On May 31 2011 08:11 aoeua wrote: Essentially you argue that for a hundred years both the founding fathers and American society at large were in the grip of a religious ideology which blinded it from seeing the plain truth that the Constitution forbids religious symbolism in government funded bodies. But now I suppose, we're enlightened, and the true meaning of the constitution is revealed: "religion" is equivalent to "establishment of religion" and offering a prayer turns a government funded body into a religious establishment. Preposterous.
There are three main schools of thought regarding the Constitution, 1) It should be interpreted in light of the intentions of the Framers, 2) It should be interpreted as it stands and no more, 3) It should be interpreted in light of changing times. These three schools have been thrown around pretty much since the Constitution was written, so the debate has been going on for more than 200 years, and it still isn't reaching a consensus. There are advantages to all three schools of thought. To begin with, it is obviously repugnant to the law to disregard what it says. Yet, a strict reading with no consideration of changing times is oftentimes foolhardy (e.g., teenagers being prosecuted for child porn distribution because they passed around pictures their girlfriends sent them) and even so, will usually frustrate a law's intended purpose (to prevent legally incompetent persons from being the object of sex-related commerce).
Ultimately, one of the nice things about all three schools of thought co-existing, rather than one school coming into dominance, is that Judges are allowed to pick and choose which school is most convincing to the matter at hand to reach the best result; other times two or more schools may agree in result but differ in reasoning--even this can suggest that there is a 'better' result. I'm not convinced that any one system of interpretation is best, or even better than others (perhaps a hierarchy of analysis should be used but that is another topic).
The wonderful thing about having a clear and plain Constitution is that it insulates against ideology. So far from unconscious biases, the matter can be settled by examining the very few first words of the First Amendment, which do not explicitly prohibit a government funded body to offer a public prayer.
The problem with this sentiment, while commendable, is that it is impossible for something to be clear and plain.
For example, the phrase 'Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof' is pretty simple, yet some read it and conclude that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional government entity, while others who read the exact same words believe that same phrase implies that Congress may create such an entity and delegating its power to 'coin money and regulate the value thereof' to that entity, while others still will read the subsequent 'necessary and proper to execute the aforementioned powers' to mean that Congress can do whatever it can possible conceive of under the sun to 'coin money and regulate the value thereof'.
So not only is a simple sentence open to multiple interpretations, but words and import change over time, they may shed old meanings and the word falls into disuse, they may pick up new meanings as neologisms, they may become entirely obsolete.
If the writers of the Constitution and the Amendments wished to delineate exact situations and circumstances in which things would apply, they could do so--but the American colonies followed the English common law tradition which relied on judges to interpret laws, not the legislators to tell the judges how to pass judgment. This has always been the case, and with the majority of the Framers being lawyers themselves, they would have been well aware that what they wrote would probably be interpreted by a Court of Law at some point down the road.
Well Americans, be proud of your Constitution for it's the 1st formal constitution in the world and also the smallest. It's vague and left for interpretation and there's a popular quote in our faculty(Iustinianus Primus) that the Supreme Court says what the Constitution USA really is(due to it's ambiguity aka 1 thing can be interpreted in different ways). That's why it's hell of a lot important to know what kind of folks are chosen to be Supreme Court Judges. But in this particular case, the words of the 1st amendment can not be any clearer about mandatory prayer in publicly funded educational institutions. It's FORBIDDEN! Because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." actually means that no tax-dollars will go into state funded religious rituals or favoring certain religion.
That was the most one-sided, subjective, biased crap I have ever seen, full of bigotry against religion and extremist occult-inspired atheist propaganda. At the end of the day the entire documentary was just a huge cover-up.
a public body is an establishment of the state. public doesn't mean "anybody" it means "government owned"
christianity is an establishment of religion. religion, according to the constitution and critical thought among most first world countries, should not partake in the running of the state affairs, which means favoritism(IE allowing christian prayer in a state-funded school) should stay illegal.
There is no Christian establishment. There is an establishment of the Catholic Church, for instance. But Christianity is a religion, not an establishment of religion.
The Constitution says nothing about favouritism for religion one way or another.
that's my whole point.
people are being favoritist and expect the law to do it too.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
I myself and most others would probably just sit thru such a prayer.
But that makes the boy that stood up there not less right. There is a law in place, you have to follow the law.... In short: He is right and he is not at fault.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
Compare your views to JC:
Matthew 6: 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
absolute nonsequitur.
It is illegal because it shows government favoritism to a specific religion. Nothing else matters.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
What if he were Jewish instead? Forcing him to be a part of something he doesn't believe in.
What if a devout christian was forced to sit through a pagan ritual? Just because it's Christian doesn't make it the right thing to be doing, and equally, none of that matters - it is contrary to the law.
My school had 5 different assemblies for people of different religions, we had a CofE, a catholic, a hindu, and a jewish service, and a non-religious assembly for those who didn't want to be a part of any of the others, and we were founded as a private C of E school, I can't see why an expressly secular, state funded school - which should be LESS overtly religious than a private one, couldn't do similar.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
I don't think it was vindictive agenda, nor do I think its right to force someone to say a prayer of a religion they don't belong to. Would you like it if you were forced to say a prayer thanking the creator of scientology and speaking well of him? No you wouldn't because its goes against your religion to do so. Just because every other atheist was too much of a coward to stand up for his rights doesn't mean that prayers to a middle eastern god should be mandated by public funding.
Other members have pointed out that a moment of silence for prayers would have been perfectly acceptable alternative that would appease every religion, leaving none, however small, excluded. I don't agree or subscribe to the christian belief, but I can respect that people want to believe and follow that way of life, I think its fair to ask christians to do the same to others, we don't believe in your god, don't force us to pray to him. Its like asking an invisible friend for money, its very humiliating.
On May 31 2011 21:03 Cyba wrote: He wasn't forced to say the prayer, he just had to be there with every1 else because of the following events.
Say every morning after you get out of bed you have to watch the cupchicks video (www.cupchicks.com). You're not forced to say: "Fuck yeah, this turns me on, oh yeah baby eat that shit." You're welcome to just keep silent as you watch it. And to make it easier... Say you only had to do it once a year or something like that.
Even still, it's not something you should be forced to do. You should be able to opt out of doing this ridiculous act which you may or may not find offensive, wouldn't you say?
Likewise listening to a prayer, for an atheist, is a ridiculous and offensive act - praying to an imaginary being, filling your ears (and mind) with religious garbage. Sure, they can not speak the words like the other fools. But it is still an annoying thing to have to bear through, just as being forced to watch scat porn would be for some people.
No doubt the Christians felt they were doing something that Jesus would have been proud of, feeling that sense of pride in their hearts for "standing up against Satan" and the evils of society that is becoming decayed to atheism - but they don't realise that in to everyone else (and specifically those that they were meant to help 'save' and show the meekness of Jesus to) they just come across as arrogant and chest-thumping.
I think it was admirable that they didn't let the vindictive agenda of a single person disrupt their practice of their religion.
It's weird how conducting a Christian prayer could be seen as arrogant and chest-thumping, unless you have so much of a problem with Christianity that your frail temperament can't handle a public display of it. It must really suck for people like you and Fowler who are so easily and deeply offended at such very small things.
What if he were Jewish instead? Forcing him to be a part of something he doesn't believe in.
What if a devout christian was forced to sit through a pagan ritual? Just because it's Christian doesn't make it the right thing to be doing, and equally, none of that matters - it is contrary to the law.
My school had 5 different assemblies for people of different religions, we had a CofE, a catholic, a hindu, and a jewish service, and a non-religious assembly for those who didn't want to be a part of any of the others, and we were founded as a private C of E school, I can't see why an expressly secular, state funded school - which should be LESS overtly religious than a private one, couldn't do similar.
He has a point. There is no need to show such hostility to one because they are an atheist (and that's all this is). If the guy was Jewish, or any other religion, they wouldn't have dared to say anything. And guys this isn't just the U.S; it happens all over the world, so please I don't want to see Europeans acting all superior: it is pointless.
I gave up on humanity or caring about storys like this a long time ago, its 2011 and stuff like this (and way worse crap*cough*WBC) is still happening. I really dont see the point of religion when the Good/bad racio is so extremely in favour of the bad side (or well, pointless side)
All because of one age old harry potter book that was suppose to be the "rules of life" to try and get the people/world to be civilized, most of the storys in the bible just are metaphores and the commandments are just rules on how to behave....be nice, dont kill, etc.. its a basically just a childrens book. But the average human is to stupid to realize and handle it, so they actually ''believe'' that the story was true.
I'm a Christian. However, I must admit that sometimes people who have a religion (especially Christians, them being the majority of religionists) can be complete narrow-minded idiots who blindly follow their religion and its ideals with stupid reasonings that don't make sense. Of course, this isn't common, but there are people like the ones who ostracized Fowler who fit in this category. It makes me disappointed.
On June 01 2011 08:34 edc.initiative wrote: I'm a Christian. However, I must admit that sometimes people who have a religion (especially Christians, them being the majority of religionists) can be complete narrow-minded idiots who blindly follow their religion and its ideals with stupid reasonings that don't make sense. Of course, this isn't common, but there are people like the ones who ostracized Fowler who fit in this category. It makes me disappointed.
On June 01 2011 06:50 Liight wrote: I gave up on humanity or caring about storys like this a long time ago, its 2011 and stuff like this (and way worse crap*cough*WBC) is still happening. I really dont see the point of religion when the Good/bad racio is so extremely in favour of the bad side (or well, pointless side)
All because of one age old harry potter book that was suppose to be the "rules of life" to try and get the people/world to be civilized, most of the storys in the bible just are metaphores and the commandments are just rules on how to behave....be nice, dont kill, etc.. its a basically just a childrens book. But the average human is to stupid to realize and handle it, so they actually ''believe'' that the story was true.
Common sense, so rare its a godamn superpower.
I agree that religion is a load of shit, but I'm not sure about the statement about the good-bad ratio being in favour of the bad side, when you take into account factors such as religious people sending missionaries to third world countries and volunteering at homeless shelters.
EPT
