|
On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho 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." 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
I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it.
This argument is people telling me that he wasn't attempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
[quote]
...
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?
You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you.
|
The situation blew up because this one person prevented the prayer that most people wanted from happening. That is preventing everyone else from praying I'd say. Whether it was an open group prayer, a ritual prayer, or a prayer actively put on by the school, a prayer that almost everyone else wanted to do was stopped. Seems accurate to me.
The title says he was ostracized for refusing to pray, which is NOT why he got ostracized, It's not like he was being forced to participate in the group prayer. That's what my original comment was saying and I have no clue why you guys think its inaccurate O_o All I was saying was that the title was misleading and irresponsibly inflammatory.
|
On May 28 2011 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho 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." 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 I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it. This argument is people telling me that he wasn't a ttempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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? You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you.
Your little 'idea' isn't special. You haven't found the magical eureka formula that sets you apart from the pack. Everyone here understands that he didn't want a state-endorsed prayer to happen.
But, at what point, do you leap to HE MUST NEVER WANT ANY PRAYER EVER ANYWHERE EVER?
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between
A) state-endorsed prayer
B) prayer
|
I think it's ironic that the OP posts an article about religion and atheism and expects the TL community to be civil about it and respect each other. Because the article was written to defend atheism and counter the point that atheists are amoral, selfish, and evil, and thus forces religious apologists onto the defensive in the whole religion vs atheism debate. This article is just going to incite and start up more debate and anger. I don't even think an article like this should be posted is this manner. Maybe in the future, they'll have polls to allow people to vent their anger and lock the thread so people can't post in it and start arguments. However, I guess people could just avoid this thread....but I still think how ironic it is that the OP wants people to be "civil" about the article and in the mud-throwing that inevitably follows.
|
This argument is people telling me that he wasn't attempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
Look for the upteenth time. He wasn't.
He was attempting to stop the school from endorsing others praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony.
There is a difference between the two. I urge you to stop this knee jerk defense of douchebaggery and think for a minute before you hit post.
|
On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:43 rycho 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." 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 I don't care why he did it, we all have a general assumption as to why he did it. Everyone can pretty much agree he did it for that reason except the person saying I was wrong to assume that is why he did it. This argument is people telling me that he wasn't a ttempting to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony. On May 28 2011 07:43 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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? You didn't read my posts at all. That's why he would do it which actually further supports my idea that he didn't want it to happen. Thank you. Your little 'idea' isn't special. You haven't found the magical eureka formula that sets you apart from the pack. Everyone here understands that he didn't want a state-endorsed prayer to happen. But, at what point, do you leap to HE MUST NEVER WANT ANY PRAYER EVER ANYWHERE EVER?
At the point were he wants to wipe himself up into a moral panic.
|
On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote:
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between
A) state-endorsed prayer
B) prayer
State religion != Endorsed religious act.
|
Why do so many people think it's okay to ostracize someone for demanding a law be followed? For demanding his rights not to be infringed upon by the state? For attempting to hold the state accountable? Why do people think he deserves what he got for fighting for a law he believes in?
Do people not learn from the past? Do people not realize that apathy and indifference leads to corruption and totalitarianism? That nazi's didn't just pop out of nowhere? Do you really want to live in an intolerant society that destroys any voice that speaks out? Do you want to live in a society where a voice that has the side of the law behind can be crushed and destroyed by a intolerant group driven only by anger and passion, whom ignore the rule of law because they are in fear their religion is being attacked (when in reality their religion was oppressing unwilling people in the first place)?
What these people are advocating is an unregulated mess where the majority of any small region can enact any form of justice they decide is arbitrarily okay with them. Just imagine pockets of KKK coming into your small town and decided what they want to be law is the way it's going to be because, well fuck, they're the majority! Hey it was your fault you got murdered for living in an area that got overrun by the KKK, you shouldn't have defended your views that are protected by the rule of law! You were asking for those KKK to curb stomp you!
|
On May 28 2011 07:50 Taku wrote:
The situation blew up because this one person prevented the prayer that most people wanted from happening. That is preventing everyone else from praying I'd say. Whether it was an open group prayer, a ritual prayer, or a prayer actively put on by the school, a prayer that almost everyone else wanted to do was stopped. Seems accurate to me.
You're incorrect though. The problem was that a specific religion was being endorsed by the school. Everyone can still pray.
The title says he was ostracized for refusing to pray, which is NOT why he got ostracized, It's not like he was being forced to participate in the group prayer. That's what my original comment was saying and I have no clue why you guys think its inaccurate O_o All I was saying was that the title was misleading and irresponsibly inflammatory.
You are right that the title wasn't correct but what you said is inaccurate too. He didn't try to "stop everyone else from praying", he tried to "stop the school from leading a prayer". It's important to be discerning and accurate, because those 2 statements are very different.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 07:43 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[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? 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.
No what is sad is that you think the following is a universal fact:
He tried to stop everyone else from praying === He tried to stop others from silently praying to themselves.
Those two are clearly not the same. They can be the same but in assuming that I meant that is assuming that I am taking the weakest possible argument that can be concluded from that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity will save you from a lot of future arguments
He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer.
It doesn't matter that he wanted to stop this specific prayer because it was illegal and publicly endorsed by a school in determining what he did. He wanted to stop the prayer. The reason he did has nothing to do with what he did. Does that make it any clearer?
There is no flaw in my original stance, you are just interpreting it in a way that is obviously flawed and not the way I intended for it to be interpreted.
|
On May 28 2011 06:03 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move. Its like American schools have forgotten to not only uphold the constitution but also forgotten to teach the constitution. Even foreigners who live in the US know more about the BoR. It was ILLEGAL for the school to sanction prayers. It was a dick move to still have the prayer and to ostracize him. Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US?
Jaywalking is also illegal, but if a group of children get across a clear roadway by jaywalking, should their friend report them to the police? It IS illegal after all.
In retrospect, "dick" isn't the correct word for the student. "Idiot" is more suitable. The student has every right to be offended and to want to ceremony to be executed in a different manner without school support. Threatening the superintendent with the ACLU before simply requesting that the school ends its support, or appealing to the community to have the ceremony altered, however, was ridiculous.
|
On May 28 2011 07:55 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:50 Taku wrote:
The situation blew up because this one person prevented the prayer that most people wanted from happening. That is preventing everyone else from praying I'd say. Whether it was an open group prayer, a ritual prayer, or a prayer actively put on by the school, a prayer that almost everyone else wanted to do was stopped. Seems accurate to me. You're incorrect though. The problem was that a specific religion was being endorsed by the school. Everyone can still pray. Show nested quote +
The title says he was ostracized for refusing to pray, which is NOT why he got ostracized, It's not like he was being forced to participate in the group prayer. That's what my original comment was saying and I have no clue why you guys think its inaccurate O_o All I was saying was that the title was misleading and irresponsibly inflammatory.
You are right that the title wasn't correct but what you said is inaccurate too. He didn't try to "stop everyone else from praying", he tried to "stop the school from leading a prayer". It's important to be discerning and accurate, because those 2 statements are very different.
That's the thing, I fail to see how the school is endorsing a specific religion. They endorsed a specific religious act that most of the student body wanted to put on. Replace christian prayer with a song everyone wanted to sing, or some sort of chant, or even another prayer; if the majority of the students were for it, and if it wasn't contrary to school policy, I doubt the administration would have opposed it.
With regards to your second point, wasn't it a student rather than any member of the actual school that was leading the prayer? At no time was any staff-involved person involved with putting on the prayer, correct?
|
What happened seemed horrible. If the guy wants to oppose to something illegal he is in his right to do so. It might have been a bit stupid of him to actually do so as I couldn't imagine why someone would oppose a prayer that much but getting bullied so much and receiving death threats is horrible. But then again, can't really judge without knowing the details. Perhaps he did it just be to a pain in the ass.
|
The first was a school official conducting a prayer, the second was the school forcing a student to read the bible.
This case involves a *student* conducting a prayer with no assistance from the school aside from scheduling time in the ceremony for it.
|
While it is his legal right to request that they remove the prayer, and his demands are legally sound; It's within his parents' legal rights to evict him and stop providing him with financial support.
What I like is that this may be the best thing that ever happened to him. He gets to take an ethically reasonable stand for something, and he gets out from under the thumb of his lunatic parents, and (because polysyndeton is key), he gets a scholarship and all he had to do was get threatened by his pansy ass classmates (like everyone else). Sign me up...
|
On May 28 2011 07:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. What does that mean exactly, then? What has everyone been arguing with you for the past 2 pages, and who's fault is it?
It means exactly as it reads: He tried to prevent everyone at the ceremony from praying.
I didn't intend for everyone to interpret that as "he tried to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever". I thought it was being interpreted as specifically relative to the prayer they wanted to have which is completely compatible with previous posts in relation to the justification for why he wanted to stop the prayer.
|
On May 28 2011 07:54 Tor wrote:
Why do so many people think it's okay to ostracize someone for demanding a law be followed? For demanding his rights not to be infringed upon by the state? For attempting to hold the state accountable? Why do people think he deserves what he got for fighting for a law he believes in?
Do people not learn from the past? Do people not realize that apathy and indifference leads to corruption and totalitarianism? That nazi's didn't just pop out of nowhere? Do you really want to live in an intolerant society that destroys any voice that speaks out? Do you want to live in a society where a voice that has the side of the law behind can be crushed and destroyed by a intolerant group driven only by anger and passion, whom ignore the rule of law because they are in fear their religion is being attacked (when in reality their religion was oppressing unwilling people in the first place)?
What these people are advocating is an unregulated mess where the majority of any small region can enact any form of justice they decide is arbitrarily okay with them. Just imagine pockets of KKK coming into your small town and decided what they want to be law is the way it's going to be because, well fuck, they're the majority! Hey it was your fault you got murdered for living in an area that got overrun by the KKK, you shouldn't have defended your views that are protected by the rule of law! You were asking for those KKK to curb stomp you!
It pains me to see it happening, imagine if he was a she, and raped, then ostracised for speaking out. In effect, they could be compared, if you take the rape as something like hundreds of years ago when males ruled the world
|
On May 28 2011 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:43 travis wrote:On May 28 2011 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[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? 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. No what is sad is that you think the following is a universal fact: He tried to stop everyone else from praying === He tried to stop others from silently praying to themselves. Those two are clearly not the same. They can be the same but in assuming that I meant that is assuming that I am taking the weakest possible argument that can be concluded from that statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity will save you from a lot of future arguments He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer. It doesn't matter that he wanted to stop this specific prayer because it was illegal and publicly endorsed by a school in determining what he did. He wanted to stop the prayer. The reason he did has nothing to do with what he did. Does that make it any clearer? There is no flaw in my original stance, you are just interpreting it in a way that is obviously flawed and not the way I intended for it to be interpreted.
So, you're saying the ostracization is justified simply because he kicked the hornet's nest of hypocrisy and unlawful behaviour in his school?
|
On May 28 2011 07:58 ChellaPopper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 06:03 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move. Its like American schools have forgotten to not only uphold the constitution but also forgotten to teach the constitution. Even foreigners who live in the US know more about the BoR. It was ILLEGAL for the school to sanction prayers. It was a dick move to still have the prayer and to ostracize him. Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US? Jaywalking is also illegal, but if a group of children get across a clear roadway by jaywalking, should their friend report them to the police? It IS illegal after all. In retrospect, "dick" isn't the correct word for the student. "Idiot" is more suitable. The student has every right to be offended and to want to ceremony to be executed in a different manner without school support. Threatening the superintendent with the ACLU before simply requesting that the school ends its support, or appealing to the community to have the ceremony altered, however, was ridiculous.
Yes actually you should certainly report them because to not do so and have some of the children be run over by traffic at a later date is horrific.
The no snitching rule only applies to pre teens. Adults know that the law is there for a reason. If you don't like the law you should agitate to change it. That is your right. But if you break the law you should be punished (remember though that violating a law can be used to change it also).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
