|
On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken.
see that's where I'm losing you guys
in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone
I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions in their two minute long prayer
I should have rallied all of the non-christians behind my banner of justice when that happened, damn
|
On May 27 2011 16:01 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:51 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:41 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:35 johanngrunt wrote:Prayer is useless, or at best no better than chance. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.htmlMain results
Ten studies are included in this review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death (6 RCTs, n=3389, random-effects RR 0.73 CI 0.38 to 1.38). Data are heterogeneous (I2 =85%). Excluding one study from the meta-analysis (n=760) decreases this heterogeneity (I2 =44%) and shifts the finding towards the null (5 RCTs, n=2629, random RR 0.97 CI 0.63 to 1.50). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).
Authors' conclusions
These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care. So why would you want to do something that is useless? why would you be offended if someone wanted to do something useless if it didn't hurt anyone? Its not about the fact that someone is doing something useless. Its the fact that a government funded school is saying you have to pray (whether you pray or not is your own choice, the contested part of this graduation is that the school is saying there is a time dedicated to a religious activity). If the school said, have a moment of silence, and 99% of the people prayed, this kid wouldn't of said anything. But the fact that the school said, Bow your heads and pray, thats them putting religion into the ceremony as a government body, something that is illegal. I dont see how this is hard to understand, its not a whether you pray or not, even if no one prayed but the school said "bow your heads in prayer", it would still be illegal with no one participating. since when did a prayer at the graduation turn into everyone present is forced to use tax-money to pray? I think you're misinterpreting the situation. alls he had to do was sit quiet for a minute or two while most of the crowd closed their eyes and listened to someone blabber it isn't that much to expect considering he's going to be sitting there listening to people blabber for several hours if his graduation was anything like mine here this is what I did in his situation:I'm sitting in my chair thinking about how bad I want to go home and play starcraft, what's for dinner I'm hungry, that girl is hot "okay bow your head and pray" I continue doing what I had been doing oh no the end of the world, a public school is praying at my graduation, I feel so lonely and isolated and offended what will I do I have no liberty or freedom ROFL get off your high horses I am not misinterpreting the situation. It is illegal for a school to promote religious activity as an official event. it doesnt matter if its 2 minutes, or 2 hours, or 2 days. It doesn't matter if the actual situation is harmless, its against he law. Its a public school, therefore everyone that goes to the school has already paid for going there through taxes. The law says the school cannot tell/lead students in religious activity, thats all. They could of easily just said, have a moment of silence and nothing would be wrong, but the fact that they are saying bow your head and pray is breaking the law. that's fair enough, I can concede that is in fact breaking the law, I don't ever believe I tried to argue it wasn't illegal On May 27 2011 15:54 johanngrunt wrote:On May 27 2011 15:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:41 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:35 johanngrunt wrote:Prayer is useless, or at best no better than chance. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.htmlMain results
Ten studies are included in this review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death (6 RCTs, n=3389, random-effects RR 0.73 CI 0.38 to 1.38). Data are heterogeneous (I2 =85%). Excluding one study from the meta-analysis (n=760) decreases this heterogeneity (I2 =44%) and shifts the finding towards the null (5 RCTs, n=2629, random RR 0.97 CI 0.63 to 1.50). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).
Authors' conclusions
These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care. So why would you want to do something that is useless? why would you be offended if someone wanted to do something useless if it didn't hurt anyone? Its not about the fact that someone is doing something useless. Its the fact that a government funded school is saying you have to pray (whether you pray or not is your own choice, the contested part of this graduation is that the school is saying there is a time dedicated to a religious activity). If the school said, have a moment of silence, and 99% of the people prayed, this kid wouldn't of said anything. But the fact that the school said, Bow your heads and pray, thats them putting religion into the ceremony as a government body, something that is illegal. I dont see how this is hard to understand, its not a whether you pray or not, even if no one prayed but the school said "bow your heads in prayer", it would still be illegal with no one participating. since when did a prayer at the graduation turn into everyone present is forced to use tax-money to pray? I think you're misinterpreting the situation. alls he had to do was sit quiet for a minute or two while most of the crowd closed their eyes and listened to someone blabber it isn't that much to expect considering he's going to be sitting there listening to people blabber for several hours if his graduation was anything like mine here this is what I did in his situation:I'm sitting in my chair thinking about how bad I want to go home and play starcraft, what's for dinner I'm hungry, that girl is hot "okay bow your head and pray" oh no the end of the world, a public school is praying at my graduation, I feel so lonely and isolated and offended what will I do I have no liberty or freedom oh wait, no I just sort of kept doing what I had been doing being and would continue doing until the ceremony ended ROFL get off your high horses Ok, this is just my way of thinking. Public schools are built with public funds, i.e. taxpayer money, i.e. government money. So using public schools (i.e government property) as a podium for prayer is in essence using public funds to support prayer (to a deity that may/may not exist and if he did exist he's probably a dick for throwing tornados and earthquakes around willy nilly) So it's technically wrong, no matter how little ill effect it causes. Just like jaywalking or running a red light. I was unaware it cost taxpayers money to pray for a couple minutes at a podium when you're going to be at the ceremony for 3-6 hours anyways I'm curious, if prayer officially endorsed and promoted by a school is alright, how about select bible readings for a few minutes each day, just to get the blood pumping? It's just a few minutes, surely it wouldn't matter considering you'd be at school for at least 6 hours a day anyways. Government should be above the realm of religion in all matters and should be completely and utterly neutral in such affairs. Read Engel if you're somehow thinking you could be possibly be right.
wait what? having a 2-minute prayer once a year means the school is allowed to constantly endorse and promote religion? 2minutes per year is the same as 2minutes per 6 hours right? about the same ratio i think..
you lost me, can you explain that part to me again and go real slow because I completely missed that turn
I don't have time to read engel could you possibly summarize the part that will enlighten me as to how right you are?
|
On May 27 2011 16:02 Emperor_Earth wrote:
I never said that healthier lifestyles are exclusive to religious people. I'm fairly certain, however, without having done my due diligence, that the average devout Christian is healthier physically, mentally, and especially socially that your average devout atheist.
The response you read was in solely in regards to someone else's post. Consider context here and read the preceding pages so that you don't miss out on the evolving debate in your haste to post with assumptive prejudice.
Yeah, I read them. Sadly that quote at the end of the thread, and you guys jumped a few pages in discussion in the time it took for me to type that...
I do not believe we will find a correlation between religious outlook and health. It's very individual. Also, the sample size for atheists is probably much lower compared to theists.
|
On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions
The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand.
This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education.
|
On May 27 2011 16:06 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:02 Emperor_Earth wrote:
I never said that healthier lifestyles are exclusive to religious people. I'm fairly certain, however, without having done my due diligence, that the average devout Christian is healthier physically, mentally, and especially socially that your average devout atheist.
The response you read was in solely in regards to someone else's post. Consider context here and read the preceding pages so that you don't miss out on the evolving debate in your haste to post with assumptive prejudice. Yeah, I read them. Sadly that quote at the end of the thread, and you guys jumped three pages in discussion in the time it took for me to type that...
Sorry. Got a bit touchy. Two attacks on the same post^^ No hard feelings.
|
On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions
well let's do a thought experiment
your school/workplace ect. now has 5 mandatory breaks in which you're required to pray with your head bowed to the center of the galaxy and praise xenu.
you're ok with this then ? it's just a few minutes every day at no extra cost to anyone right ?
this doesn't promote anything obviously , it's just what most of the community there wants
|
On May 27 2011 16:02 aguy38 wrote:
read up on sharing a residence...I think you might be a little surprised.
I don't need to read up on anything, as I know that I'm correct. You may want to google the phrase 'evicting adult children'. Note that the most common advice is not 'hurf durf put their stuff on the curb and change the locks'.
|
ACLU shouldn't waste resources on this. They should keep attacking the religious charter schools that force kids to do ritual washings and islamic prayer like they did in Minnesota.
|
On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education.
I'm not debating that it isn't against the law
I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite
|
On May 27 2011 16:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:01 Elegy wrote:On May 27 2011 15:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:51 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:41 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:35 johanngrunt wrote:Prayer is useless, or at best no better than chance. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.htmlMain results
Ten studies are included in this review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death (6 RCTs, n=3389, random-effects RR 0.73 CI 0.38 to 1.38). Data are heterogeneous (I2 =85%). Excluding one study from the meta-analysis (n=760) decreases this heterogeneity (I2 =44%) and shifts the finding towards the null (5 RCTs, n=2629, random RR 0.97 CI 0.63 to 1.50). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).
Authors' conclusions
These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care. So why would you want to do something that is useless? why would you be offended if someone wanted to do something useless if it didn't hurt anyone? Its not about the fact that someone is doing something useless. Its the fact that a government funded school is saying you have to pray (whether you pray or not is your own choice, the contested part of this graduation is that the school is saying there is a time dedicated to a religious activity). If the school said, have a moment of silence, and 99% of the people prayed, this kid wouldn't of said anything. But the fact that the school said, Bow your heads and pray, thats them putting religion into the ceremony as a government body, something that is illegal. I dont see how this is hard to understand, its not a whether you pray or not, even if no one prayed but the school said "bow your heads in prayer", it would still be illegal with no one participating. since when did a prayer at the graduation turn into everyone present is forced to use tax-money to pray? I think you're misinterpreting the situation. alls he had to do was sit quiet for a minute or two while most of the crowd closed their eyes and listened to someone blabber it isn't that much to expect considering he's going to be sitting there listening to people blabber for several hours if his graduation was anything like mine here this is what I did in his situation:I'm sitting in my chair thinking about how bad I want to go home and play starcraft, what's for dinner I'm hungry, that girl is hot "okay bow your head and pray" I continue doing what I had been doing oh no the end of the world, a public school is praying at my graduation, I feel so lonely and isolated and offended what will I do I have no liberty or freedom ROFL get off your high horses I am not misinterpreting the situation. It is illegal for a school to promote religious activity as an official event. it doesnt matter if its 2 minutes, or 2 hours, or 2 days. It doesn't matter if the actual situation is harmless, its against he law. Its a public school, therefore everyone that goes to the school has already paid for going there through taxes. The law says the school cannot tell/lead students in religious activity, thats all. They could of easily just said, have a moment of silence and nothing would be wrong, but the fact that they are saying bow your head and pray is breaking the law. that's fair enough, I can concede that is in fact breaking the law, I don't ever believe I tried to argue it wasn't illegal On May 27 2011 15:54 johanngrunt wrote:On May 27 2011 15:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:41 Alventenie wrote:On May 27 2011 15:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:35 johanngrunt wrote:Prayer is useless, or at best no better than chance. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.htmlMain results
Ten studies are included in this review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death (6 RCTs, n=3389, random-effects RR 0.73 CI 0.38 to 1.38). Data are heterogeneous (I2 =85%). Excluding one study from the meta-analysis (n=760) decreases this heterogeneity (I2 =44%) and shifts the finding towards the null (5 RCTs, n=2629, random RR 0.97 CI 0.63 to 1.50). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).
Authors' conclusions
These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care. So why would you want to do something that is useless? why would you be offended if someone wanted to do something useless if it didn't hurt anyone? Its not about the fact that someone is doing something useless. Its the fact that a government funded school is saying you have to pray (whether you pray or not is your own choice, the contested part of this graduation is that the school is saying there is a time dedicated to a religious activity). If the school said, have a moment of silence, and 99% of the people prayed, this kid wouldn't of said anything. But the fact that the school said, Bow your heads and pray, thats them putting religion into the ceremony as a government body, something that is illegal. I dont see how this is hard to understand, its not a whether you pray or not, even if no one prayed but the school said "bow your heads in prayer", it would still be illegal with no one participating. since when did a prayer at the graduation turn into everyone present is forced to use tax-money to pray? I think you're misinterpreting the situation. alls he had to do was sit quiet for a minute or two while most of the crowd closed their eyes and listened to someone blabber it isn't that much to expect considering he's going to be sitting there listening to people blabber for several hours if his graduation was anything like mine here this is what I did in his situation:I'm sitting in my chair thinking about how bad I want to go home and play starcraft, what's for dinner I'm hungry, that girl is hot "okay bow your head and pray" oh no the end of the world, a public school is praying at my graduation, I feel so lonely and isolated and offended what will I do I have no liberty or freedom oh wait, no I just sort of kept doing what I had been doing being and would continue doing until the ceremony ended ROFL get off your high horses Ok, this is just my way of thinking. Public schools are built with public funds, i.e. taxpayer money, i.e. government money. So using public schools (i.e government property) as a podium for prayer is in essence using public funds to support prayer (to a deity that may/may not exist and if he did exist he's probably a dick for throwing tornados and earthquakes around willy nilly) So it's technically wrong, no matter how little ill effect it causes. Just like jaywalking or running a red light. I was unaware it cost taxpayers money to pray for a couple minutes at a podium when you're going to be at the ceremony for 3-6 hours anyways I'm curious, if prayer officially endorsed and promoted by a school is alright, how about select bible readings for a few minutes each day, just to get the blood pumping? It's just a few minutes, surely it wouldn't matter considering you'd be at school for at least 6 hours a day anyways. Government should be above the realm of religion in all matters and should be completely and utterly neutral in such affairs. Read Engel if you're somehow thinking you could be possibly be right. wait what? having a 2-minute prayer once a year means the school is allowed to constantly endorse and promote religion? you lost me, can you explain that part to me again and go real slow because I completely missed that turn I don't have time to read engel could you possibly summarize the part that will enlighten me as to how right you are?
Yes, it does.
How about twice a year? Thrice? Four times? How about before every assembly? How do you draw such an arbitrary line?
Here:
It is true that New York's establishment of its Regents' prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others -- that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago. To those who may subscribe to the view that, because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
No one with even the most basic understanding of the progression of the relationship between the establishment clause and religion in America would seriously argue school prayer isn't a violation of that clause; even Stewart's dissent is pretty shit.
|
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.
The same argument can be applied to any violation of human rights and civil liberties. Just shut up and let the police search your home without a warrant. Just shut up and let the feds tap your phone and put spy ware on your computer. Infact I could probably go through the entire BoR and find excuses for violation in order to have a more harmonious society.
|
On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite
Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime.
|
On May 27 2011 15:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:I don't think anyone would have cared if he was an atheist and just kept his mouth shut and didn't do something that they perceived as an attack on them.
I don't think any atheist would care if someone is Christian if they just keep their mouth shut and don't do anything that is percieved as an attack on them.
|
On May 27 2011 16:02 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:00 VIB wrote:On May 27 2011 15:51 EmeraldSparks wrote:On May 27 2011 15:50 Dhalphir wrote:
Its pretty hilarious how many people, the majority apparently from the United States, who never bothered to read their own fucking Bill of Rights. Are you people retarded? its not obvious that prayer in school violates the separation clause So you don't think praying promotes religion? FORCING people to pray in a PUBLIC school promotes religion. Prayer is perfectly acceptable as long it's optional, not endorsed by the school, and doesn't affect those that do not want to participate. Only when it's clearly the school PROMOTING prayer, since prayer PROMOTES the associated religion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that he was not forced to take part in the graduation ceremony? Or are you saying that people not chanting during the prayer while at the same graduation ceremony are not having religion promoted to them? Or did I miss your point?
|
On May 27 2011 16:07 sanya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions well let's do a thought experiment your school/workplace ect. now has 5 mandatory breaks in which you're required to pray with your head bowed to the center of the galaxy and praise xenu. you're ok with this then ? it's just a few minutes every day at no extra cost to anyone right ? this doesn't promote anything obviously , it's just what most of the community there wants
no I'm not okay with that, I'd be okay in those breaks if I had the option of just sitting there with my thumb up my ass though even if everyone around me wanted to do that. by all means they can get up and do rain-dances like pagans for all I care.
you're acting like they forced him to pray when alls they did was force him to listen (oh no, the humanity. what will I ever do at my graduation ceremony when I'm forced to spend two minutes of the six wonderfully entertaining hours listening to people pray to a spagetti monster)
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
The decision to remove religion from schools was made in a courtroom, not by some majority of voters. This is in fact quite depressing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - Constitution.
I really can't say more than that. Full separation wasn't in effect for a very long time in our country. The country that we are all citizens of, as a majority, still does not see the issue with prayer in schools. 78% according to wikipedia identified themselves as Christians. How do you not see how this kind of behavior is not anti-oppression? We already fundamentally have the separation, and one prayer at school graduation is not a hate crime of some sort. What came later is much closer to that. We should be more concerned about that, in my opinion. Arguing against religion in the US is going against a potential 78% voters. Most of America's presidents have been Christian. We live in a Christian nation, period. And they aren't exactly shoving themselves down your throat nowadays. A prayer at one event is like a mosquito bite relative to that. What happened after is what is of greater concern.
|
On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime.
well personally I didn't concede it was wrong
I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either
so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth)
|
He has every right to not join in, but the practice of ruining others fun for a "cause" has to stop. The world would be a lot less violent if people just let others be with their own beliefs.
I don't get the people who are fighting in his favour. There are a lot of traditions in a lot of places that many probably don't believe in but if you go so far as to stop it for others than you yourself are causing a big issue. The fact is he's made tons of other kids graduation less a celebration and now more a religious debate and it's his fault, nobody elses.
This kid needs to deal with the consequences for his own actions, it's his problem to deal with for doing what he did. Regardless of if it was legal or not, the school once a year holds a prayer at graduation and no part of that is immoral or offensive to anybody.
The key here is that you can not go through life trying to live by the exact legal rules, and what is exactly fair. You have to be willing to let others do what they want to do as well, even if it affects you for a moment. Things only start to cross the line from being small hurdles to events you need to raise a major stink about when it starts becoming a long term problem for you. A small annoyance in your life to brings hundreds happiness is not worth it on any level to get upset about, legal or not.
|
Amazing how kids can turn out so much better than their parents.
Seriously, those are some crappy parents. I can understand the Christian community rallying against the kid, and basically trying to ruin his life. That's expected. But the parents? Kudos to that kid and his brother for sticking to their beliefs.
And it does bother me that this should be controversial at all. School is not a holy place, why should anyone feel compelled to pray there? The controversy over banning school prayer is just insecurity on the part of the religious, wanting to do what they can to further make themselves the cultural norm.
|
On May 27 2011 16:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
wait what? having a 2-minute prayer once a year means the school is allowed to constantly endorse and promote religion? 2minutes per year is the same as 2minutes per 6 hours right? about the same ratio i think..
If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. The idea that 2 minutes is not a big deal is irrelevant to the fact that it's illegal and wrong in principle. It's far better to cut them off here than to have a bigger fight when they have crept up to 2 minutes a day and have the precedent to say "well, we've been doing it at graduation for the past decade, it's only 2 minutes a year, we did it once a week, no big deal, now how about that bible study?" (I know how to be facetious too.)
On May 27 2011 16:15 Filter wrote:
Regardless of if it was legal or not, the school once a year holds a prayer at graduation and no part of that is immoral or offensive to anybody.
This is not clear, and that's what we're trying to figure out in this thread. Though I'd be far more interested in demonstrating why it's wrong than caring about offense, which is a word more in the purview of the sectarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
