considering the events that unfolded I might want to rethink that position. lol
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.
you're making the argument that the lawful thing is the right thing to do when you say that
I personally think it's a silly law, let people pray all they want (or for that matter mumble whatever rubbish they want), so long as it doesn't make a habit of disrupting the peace
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
Mmmm yea, youre trying to be cute here, i get it.
One problem though. Here you said:
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
when the guy you were responding to was saying nothing of the sort. If you say that Im being illogical by twisting your words, the twist you pulled with the above quote is even more far fetched than anything I did with your words.
On May 27 2011 13:47 Torte de Lini wrote: I think knowing his situation, he should have just obliged and pretended to pray. It's fine that he's standing up for his rights, but as you can see, he didn't gain as much as he lost especially if he knew (and he most likely did) that the surrounding community around him as well as the governing body, were heavily christian.
It's just a bad move on his part, he should have considered more than his individual rights that don't necessarily hurt or affect him to the extent or degree he is in now.
What a small and limited perception. If everyone thought like that we would still be living in caves because you'd feel cold for a few seconds if you try to move out.
What Fowler accomplished is much bigger than himself. Oh he lost his immediate short term financial support and a few uneducated morons will hate him for a few weeks. What will be of his life? ¬¬ On the other hand he gained much more life experience, long term respect, friends and helped improve his whole nation more than 99.9% of the people in this forum ever will.
he made a bunch of religious people angry
he also traded an old community for a new one
i don't see what the tremendous achievement is there
I think the school and its religious community have overreacted to one kid's demand. It's a high school kid versus people that are easily 20-30 years older than him (like the school staff and his parents), and I think the entire thing spiralled out of control because of immature reaction to a legitimate request.
Why is it that "religious people" (that are taught to love one another and respect each other) are so eager to react with hot-temper and violence? I'm glad the kid got some backup now, both physically and financially, and hope he continues to seek justice in non-violent means.
On May 27 2011 13:47 Torte de Lini wrote: I think knowing his situation, he should have just obliged and pretended to pray. It's fine that he's standing up for his rights, but as you can see, he didn't gain as much as he lost especially if he knew (and he most likely did) that the surrounding community around him as well as the governing body, were heavily christian.
It's just a bad move on his part, he should have considered more than his individual rights that don't necessarily hurt or affect him to the extent or degree he is in now.
What a small and limited perception. If everyone thought like that we would still be living in caves because you'd feel cold for a few seconds if you try to move out.
What Fowler accomplished is much bigger than himself. Oh he lost his immediate short term financial support and a few uneducated morons will hate him for a few weeks. What will be of his life? ¬¬ On the other hand he gained much more life experience, long term respect, friends and helped improve his whole nation more than 99.9% of the people in this forum ever will.
On May 27 2011 14:42 mastergriggy wrote: Alright I fail at quoting posts, sorry about that. But, I thought Teamliquid has a better understanding of logic, because everyone who has responded to me seems to love using logical fallacies. Tradition doesn't have anything to do if something is wrong or right. I've never said this.
The issue is that person a is pissed off over the schools decision (or maybe not even pissed off, insert whatever word you want), so person a asks them not to do that. Why can't anyone answer the question I've already raised, why is it okay for the kid to get his way and the school to be forced to do something differently? It in no way broke the law, or violated any of the previously established principles.
Edit:
On May 27 2011 14:39 Jibba wrote:
On May 27 2011 14:36 mastergriggy wrote: Maybe you can explain to me where in the bill of rights the school has to cancel the tradition because some guy opposes it? I mean god forbid it goes both ways.
It's an unconstitutional tradition. Law is the basis of the nation state, not religion and not tradition.
It's not unconstitutional. The school took it down for the sake of expediency, not because they were forced too.
I agree that people need to focus on the issue here. Is it really Unconstitutional? I dont know and Im not really feeling like looking up the whole "separation of church and state" argument at the moment. If it is unconstitutional, you would agree that the school should have stopped their school wide prayer practices, right mastergriggy? And if it is within the limits of hte constitution, then the school really didnt have to.
To quote the original article: "Before we get into the details, let's be clear about the facts and the law: Nobody -- not Fowler, not the ACLU, nobody -- is telling anybody at Bastrop High School that they can't pray. People can pray at graduations and other school events all they want. The sole issue here is whether a public school can have a prayer at a graduation or other school event as an official, school-sponsored part of the program. "
I think this is the issue, just to save time. I don't understand what you mean by school wide prayer practices...this is just talking about the graduation. But since we are talking about the graduation, we come to the problem is it right or wrong for the school to have prayer as a part of event stemming from it being traditional?
I argue no, because It's a harmless tradition that no one is being forced to take part of. This doesn't mean it's right because it's a tradition, but if you can explain to me how that makes it wrong, by all means go for it.
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
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
when the guy you were responding to was saying nothing of the sort. If you say that Im being illogical by twisting your words, the twist you pulled with the above quote is even more far fetched than anything I did with your words.
he said i don't like X because people use X to Y
i said well people use Z to Y do you not like Z either
i was applying his logic to a different scenario to see if he would apply the same logic
But Fowler -- knowing that government-sponsored prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional and legally forbidden -
... it also goes against what he believes, why should he just accept it? Why can't people accept the fact that others don't wanna pray, specially when its legally forbidden? Come on..
Back on topic, he must be some sorta law-nerd to know that kind of thing in high school lol. Way too uptight for his own good.
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
Except he was ostracized by school administrators and teachers, which represent the government. That is government sanctioned religious persecution if they don't get punished for violating his rights.
if his family and religious community were so quick to betray him for not believing (which is ironic because christians are supposed to love everyone anyways), then they weren't really his family to begin with and he's better off now anyways
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.
I think they are saying Fowler didn't act in his own best interests and his actions were very altruistic.
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.
Whose moral?
Thats really a personal viewpoint. To some people he could have stayed silent and just given them their thing without incident. To other its important to stand up for belief/law/w/e. Personally if I were in his shoes I would have let it go because it really doesn't affect me in anyway but to him I guess it did so he felt the need to do something. Imo its fine either way but the response to his actions should be thrown out the window.
EPT
