On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote: 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.
Say I'm driving my car and I hit your car. Now you have every right to get me to pay for the damage. But you shouldn't be a selfish asshole and concede so I'm not inconvenienced financially.
That's about as applicable as your dumbass analogy.
Secularism leads to radical Islam, ofc, for those of you not aware of what people can get away with saying in America, although he was speaking in a church. Newt Gingrich was a possible Republican presidential, probably not anymore because he pissed off Republicans with a different comment though.
On May 28 2011 21:35 BlackMagister wrote: Secularism leads to radical Islam, ofc, for those of you not aware of what people can get away with saying in America, although he was speaking in a church. Newt Gingrich was a possible Republican presidential, probably not anymore because he pissed off Republicans with a different comment though.
Although? It would seem precisely because... groupthink. Rather, group-notthink.
Well I made it sound like the entirety of America agreed with what he said, some people did call him out on it, but those people would not be present when he is at church. Anyways this comment while a problem to some people was not that big of deal for his campaign apparently because secularism is viewed as bad thing by the far right.
Secularism which is not atheism. It simply means a separation of religion and government and is supported by religious groups as well because it is important for freedom of religion. Religious groups fled to America to avoid religious persecution, just now descendents of those groups are the ones in power.
The bottom line is that if one religion gets to pray in school, every religion that is legally recognized as a religion should get an invite to pray at that school.
That is why official school sponsored prayer is illegal. It's blatant favoritism for Christianity.
You guys don't care about a persons' right to pray. You care about the fact that someone wants to obey a law that you don't like.
im not sure why this school prayer was even still happening at this time, lee v weisman in 1992 specifically bans any type of prayer in a graduation ceremony, even one designed to be as secular as possible. Even a mandatory moment of silence is shaky due to the courts ruling overturning just such an alabama law in wallace v jafree 1985.
I think knowing his situation, he should have just obliged and pretended to pray. It's fine that he's standing up for his rights, but as you can see, he didn't gain as much as he lost especially if he knew (and he most likely did) that the surrounding community around him as well as the governing body, were heavily christian.
It's just a bad move on his part, he should have considered more than his individual rights that don't necessarily hurt or affect him to the extent or degree he is in now.
The student was fully within his right to object to the prayer, it has been declared unconstitutional, it was illegal, and it violated his rights. the constitution is supposed to protect students like him from the tyranny of the majority.
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in.
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. .
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic.
Agnosticism is NOT the logical choice. If you approach the "god" concept from the point of view of describing the world, then you should apply the principle of parsimony and therefore position that there is no god is default position that does not require proof. The same way as position that dwarfs and elfs exist and that I have unicorns in my bed. Burden of proof lies on the side proposing existence of something. Agnosticism is high-horse position that some people hypocritically use for some theoretical questions like god, yet never actually do so in real life. In real life they all base their decisions on the fact that orcs are not real, wizards do not exists, etc.
That's a good point.
Actually my post got quoted so many times I'm sure I said something silly (sad truth of forums these days).
I can't claim God doesn't exist with 100% certainty as I simply don't know that but I personally don't believe he exists either; same as with the elf and monsters you will have to prove to me that they exist to convince me i.e. burden of proof is on the one claiming they do exist.
On May 29 2011 02:19 Eknoid4 wrote: The bottom line is that if one religion gets to pray in school, every religion that is legally recognized as a religion should get an invite to pray at that school.
That is why official school sponsored prayer is illegal. It's blatant favoritism for Christianity.
You guys don't care about a persons' right to pray. You care about the fact that someone wants to obey a law that you don't like.
this is actually a good point.
Before I was a bit unsure as to how to approach this. I mean the kid does seem like being somewhat of a smartass but at the same time the shit storm that happened is really REALLY unnecessary, especially how the parents reacted.
I guess it really depends on the kid's real motive. Did he really call the school and ask to stop the prayer because of actual belief that it is wrong and students should be bound as such? Does he actually see and agree with the whole religion BS concept in graduation? Or did he do it for some stupid ass reason (which I'm guessing is what is fueling the shit storm currently)?
All this relates to that one book ("nothing but the truth"?), about how the truth is distorted in order to protect one's ulterior motive, and teaches ultimately that the real truth can never be discovered because of this.
it actually doesn't matter if he was doing it to be a smart ass or because he was concerned. the fact of the matter is, the prayer was illegal, has been illegal for 20 years and shouldn't even still be happening.
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote: 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.
Say I'm driving my car and I hit your car. Now you have every right to get me to pay for the damage. But you shouldn't be a selfish asshole and concede so I'm not inconvenienced financially.
That's about as applicable as your dumbass analogy.
In his analogy, multiple people are enjoying themselves at only a slight inconvenience to him. In your analogy, he is being directly hurt financially because of your stupidity. His analogy is much more applicable than yours.
I'm always amazed at the depth of hypocrisy these fanatics display. Death threats and public demeaning of someone because they support the constitution?
Oh I'm so sorry your little prayer session wasn't sponsored by government funding from taxpayer dollars, my deepest condolences.
How can people possibly think death threats are appropriate in the name of their god which they say is all-loving but will send you to hell for things like death threats and murder...
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in.
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. .
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic.
Agnosticism is NOT the logical choice. If you approach the "god" concept from the point of view of describing the world, then you should apply the principle of parsimony and therefore position that there is no god is default position that does not require proof. The same way as position that dwarfs and elfs exist and that I have unicorns in my bed. Burden of proof lies on the side proposing existence of something. Agnosticism is high-horse position that some people hypocritically use for some theoretical questions like god, yet never actually do so in real life. In real life they all base their decisions on the fact that orcs are not real, wizards do not exists, etc.
That's a good point.
Actually my post got quoted so many times I'm sure I said something silly (sad truth of forums these days).
I can't claim God doesn't exist with 100% certainty as I simply don't know that but I personally don't believe he exists either; same as with the elf and monsters you will have to prove to me that they exist to convince me i.e. burden of proof is on the one claiming they do exist.
So what does that make me then?
Agnostic atheist. The idiot that originally quoted you with the "LOLGUYS AGNOSTIC R LOGICAL DURR" clearly had no comprehension of agnosticism, or atheism, considering the two aren't mutually exclusive.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
You can pray all you want, but you can't use government time to force people to watch you pray.
End of story.
Well that's not really true. You can have a "moment of silence" wherein you can pray, but the school itself cannot tell you what to do with that moment of silence.
I don't see how anyone can think it's as cut and dry as, "Christians try to shove their beliefs down your throat and Atheists always try to prove you wrong." Nobody would be comfortable discriminating people's race in this way, yet when the argument turns into Christians vs. Atheists, everyone yells ignorant stereotypes.
So the kid, legally, has every right to do this. The school legally can not and honestly should not have a prayer time set into their graduation. But it's not only because some people may be Atheist (and that it's illegal anyway) , but if one religion can pray, then every religion represented in the school should be able to pray too. There are many people who don't say, "One nation under God," because they're Hindu, Muslim, or just any form of non-Christian.
Though, you have to wonder what his reasoning for trying to stop the prayer was. Did he really feel strongly about the separation of church and state, and non-Christians rights to pray or not listen to Christian prayers, or was he just being kind of assholish? If my Hindu friend prays for me, I'm not going to say, "I'm not Hindu, so shut up." It's just rude. A prayer in any religion is harmless and an act of good intention, and I'd much rather sit through the prayer than a horridly biased political commencement speech. Yet not many people seem to think twice about the speech, or any teacher who shove their political views down children's throats, but everyone's up in arms about a harmless prayer.
I think he shouldn't have done it out of respect; it's a prayer that won't harm him and will bring happiness to the (I'm assuming) Christian majority of students. But maybe listening to ideals he didn't believe in was something he had to sit through his entire life, and this was the one thing that set him off.
Kids being a smartass and you guys want to defend him? rofl. The school was totally within their rights to have a prayer at a graduation, it is his choice if he wants to pray or not. Nobody would've made him and he went and made a huge shit deal about it because hes athiest.
I happen to be athiest too, but throwing atheism in religions face is as bad as them trying to convert us and damn us to hell. If you don't like what people chose to believe then shut the fuck up, it's their belief not yours.
On May 29 2011 07:56 Synapze wrote: Kids being a smartass and you guys want to defend him? rofl. The school was totally within their rights to have a prayer at a graduation, it is his choice if he wants to pray or not. Nobody would've made him and he went and made a huge shit deal about it because hes athiest.
I happen to be athiest too, but throwing atheism in religions face is as bad as them trying to convert us and damn us to hell. If you don't like what people chose to believe then shut the fuck up, it's their belief not yours.
Your post is not only factually incorrect, but also shortsighted and presumptuous. If you had read anything within the thread you would know it was certainly not within their rights, and several similar cases have proven this.
You can pray all you want, but you can't use government time to force people to watch you pray.
End of story.
Well that's not really true. You can have a "moment of silence" wherein you can pray, but the school itself cannot tell you what to do with that moment of silence.
not entirely refer to wallace v jafree 1985, supreme court ruling. in summary, they struck down an alabama law that allowed mandatory moments of silence, among other things, though i can't remember off hand if it was because the law was too broad or something along those lines. more recently the court refused to accept an appeal in an Illinois case about mandatory moments of silence in class, so that is a grey area right now. (the state supreme court ruling allows it)
EPT
