|
On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did.
Oh for crying out loud.
Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening.
He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons.
Now what?
|
On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.
He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer. I agree, this is sad. I don't know what else to say.
You could say that you don't actually know whether or not he cared if people had personal prayer, but instead you stubbornly repeat the same stupid opinion and ignore when people correct you.
Saying that his goal was "to prevent people from praying" is like saying that preventing someone from drunk driving is "trying to prevent them from drinking". Should Obama get on the T.V. and lead the entire bible belt in prayer every night? I am sure most of them want it.
|
I am wondering what Fowler should have done. It was a tradition that Christians liked. Perhaps he could have just pretended to pray. I think for sure, the Christians would be resentful of Fowler's actions, however the response of some is quite appalling.
Anyways, it was his decision he made, Fowler lives with the consequences even though it is a ridiculous series of events.
btw. the OP's signature is way cool. 20% cooler.
|
On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what?
That wasn't so hard was it?
Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time.
I don't understand how you can get mad at me for defending my claim when you're the one who disputed it in the first place
|
On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them.
Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them.
Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time.
I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive.
Learn to freaking read, man.
|
On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen.
What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer.
Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you?
|
On May 28 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time. I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive. Learn to freaking read, man.
You should take your own advice because it clearly isn't a blind assumption. I still have yet to hear a reason for why he wouldn't want that I claimed he wanted.
|
On May 28 2011 07:28 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:24 rycho wrote:On May 28 2011 07:20 Taku wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Bibdy wrote:
What's your point? It's still written, quite explicity, in the first amendment that the state shouldn't favour any particular religion. If a student wanted to do it on their own, that's fine. The moment the school promotes it, it's breaking the first amendment. I still fail to see how printing a student-suggested activity is promotion. Granted, it may be endorsement of it as a school-acceptable activity but its not like the school brought in a pastor to lead the prayer or anything. Honestly I think the guy has conducted himself poorly during this whole affair. I don't have anything against him standing up for what he believes in, but the way he's gone about it is kinda dickish imo, there was probably a much less confrontational way to do so. what exactly was "dickish" about what he did? according to the article, all he did was contact the superintendent and tell him that the prayer shouldn't happen - which is true, its unconstitutional. Well he was right in first quietly approaching the administration with his concerns, but threatening to sick the ACLU on them? That was probably why it ended up getting leaked, because a student was being so combative and threatening to sue. Smarter move would have been to first contact them with his concerns and document this process, and after exhausting reasonable rigor in his arguments *then* go public with the documented emails and stuff. By being combative you're just giving the crazies more ammo to go with.
So just becuase he threatened to get authorities on the issue involved if they didn't follow the law means he was in the wrong? This entire matter is the schools fault, how did his name and this conversation get leaked in the first place.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Oh wait the student was never wrong...
|
On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you?
Are you serious?
Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit:
"He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer."
|
On May 28 2011 07:36 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:28 Taku wrote:On May 28 2011 07:24 rycho wrote:On May 28 2011 07:20 Taku wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Bibdy wrote:
What's your point? It's still written, quite explicity, in the first amendment that the state shouldn't favour any particular religion. If a student wanted to do it on their own, that's fine. The moment the school promotes it, it's breaking the first amendment. I still fail to see how printing a student-suggested activity is promotion. Granted, it may be endorsement of it as a school-acceptable activity but its not like the school brought in a pastor to lead the prayer or anything. Honestly I think the guy has conducted himself poorly during this whole affair. I don't have anything against him standing up for what he believes in, but the way he's gone about it is kinda dickish imo, there was probably a much less confrontational way to do so. what exactly was "dickish" about what he did? according to the article, all he did was contact the superintendent and tell him that the prayer shouldn't happen - which is true, its unconstitutional. Well he was right in first quietly approaching the administration with his concerns, but threatening to sick the ACLU on them? That was probably why it ended up getting leaked, because a student was being so combative and threatening to sue. Smarter move would have been to first contact them with his concerns and document this process, and after exhausting reasonable rigor in his arguments *then* go public with the documented emails and stuff. By being combative you're just giving the crazies more ammo to go with. So just becuase he threatened to get authorities on the issue involved if they didn't follow the law means he was in the wrong? This entire matter is the schools fault, how did his name and this conversation get leaked in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. Oh wait the student was never wrong...
I just said the way he did what he did made it look vindictive, not whether his intention was right or wrong -_-
|
On May 28 2011 07:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.
He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer. I agree, this is sad. I don't know what else to say. You could say that you don't actually know whether or not he cared if people had personal prayer, but instead you stubbornly repeat the same stupid opinion and ignore when people correct you. Saying that his goal was "to prevent people from praying" is like saying that preventing someone from drunk driving is "trying to prevent them from drinking". Should Obama get on the T.V. and lead the entire bible belt in prayer every night? I am sure most of them want it.
Lol, it's just really ironic that you say I'm stubbornly repeating the same stupid opinion and that you're correcting me.
His goal was to stop the prayer. The reasons he wanted to stop it are what you claim he wanted to stop. That is not the case, those are the reasons he wanted to stop it.
It is a fact he wanted to stop others from praying. Whatever reasons he had doesn't change the fact.
He wanted to stop others from praying. The reason he wanted to do this was because it is illegal for a school to hold a prayer in a ceremony, or however you want to word the reason you can be as harsh on the school as you like. You could even say the kid was stopping a dogmatic school from brainwashing students to follow Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that he wanted to stop the brainwashed system from starting a prayer.
Please understand this time, I don't think I can explain it any clearer.
|
On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer."
He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this?
If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal.
Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one?
How can this not be getting through to you?
|
On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:30 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:
[quote]
Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? Okay, so apparently I need to repeat myself. You're ASSUMING his INTENTIONS BEHIND IT. Not the actual act itself. Okay so apparently I need to repeat myself. Is that not an obvious thing to assume? Am I to assume that when he reported this activity, he actually didn't mean to report it? It seems like you're the one using semantics to try to say he didn't actually do what he did. Oh for crying out loud. Yes, he wanted to stop it from happening. He still did it for 100% legitimate, legal, constitutionally-defensible reasons. Now what? That wasn't so hard was it? Why would you argue otherwise in the first place unless you just felt like wasting both our time. I never argued against the act, I argued against your blind assumption that he did it to be vindictive. Learn to freaking read, man. You should take your own advice because it clearly isn't a blind assumption. I still have yet to hear a reason for why he wouldn't want that I claimed he wanted.
Because he's not Christian and didn't want to have state-endorsed Christianity forced down his throat...
Would it have made a difference to you if he was Jewish? Muslim?
|
On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer."
what? why would he care if anyone else prayed?
he did this to stop the school from endorsing this, not because he gives a shit if anyone else prays
|
On May 28 2011 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:32 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:23 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Blind speculation. He talked to the school, in private, to take the prayer out of the ceremony. They agreed. That would have been the end of it, until the incident was leaked out, the community caught wind, and decided to act on their self-righteousness. On May 28 2011 07:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. Pure speculation about his motivations and intentions ... Okay he reported it so it wouldn't happen but he actually wanted it to happen. How much sense does that make? You're assuming there was vindictiveness behind it, as opposed to not wanting to have state-endorsed religion forced down his throat. No, I'm assuming he didn't want it to happen. He didn't want it to happen. He reported it to stop it from happening. How can you try to argue against the idea that he didn't want it to happen? On May 28 2011 07:24 travis wrote:
GGTemplar, this is sad.
He reported it so that school endorsed prayer would not happen. This does not mean that personal prayer cannot happen. There could still be a period of silence for personal prayer. I agree, this is sad. I don't know what else to say. You could say that you don't actually know whether or not he cared if people had personal prayer, but instead you stubbornly repeat the same stupid opinion and ignore when people correct you. Saying that his goal was "to prevent people from praying" is like saying that preventing someone from drunk driving is "trying to prevent them from drinking". Should Obama get on the T.V. and lead the entire bible belt in prayer every night? I am sure most of them want it. Lol, it's just really ironic that you say I'm stubbornly repeating the same stupid opinion and that you're correcting me. His goal was to stop the prayer. The reasons he wanted to stop it are what you claim he wanted to stop. That is not the case, those are the reasons he wanted to stop it. It is a fact he wanted to stop others from praying. Whatever reasons he had doesn't change the fact. Please understand this time, I don't think I can explain it any clearer.
It's not a fact, you just lack discernment and it's pretty sad. As it was said a million times already, he wanted to stop school endorsed prayer, not prayer altogether. Everyone at that ceremony would be able to pray regardless, he would have no ability to stop that. It's not illegal to pray. It is illegal for the school to lead a prayer. This is actually pretty simple stuff.
I see you are slowly editing your post so that your stance changes. What you ought to do is just admit that there was a flaw with your original stance, and that he actually wasn't trying to prevent prayer altogether.
|
On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you?
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying.
Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing.
You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did.
An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.
It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it.
|
On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying.
On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true.
What does that mean exactly, then? What has everyone been arguing with you for the past 2 pages, and who's fault is it?
|
On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it.
Are you were wondering if I was the one arguing semantics? You keep going back to the literal act/semantics argument whenever you're confronted with having to deal with the implications of said act. Good lord, this is almost fascinating from a psychology perspective.
|
On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:41 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:34 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:14 Barrin wrote:On May 28 2011 07:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" That's true. No. No it's not. They are still allowed to pray (as the article makes abundantly clear). It's just unconstitutional for the school itself to perform the prayer as part of the ceremony. Everyone is still allowed to pray. Hell they could all just ignore the school and all together start praying, forcing the school to wait a minute for them. Just because it's not allowed to be endorsed by the school as part of the official ceremony doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to pray... .... .................................... That doesn't mean the student didn't try to stop them. He reported the illegal activity for a reason: He didn't want it to happen. What the fuck? He didn't try to stop the individual students from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing and encouraging the prayer. Seriously, 60 pages and this point hasn't gotten through to you? Are you serious? Here's what you're trying to say but are too stubborn to admit: "He tried to stop everyone else from praying at the ceremony because it was endorsing and encouraging prayer." He didn't try to stop any one individual from praying. He tried to stop the school from endorsing the prayer. Is it really so hard for your to understand this? If every person in the room had prayed without endorsement from the representative of the school, that is perfectly legal (as long as they do not cause a significant disruption of school business). If a representative of the school acting in official capacity endorses this it is illegal. Fowler tried to stop one of these two things. Can you guess which one? How can this not be getting through to you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I never said he tried to stop any individual from praying. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. This is stopping others from praying. Do you understand? It's rather simple and basic logic, X, Y, Z type thing. You don't need to state what would be legal or not because that is irrelevant to what he did. An illegal prayer was going to happen at a public government-paid high school graduation. He reported this so it wouldn't happen. He tried to stop it from happening. He tried to stop this prayer from happening. Is it that hard to see? He tried to stop the prayer from happening.It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether it was right or wrong, I'm saying nothing about that. I'm saying what he did, not why he did it.
Either you are trolling or you are confused about the semantics of your own language.
You said it yourself. He tried to stop the collective prayer endorsed by the school. Full stop. Period. There is not follow on from this.
By the same law that prevents the government from supporting a religion the government (and its actors) are forbidden from blocking a religion also. No one can stop you or anyone else in that school from praying.
Here is what your logic looks like. The city council of atlanta forced the speed of limit of 55 on the highway within the city. So they must be trying to stop Nascars at the speedway from racing.
|
Im to slow for this travis :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
