|
On May 30 2011 10:25 BlackMagister wrote:It's kind of disturbing how people relish in dreaming about how others will suffer eternally in hell. Second what his parents did was wrong, but wasn't anything special in the context of the community. I'm sure a lot of parents in that community would have kicked out their children if they did what Damon did. Really it's not like his parents are demons incarnate, they just have horrible misconceptions that they've been raised believing. According to Damon he wasn't kicked out of his home when they found out he was an atheist (he was outed by someone else a few weeks before this incident), he was kicked out when they found out he opposed his prayer. His parents like many people in the community are too used to thinking of themselves as being in the right simply because they are the majority. Being an atheist is one thing, but to actually question them is another , the death threats and horrible comments were not by just a few people. Oh another interesting thing is Damon said he overheard them planning to jump him after graduation, but he got out of their as soon as it ended plus there was extra protection that the school had to provide because of the Freedom from Religion group. Although the school claimed it was to protect the students from atheists. http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml
One of the most baffling things I've ever heard is the statement "Christianity(any of the religions with a similar hell) gives me comfort." Really? You are comforted by the fact that you believe billions will burn eternally in unfathomable suffering?
|
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:
I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The constitution states that they should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Making a law which allows for public funds to be allocated for prayer would be making a law "respecting an establishment of religion." Note that there are exceptions to this. For example, public bodies are allowed to open with a prayer, so long as they use a system which allows for all religions in their region to alternate(for example, one week you will have a Christian prayer, next week a Muslim one, next week a secular humanist will give a statement). Education is a bit different: as the intent of a school is to educate, the law is much more strict, as it can be more clearly seen as endorsing a specific religion.
The amendment was actually made both to protect the secular nature of society, and to protect religions, and religious denominations. At the time the constitution was written there was no freedom of religion in Europe. If you did not follow one of the officially allowed denominations of Christianity you would often be persecuted. In order to avoid such a situation the clause was made, establishing a secular society.
|
On May 30 2011 10:30 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:25 BlackMagister wrote:It's kind of disturbing how people relish in dreaming about how others will suffer eternally in hell. Second what his parents did was wrong, but wasn't anything special in the context of the community. I'm sure a lot of parents in that community would have kicked out their children if they did what Damon did. Really it's not like his parents are demons incarnate, they just have horrible misconceptions that they've been raised believing. According to Damon he wasn't kicked out of his home when they found out he was an atheist (he was outed by someone else a few weeks before this incident), he was kicked out when they found out he opposed his prayer. His parents like many people in the community are too used to thinking of themselves as being in the right simply because they are the majority. Being an atheist is one thing, but to actually question them is another , the death threats and horrible comments were not by just a few people. Oh another interesting thing is Damon said he overheard them planning to jump him after graduation, but he got out of their as soon as it ended plus there was extra protection that the school had to provide because of the Freedom from Religion group. Although the school claimed it was to protect the students from atheists. http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml One of the most baffling things I've ever heard is the statement "Christianity(any of the religions with a similar hell) gives me comfort." Really? You are comforted by the fact that you believe billions will burn eternally in unfathomable suffering?
actually its probably more the comfort that if you live your life in a god pleasing way you will be rewarded with eternal paradise
as for the ones that will burn, well, they had their chance to choose, they chose poorly
|
On May 30 2011 10:35 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:30 Olinim wrote:On May 30 2011 10:25 BlackMagister wrote:It's kind of disturbing how people relish in dreaming about how others will suffer eternally in hell. Second what his parents did was wrong, but wasn't anything special in the context of the community. I'm sure a lot of parents in that community would have kicked out their children if they did what Damon did. Really it's not like his parents are demons incarnate, they just have horrible misconceptions that they've been raised believing. According to Damon he wasn't kicked out of his home when they found out he was an atheist (he was outed by someone else a few weeks before this incident), he was kicked out when they found out he opposed his prayer. His parents like many people in the community are too used to thinking of themselves as being in the right simply because they are the majority. Being an atheist is one thing, but to actually question them is another , the death threats and horrible comments were not by just a few people. Oh another interesting thing is Damon said he overheard them planning to jump him after graduation, but he got out of their as soon as it ended plus there was extra protection that the school had to provide because of the Freedom from Religion group. Although the school claimed it was to protect the students from atheists. http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml One of the most baffling things I've ever heard is the statement "Christianity(any of the religions with a similar hell) gives me comfort." Really? You are comforted by the fact that you believe billions will burn eternally in unfathomable suffering? actually its probably more the comfort that if you live your life in a god pleasing way you will be rewarded with eternal paradise
Obviously that's the part that brings them comfort I just find it completely lacking in empathy, if you really believe that I don't see how you could possibly have any peace or happiness knowing the inevitable amount of never ending pain. Also you have an unbelievably perverse sense of justice if you think a poor choice is worthy of everlasting damnation.
|
On May 30 2011 08:48 aoeua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state." This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity. A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution. Yes, if you're looking for something else than what was intended. Just, fyi, that's not how law works. How do you know what was intended? You don't. You read the Constitution, and precisely what it prohibits in this instance is very clear. It does not prohibit publicly funded bodies to hold a prayer in public. It prohibits Congress to pass laws about religious organisations.
Apart from the fact that other people have already told you that you're off in your conclusion, I'd like to add that the Supreme Court is there to interpret the constitution, and the intentions of those who wrote it. In fact, this is the case in almost all criminal cases, you interpret the law and the thoughts behind them. Sometimes it's clear and at other times it is less so. I don't claim to know jack shit about the constitution or the founding fathers intentions, but that's not my job either.
|
I know this is alot to ask, but can I read this from a source that is at least somewhat un-biased?
|
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just.
What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers!
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
A publically funded body receives funding from the government. This entails Congress passing a budget (which is basically a law) allocating funds to this body. If the body offers prayer, which is a religious practice, then Congress has enacted a law respecting the establishment of religion.
This is a necessary conclusion because Congress has enacted law (providing funding to an entity), that entity then offers public prayer (a tool or vehicle by which religion asserts itself) making it an establishment of religion. There, I didn't even need to consult case authority.
Re: Intention of the Founding Fathers. None of them were atheists, and the track record behind the American colonies (at least the northern ones) birthed from giving religious minorities a place for them to practice their religion free from the oppression of the larger more established religions. There was a desire to escape the Church of England, and other religions in other countries which existed in tandem with the government. This impetus carried through to the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the First Amendment.
One thing to take note of was that the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was a sort of blackmail from the 12 States (Rhode Island did not contribute), who refused to ratify the Constitution without a sort of guarantee on the limits of the Federal government's power. From this you can consider the implication that the First Amendment was a codification of the states' wills and intentions.
Most State Constitutions, on the other hand, merely guaranteed the rights of their citizens to free exercise of the 'Christian religions', or freedom to 'worship God' however they chose, not the freedom to be atheist and free of impression from other religions. The First Amendment, however, is much broader in scope than the individual State Constitution.
Take from that what you will. Personally I do not think the theory that it was the Framers' intent to separate religion from the State, it was only their intent to keep one particular sect from being official within the State; on the other hand, basic generalities between the religions in practice at the time (i.e., the Christian religions) were perfectly acceptable as official government expressions. Most State Constitutions call upon God, or the Creator, and recognize God as an integral part of society, and I don't think the concept of 'separation of Church and State' existed then as it exists now. The only reason public prayer is banned in modern times is due to changing modern sensibility, it has nothing to do with Framers' intent.
I would also like to add that it doesn't even make sense to consider Framers' intent in the issue at heart. The First Amendment originally only applied to Congress, i.e., the Federal government. It did not apply to the States, or the cities and municipalities within the State. It is incomprehensible to ask what the Framers intended in cases like this, because the Framers viewed education as a State concern, not a Federal one; on top of that, the First Amendment didn't even apply to State laws. So how is it even possible for there to be Framers' Intent? How could the Framers have predicted that the 14th Amendment would be passed and the Bill of Rights (which they didn't even write) would be applicable to State and Municipal laws?
|
On May 30 2011 11:03 TheBatman wrote:
I know this is alot to ask, but can I read this from a source that is at least somewhat un-biased?
unlikely, this kind of news story is more sensationalist than anything else
|
Its so great sitting in the middle. neither being atheist or religious. i can laugh at the stupidity and douchebaggery of each side. both need to grow up... Atheism the hipster religion.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 30 2011 10:55 HellRoxYa wrote:
Apart from the fact that other people have already told you that you're off in your conclusion, I'd like to add that the Supreme Court is there to interpret the constitution, and the intentions of those who wrote it. In fact, this is the case in almost all criminal cases, you interpret the law and the thoughts behind them. Sometimes it's clear and at other times it is less so. I don't claim to know jack shit about the constitution or the founding fathers intentions, but that's not my job either.
This is actually not true. If the plain language of the statute or provision is clear, then the interpretation stops there. If the plain language is ambiguous, you look to the context of the law or provision. If this does not help, you look to other parts of the overarching statute or article to help your understanding. If the meaning is still unclear, you consider the history of the law by comparing previous drafts. If this still sheds no light, then you go to the intention of those who enacted the law. Normally, at least for Acts of Congress, the intention is spelled out in the 'Congressional Findings' section (detailing the reasons and factual circumstance which led Congress to believe legislative action was required). However, even relying on intention is a crapshoot. If you have 100 legislators voting to enact a law, you could have up to 100 intentions for enacting the law. How do you resolve legislative intent from that? How can you even say there is a conceivable 'intent'?
The intention of those who wrote the law is the last thing you consider. The people who vote to enact or ratify a law will rarely vote depending on why they think the drafter wrote the law the way he did. Sometimes they will (but rarely--if they were that concerned they would propose amendments--and if there are amendments, why would you still consider the original intent of the drafter, when the amendments' purpose was to CHANGE what the original drafter wanted?).
tldr: Intent is a pretty worthless concept in interpreting a law. There is only one intent: what you can read in the text of the law.
|
On May 30 2011 12:15 SC2Joker wrote:
Its so great sitting in the middle. neither being atheist or religious. i can laugh at the stupidity and douchebaggery of each side. both need to grow up... Atheism the hipster religion.
The people that sit in the middle on their high-horse are just as bad as the rest, just in a different way.
|
It's really sad how violent and hateful religious people get when anything is said about their religion that they don't like. It makes me very sad to read things like this. All he wanted was to have his school abide by the constitution which explicitly states no such prayer in public schools, and everyone turns on him. I really don't know how people can do that, or how some people can defend what those people did saying he somehow deserved it, it really just boggles the mind.
I really, really hope that one day such religious people will learn to keep their religion to themselves instead of trying to forcefully convert everyone that isn't like them, and condemn those who won't convert.
|
All this thread really does is embolden the fact that American Christians can't grasp the idea that it's illegal for them to claim government favoritism.
|
On May 30 2011 12:15 SC2Joker wrote:
Its so great sitting in the middle. neither being atheist or religious. i can laugh at the stupidity and douchebaggery of each side. both need to grow up... Atheism the hipster religion.
Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Your post has every amount of douchebaggery and stupidity that could ever exist in any other post about religion.
It says "Hey look you're all stupid and i'm not because i'm safe in my right decision-making"
|
On May 30 2011 12:15 SC2Joker wrote:
Its so great sitting in the middle. neither being atheist or religious. i can laugh at the stupidity and douchebaggery of each side. both need to grow up... Atheism the hipster religion.
By sitting in the middle you mean, you havent actually put thought in the question if there is a god or not, so you join the undecided camp so you dont have to bother right? Keep on laughing ^^
|
The principle of separation of state and church is there to keep priests from becoming your presidents and do stupid shit in the name of god. It has nooooothing to do with school.
Besides there's no doubt the prayer was illegal and shouldn't have been done, but there's also no doubt the kid was a prick and should have seen that shit coming.
The proper way to handle it would have been to let whoever's above the school know he should stop that shit starting next year, and he would have stoped it and gotten away completely clean.
|
On May 30 2011 17:10 Cyba wrote:
The principle of separation of state and church is there to keep priests from becoming your presidents and do stupid shit in the name of god. It has nooooothing to do with school.
Besides there's no doubt the prayer was illegal and shouldn't have been done, but there's also no doubt the kid was a prick and should have seen that shit coming.
The proper way to handle it would have been to let whoever's above the school know he should stop that shit starting next year, and he would have stoped it and gotten away completely clean.
No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful.
|
I may have missed something but I thought the US was meant to promote freedom of speech. This just seems the complete opposite of this.
A kid getting completely disowned from his community just for contacting the ACUL for which he has every right to do...
Its not a wonder why the rest of the world is confused as to what the US actually says when they call themselves 'the land of the free'.
|
No, it has to do with the separation of church and state.
Public schools are the domain of the state. Prayers are the domain of church
If school is mandatory for children, and prayer is mandatory for students, the government is literally mandating prayer. that is illegal and immoral.
Saying he deserved what he got or should have seen it coming is just being bitter and defensive and hateful.
I'm just saying anybody with brains to know human nature would have known you'd get a rough time for stepping on people's beliefs. Why would i be bitter or defensive when i don't care and i'm an atheist myself. I like to consider atheists smarter then the flock so this guy offends me through his self victimization.
I never claimed the mob of deuches was corect they were just a bunch of stupid assholes.
|
On May 30 2011 12:15 SC2Joker wrote:
Its so great sitting in the middle. neither being atheist or religious. i can laugh at the stupidity and douchebaggery of each side. both need to grow up... Atheism the hipster religion.
Can you elaborate what sitting in the middle means? Are you a deist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
