|
On May 27 2011 16:13 Murderotica wrote:
The decision to remove religion from schools was made in a courtroom, not by some majority of voters. This is in fact quite depressing.
Doesn't bother me at all. This isn't a Democracy, because "tyranny of the majority" is a real thing.
|
It is clearly illegal. Someone earlier quoted a Supreme Court case that was almost identical to this and the ruling was very clear.
|
On May 27 2011 16:15 Filter wrote:
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.
Thhe fun you are referring to is a violation of the law. Public school should not be endorsing prayer or religion at official events.
I would stand up for a cause I believed in even if meant the other 6 billion -1 people in the world were unhappy. To not do so would be hypocritical of me. Letting the little injustices we see in our daily lives pass by is how we justify gross violations of human and civil rights.
|
On May 27 2011 16:09 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
I suppose that's the biggest problem with my argument, where to draw the line? there's no clear answer to that
but I think to say that it must always be outlawed since you cannot come to a common standard as to how much is too much is just a bit harsh.
I think in a perfect world there would be a better solution, maybe even in our practical world there is a better solution, but I can't say for certain.
it requires the general public to use more common sense and courtesy towards others than they most likely have
|
On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote: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)
Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge.
Wrong is a state. It either is or is not.
Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there.
You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right".
|
On May 27 2011 16:15 Filter wrote:
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.
except that it's offensive to everyone who is not christian, like Damon.
|
On May 27 2011 16:13 Murderotica wrote:
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.
Yep, issues of human rights are rarely left to majority vote because the minority who's rights are likely being trampled is unlikely to get a majority vote.
In many states, the majority voted that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. This is despite the fact that gay people marrying has no effect on their own heterosexual marriages.
A significant part of why an independent judiciary exists is so that they can make the unpopular decision to protect the rights of the minority.
|
as a religious person i am often reminded of these quotes from Baha'u'llah when i read about the fanaticism shown in the US(and other countries):
"Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench."
"O ye that dwell on earth! The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity or dissension."
all religions, all ideologies, all walks of life are valid and divine.
|
On May 27 2011 16:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:09 Elegy wrote:On May 27 2011 16:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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: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: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. I suppose that's the biggest problem with my argument, where to draw the line? there's no clear answer to that but I think to say that it must always be outlawed since you cannot come to a common standard as to how much is too much is just a bit harsh. I think in a perfect world there would be a better solution, maybe even in our practical world there is a better solution, but I can't say for certain. it requires the general public to use more common sense and courtesy towards others than they most likely have
The line is that it's either wrong or not. You adjust the punishment according to the degree of wrongness.
Similarly: you speed 5 miles over. Cop might pull you over, give you a bit of an earful. You lose 10 minutes.
You speed 50 miles over. 3 Cops pull you over, give you an earful, cop a few feels (had to slip that one in), throw you in the back of your car, suspend your license, fine you, indirectly jack up your insurance rates. You lose a bit more.
|
On May 27 2011 16:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.)
so then you're not necessarily arguing that the two minutes once a year is wrong, you're just arguing that it could lead to something that actually is wrong?
it's a fair concern but I feel like if people are mature and respectful about it there should be no problem. the issue is that the way the community reacted to the kid makes me think they don't have the ability to be considerate of others in the way it would require them for it to work
|
|
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 27 2011 16:10 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +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.
While your post is certainly true in that it would create a more harmonious society, you made a mountain out of a molehill. It's one prayer at a graduation. The US is not going to flip a shit and be like "WELL GUESS WHAT BITCHES, WE CONTROL YOU NOW," after this decision and start doing anything of what you listed, nor will it in the foreseeable hundred years at least. We will never be North Korea of the first world. This is one court room decision which does not affect much of anything in the slightest. The Christians might lose a bit of ground in the South, but it's so significant that they started a fucking hunt on this kid. Atheists might not have to sit at so many boring religion things in the South, which they (mostly) chose for themselves and their kids to live in, one generation after the next. No big deal.
It doesn't say in the article if it was the majority of the community, though. Teacher is terrible but at some point you have to realize that teachers are employees that CAN flip a shit and do crazy stuff - nothing was mentioned of any consequences to his actions, but that doesn't mean that there aren't or aren't going to be any). Getting death threats and etc. happen for smaller and bigger things all over the country. This is not a revolution or an oppression in the making.
|
On May 27 2011 16:20 Zzoram wrote:
It is clearly illegal. Someone earlier quoted a Supreme Court case that was almost identical to this and the ruling was very clear.
Glad to see so many here are advocates of judicial precedent. I hope this extends to your dealings in copyrights, drug use, and contracts.
If not you are a hypocrite.
|
Foul perception of religion on both ends:
The student didn' have to threat to enforce law to stop the prayer (i do understand that it is illegal but he could have tolerated it if he was allowed to stay away from it; instead his overthetop agression caused a response i would call expectable knowing how many us citizens think, namely point- and limitless overreaction).
The reaction of the school, the parents and his social environment is an absolut disgrace though and couldn't be further away from any genuin christian beliefs or behavior.
The core of charity is to let people who don't share our beliefs the freedom to do so without any constraints (one of the main reasons christianity is seen in such a bad light - sadly rightfully so - is that people are don't get that or use religion as a cover for other means).
Im not saying that you should not discuss removing religion from government institutions entirely - this discussion has a very valid merit - but i do not think it should be started with such an agressive tenor.
|
On May 27 2011 16:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:16 oBlade wrote: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.) so then you're not necessarily arguing that the two minutes once a year is wrong, you're just arguing that it could lead to something that actually is wrong? it's a fair concern but I feel like if people are mature and respectful about it there should be no problem. the issue is that the way the community reacted to the kid makes me think they don't have the ability to be considerate of others in the way it would require them for it to work
Again. It's 2 minutes a year is wrong. State versus intensity.
Right/Wrong: Black/White
Slight Wrong/Very Wrong: Light Grey/Dark Grey
|
On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
It's interesting how so many of you will more readily criticize the boy for standing up for what he believes in (...oh look...it's even in the constitution...) instead of criticizing that community for being the real problem in this situation.
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything)
well both are at fault
and you should note that agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in the first place, it's about admitting we don't know what others would argue we do know (despite a total and complete lack of evidence)
|
On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything)
no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god).
|
|
|
On May 27 2011 16:26 Fiend13 wrote:
i do understand that it is illegal but he could have tolerated it if he was allowed to stay away from it By "allowed to stay away from it" you mean he should have given up his right to have a graduation party?
|
On May 27 2011 16:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:09 Elegy wrote:On May 27 2011 16:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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: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: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. I suppose that's the biggest problem with my argument, where to draw the line? there's no clear answer to that but I think to say that it must always be outlawed since you cannot come to a common standard as to how much is too much is just a bit harsh. I think in a perfect world there would be a better solution, maybe even in our practical world there is a better solution, but I can't say for certain. it requires the general public to use more common sense and courtesy towards others than they most likely have
But legally, you have to set a logical precedent that can be followed and applied. Allowing some school prayer on occasion, or maybe just here and there on arbitrary and ill-defined lines lends itself to exactly the sort of constitutionally important questions that have plagued religion in America for centuries.
It's far more suitable and appropriate for any public institution to be proscribed from even touching matters of religion. There should never be school endorsed prayer, there should never be the 10 Commandments in courtrooms, and there shouldn't be intelligent design or creationism masquerading as scientific theory. Legally, it's much less of a headache to maintain separate spheres of religion and faith and let religious individuals believe and practice what they want, but not with the explicit endorsement of religion by the state, and certainly not a particular religion at that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
