|
On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote:
He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything.
I agree with you. What a selfish act. Why ruin everyone's fun just because you are the only one opposed to the prayer? Looks like even non-religious people can be intolerant of other religions, who woulda thunk it?
|
On May 27 2011 18:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Question to US people:
So, its illegal for the school to lead prayers etc right? What about the students, are they also not allowed to lead one?
What Im saying is, could the school circumvent the legality by putting a student in charge of leading the prayer or is it more of a 'no praying in school' thing?
I think if the school is anyway involved in organizing it is the issue. And since it's a graduation ceremony and they're obviously involving themselves by choose which students can/can't give speeches / lead activities during the ceremony I don't think there's any way for them to incorporate a prayer into it. If students, organized on their own, wanted to have a prayer that wasn't part of the ceremony, even on campus, they would be allowed to do it.
|
On May 28 2011 00:20 SolidZeal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 27 2011 22:16 SolidZeal wrote:
The application of separation of church and state here is a bit complicated, especially when the school actually complied and canceled the prayer. The prayer happened anyway, but because a senior brought it up of her own volition kind puts her under free speech in that situation. The point when things started going very wrong is when the community found out that he was trying to get the prayer canceled. It's not necessarily the school that is at fault there, depending on how the information traveled. It's possible it spread from Damon/Damon's friends into the school environment and became a hot topic. The school was in a bad position as they could not avoid what the student asked for as it is a law. They could not avoid telling the community the prayer was getting canceled and if the rumor started from the students peers they couldn't really protect him from the community being able to point at him.
There was a shitstorm button in that school's office and the kid walked up and pressed it. You can't undo something like that once you start it. The whole community was suddenly turned on him. I doubt really that his parents ostracizing him had to do with his religious choice. More that he managed press such a really sore issue and turn his whole community against him. They had a choice to support him and be alienated in the community or join in on the shitstorm. Sadly I feel they made the wrong choice. Thank god that he has a brother worth a damn.
I can't help but ponder if he was to sue, who would he target? The obvious answer is the school, but what if it can be proved that it wasn't the schools fault the rumor spread? Really it was the community that wronged him.
It's a very cynical thing to say (funny because i think most atheist are fond of cynicism) but i can't help but feel that the atheist community jumped to help him to make the illusion that this is a Atheists are good, Christian's are oppressors type of situation. This whole clusterfuck just showcases a fundamental issue in America arising specifically with atheism. When the atheist kid tries to cancel the prayer, he is in a way forcing his religious point of view on the majority. That kind of thing is obviously explosive. He succeeded in that the prayer was officially canceled, but the community being what it was, someone said a prayer anyway...and what was the school supposed to do then? Try to shut the girl up? imo, the school was pulled into a snare trap just like the student. I'm sorry for him, I hope he can forgive people who did evil to him and recognize why things why things happened the way they did. The fault was in part on everyone involved, but the greater evil is obviously the way the community handled it.
Actually, there is no complication or confusion, according to the article. It clearly states that "His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony". This is unconstitutional, regardless of how much of a *tradition* it is (how long have they been breaking the law?). The law is supposed to protect the rights of the few from the power of the majority. There cannot be planned prayer in school, such as part of a graduation ceremony. Schools must remain secularist. If you want to sit in your seat and pray on your own during the ceremony, no one will stop you. But it can't be orchestrated by school officials. It's also completely irrelevant to the atheist's religious beliefs. Heck, he doesn't have any. He's an atheist. Not wanting prayer in school isn't his "religious point of view". It's him wanting the Constitution to be enforced. You are right of course, I didn't mean to say that the prayer wasn't legally inappropriate. I'm just pointing out that the school tried conforming to the law when a student asked them about it. That horribly backfired on him unfortunately. I misstated a bit when I said he was trying force his opinion on others. In a way he was very directly forcing people to not pray at an event they would otherwise pray at (Yes they could pray to themselves, but it is a very different situation than having a speaker say a prayer), but he was justified by law. It was the law, or rather an interpretation of that constitutional rule that played into the negative consequences. The people in that community are obviously against the idea of someone (especially government) stopping the prayer at the graduation. Can you blame them? It was a traditional prayer. It got interesting on another level when the senior girl threw in her own prayer. It would seem that the school received it well and the graduation probably proceeded not much different that it would have. So in that moment it is no longer the school having a prayer, rather it is a student performing an old tradition and the school not stopping her. Is that wrong? Should she get in trouble for saying that prayer? Should the school? If they are punished, isn't that an more obvious case of religious freedom being repressed? I'm not even convinced an atheist is really having his religious beliefs suppressed by having to hear a prayer. He doesn't have to believe the prayers and graduation is a ceremonial event anyway. It would be an apt solution to just time the prayer such that the atheist can experience the graduation, then leave if he doesn't want to hear the prayer. The cultural issue here is that in many cases Americans obviously want prayer in schools. The real point of separation of church and state is that the state should not force a particular religion on a people. In this case, its the culture of the people in and around the school that's "forcing" the religious preference of Christianity. Can we stop that? is it moral to try? I don't think so.
Umm yes, and yes to your final 2 questions.
|
On May 28 2011 00:07 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To understand this, you must understand the derivative of the word. Atheism has been shown again and again that it is the lack of belief, but people will only show you the dictionary meaning to project their agenda of its meaning. Agnosticism is technically atheism if you DO NOT BELIEVE in a god or gods. Atheism is also not a belief system. There is nothing surrounding atheism or involved with atheism except a lack of beliefs that would exist if you were to be a religious follower and took beliefs upon you of that belief system. If someone wants to argue with this point, fine, but please know that you can not tell me that "an atheist is a person who says God does not exist." That would be absolutely idiotic because I would be denouncing something that has never been proven to exist and would circumvent any logic in my mind against committing an act like that. Just think what would happen if the defense had to prove their client did not commit a crime in the court of law. That would circumvent logic and it is a reason that the only side of the religious argument that has to prove anything is those making a claim, the religious followers. To me, agnosticism is but a fairy tale. It is not a position that actually exists because it purports that their is a middle ground to having belief and not having belief. If you logically take the stance that atheism is not a belief, then there is zero ground for agnosticism being a ground to stand upon when in reality, we are all agnostics. We have no actual knowledge of God, or gods, or a god and we sure as hell don't have certainty of their existence unless we choose to blindly follow by faith, but is that really certainty? Whoever leaked the boy's name should be fired and the entire community needs to understand what they did is completely wrong and immoral. America was supposed to be a nation where even the minority gets protection, but the majority always feels the need to voice their opinion by means of social repercussions. It's tragic that even the parents practically disowned the boy for you would think that THEY would be the ones to understand, but I guess we have too much hope for people these days. More faith in humanity was lost today.
Finnally, a good post.. I am getting really tired of people calling atheism a believe system..
|
Sounds like whoever wrote this has some sort of Atheism bias.
|
On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic.
Atheists, to a man in my experience, never say "i believe there is no god" because they understand full well the hypocrisy of the statement. They say "there is no evidence to show a god exists, so I simply dont believe". Also an important point - you CANNOT prove a negative. I.e if a religious person says "well prove there is no god" you can equally reply "well prove there's no flying spaghetti monster". Do you see how silly that argument is? Down that road insanity lies. The only way we, as humans, have been able to really progress is by proving stuff DOES exist by testing it. Therefore, whoever brings forward the "hypothesis" of a god existing has to show its existence, or else it can be (quite rightly) assumed to be a fiction, along with the 3700 other religions and many more myths we've had.
It takes a religious mind to call non-belief a belief. May as well say that not playing football is a sport.
Reminds me heavily of that old saying of never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Except in this case its religious people trying to call "atheism" a religion so they can drag it into the pit of ignorance with them, as if it's "just another faith" rather than simply not believing.
I can understand why they do that though, people are comfortable with the concept of different faiths, it makes it easy to just dismiss it. Harder to dismiss people who still live and love life, who still act like proper human beings (in some cases better human beings, the vast majority of people in US prisons are religious, there are very very few atheists) but with NO faith which a religious person would say is required to be good and moral.
It opens up a pandora's box of problems to the theist - because clearly god is not needed for man to be good.
And most importantly in this case, believing in a god does nothing to stop you doing terrible things nor does it make you a good person. These people treated this kid horribly, including his parents of all people. All done in the name of their caring religion. Yet this is nothing new, this is part of the hypocrisy that has happened for thousands and thousands of years. Its sad.
It's essentially a lynch mob situation, a community was repeatedly breaking the law which was unchallenged because nobody had the guts to step up to them on the issue. This guy did and look what happened? Lynch mob. And his parents joined in. Gah, it disgusts me.
|
On May 28 2011 00:24 SluGGer wrote:
Sounds like whoever wrote this has some sort of Atheism bias.
I was actually hoping for some sort of trollface.jpg or troll meme at the end of it. The level of its bias rivals that of Fox News when it writes on controversial and political issues.
And to the poster above me, I love you. We are very similar in our patterns of thought, but we know especially what the definition of an atheist actually is.
|
On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic.
"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities"
|
I like the thought process behind the teacher's actions: "Nobody else complained before, so therefore everything we're doing is A-OK", while simultaneously, conveniently ignoring the effect it's just had on Fowler's life...obviously the kids passing through the system before were either a lot smarter, or a lot less courageous, than Fowler.
|
On May 28 2011 00:21 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote:
He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything. I agree with you. What a selfish act. Why ruin everyone's fun just because you are the only one opposed to the prayer? Looks like even non-religious people can be intolerant of other religions, who woulda thunk it?
Lol a selfish act? Ok so tell me this, is it selfish to stop a group of bullies from picking on a kid? You're ruining their fun.
He stopped and illegal school-sponsored prayer if you really wanted to pray go fucking do it on your own time. He spoke out against something that wasn't right. He unlike most people isn't a fucking coward.
|
I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse?
|
In his possition its the best thing he could do...
I mean really live among those zombies who attack you if they notice you are not one of them... i would prefer to life at my brothers place than among those people 
|
The cultural issue here is that in many cases Americans obviously want prayer in schools. The real point of separation of church and state is that the state should not force a particular religion on a people. In this case, its the culture of the people in and around the school that's "forcing" the religious preference of Christianity. Can we stop that? is it moral to try? I don't think so.
Yes it is. I don't think people recognize how easy it is to be ostracized because you aren't Christian.
Americans do not want prayer in schools. Many parents, even Christian ones, would get seriously angry with schools if they ever did school-sponsored prayer. Some Americans do, but some Americans think Obama was not born in America. This is a secular country with secular beliefs.
Also, we're allowed to have "moments of silence" and things like that.
|
On May 28 2011 00:27 Bibdy wrote:
I like the thought process behind the teacher's actions: "Nobody else complained before, so therefore everything we're doing is A-OK", while simultaneously, conveniently ignoring the effect it's just had on Fowler's life...obviously the kids passing through the system before were either a lot smarter, or a lot less courageous, than Fowler.
I think it stems from two things: The lack of motivation to stand up for the law of the land and the lack of knowledge of the law. If it weren't for college and my own curiosity, my knowledge of the law would not be what it is today.
Laws have not always been just, but there is no controversy in the constitutionality and the foundation in the Establishment Clause.
|
The article linked is so biased and just bad. Not really a good basis for discussion. However, I couldn't find any better sources that don't favor one side or the other so whatever. But from what I could tell, for that linked youtube video, the school had already reprinted the programs without prayer and that girl just prayed from her own initiative, which I'm fairly sure is not unconstitutional.
|
I have a belief in god. I'm far from Christian though. I don't think that the fact that you're Christian or atheist should come into this equation at all.
Now, on the one hand, I believe that this guy did the right thing by bringing it up in private, and there should be NO repercussions for that. What people don't get is that freedom is a two-way street. I think compulsive prayer is absolutely wrong, and if you want people to respect your religion you have to respect their right to contest or go against what you believe or want to do, which also includes not shoving it under their noses, 'cause if you do you'll wind up with some kind of situation like this and you're not doing much other than eliciting this response.
On the other hand I feel his story might actually be a bit different. Perhaps he was violent or threatening, which also isn't right.
At the end of it all I think the moral of it is that he was completely outcasted for raising a belief which his government should have defended him in. His parents who kicked him out, his school who bullied him are all a bunch of retards and there's no way to justify their action, really. It's not a 'Christian' concept. It's just a stupid person's concept that you deserve treatment like that for voicing different views.
|
On May 28 2011 00:27 Metaphysic wrote:
I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse?
Rosa Parks was not a kid. If the parents of the child complained about the law and separation of church and state, then it would be great. At least the kid would have had people he cared deeply about defending him.
|
On May 28 2011 00:18 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:15 Agathon wrote:On May 28 2011 00:04 TheFrankOne wrote:
This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok. I agree, but i'll play the devil's advcate role for a short moment. Obama was elected by the majority of us people. People who don't like him are forced to follow some kind of "tyranny of the majority". It's it wrong? The majority always win. It's how human groups work. This group is shorter but it's the same way of thinking. No, the term is "Majority Rules vs Minority Rights." Obama is not allowed to do whatever the hell he wants just because the majority elected him. He is also bound by the rules. If the majority of people say "Kill all the Jews" that doesn't mean we're allowed to do so.
A majority did it 70 years ago and there are many graveyards full of young americans in my country prooving that a bigger majority won, again.
The majority allows, or forbid. That's why i'm afraid one day, what append in Europe last century appens again, somewhere. Soon or lately.
|
On May 28 2011 00:35 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:18 DoubleReed wrote:On May 28 2011 00:15 Agathon wrote:On May 28 2011 00:04 TheFrankOne wrote:
This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok. I agree, but i'll play the devil's advcate role for a short moment. Obama was elected by the majority of us people. People who don't like him are forced to follow some kind of "tyranny of the majority". It's it wrong? The majority always win. It's how human groups work. This group is shorter but it's the same way of thinking. No, the term is "Majority Rules vs Minority Rights." Obama is not allowed to do whatever the hell he wants just because the majority elected him. He is also bound by the rules. If the majority of people say "Kill all the Jews" that doesn't mean we're allowed to do so. A majority did it 70 years ago and there are many graveyards full of young americans in my country prooving that a bigger majority won, again. The majority allows, or forbid. That's why i'm afraid one day, what append in Europe last century appens again, somewhere. Soon or lately.
You aren't analyzing the part where the "minority" who lost was killing an even smaller minority in concentration camps and trying to practically take over all of Europe by force, if not the entire world.
Your metaphor stands on shaky grounds because of the acts of aggression by the minority who started a WAR.
|
My hs graduation was in a church (New Life Church if anyone knows it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
