Federal judge orders jail for those praying at texas graduation ceremony

[soulcougher73]

Grade school insults aside I said nothing of the sort. But if you think that if/when all of those faith based funded entities were disappear and no one would notice you are sadly mistaken. It would be a nightmare.

Oh and it's God with a capitol G.

Oh my god stop trying to cram your religion down my throat 😛

 

[Red Dawn]

Grade school insults aside I said nothing of the sort. But if you think that if/when all of those faith based funded entities were disappear and no one would notice you are sadly mistaken. It would be a nightmare.

Oh and it's God with a capitol G.

No it's a Myth with a capitol M.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.

I have zero issues with your post.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Grade school insults aside I said nothing of the sort. But if you think that if/when all of those faith based funded entities were disappear and no one would notice you are sadly mistaken. It would be a nightmare.

Oh and it's God with a capitol G.

For some, ideological purity trumps real world pragmatism every time...with suffering people merely pawns in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ichy]

That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.

Agreed. Some people say "oh, you can't pray in public schools" but that's nonsense. When I was in high school there was a group that held a prayer circle before classes started every day. They did it on their own time though, and it wasn't school endorsed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Agreed. Some people say "oh, you can't pray in public schools" but that's nonsense. When I was in high school there was a group that held a prayer circle before classes started every day. They did it on their own time though, and it wasn't school endorsed.

Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door...perhaps the 'answer' is they shouldn't allow students speak at their graduation ceremonies....how nice.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I had to look it up again but I just knew there was a story about NPR and "public" prayer booths. So here it is:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97350118

Seems NPR (takes gov't money) sending a wiccian priestess to report on the prayer booths and she just happened upon the athiest group leader of the area. So can we revisit the rage of the public prayer booths and the NPR "reporter"? ..."Art"..."dialog"... my ass.

 

[Ape]

No it's a Myth with a capitol M.

Actually it the context you typed it would be a lowercase "m". Trying to be witty isn't your strong suit. You're more suited for thread derails and flame baiting. :biggrin:

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually it the context you typed it would be a lowercase "m". Trying to be witty isn't your strong suit. You're more suited for thread derails and flame baiting. :biggrin:

And true to your handle you're more suited for throwing feces as that's all you post, reactionary bullshit.

 

[sactoking]

Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door

Actually, students leave the vast majority of their rights at the schoolhouse door: free speech, assembly, bear arms, self expression, etc.

 

[child of wonder]

That's all fine. I don't have a problem with people who want to wear a shirt like that, or pray in public. However, it cannot happen that a religious ceremony happen at a publicly funded, government sanctioned event.

If the church wants to have a prayer event in the next field before the graduation, I'm all for it. If you're walking down the sidewalk and hear it, no big deal. If you're at the school function with a school official presiding and he says "let us pray"... that's something else.

This sums up my feelings perfectly.

I also would have little issue with a brief period of religious reflection where anyone can ask for a 1 minute block of time to speak about how their religious beliefs gave them aid or comfort during school or to give thanks to whatever deity they want. No one would be turned away and any religion can be represented, even those with a lack thereof.

Now the school is not endorsing any particular religion and students have a chance to express their beliefs since so many would want to give thanks, etc.

However, since I could see this idea being abused, the truly best thing would be to keep religion out of the ceremony completely.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, students leave the vast majority of their rights at the schoolhouse door: free speech, assembly, bear arms, self expression, etc.

Tinker v. Des Moines says otherwise....but the rub is where the line is drawn and why.

 

[Red Dawn]

This sums up my feelings perfectly.

I also would have little issue with a brief period of religious reflection where anyone can ask for a 1 minute block of time to speak about how their religious beliefs gave them aid or comfort during school or to give thanks to whatever deity they want. No one would be turned away and any religion can be represented, even those with a lack thereof.

Now the school is not endorsing any particular religion and students have a chance to express their beliefs since so many would want to give thanks, etc.

However, since I could see this idea being abused, the truly best thing would be to keep religion out of the ceremony completely.

I dunno, I'm an Atheist and I'm not bothered by others talking about their beliefs in mythical fantasies as long as they don't insist that I have to follow them.

 

[child of wonder]

I dunno, I'm an Atheist and I'm not bothered by others talking about their beliefs in mythical fantasies as long as they don't insist that I have to follow them.

Same here.

My feeling is that at a government sanctioned event, you either include ALL religions or none. Anything else would be an indirect promotion of a particular religion(s).

 

[Atreus21]

The problem with this is that fundis already have a place to express themselves. Its called church. Thus as a non religous person we can excuse ourselves from hearing it by not going into the church. That covers both sides of it. Fundis get to express themselves and non fundis dont have to be exposed to or hear it. But when you bring it into a public event paid for by the government via taxes you need to leave the religious speak at the door. Since now non fundis will be exposed to it when not asked to me.

Its pretty simple. Religion belongs in you, church, home and private orginizations that want to talk about it. Not government paid for events/schools that cover a whole wide range of people and relgions/athiests.

My argument is that the separation of church and state are nothing more than two systems of morals combating each other. One happens to pray to one god, and the other another.

To that extent, expunging religious expression from public places isn't so much equality of religion but rather saying that public places are hallowed ground only for the approved adherents; no different in this case than theocracy.

 

[Atreus21]

Same here.

My feeling is that at a government sanctioned event, you either include ALL religions or none. Anything else would be an indirect promotion of a particular religion(s).

And in the absence of indirectly promoting a particular religion, we indirectly promote the idea that all religions are equally valid, or equally invalid.

No matter what we do, if we're educating, we're promoting a system of values. The question is what system will we promote? There is no neutral position, UNLESS government gets out of the business of promoting it's chosen system of values (meaning getting out of educating).

 

[sandorski]

My argument is that the separation of church and state are nothing more than two systems of morals combating each other. One happens to pray to one god, and the other another.

To that extent, expunging religious expression from public places isn't so much equality of religion but rather saying that public places are hallowed ground only for the approved adherents; no different in this case than theocracy.

Your argument is stupid. Banning Religious promotion, is not Religious promotion.

 

[actuarial]

And in the absence of indirectly promoting a particular religion, we indirectly promote the idea that all religions are equally valid, or equally invalid.

No matter what we do, we're going to promote a system of values. The question is what system will we promote? There is no neutral position, UNLESS government gets out of the business of promoting it's chosen system of values (meaning getting out of educating).

Not talking about something is not indirectly promoting the idea that all opinions on a subject are equal. It's choosing not to answer. If I refuse to answer the question "do you believe in God" am I implying that I think that it is equally likely that God could or couldn't exist? No, it means I'm keeping my opinion to myself. People operating as a representative of the state should keep their religious opinions to themselves. That's neither an endorsement nor a denouncement of religion.

And to the 'irreparably harmed' phrase outrage - if the judge believes that a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights are being violated, that should be considered a pretty significant harm.

 

[Atreus21]

Your argument is stupid. Banning Religious promotion, is not Religious promotion.

Banning a system of values is promoting a system of values that says this particular system of values ought to be banned.

 

[Atreus21]

People operating as a representative of the state should keep their religious opinions to themselves.

That right there is proof of my point. You are making an observation on what people should do, and expecting it to be the law of the land.

How is that any different from what you fault religion for?

Incidentally, claiming that you're right and I'm wrong is fine. As long as we get away from this obfuscation of your system of values as somehow exempt from being called what it is.

 

[sandorski]

Banning a system of values is promoting a system of values that says this particular system of values ought to be banned.

The system of "Values" has not been banned. Do you get upset, when at a Restaurant, the waiter/waitress brings food to your table, then doesn't say Grace? No, because you can do it yourself without them sanctioning it for you.

 

[Atreus21]

The system of "Values" has not been banned. Do you get upset, when at a Restaurant, the waiter/waitress brings food to your table, then doesn't say Grace? No, because you can do it yourself without them sanctioning it for you.

If it's on public soil, it has definitely been banned. The government has decided that only its brand of values may be exercised on public soil. Any other exercise is, by SCOTUS decision, constitutionally forbidden.

 

[sandorski]

If it's on public soil, it has definitely been banned.

It can still be done, just not officially sanctioned. AKA, pray to yourself. You don't need to publicly force your Belief on everyone else around you. Deal with it.

 

[Atreus21]

It can still be done, just not officially sanctioned. AKA, pray to yourself. You don't need to publicly force your Belief on everyone else around you.

You just did. 🙂

 

[fskimospy]

And in the absence of indirectly promoting a particular religion, we indirectly promote the idea that all religions are equally valid, or equally invalid.

No matter what we do, if we're educating, we're promoting a system of values. The question is what system will we promote? There is no neutral position, UNLESS government gets out of the business of promoting it's chosen system of values (meaning getting out of educating).

No, you aren't saying that all religions are equally valid/invalid. What you are saying is that religion won't be promoted in the public square. Declining to take a position on religion in absolutely no way equates to 'all religions are equal'. It equates to 'none of our business'.

There is nothing wrong with promoting a system of values, but religion is far more than a simple system of values. I am an atheist, yet I have a system of values despite having no religion. (and please don't try the 'atheism is a religion thing, because it isn't) There's nothing wrong with promoting good values, but history has proven time and again that promoting a religion is a bad idea.