|
On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that.
Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer.
Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul.
I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem.
|
The kid was being a douchebag, and douchebags get their asses beat by bullies. Welcome to High School? The Lesson is: Don't be that guy.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 28 2011 09:49 xHassassin wrote:
So I'm really confused.
If having organized prayer at a public event is against the constitution.
Then isn't it also illegal to take time out of the school day to have students recite the pledge of allegiance?
Isn't it also illegal to print In God We Trust on all our money?
Where is the line drawn?
Good point. We should probably be pushing more boundaries at this point. Then again, there's plenty of radical Christians around to make any "Defense of basic rights" turn into a "self-provoked shitstorm." It's just so bizarre to me that a doctrine of "do unto others" results in threats of violence, casting out, and a total failure to accept the constitution.
|
On May 28 2011 09:49 xHassassin wrote:
So I'm really confused.
If having organized prayer at a public event is against the constitution.
Then isn't it also illegal to take time out of the school day to have students recite the pledge of allegiance?
Isn't it also illegal to print In God We Trust on all our money?
Where is the line drawn?
they are all against the constitution, but we just do them anyways to keep the voters happy
|
On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem.
Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities.
|
On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem.
Dude it has nothing to do with "this modern PC world" it's illegal and has already had multiple similar cases go to court. It isn't some new development.
|
In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, 434 F.Supp.2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006), a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[26] As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.[27]
On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision,[32] the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God doesn't violate students' rights.[33]
I think the SCOTUS did not accept the appeal so I am guessing the law allows for under god in the pledge (which is absolute bullshit imo but the law is the law).
The Oath of allegience does not require the use of the phrase "so help me god".
In god we trust on money is a travesty also but the SCOTUS feels that it is not of a religious nature (same with under god in the pledge).
|
On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:I honestly think it's likely he was harassed before all this for not being Christian which makes it much more understandable that he would report this to stand up against those who harassed him, which would be a violation of freedom, but we'll never know and without that prior provocation I would hardly say his freedom is violated. Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
Stranger bumps into me on accident, so if I don't yell at him and tell him to be more careful I'm just sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the issue of letting people be careless when they're walking around instead of trying to fix the problem?
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm". I suppose it's kind of like vegetarians who argue for animal rights, they're courageous, determined, knowledgeable about the law, and have tenacity to take action too right? Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities.
And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so.
Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
|
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
The question isn't "is this kid an asshole?", it's "was this justified?" protip: the answer is yes.
|
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
The value of altruism is lost at the moment it becomes a part of your identity. Once you position others relative to yourself hierarchically as, "I'll be a better person myself" relative to being a "selfish asshole" you lose the right to claim that you are actually doing something "right" or "wrong". You are doing something to reinforce your belief in yourself. Essentially, this makes your argument irrelevant, and it also makes you a self righteous "asshole".
|
Whelp, his community further supports my belief that around 90% of christians are christian in name only.
"Practice what I preach? Fuck that this guy has views that I don't agree with"
|
On May 28 2011 10:00 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none.
Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump.
And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am.
How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none.
Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump.
And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am.
How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others. The question isn't "is this kid an asshole?", it's "was this justified?" protip: the answer is yes.
Now you're allowing the law to take over for personal responsibility or common sense. If something makes you an asshole, you should probably consider not doing it, even if you're permitted to. And, if you do it, then don't be surprised when you get shit on by your peers and parents.
|
On May 28 2011 10:01 Precipice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none.
Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump.
And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am.
How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none.
Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump.
And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am.
How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others. The value of altruism is lost at the moment it becomes a part of your identity. Once you position others relative to yourself hierarchically as, "I'll be a better person myself" relative to being a "selfish asshole" you lose the right to claim that you are actually doing something "right" or "wrong". You are doing something to reinforce your belief in yourself. Essentially, this makes your argument irrelevant, and it also makes you a self righteous "asshole".
Oh no, I used hyperbole and colorful language! Now my argument is obsolete!
|
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
No slippery slope. Someone was ostracized and disowned because he stood up to defend the law. If the law was properly enforced he wouldn't have suffered. So lets send a message to the schools that they can't endorse prayers. If they want a good graduation prayer, organize an after party at their local church, or a pre-party at a church. Don't be a douche and trample on those people who are offended by a prayer during their graduation. And while we're at it, lets send this message to teachers who decide of their own volition to disobey the law and force religion on their students. Because if we make a habit of enforcing the law then we don't have the government immorally forcing religion onto people. And yes we have to make a habit of it, or change will not occur, or perhaps regress. Because what is a law if it is not enforced?
|
Hi, my name is Bastrop High School and I like to make silly decisions that go against the law.
And while you're at it, respect me since I'm a public school.
^^i laugh when events like this happen. laugh so hard i cry. crying and laughing because i know that some people, who are in charge of a school, are just too stupid to read.
|
On May 28 2011 09:54 domovoi wrote:
The kid was being a douchebag, and douchebags get their asses beat by bullies. Welcome to High School? The Lesson is: Don't be that guy.
How was he being a douchebag?
|
Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer.
Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul.
I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem.
A public school is a body that represents the U.S. government because it is a public body. Planning a prayer and/or having it in a school held program is an endorsement. There really isn't any argument about this. I fail to see how you don't get this.
Your second paragraph basically says that it's ok to break the law as long as an overwhelming majority want to, which is precisely the point. It doesn't matter that it's just one prayer that people could sit through - it is unconstitutional (and there is no debate about this) and it's breaking the law. That's why it's right for him to oppose it. Do we let people steal things only if they steal small quantities?
Now you're allowing the law to take over for personal responsibility or common sense. If something makes you an asshole, you should probably consider not doing it, even if you're permitted to. And, if you do it, then don't be surprised when you get shit on by your peers and parents.
It's cute that you peg this kid as an asshole for standing up and calling out his school for breaking the law and doing something unconstitutional. Your definition of asshole is pretty messed up. He wasn't just trying to get people to stop something that he didn't like being done in public, he was getting something that is directly against the law stopped. What part of this do you people not understand?
|
On May 28 2011 10:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:01 Precipice wrote:On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic.
And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car.
Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic.
And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car.
Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others. The value of altruism is lost at the moment it becomes a part of your identity. Once you position others relative to yourself hierarchically as, "I'll be a better person myself" relative to being a "selfish asshole" you lose the right to claim that you are actually doing something "right" or "wrong". You are doing something to reinforce your belief in yourself. Essentially, this makes your argument irrelevant, and it also makes you a self righteous "asshole". Oh no, I used hyperbole and colorful language! Now my argument is obsolete!
Hyperbole and colorful language, in this case, are not mistakes. They are intentional stands-ins chosen to convey your argument as efficiently as possible. If you want to obfuscate this further, then, sure, let's take away the hyperbole and "colorful language". In your post you claim that because of a decision you make (where others can easily make a different decision) you are better than them. By being "better" you judge that people themselves can exist hierarchically. If you are a Christian you have already subverted your faith by imagining there to be different levels of "sinfulness". The flaw of this belief is that it creates a continuum on which people can be closer or farther from perfection. The end result of this belief is the Armenian heresy. Key word here is heresy. Anyways, if you're not a Christian, once you arrange people in hierarchies and are simultaneously involved in placing yourself onto that scale, you immediately create a personal attachment to evaluations that take place. At this point we can examine multiple, basic psychological phenomena that immediately invalidate your own estimation of others and self. However, if we choose to ignore Christianity and psychology while we're doing this, we can say that your opinion, once hierarchical, is invalid, because you will rank based on your values and not the values of others', and simply call others' values "not as good". You create a system which counters Christianity, is psychologically invalid, and is unusable because it holds itself as right by default. Either way you're religious.
|
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 09:55 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 09:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 09:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:28 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. Certainly I am on a high horse. I know this because I am on the right side of the law. I know I can't change your mind, it is almost impossible for someone to argue away religion from a person. And I do lead the crusade against not saying under god. I didn't say it when I naturalized and I would not say it if I was in a public school. I also protest wars and collateral damage. I volunteer and I donate to international charities. What I don't do is sit with my head down hoping that these problems will go away. Silence has never won anyone any new rights. Only action changes the world for the better. Oh wow I actually agree with your response. It's impossible for you to argue away religion from me because I am not religious. You're a brave one though, not saying "under god" in the pledge when you were in school. That must have taken a lot of work and been a huge inconvenience and injustice when mostly everyone around you said it. I don't sit with my head down hoping problems will go away either, you're right that silence never won anyone new rights and that action changes the world. You are wrong though when you say that action always changes the world for the better. On May 28 2011 09:31 Tor wrote:On May 28 2011 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 09:09 redviper wrote:On May 28 2011 09:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 08:54 redviper wrote:
[quote]
Why must he have some ulterior motive just because you won't stand up yourself for what is right? He couldn't just have been a believer in the law and the constitution. No, he had to have been somehow scarred to have dared raise his voice.
[quote]
Similar but the real analogy is drunk stranger hits your car and you let him go without complaining because you don't want to "raise a shit storm".
[quote]
Yes actually. Or like non vegeterians who argue for animal rights and humane treatment of animals. Or people who protest wars or torture. Or people who defend the rights of gays to marry, or not be discriminated against by employers. There is a whole host of people who show these good qualities. Obviously you don't think you are one of them. I do feel sorry for you. I'm saying I hope he did have an ulterior motive because if it was completely unprovoked, then he's not really standing up for what is right, just creating a problem where there was none. Your drunken analogy would be fine by me if the community harassed non-Christians as a matter of habit. If everybody got along fine and dandy I'd stick to the harmless stranger bump. And I actually feel sorry for you because you clearly don't know me at all, which is evidenced in your continued misunderstanding of who you think I am. How can you even compare torture to this situation at all unless you're just biased against all forms of religion entirely. Unprovoked? They are breaking the law. It is not like they were passing out ponies and puppies and someone protested because they don't like ponies and puppies. They were violating the first ammendment. The constitution, the entire foundation of the american republic. And obviously the community has not much tolerance for non-Christians but even if they did they were breaking the law for many years. They weren't just one drunk guy hitting your car, it was a pattern of drunk guys hitting your car. Honestly I know hundreds of people like you. The silent majority we call them. They live under oppresive regimes and suffer a multitude of small humiliations daily through out their life. They never stand up for what they believe in because of the risk of personal loss. Everything that happens to them is acceptable as long as they are allowed to go through their life without an acute slap to the face. And the only anger they show to anyone is towards those who dare challenge the system. Rather than oppose the people who humiliate them they would rather side with them. Haha okay pal, you know hundreds of people like me just as much as I know hundreds of people like you, tell me if I got this right: "The spoiled high-horsers. They sit upon their high horses with their sense of entitlement and think that anyone who speaks publicly of something they disagree with, they are breaking the law and are morally unjust. How dare he say something I know to be completely absurd? I am offended by his insolence. This corruption cannot stand on my watch! Never should anyone have to hear something they disagree with in a public school!!! Anyone who doesn't join the just cause is a bloody coward, that's the only way to explain it!" It's like it never occurred to you that someone just doesn't agree with you and possibly doesn't think that it is as bad as you make it out to be. Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it injustice. See my perspective is that you're just being silly with a delusional sense of self-righteousness and if you want to fight for something fight to end wars or poverty or the millions of children dying in third world countries from starvation and disease. But I guess you could also lead the crusade against having the public say "under god" every time they say the pledge. Just as noble a cause, I'm sure the dead soldiers/civilian collateral and starving children will understand why you didn't fight for them instead. How about we fix as much as we can including the little things that lead us to becoming a more tolerant and welcoming society. Why do you spend your energy defending something that is against the law and that can easily be fixed? This is a root issue about tolerance. It is absolutely worth fighting for, and while it may not ring as nicely as world peace, it is in it's own way a step forward for society. Remove the seeds of intolerance and allow the world to grow free of its weeds. It's ironic you say that because I consider my ideas the ones in favor of freedom and tolerance, rather than oppressing people from publicly speaking their beliefs just because you disagree with them. You don't understand the difference between government sanctioned prayer and prayer. People can express their beliefs in public, but a school official can't endorse one belief over the other I don't get why you can't understand that. Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer. Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul. I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem. Nope, majority does not = right, they're feelings aren't better than the minorities. And I think as a person, you should not be a big enough douche to allow yourself to be discomforted for a minute if it's beneficial or enjoyable to many others. Once again, slippery slope can twist those words beyond stupidity, so I encourage anybody quoting this to avoid doing so. Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
Suppose I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 dB over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain, but I don't want to make a big deal about this, so I call the host of the party and in private tell him to turn the volume down because it's against the law to have music that loud. The host complies and everyone is happy. Then we find out that someone overhead your conversation, so the party-goers all storm to your house and shout through your windows calling you a dirty music hater who will burn for not liking their music. They harass you, follow you around, and threaten you with bodily harm. Your parents disown you because the music you told the neighbor to turn down happened to be from their favorite band. Now, I guess you could say this would all have been avoided if you just didn't talk to the neighbor, but you'd think that what happens in private would stay in private, and I doubt the kid would expect the conversation to have gone out somehow. Anyone who says that the kid should have expected his involvement to have been leaked is just being unrealistic.
|
On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
Where you lose me is that I don't see it as an endorsement. AND, even if it was an endorsement, it shouldn't matter. These are 18 year old students graduating high school. If 1 prayer in public suddenly shakes your faith (or lack of it) to its core, then I say good for the prayer. Religion is deeply important to society and the world as a whole, and if something makes you question your own or even reaffirm it, more power to the prayer.
Now, should there be a prayer performed there? No. In this modern, PC world it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and the school district should've stopped it. However, they didn't and it's part of tradition. If a few people can't stand sitting in silence for 1 minute while people around them partake in prayer without getting their panties in a bunch, I just don't know what to say. He should have accepted that the overwhelming majority of people wanted the prayer to be said and heard, and simply sat in silence. No harm, no foul.
I know people looooooove to respond with a slippery slope argument. But seeing as I will never subscribe to that kind of logic, I don't see it as a legitimate problem.
A public school is a body that represents the U.S. government because it is a public body. Planning a prayer and/or having it in a school held program is an endorsement. There really isn't any argument about this. I fail to see how you don't get this. Your second paragraph basically says that it's ok to break the law as long as an overwhelming majority want to, which is precisely the point. It doesn't matter that it's just one prayer that people could sit through - it is unconstitutional (and there is no debate about this) and it's breaking the law. That's why it's right for him to oppose it. Do we let people steal things only if they steal small quantities?
I understand it completely. I'm saying it shouldn't matter, however. That's my argument. I full well, 100%, completely, non-erroneously, understand that it was completely within the student's rights to complain to have the illegal school prayer removed.
However, it doesn't change my opinion that he should've sat their and took it instead. I know atheists in particular would love to see religion completely abolished from the public sphere... but that simply wont happen. It's an unrealistic notion in modern society and attempting to pretend it doesn't exist seems ridiculous to me. Religion is an important part of life, whether you subscribe to any particular one or not. Also, these types of things only cause further backlash from the religious community causing more strife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
