|
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.
I like how you compared people paying with their own money to have a barbecue in their own property and having music slightly too loud, versus a flagrant breach of the law on in a public school paid for by money from the government which says that entire activity is not allowed.
It's incredible how religious cronyism has infected this thread. The kid was well within his rights, and was right in what he did. Someone had to do it eventually. This is a story of a kid who stood up for the law in a situation of adversity and got a massive shitstorm on him to the extent his family disowned him. What the school did in response was far more childish than ANYTHING the kid did, and that says something profound.
Christian charity is nowhere to be found in this case, and is anyone surprised? It's just as much of a myth as the rest of the faith.
But hey, atheists are the most openly disliked group in America (according to studies, far higher than black people, jews, homosexuals etc). It's the last group that is socially acceptable to openly call bad.
|
On May 28 2011 10:11 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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.
It's good to know that you support the idea of people keeping quiet to keep peace at the cost of liberties and/or adherence to the law.
|
On May 28 2011 10:11 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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.
So you're saying atheists just shouldn't do anything because there will be a backlash? Good Lord Almighty that's not a threat. God damn if you just used a slippery slope argument after saying earlier they are invalid. It's almost like you're arguing a political point with no real validation. I would wager that there are plenty of people who understand the role and (get ready for this) importance of religion in society, without believing in it. To suggest that religion is going to be forcibly removed from all aspects of society is ridiculous; it's probably how people justify a "backlash". In any case, I guess we should all trust the judgment and opinions of a group of people who take their morals from a non-existent being, as opposed to the rest of us who just naturally... care about people.
|
On May 28 2011 10:09 Precipice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
Although, there is something to be said about the practicality of moral superiority and its usefulness in shaping culture and society, this is neither the time or place. I suppose I could mind fuck the whole equation away by simply stating I had no choice in my imaginative scenario. Assuming I have no free will, nor does anybody else, then these hierarchies might exist but are ultimately meaningless because they're obtained through no personal choice.
Quite frankly, the absurdity of this debate can't stem out in any more directions or my head will explode so I wont continue along this particular path.
|
On May 28 2011 10:11 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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.
You are completely misrepresenting what was attempted. Atheists (and normal intelligent people) would love to have religion not be a part of the government. There should be no religious test for public office, religion should not factor into the making of laws (hello abortion!), public schools shouldn't teach religion except as history or fiction.
No one cares if people want to stand at the street corner and pray loudly. Infact I'd strongly support their right to do so.
|
On May 28 2011 10:19 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:09 Precipice wrote:On May 28 2011 10:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Although, there is something to be said about the practicality of moral superiority and its usefulness in shaping culture and society, this is neither the time or place. I suppose I could mind fuck the whole equation away by simply stating I had no choice in my imaginative scenario. Assuming I have no free will, nor does anybody else, then these hierarchies might exist but are ultimately meaningless because they're obtained through no personal choice. Quite frankly, the absurdity of this debate can't stem out in any more directions or my head will explode so I wont continue along this particular path.
The analogy itself states choice. Therefore, changing the analogy is irrelevant. That's like playing 3rd grade kickball and changing the rules mid game just so you can win. It's not going to fly now that we're in the 4th grade kid. The fact of the matter is that several of us in this thread have shown that you are absolutely wrong. You can retire from the thread now, or attempt to successfully rebuttal any one of us. Frankly, I suggest leaving.
|
On May 28 2011 10:11 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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.
No he shouldn't have kept silent. Nobody should. Why? Because the law allows complete equality to all religions by keeping schools secular. Why must religion be (i hate this cliché, but its fitting) shoved down everyone's throats? That's exactly whats happened here.
Atheists know that getting rid of religion completely (and the ones of us that have spent 5 minutes looking at a history book know that persecuting religion is exactly the wrong way to get rid of it) isn't worth doing because it does help some people. Our problem is when it fucks up peoples lives (theocracies, brainwashing, lying, fundamentalism) or is forced upon us.
If religion was kept as it should be, a personal helper that people keep to themselves (but they can obviously hold religious festivals and suchlike, prayer meetings, all that jazz, just like every other hobby/club/society) we would have no complaint.
But its not. Its extremely pervasive, and it screws people up big time.
And lol@ the good samaritan in this case being the atheists. Oh dear religious people, you dig your own grave, there is nothing atheists could do to make you appear more ridiculous than you do yourself.
|
On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote:Show nested quote +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?
People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias.
If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag.
The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things.
|
On May 28 2011 10:23 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote: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? People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias. If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag. The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things.
You mean basically if anyone commits the ultimate sin of dissent they are douchebags.
Thanks for clearing that up.
|
On May 28 2011 10:23 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote: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? People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias. If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag. The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things.
That doesn't make him a douchebag - that makes you a dick for calling him one. And you're basically saying that there are more important things to worry about so we shouldn't care? Well that's great logic.
|
On May 28 2011 10:23 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote: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? People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias. If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag. The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things.
Yes I do remember studying the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of cafeteria food." Clearly these things are on the exact same level.
|
On May 28 2011 10:25 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:23 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote: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? People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias. If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag. The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things. You mean basically if anyone commits the ultimate sin of dissent they are douchebags. Thanks for clearing that up.
In the bible when the sheep breaks from the flock the good shepherd seeks out the sheep to help it and bring it back.
In Christianity, the sheep is bullied, ostracized and excommunicated.
|
Why must religion be (i hate this cliché, but its fitting) shoved down everyone's throats?
Was he forced to convert? Sitting through a boring-ass one minute prayer is not shoving religion down your throat, feel free to ignore it if you're an atheist. I've had to sit through bullshit political commencement speeches by ultra-liberal speakers, which is way worse than a school prayer in terms of shoving ideology down someone's throat, but who cares? Just suck it up like everyone else does when sitting through a speech they disagree with.
|
On May 28 2011 10:26 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:23 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:06 CDRdude wrote: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? People who complain about school prayer are douchebags. Same with people who complain about the political affiliation of their commencement speaker. Or people who complain about Jerry Springer speaking at a commencement. Or people who complain about fatty foods being served in cafeterias. If someone complained that tator tots should be banned because they are a health hazard, I'm pretty certain the other students are going to hate him for it. That's just the nature of high school: if you get rid of something everyone else likes, you're a douchebag. The bullies in this situation are pathetic, but the atheist tears are misplaced. Far more heinous things occur in high school over even more mundane things. Yes I do remember studying the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of cafeteria food." Clearly these things are on the exact same level.
Legally they are not, but you're not a lawyer so why should you care. Morally, people care more about food than they do about religion.
|
On May 28 2011 10:16 Precipice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:11 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 10:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. So you're saying atheists just shouldn't do anything because there will be a backlash? Good Lord Almighty that's not a threat. God damn if you just used a slippery slope argument after saying earlier they are invalid. It's almost like you're arguing a political point with no real validation. I would wager that there are plenty of people who understand the role and (get ready for this) importance of religion in society, without believing in it. To suggest that religion is going to be forcibly removed from all aspects of society is ridiculous; it's probably how people justify a "backlash". In any case, I guess we should all trust the judgment and opinions of a group of people who take their morals from a non-existent being, as opposed to the rest of us who just naturally... care about people.
I'd hardly say that by sparking a public debate about religion vs atheism and the public forum will lead to backlash from the religious community as a slippery slope. I'd say it's closer to the logical path that all arguments involving religion and public schools take, including the very current one at the time of me posting this. It's not 12 steps down the line, it's here now, hell, and partially behind us already.
I'm not quite sure where the second half of your post meanders to though. I don't agree with anybody. I'm not looking for the morals from them any more than I am of atheists. My morals on the issue stem from something closer to the idea of common courtesy. The uncomfortableness 1 person will have from having to listen to a minute of prayer is insignificant on any scale. However, the results aren't miniscule. I don't like anybody involved.
|
On May 28 2011 10:27 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Why must religion be (i hate this cliché, but its fitting) shoved down everyone's throats? Was he forced to convert? Sitting through a boring-ass one minute prayer is not shoving religion down your throat, feel free to ignore it if you're an atheist. I've had to sit through bullshit political commencement speeches by ultra-liberal speakers, which is way worse than a school prayer in terms of shoving ideology down someone's throat, but who cares? Just suck it up like everyone else does when sitting through a speech they disagree with.
1. Being forced to convert is not the only way religion can be shoved down your throat. Being forced to listen to it when its against the law is as well.
2. You'd be right, if the liberal speeches were illegal. And I disagree, at least liberalism has some thought behind it. Fanatacism, zealotry and flock-following have a no brain required sign on their doors.
|
On May 28 2011 10:21 Precipice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:19 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 28 2011 10:09 Precipice wrote:On May 28 2011 10:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Although, there is something to be said about the practicality of moral superiority and its usefulness in shaping culture and society, this is neither the time or place. I suppose I could mind fuck the whole equation away by simply stating I had no choice in my imaginative scenario. Assuming I have no free will, nor does anybody else, then these hierarchies might exist but are ultimately meaningless because they're obtained through no personal choice. Quite frankly, the absurdity of this debate can't stem out in any more directions or my head will explode so I wont continue along this particular path. The analogy itself states choice. Therefore, changing the analogy is irrelevant. That's like playing 3rd grade kickball and changing the rules mid game just so you can win. It's not going to fly now that we're in the 4th grade kid. The fact of the matter is that several of us in this thread have shown that you are absolutely wrong. You can retire from the thread now, or attempt to successfully rebuttal any one of us. Frankly, I suggest leaving.
LoL, what? So now I don't know my own mind. Matter of fact, I'd lean towards not believing in free will. I've never made up my mind on the idea of determinism, but it certainly makes more sense to me than liberal free ill or soft-determinism.
However, if I were to remove the word "choice" or any semblance of the world from my vocabulary, just to make sure I'm perfectly logically consistent in every sentence I ever type, I'm pretty sure it would only add to the confusion. If you want to go back to the analogy and leave the idea of free will in, simply remove the idea of better or worse from a moral standpoint and replace it with the idea of merely self-sacrifice by benefiting society more than you previously were, regardless of any morality attached to better or worse.
|
On May 28 2011 10:27 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Why must religion be (i hate this cliché, but its fitting) shoved down everyone's throats? Was he forced to convert? Sitting through a boring-ass one minute prayer is not shoving religion down your throat, feel free to ignore it if you're an atheist. I've had to sit through bullshit political commencement speeches by ultra-liberal speakers, which is way worse than a school prayer in terms of shoving ideology down someone's throat, but who cares? Just suck it up like everyone else does when sitting through a speech they disagree with.
Way worse according to whom? While you may not put much behind school prayers, this guy obviously does. It could be much worse for him to sit through that. Given how religious his community is, he probably had to sit through it his entire life. This might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
|
On May 28 2011 10:31 Vore210 wrote:
1. Being forced to convert is not the only way religion can be shoved down your throat. Being forced to listen to it when its against the law is as well.
Please, let's not put the law on some pedestal. If the commencement speaker had decided to pray out loud and all the students joined in, that would have been perfectly legal. And exactly the same as a school prayer.
2. You'd be right, if the liberal speeches were illegal. And I disagree, at least liberalism has some thought behind it. Fanatacism, zealotry and flock-following have a no brain required sign on their doors.
Liberalism has as much thought behind it as every other ideology out there: none at all. I agree that liberalism is "better" for society, but this is based on an arbitrarily chosen measure of society that I prefer. Most people support liberalism because that's just the fucking environment they grew up in. Sad to say, but most of us growing up in 1930's Italy would have been all gung-ho for Fascism.
Ideology is the same thing as religion.
|
On May 28 2011 10:34 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:27 domovoi wrote:Why must religion be (i hate this cliché, but its fitting) shoved down everyone's throats? Was he forced to convert? Sitting through a boring-ass one minute prayer is not shoving religion down your throat, feel free to ignore it if you're an atheist. I've had to sit through bullshit political commencement speeches by ultra-liberal speakers, which is way worse than a school prayer in terms of shoving ideology down someone's throat, but who cares? Just suck it up like everyone else does when sitting through a speech they disagree with. Way worse according to whom? While you may not put much behind school prayers, this guy obviously does. It could be much worse for him to sit through that. Given how religious his community is, he probably had to sit through it his entire life. This might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
Ok, let's say the guy hates religion. I'm sure he would've found it way worse for the commencement speaker to give a 10 minute sermon about how atheists are going to hell. Which is perfectly legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
