|
On May 27 2011 16:26 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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
I still don't see how it is wrong. the only way I can see the law being justified is that it attempts to prevent a behavior that actually is wrong by outlawing a seemingly harmless behavior
it's similar to the idea that there isn't really anything wrong with taking a sheet of paper out of the office printer for yourself, but it's against the rules because they don't want individuals stealing all of the paper from the printer and taking it home
|
On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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".
wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology
"4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement
in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity
|
why would this guy even bother with this shit I would have just ignored it, better things to get upset about
|
On May 27 2011 16:25 Murderotica wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:10 redviper wrote: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.
I am sure the North Koreans didn't think that they would be the north koreans of the world either. Apathy to your own rights is a good way to end up like, lets say Iran. If something is against the law and is offensive to you then why shouldn't you stand up and speak against it.
The reaction of the community is an oppression in itself, the actions of the school are defacto endorsements by the government of this oppression. No one here can say that the school wasn't violating the law of the land.
And also I have no idea what you mean by " 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." You want them to leave the south?
|
On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +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).
javy
Actually, you're in the wrong.
Atheism: Belief in the lack of God
Agnostic: Lack of belief in God
|
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa?
|
On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa?
it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization
unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
|
On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity
That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense.
|
On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
absence of religion is not religion
|
On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity
Its not a question of ethics, its a question of the law. Ethics aren't what govern the state, law does. The law says government sponsored prayer is wrong. So it is wrong. The law can be ambigous to an extent but in this case its pretty cut and dried.
|
On May 27 2011 16:28 VIB wrote:
By "allowed to stay away from it" you mean he should have given up his right to have a graduation party?
Sorry forgot about the mentality of all or nothing. A reasonable solution would have been to change the course of events to split the prayer and the graduation party/ceremony into two separate events like it is in Germany so the former is voluntary. But then again i probably shouldn't expect reason from such people
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 27 2011 16:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Exactly why it's depressing, because this is the nation that is supposed to be the most liberal and "free" out of the top 10 nations. How are we told this? Through our school system. The irony. I did not grow up most of my life in this nation but I did graduate high school here and honestly, this kind of shit wouldn't even hit radar in Russia. People just have fewer sticks up their asses about the war of atheism vs. religion and coexist better. This nation is too butthurt, is what I'm try to say. Everyone picks up the torches, from both extremist parties, and on the internet where most of us are young adults fresh out or still in the education system. It's natural that we have strong opinions about this and the fact that we can voice them freely without repercussions is a both a blessing and a curse in the sense that I am sure most of us did not get even close to this pissed at being taught to say the "Pledge of Allegiance" every day at a very young age before ideas like non-conformity and moral depth are lost upon us, we just do what everyone else does. That is fucked up. But we did nothing. Why? Because almost none of us actually care this much, and we will do nothing but talk about it online, maybe read the next thread or the update with the court result or something.
|
Those parents.... They make me fuming mad. It enrages me to no end to know that there are such cold heartless brainwashed bastards allowed to raise children. Who the F abandoms their own family for something like this? Scum of the earth.
|
On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
America is a lot less religious now than it ever has been in my opinion.
And civil war between religious and non-religious in America? Only a dream.
|
On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote: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). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God
Er.. no. Like I said, theism deals with belief, gnosticism with knowledge. It is true, however, there are atheist who will state that god does not exist. The most general definition of atheism is a simple lack of belief, which is the default state.
edit: the reason why I'm stressing that it is a lack of belief is because this position does not require any evidence to support it, as it is not a positive affirmation of anything, whereas a belief in god does require some sort of evidence.
|
On May 27 2011 16:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:26 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I still don't see how it is wrong. the only way I can see the law being justified is that it attempts to prevent a behavior that actually is wrong by outlawing a seemingly harmless behavior it's similar to the idea that there isn't really anything wrong with taking a sheet of paper out of the office printer for yourself, but it's against the rules because they don't want individuals stealing all of the paper from the printer and taking it home
I don't see how it is wrong. The only way I can see the law being justified is that it attempts to prevent a behaviour that is actually wrong by outlawing a seemingly harmeless behaviour.
It's similar to the idea that there isn't really anything wrong with having a Muslim prayer for two minutes at a graduation ceremony.
|
On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote: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). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God
well I like to think of it like this because there are more than one forms of theism/atheism and you really do have to define things specifically to avoid semantics arguments
weak atheism: I believe god doesn't exist, but I don't know for certain
strong atheism: I know for certain god doesn't exist
weak theism: I believe god exists, but I don't know for certain
strong theism: I know for certain god exists
agnosticism: I do not know whether god exists or not
as you can see after reading these, agnosticism is completely compatible with either weak atheism or weak theism as it has nothing to do with belief
|
It's obviously (I hope) clear that what he did was strictly legal. And it's kind of cool that he confronted an illegal practice, regardless of his motivations or what those around him thought.
The moral question though is a whole bucket of worms that I don't foresee bringing a whole lot of productive discussion. In the US it's certainly illegal to lead a prayer as a state sponsored employee at a state sponsored event, but whether or not it's moral to do so when the crowd is overwhelmingly of the same faith is and interesting question. I think this would be a very different situation if say, half the school was Jewish.
Regardless, it's pretty gross to say the kid had it coming. When we live in a world where demanding your legal rights causes your parents to disown you and your community to physically threaten and bully you, we've thrown those rights out the window, no matter how "insignificant" any particular exercise of those rights seems.
|
On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
Actually the world is becoming more religious because the irreligious dont have any kids. Hispanics in America are the big population increasers and they are largely religious. Muslims in Europe are the only ones that are increasing their population and they are religious.
The big problem will be the fight between the militant atheist elites and the religious working class.
|
On May 27 2011 16:34 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious absence of religion is not religion
that's true
but there are many things that can replace a belief in god and evoke the same sort of mindless loyalty and blind faith without faltering mob-mindset
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
