|
On May 27 2011 17:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
but I don't think it is a violation of freedom to be forced to listen to someone say something I don't believe for 2 minutes
whereas, letting a police search your car at a traffic stop actually is harmful because it infringes on your privacy
This logic doesn't make sense. Government sponsorship of religion does violate freedom of religion.
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 27 2011 17:00 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:54 Murderotica wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 redviper wrote:On May 27 2011 16:25 Murderotica wrote: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? My point is, now that this has happened, will the decision affect whether you live in this country or not? Because if you say no, that means you don't care enough. And what that means is that probably the majority of people don't care enough. These are extremists that have been cited to have caused this, even if it is a prevalent pattern in the South. But I doubt even these extremists will cause an uproar if they lose this. This shit is inconsequential on the grand scale of things. We do not need to be picking pennies about our rights in this way. Gay people wanting to get married and not being allowed to is more reprehensible than someone having to sit through people chanting shit and speaking up about it which they do every day with the Pledge of Allegiance anyway, and both have close to zero future consequences to us as a majority. I might not have had to say the "Pledge of Allegiance" every morning? That's okay, don't give a shit in retrospect because I said it with no actual meaning to myself behind it, and when I actually started constructively thinking about it I was old enough to make my own decision and just stop saying it in schools. He could have done the same. This is not a real consequence to us, and it's not going to have further legal repercussions of any magnitude between church and state. It'd just sticking to what we've already had, more or less. Only the extremists will be pissed on either side of this issue and actually do anything about it. I will try to parse that giant wall of text but I think you are misrepresenting the situation. The law is with the student. The community is not. As a result I have no respect for the community and I have respect for the law. It is not well known but you can safely ignore the pledge of allegience. The only time you have to recite is when you naturalize and even then you are allowed to drop the "under god" part. The same community (and same brand of people) who strongly support prayer in schools oppose gay marriage, gays attending prom, muslims building mosques, sex education, abortion etc. I am glad he didn't just stay quiet and take it. He suffered for his belief in the law but I hope it will give impetus to other students in other parts of the country to stand up and protest.
I agree with your first paragraph whole-heartedly.
T me it was a well known fact after 3rd grade when I started thinking about what I was saying after I learned English better and I asked my parents and they asked my teacher and she said I can just not say them and she started making a big fuss about how she never intended to force me to say them, etc. Basically this is not going to change much. I said it when I naturalized because that was how I remembered it and I didn't really care because I can say something and not mean it, and not feel offended for having to say it once. What offended me was that it was encouraged to kids and kids are too impressionable and will do whatever a teacher says because the fear of punishment and non-conformity is a prevalent one in that psychological development stage (the latter can be stretched out well into the teen years for most students). I also realize though that as we get older we make up our own minds and that is what is important, and whether or not others come to the same conclusion shouldn't mean we have to stop doing the pledge for one person. This prayer is not different from the pledge - he had to be in a public school while others chanted a pledge to God. He could have chosen not to here as well.
This is true but they are the majority and this is very depressing to me. However winning this case will not spill over to gay marriage or any other state vs. church cases or liberal rights beyond the presence or absence of prayer in school. Not significant in the slightest and it does not address the greater problem, which is more less impossible to do so due to them being the majority.
People already do this, I don't see some majority uprising coming from this though. All of it will be decided in legislature or in the court room more or less at this point. It's not going to matter whether people stand up for it after that. I explained why earlier (local voters being extrimist Christians -> public schools become private, other things).
|
On May 27 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
To be honest, you just have to look at...well, the South...to see what happens when government and religion mix. It's not pretty.
that's about as strong a claim as my claim that your claim is completely wrong
|
On May 27 2011 16:59 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation. Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont.... It just feels like trying to deny them their prayer shouldnt matter unless you take atheism to an almost dogmatic level, and feels very insecure, which I guess is more likely being such an extreme minority... Im curious tho, if they had been doing something more popular - but still illegal, like smoked pot or participated in some communal filesharing, and he ratted them out would that still be noble? As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. EDIT: One thing I want to make very clear tho is that I in absolutely NO way think what happened to him as a result of what he did was a deserved or measured response... So obviously if we had to a 'whose more at fault here?' poll, it would be 'them' by a landslide. It's really just the principle of the thing. The school itself should not be endorsing a specific religion. Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:58 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 16:53 redviper wrote:As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. Thats not it at all. He was forced to listen to prayer funded by the government. The american law clearly makes this illegal. Yes, but its also pretty damn harmless... I dont care so much whether its legal or illegal when in this particular instance. I think enduring the 2 minute discomfort or whatever would have been significantly more noble than ruining the experience for the rest of his class. I don't think it's harmless. it sets precedent, which unless broken, is never-ending. separation of church and state is important... I don't want any religion to be endorsed by my government, do you?
Exactly.
For the greater good arguments, or in other words the utilitarian perspective has always been a bit of a slippery slope the way I see it. Where do you get to draw the arbitary line? Who gets to? (If everyone, how often do you poll the people as the decision makers have turnover due to growth and decay?)
For example, should smokers have to pay more for gov't healthcare?
What about obese people?
Okay so yes for obese people with a medical condition. What about those that grew up in that lifestyle because of their family?
Or grew into it in college via friends?
How about another majority rules utilitarian argument showing the issue of the American electoral college system? In a hypothetical 100 person room where 51 people like country, 20 like rap, and 29 like classical or opera, the 51% of people get their music choice.... 100% of the time.
Okay, let's try European pluralism. Ratio it out 51/29/20. Now who gets theirs first and when? What if 2 rap lovers leave and 20 country lovers leave and are replaced by 22 classical lovers? How do you account for the original classical lovers being strongly overrepresented?
Now of course no system is perfect. My system would have no music and tell everyone to bring their own iPod. Now we start discriminating against the poor who can't afford one. So we, the gov't give them crappy ones. Now they get a subpar experience for free. So we give them the average experience instead. Now those who worked for their music experience are getting reverse discrimination.
That's the beauty of it all. You got a bunch of people working together trying to figure out the best solution, whether your predominant factors are fairness or overall goodness, you have to at least be aware of the other side of the sword.
But where do you draw lines and who gets to draw them has always been an issue for the utilitarian perspective.
Re: Argument at hand
Okay, 2 minutes every 4 years is okay. How about 2 every one year? 2 every month? Every day? Where's the acceptable line here? Is there one?
|
On May 27 2011 17:01 Fiend13 wrote:
On the ' atheism is the perfect solution/ is evil' debate:
The one thing any genuine religion provides are values, morals, ethics or whatever you like to call them. Atheism and Agnosticism do not that necessarily. These values do benefit the chances of survival of a society as people rather tend to step down a notch and help each than running other anyone their way to pursue their own goals.
This of course is only a problem if you care about raising standards of living for everyone and the survival of mankind on the long run. The latter is - as you might know - not guaranteed as we actually have the power to erase ourselves and are stupid enough to do so.
This is a rather ignorant view on Atheism and Agnosticism that is often expressed by religious people. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief. If someone calls him self an Atheist all you can learn from that is that he does not believe in a god or supernatural powers/miracles, it does not state anything about how he views morals or humanity BUT, and read this carefully, this does not mean Atheists = no morals.
|
On May 27 2011 17:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
but I don't think it is a violation of freedom to be forced to listen to someone say something I don't believe for 2 minutes
whereas, letting a police search your car at a traffic stop actually is harmful because it infringes on your privacy
This logic doesn't make sense. Government sponsorship of religion does violate freedom of religion.
ugh, I have argued the same thing over and over for the past hour and it has gone nowhere
a prayer at a graduation ceremony =/= government sponsorship of religion
I'm done though, getting off this circular traffic loop hf people
|
|
|
On May 27 2011 13:44 atheistaphobe wrote:
People should not assault him, but he learned a valuable lesson that free speech has consequences. His community is using their freedom by shunning him.
User was warned for this post
i don't understand why this post deserves a warning. in a thread about civil rights and freedoms, to warn a user for a post that basically defends both sides of the argument proves what is wrong with this picture. as long as no one hurts the kid, they have every legal right to hate him for any or no reason.
yes, free speech has grave consequences, but this isn't a free speech issue, it's a separation of church and state issue. i.e. the government is not supposed to support or condone any religion or the practice thereof. i'd like to know what the prayer was. was it non-denominational? if so, that's a huge difference than if it were a christian or some other secular type prayer. if it was a non-denominational prayer then it is probably legal because it does not support any specific religion, and you could argue that the rest of the program, devoid of prayer, supports the atheists (a very weak argument, but it's still something). However since it's a traditional prayer, i doubt it was non-denominational, but you never know.
anywho, you can't sue the school b/c there are no damages. for any lawsuit there must be some kind of provable damages or you'll get nowhere/nothing in the legal system. maybe he could get nominal damages ($1), but no lawyer will take that case, probably not even the ACLU.
{[EDIT] also, when suing the government, lawyers are only allowed to collect a very small percentage of the judgment, like 10-20%, unlike lawsuits against any other party where you can collect however much of the judgment your client will agree to give you.}
This whole situation has me feeling that there MUST be another side to this. somehow the kid must have been an asshole all his life or maybe his high school is just a very small religious school, b/c if this is basically the whole story then his entire community is over reacting. which is hard to believe, but then again CrAzY stuff goes down in the south.
what's really disgusting is that his parents kicked him out. that's just inhumane.
one last thing, from what i've read (first and last page) this kid went about this in a very aggressive and confrontational manner. confronting the principal and threatening the involve legal action right off the bat is a sure fire way to piss everyone off. no one likes being threatened with a lawsuit, it should be a last resort not a jumping off point. it sounds like he left no room for negotiation, either take it out or i call the ACLU. not smart. an adult usually knows the ramifications of a lawsuit, i'm sure this kid had no idea what kind of shit-storm he would create if the ACLU actually sued the school. law suits are ridiculously expensive. this thing probably wouldn't even go to court for a few years, racking up 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees in the meantime, something a high school cannot afford.
|
On May 27 2011 17:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:05 redviper wrote:On May 27 2011 16:58 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 16:53 redviper wrote:As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. Thats not it at all. He was forced to listen to prayer funded by the government. The american law clearly makes this illegal. Yes, but its also pretty damn harmless... I dont care so much whether its legal or illegal when in this particular instance. I think enduring the 2 minute discomfort or whatever would have been significantly more noble than ruining the experience for the rest of his class.
Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont....
Ant it feels like that you have never lived in a society where religion has gone ape shit and the law has dropped any protection against the encroachment of religion into public policy. Obviously I have not, which is why I brought it up in the first place - to point out how hard it is for me to relate to this, didnt mean it as 'oh you backwards people' :p I am not making an appeal to authority. Rather I am pointing out that ignoring violations of liberties and the principles that provide freedom from religion end up in societies where religion does go ape shit. The harm isn't that he would be scared for life if he listened to prayer. The harm is that it infringes on the first enumerated right in the american constitution. Like I said before there is no harm in letting the police search your car during a traffic stop without cause. But it is a violation of your freedom. This is the same situtation. but I don't think it is a violation of freedom to be forced to listen to someone say something I don't believe for 2 minutes whereas, letting a police search your car at a traffic stop actually is harmful because it infringes on your privacy
When does it become onerous? At 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? Would you be fine if at your graduation I read from the Quran for that long? Maybe a choice passage about how infidels would burn in hell?
Or how about if I danced naked around a tree stump as a nature worshipper?
Or how about if I sacrificed a goat or chicken as a satanist?
The law is there to stop the government endorsing ALL religions, not just the ones that you think are strange or ugly.
|
On May 27 2011 17:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
To be honest, you just have to look at...well, the South...to see what happens when government and religion mix. It's not pretty. that's about as strong a claim as my claim that your claim is completely wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Enough said. Unless you seriously want to argue that religion in government hasn't done stupid things to biology classes down South.
|
On May 27 2011 17:10 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:01 NotSupporting wrote:On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation. Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont.... It just feels like trying to deny them their prayer shouldnt matter unless you take atheism to an almost dogmatic level, and feels very insecure, which I guess is more likely being such an extreme minority... Im curious tho, if they had been doing something more popular - but still illegal, like smoked pot or participated in some communal filesharing, and he ratted them out would that still be noble? As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. It's interesting to compare this to Sweden though. I had this discussion with my American English teacher and here in Sweden we are actually doing something beyond this which in his American perspective would be unacceptable in an American school, the students go to church to celebrate the end of the school year. In June everywhere around in Sweden (not at all schools but it is a strong tradition) schools take all their students to church where we sing together, reflect on the year and listen to the priest hold a speech and give his blessing to all the pupils. So the question is, should we remove this tradition because it comes from a time heavily inspired by Christianity just like I guess that prayer at graduation was? Personally I would say no, BUT everyone must be given a choice not to participate. I don't know the swedish law over this but I think its not explicitly illegal is it? Most (some?) countries in europe fund (through some sort of taxes) restoration and maintainence of churches so I doubt this would be a gross violation.
Not it's not at all illegal but it has been heavily criticized by various groups.
|
On May 27 2011 16:58 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Yes, but its also pretty damn harmless... I dont care so much whether its legal or illegal when in this particular instance. I think enduring the 2 minute discomfort or whatever would have been significantly more noble than ruining the experience for the rest of his class.
Really?
What experience was "ruined" for these kids? An orchestrated, formal prayer by a school. No one denied anyone their right to pray, all that was being denied was the school's right to officially organize a religious service.
I'm thankful for this kid. It's a horrible precedent to think schools can act as churches during "special occasions", while the Atheist kids can dawdle their fingers and think about how different they are.
|
(local voters being extrimist Christians -> public schools become private, other things).
That can't happen. Public schools are funded through taxes, even if the voters voted to make them private the only change will be that new public schools will be opened with tax money. The government is required to provide access to public schools.
What might happen is that crazy religious people might leave the public school for religious private school. Would suck but perhaps it will be accompanied by less whining about evolution so could be a good thing.
|
I obviously can't read 15 pages of comments, but aftre reading the first page I'm appalled by the comments blaming the kid. Prayer has absolutely nothing to do in a public school, even most christians realise that. He was completely right to fight it, and the reaction is disgusting.
If atheisme was given 1/10th of the respect religion has...
|
On May 27 2011 17:13 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
To be honest, you just have to look at...well, the South...to see what happens when government and religion mix. It's not pretty. that's about as strong a claim as my claim that your claim is completely wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvolutionEnough said.
sigh, that post surprising makes less sense than both of our posts before it
it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread and was either meant as an insult to my intelligence, in which case you have only offended yourself, or an accusation that I don't believe in evolution (which isn't the case)
|
On May 27 2011 17:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:13 acker wrote:On May 27 2011 17:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
To be honest, you just have to look at...well, the South...to see what happens when government and religion mix. It's not pretty. that's about as strong a claim as my claim that your claim is completely wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvolutionEnough said. sigh, that post surprising makes less sense than both of our posts before it it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread and was either meant as an insult to my intelligence, in which case you have only offended yourself, or an accusation that I don't believe in evolution (which isn't the case)
I think he was pointing out the lack of educational support of evolution in the south and often the actions of educational boards in pushing for creationism being taught in the class room.
|
On May 27 2011 17:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
sigh, that post surprising makes less sense than both of our posts before it
it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread and was either meant as an insult to my intelligence, in which case you have only offended yourself, or an accusation that I don't believe in evolution (which isn't the case)
I don't think you're trying to argue that religion in government hasn't done extremely stupid things to biology classes down South...are you?
Hopefully not. The South is quite a good case study as to why separation of church and state is a good idea.
There should also be a thread on TL about Texas and selective edits to history textbooks.
|
On May 27 2011 17:01 NotSupporting wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation. Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont.... It just feels like trying to deny them their prayer shouldnt matter unless you take atheism to an almost dogmatic level, and feels very insecure, which I guess is more likely being such an extreme minority... Im curious tho, if they had been doing something more popular - but still illegal, like smoked pot or participated in some communal filesharing, and he ratted them out would that still be noble? As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. It's interesting to compare this to Sweden though. I had this discussion with my American English teacher and here in Sweden we are actually doing something beyond this which in his American perspective would be unacceptable in an American school, the students go to church to celebrate the end of the school year. In June everywhere around in Sweden (not at all schools but it is a strong tradition) schools take all their students to church where we sing together, reflect on the year and listen to the priest hold a speech and give his blessing to all the pupils. So the question is, should we remove this tradition because it comes from a time heavily inspired by Christianity just like I guess that prayer at graduation was? Personally I would say no, BUT everyone must be given a choice not to participate.
That tradition is already slowly decreasing. Many schools no longer hold that ceremony in churchs but rather on the school grounds or some other location. I can understand it from the perspective of people of other religions that they don't want that but as an atheist I don't really care. Churchs usually have a pretty good atmosphere and it's not like they are trying to convert you (directly at least). The priests usually talked about treating each other well and loving oneanother (controversial I know) and then you have to sit through some silly songs.
|
On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation. Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont.... It just feels like trying to deny them their prayer shouldnt matter unless you take atheism to an almost dogmatic level, and feels very insecure, which I guess is more likely being such an extreme minority... Im curious tho, if they had been doing something more popular - but still illegal, like smoked pot or participated in some communal filesharing, and he ratted them out would that still be noble? As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing. EDIT: One thing I want to make very clear tho is that I in absolutely NO way think what happened to him as a result of what he did was a deserved or measured response... So obviously if we had to a 'whose more at fault here?' poll, it would be 'them' by a landslide.
Agreed with everything here. I've been an atheist for a long time, but I don't care if others are religious. When you try to confront religious people like this, you don't change matters. You just put them on the defensive and create the image that the big bad atheists are out to get them. If you really want to change peoples' minds, then educate them and use rational logic (you know, the thing that makes us non-religious to begin with.)
The vast majority of my friends are religious actually. Some to an extreme degree. I've never had any issue with them at all; nor vice versa. We can have civil discussions/debates. I don't see any benefit to trying to start a war with religious folk.
EDIT: As for the school thing, it's clearly a very religious community. As long as they weren't forcing students into it, I still don't see the issue. Yes, it's technically unconstitutional, but then again our fucking money says "In God We Trust." The separation of Church and State was clearly referring to an entity such as the Vatican, which to this day holds considerable political power in modern day Italy. Back in the days of our founding fathers, the Church was a political entity and England, which they were trying to escape from.
|
If both the school and the kids parents weren't so fucked up everything would be fine and dandy... I don't understand how one isolated part of America can rally around such a bigoted idea. Doesn't matter if the bigots in question are Christian. Their just downright ignorant human beings.
99% of universities around the US would have allowed this kid to voice his opinion. There is a huge legality issue when it comes to any organized prayer in a public school. The school did the right thing and canceled the prayer, however this only added fuel to the fire... I really hope this amount of escalation would not happen throughout the rest of the US. It just astounds me how such a massive amount of people can be so bigoted on a particular issue. Poor guy needs to move to New England... And i'm not an atheist either. This is just a pure example of ignorant people be ignorant with a mix of mob mentality as well... Saddens me that people can still act this way on such a large scale... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
