|
On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[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. 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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so: He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference. And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either?
Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray"
I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either.
|
On May 28 2011 08:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:11 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[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. 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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" Again, you're ignoring the difference between a state-endorsed prayer, and a community prayer, and not giving any adherence to the guy's own right to freedom of religion. I'm ignoring no such difference any more than you. A prayer is a prayer and you assumed I was speaking of a type of prayer I wasn't.
So, if some state governor were to bust out the Quran and start leading the Muslim people of the state in their daily prayer to Mecca, that would just be a good old-fashioned regular home-grown prayer, no different to a prayer lead by individual Muslims in their own homes, then?
|
On May 28 2011 08:17 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
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. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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 never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons) What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents.
On May 28 2011 08:19 Birnd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:17 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
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. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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 never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons) What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents. Using GGs logic, i come to the same conclusion :O
That's actually not what I'm trying to say at all, but thanks.
|
God this discussion is absurd. I'm glad you guys finally worked it out, I guess; it shows that dialogue does eventually get somewhere. May we all learn to involve the ego a little less in future debates.
There are two separate things:
1. endorsement
2. prayer
Damon tried to stop #1. We are all agreed, yes?
Perhaps this can get back on topic so that people interested in activism can congregate here, as per OP?
|
Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer.
A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer.
|
What a great pair of supportive parents this poor kid has... or should I say had..
|
On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[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. 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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so: He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference. And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either.
No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion.
Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate.
|
On May 28 2011 08:20 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:02 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[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? 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? What!?!?! That's not what I said at all.. Why would you even think that's like anything I just wrote in that post? What part of that post even gave you that idea? Please share. I said nothing about the ostracization being justified, in fact several times in this thread I have said it was unjustified and that the communities reaction to the child was terrible and wrong. This part: Show nested quote +He wanted to stop a prayer. He wasn't ostracized for refusing to pray, he was ostracized for trying to stop a prayer. You're reasoning for the mob...you're giving them excuses for doing what they did by jumping to the conclusion that his original intent was to be vindictive again them (thereby justifying their anger). In other words, you're saying "He wanted to stop them from doing their prayer, ergo they had every right to get angry".
That doesn't justify it, it's just a more accurate title than saying he was ostracized for refusing to pray. Had he just refused to pray and not reported anything, this wouldn't have even made news. The title is inaccurate, that was the only reason I even quoted that guys post agreeing with it because his alternative title was more accurate (even though it was far too vague)
Death threats and being disowned by your parents for what he did is wrong, there is no way they can justify that in this situation.
I've said it about a hundred times: The community is wrong for the way they reacted to the kid.
Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it.
|
Wow forget the religion argument for a second, what the hell is wrong with his parents? Jesus christ if there was anyone who should have been there for him it should have been them
|
On May 28 2011 08:25 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +"I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony"
"I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony"
They aren't the same because the school is not "others". He is a part of the school and so if the school is praying that is violating his freedoms. There really isn't much else to it.
The school is the others in this situation though, as is anyone besides him who wanted to have the public prayer at the ceremony. His freedoms aren't being violated, he's only being inconvenienced by having to waste more time at a place he'd probably rather not be if he's anything like me.
|
Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it.
I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems?
if he's anything like me.
Obviously he isn't. Thankfully.
|
On May 28 2011 08:27 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:11 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[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. 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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" Again, you're ignoring the difference between a state-endorsed prayer, and a community prayer, and not giving any adherence to the guy's own right to freedom of religion. I'm ignoring no such difference any more than you. A prayer is a prayer and you assumed I was speaking of a type of prayer I wasn't. So, if some state governor were to bust out the Quran and start leading the Muslim people of the state in their daily prayer to Mecca, that would just be a good old-fashioned regular home-grown prayer, no different to a prayer lead by individual Muslims in their own homes, then?
It would obviously not be the same.
I wouldn't care though, all the power to him, each to his own.
|
On May 28 2011 08:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:17 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
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. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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 never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons) What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:19 Birnd wrote:On May 28 2011 08:17 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 08:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:52 redviper wrote:
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. "I attempted to stop others from praying in a way that endorsed a specific religion through a public school ceremony" "I attempted to stop others (which would be the school) from praying (because the school doing this would be endorsing a specific religion) through a public school ceremony" these are exactly the same thing you're pointlessly arguing the entirely wrong thing here because I don't dispute what his reasons are for what he did. It is all compatible with the statement that "he wanted to stop everyone from praying" the problem is that it's just a vague statement so you're all assuming that I meant "he wanted to stop everyone from praying in any form whatsoever" because unfortunately it's compatible with that as well On May 28 2011 07:51 Bibdy wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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 never leaped to that point, you seem to think I did when I said nothing of the sort. I can see how you could believe that as one interpretation of what I said but it is definitely not the interpretation I intended others to use (for obvious reasons) What GGTemplar is TRYING to say is that preventing any sort of prayer, under any circumstances, state endorsed or not, is absolutely abhorrent and that if you try to defend your rights as a citizen of the U.S.A. then you deserve to be ostracized by the community, kicked out of your home and be disowned by your parents. Using GGs logic, i come to the same conclusion :O That's actually not what I'm trying to say at all, but thanks.
You should then quit arguing semantics because it looks like you're arguing for the above interpretation. The government has no right to impose religion onto its citizens. School sanctioned prayer is an example of governement imposing religion onto its citizens. You may not agree with that law, but I assure you it is there for good reason.
edit: i see you've stopped arguing semantics, sort of.
|
If I were him, I'd probably be happy to get out of that shithole town in Louisana. And to everyone in this thread who says he "should've just dealt with it", it's unconstitutional. It shouldn't be happening with or without his role in the situation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking retarded. If it's unconstitutional, in the US, it shouldn't be happening. Period.
|
On May 28 2011 08:33 CaffeineFree-_- wrote:
Wow forget the religion argument for a second, what the hell is wrong with his parents? Jesus christ if there was anyone who should have been there for him it should have been them
^^
This.
If he'd come out as gay or said he was an alcoholic or said he liked shagging goats, his parents should have supported him and said 'that's ok son, we are there for you if you need us'.
He 'came out' as an atheist. Big deal! His parents should be ashamed if they have done this. Saying that, he has to now stand on his own two feet. Having a sound mind (hes an atheist) as I'm sure he does, he should be okay.
|
On May 28 2011 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:27 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:11 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[quote]
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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" Again, you're ignoring the difference between a state-endorsed prayer, and a community prayer, and not giving any adherence to the guy's own right to freedom of religion. I'm ignoring no such difference any more than you. A prayer is a prayer and you assumed I was speaking of a type of prayer I wasn't. So, if some state governor were to bust out the Quran and start leading the Muslim people of the state in their daily prayer to Mecca, that would just be a good old-fashioned regular home-grown prayer, no different to a prayer lead by individual Muslims in their own homes, then? It would obviously not be the same. I wouldn't care though, all the power to him, each to his own.
Well, unfortunately for your apathetic attitude, it's illegal, and people would be perfectly justified in denouncing such a thing. Not the least bit unlike the subject of this thread.
|
On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? Obviously he isn't. Thankfully.
He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better.
He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
|
On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong.
So, he's responsible for other people's reactions now, is he?
|
On May 28 2011 08:29 redviper wrote:A total fabrication. Atleast one person at the school wasn't trying to have a prayer.
Okay you got me with semantics, good job. Every single literal individual was not trying to have a prayer.
On May 28 2011 08:31 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:14 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 07:48 redviper wrote: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:
[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. 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. After the full stop and period, that is entirely correct and completely compatible with "he tried to stop everyone from having their prayer" . I think a better analogy would be if you reported everyone who drove 10 mph above the speedlimit on that highway to the appropriate legal authorities and I were to say "you wanted to stop everyone from driving above the speedlimit" I am shocked that I care enough but its friday and I am waiting for nasl to start so: He DID NOT try to stop everyone from having their prayer. He tried to stop the school from having its prayer. There is a difference. And it would be entirely reasonable of me to report people going over the speed limit if I could do so without breaking the law myself. And like someone said because you don't report jaywalking I guess you won't report a burglary? Or a rape or murder either? Everyone at the school was trying to have a prayer. They can be the same exact thing if you interpret it was such which is what I did. You all didn't. Now that you know what I'm saying, would you still deny that "student ostracized for trying to stop public school from having it's prayer" is a better title than 'student ostracized for refusing to pray" I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but I don't consider jaywalking on the same level of crime as rape or murder and I'd hope you wouldn't either. No, because that title STILL assumes vindictive intent, as if he just did it to ruin everyone's good time, rather than protect his right to freedom from state-endorsed religion. Something more like "Student ostracized for defending the first amendment" would be more accurate.
But he did try to ruin everyone's good time. I still don't see how his freedom was violated up until he started getting harassed unjustly.
It's like complaining that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge because it violates your freedom. Is that really what a violation of freedom is these days?
If the alternative is not agreeable to you, what about "student ostracized for stopping public school prayer at public school ceremony which is illegal" and neither one of us can try to dumb-down or sugar-coat it because that's just telling it how it is
|
On May 28 2011 08:42 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 08:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 08:35 redviper wrote:Please stop accusing me of defending their behavior just because I think the kid didn't handle the situation differently (and in my opinion worse) than I would have handled it. I'd agree about differently. But worse? He showed courage, determination, knowledge about the law and tenancity to take action. Good qualities imo, but perhaps you prefer the ostrich algorithm? Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems? if he's anything like me. Obviously he isn't. Thankfully. He created a public shitstorm that also resulted in his parents taking a shit on him. I'd say yeah, he could've handled it better. He knew what he was doing. He can't play ignorance of saying "oh well it's the law" and expect people to not be pissed about the situation. Every party involved is wrong. So, he's responsible for other people's reactions now, is he?
While that is certainly putting words in my mouth...
Short answer: yes.
That's the way the real world works. Claiming ignorance shouldn't work on anybody past the 9th grade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
