Read this "School Prayer"...

[Opinionated]

Mmmm, UG.... since "I" am the one who began this thread, I think I know what the intent of the thread is/was...



<< As for Constituional Law, it says your belief system has no business in public education. >>



&quot;I&quot; was discussing freedom of speech, NOT my belief system.



<< Oh, and attacking your belief system is what keeps the rest of us free of it. >>



Would rational thought and your own freedom of choice to listen/not listen and believe/not believe be a much less confrontational manner of doing the same thing. I know that I find it takes much less effort to use such methods rather than agressive attacks... especially since most of your attacks have been unwarranted, innacurate, and to a great extent fallacious.

I do not believe that the freedom of speech should be restricted based on the content of the idea expressed. Perhaps you disagree.... THAT's what we should have been discussing all the while.... NOT the validity or non-validity of my or anyone else's personal belief system.

Opinionated

 

[Gatsby]

If all religions were like Its our religion but it might not be the best religion, I;d be perfectly happy with it.

But what I hate the most is those who try to convert me continually although I don't want to be converted.

Gatsby

 

[Raspewtin]

I can tell you that I would never allow any school my child goes to post up the redicously out-of-context out-of-date mostly useless 10 commandments. I'd sue that school with everything I had (okay, maybe not everything )

Just by posting a religious document in a library or giving a prayer over the P.A. you suggest a certain moral framework (99% of the time, Christian) is the &quot;proper way of thinking&quot;, anyone who thinks children don't see it this way knows very little about developmental and adolescent psychology. That, in my view, is not only wrong to forcefeed, but throughout history organized religion has proven to cause more violence and bloodshed than it has ever prevented. How many wars were fought in the name of God, and how many wars ended in the name of God? It's pretty lopsided.

Some parents should focus on providing a moral foundation (or social programming) for their children, rather than expecting them to get in school, at the cost of brainwashing other students. To me, that degree of selfishness indicates a true lack of understanding of the Christian faith (let's face it, you don't see Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus,etc whining to hear their prayers in school). It makes the whole argument such a joke and very superfulous.

 

[yata]

Opinionated

I think the court's decision truthfully applies to the Consitution. The justices have thought it thoroughly through before disallowing &quot;public prayers&quot;.

You're enforcing the legitimacy of religious intrusion in people's lives, not debating the constitutionality of the case.

Why is there the need for an audience for the prayer? Ask yourself the question. Is it the need for justification of oneself or for conversion of others? Either way it's like someone talking about evolution in the beginning of every Sunday church service.

 

[Zucchini]

the 10 commandments.. bah.. it starts off good, and gets absurd silly things written by men.

 

[Opinionated]

I give up... I obviously am not up to the task of getting you guys to see what I am really trying to get across.... So I think I'll just bow out of this thread. There are LOTS of other side issues that I am tempted to comment on, but I promised NOT to make this a religious discussion.... I didn't.... others did...

Perhaps I'll try again someday... I am after all, still....

Opinionated

 

[Shuxclams]

its so blatenly obvious, there isnt a Jewish prayer before a game, a wicca prayer, a satanic prayer, a hindu prayer or buddist prayer, it seems that the only acceptable prayers would be christian prayers......

well I pray each day, at home, in my car at work (in private) basically whenever I need &quot;a prayer&quot;. I hope I can instill this is my children, but should I trust anyone to teach them something so personal? I believe prayer is personal, its about spirituality not saying a &quot;common, general, non-specific&quot; prayer before class, or in a public place.


SHUX

 

[glenn1]

I'll take up the thread for you then opinionated...

First of all, UG, you need to get a grip. We're not talking about a mass gang press by Jehova's Witnesses here. If someone were to mention God or invite you to their church, i don't see where that's a mortal sin. Just politely say thank you for thinking about me, but not interested. I would think that most folks would be polite enough not to trouble you further at that point. If they don't, it's not a religious issue, it's a personal one. It sounds like you might be as much part of the problem as those you castigate.

And here's a thought for all the folks out there that hold to atheist beliefs. Would you have a problem with allowing oblique references to religious themes in a school setting as a compromise, seeing that about 95% of the world's population believes in a religious philosophy of some sort?

Perhaps a compromise which would be acceptable would be to allow posting of a silhouette of the 10 Commandment tablets, no writing, just an outline drawing of the tablets (which would symbolically represent whatever religous beliefs you chose to hold - the idea of a religious ideals and beliefs). And any references to God or a particular religious figure would be as neutral as possible... something along the lines of &quot;we thank divine providence for the gifts we enjoy.&quot;

To my thinking, this allows the best of both worlds... there is no proselytizing going on, no recruitment efforts directing students towards any particular religion or belief system, just an acknowledgement that America was founded by men of religious faith, and with the idea that all men are free to believe whatsoever they might choose.

What do you all think?

 

[Napalm381]

<< Perhaps a compromise which would be acceptable would be to allow posting of a silhouette of the 10 Commandment tablets, no writing, just an outline drawing of the tablets (which would symbolically represent whatever religous beliefs you chose to hold - the idea of a religious ideals and beliefs). And any references to God or a particular religious figure would be as neutral as possible... something along the lines of &quot;we thank divine providence for the gifts we enjoy.&quot; >>


No, I don't find that an acceptable solution. I don't want MY tax money spent on such nonsense. I DON'T thank any divine providence, and I DO NOT hold any religious beliefs and ideals.


<< no recruitment efforts directing students towards any particular religion or belief system >>


I still view that of an implicit governement endorsement of religion. I don't care if it's &quot;generic&quot;, it is still spending MY money on endorsing religious beliefs which I strongly disagree with it.

 

[Shuxclams]

<< Perhaps a compromise which would be acceptable would be to allow posting of a silhouette of the 10 Commandment tablets, no writing, just an
outline drawing of the tablets (which would symbolically represent whatever religous beliefs you chose to hold - the idea of a religious ideals and
beliefs). And any references to God or a particular religious figure would be as neutral as possible... >>



that is so retarded, yeah they got those ten commandment tablets in Hindu and Buddism and stuff so like the non-judao/christians will understand its just a &quot;religious ideal&quot; thing. I really love the part about &quot;And any references to God or a particular religious figure would be as neutral as possible&quot;, why? Why not just get on with teaching todays math lesson and let Mom and Dad, or the Church elder, or Rabbi or whatever on thier day of rest or celebration teach them the true meaning of faith? Yopur logic is flawed the minute you suggest anything as a &quot;religious icon&quot;.



SHUX

 

[Pretender]

I realize I just said absolutely nothing useful, and hence have removed it.

 

[glenn1]

Fine Napalm, by that reasoning, since i'm offended by many of the things that the government spends our tax dollars on, we shouldn't spend that money either. Those that think that all mention of God or morality should be disallowed in the schools, be careful what you wish for. We are already paying the price for it in places like Columbine, so your precious sensibilities can be maintained. Congratulations.

 

[Napalm381]

First of all, I'll back Red up on saying that praying, the ten commandmants, banning violent music or video games, and the like would not have made a sh!ts difference in any school shooting. Those kids were fvcked up, period. You think listening to violent music makes kids do that kind of stuff? Get real. I listen to violent music, watch violent movies, play violent video games, love guns, and have zero religious beliefs. Number of people I've killed: zero. None of the societal ills that politicians love to yak about would have made an iota's difference in what happened.

As for religious symbols in school, I still don't want them. I don't want kids to be FORCED to look at things they don't believe in. That's right, FORCED. You put a religious symbol in the front of a classroom, it's gonna be pretty damn hard for a kid to avoid looking at it. I'm sure you'd go fvcking nuts if I proposed posting a sign saying &quot;God Sucks&quot; in the front of a classroom. I hate the idea of of you proposing a sign effectively saying &quot;God is Great&quot; in there. What you do on your own time is your own damn business. But don't make me or anybody else look at or listen to it. As I expressed above, I have to look at enough religious bullsh!t every day as it is, I don't need it in one of last safe havens I can find from it.


<< so your precious sensibilities can be maintained >>


I am a pretty damn insensitive person. I'm not asking for my sensibilities to be maintained, I'm asking that you don't post your religious cancer in the classrooms because it's crap.

 

[Opinionated]

Geez, guys-n-gals.... just let this one go, OK. Please.... I started this thread, and I'd like to kill it now.... Read my earlier posts.... NO ONE EVER proposed anything about school sponsored prayer, religious education, or anything remotely related..... And NO ONE has been discussing the intended topic of this thread for some time now.

Please.... just let it go....

 

[Napalm381]

See my above post: Pretty much any thread that mentions religion, will turn into a religious thread, like it or not. Also religious threads tend to get fairly heated. Welcome to the world of AnandTech Forums.

Also, just because a thread strays from the original intent is no reason to kill it. Sometimes the secondary discussions get much more interesting than the primary one.

 

[UG]

Okay, Opinionated;

You said:

<...I'm not trying to start a religious argument here y'all,...>

No, you posted a prayer, saying that:

<... I remember when I was in public school, not soooo long ago, and that this was written by a student certainly proved to me how much things had changed.... for the worse...>

So I posted:

<...us heathens are neither convinced nor impressed with the Christian need to intertwine social engineering with state-funded public education...>

To speak to your premise that school prayer is the solution to thing being &quot;for the worse.&quot;

Then I said:

<...they say &quot;It's because of the breakdown in the moral fibre of this increasingly secular, atheistic society that we've are today living in a progressively more violent and crime ridden, nuclear family-destructive society.&quot;

Then, to again speak to your premise that it is lack of school prayer which is the problem with school society, I said:

<...They say &quot;We must have school prayer and the 10 commandments in every classroom because the rest of godless society is a baaaaaadddddddd influence on young minds.&quot;

...which restated your premise that: lack of school prayer is the problem, making society change &quot;for the worse&quot;.

So, I posted a link that amply demonstrated how our society is premeated by Christian influences, how difficult it is for secularist influences to have equal consideration in such a society, thus demonstrating the fallacy of your premise: that school prayer is necessary for making society not 'change...for the worse'.

The point being, that:

Christians already possess a strangle-hold on US society, and the exercise of public policy; so, my premise is:

...The Christians' belief that our society (including all us non-christians, btw) is a mostly Christian-philosophied society, and that Christian society is changing 'for the worse' because a small portion of it still remains constitutionally protected from state-sponsored religious preference.

...The same small portion of society that also happens to be where all the fresh, young, impressionable, new potential-Christian converts or subsribers spend a lot of time being exposed to new ideas that they absorb like sponges in water.

...An opportunity lost for Christians to have even further influence over everyone because of that pesky Constitution that says: Freedom of Religion means also Freedom from Religion; and, the equally pesky Supreme Court that enforces that interpretation to the benefit of non-Christians, and to the utter horror of the fundimentalists within what others might describe as a mind-sucking belief system that isn't happy to just share its views with others, but feels it must forcibly consume everyone else because, if it doesn't, things will change 'for the worse'.

Now, where did I stray from the original intent your thread?

 

[Opinionated]

Perhaps you should read my early response to Napalm.... it's pretty complete. However, to remove all ambiguity I'll state my intent and belief as it applies to this thread:

1) I fully support the constitutional protections afforded to us as Freedom of Speech AND Religion.
2) I do NOT believe that schools should sponsor any religion or religious activity to include prayer.
3) BUT, I DO believe that we have gone too far in some of our school systems (most of the ones I have observed in). In MY son's school.... right now, today.... He is 1) not allowed to pray aloud if he so chooses. My son prefers to pray aloud. He is better able to put his thoughts into words that way, thus he feels that he is communicating better that way, and 2) If he is asked about his religion or belief system by another student, he is NOT allowed to respond with a truthful answer, that he is a Christian. IF he prays aloud (speaking to his God), or speaks the truth as to his choice of religious belief systems (speaking to humans), he WILL be disciplined by the school... likely expelled.
4) The policy of disciplining students for communicating to their God or fellow human beings is in my opinion a direct (and illegal) restriction of their rights of free speech and religion.

I don't believe unsolicited religious education is appropriate in a public institution, but neither to I think silencing someones truthful answer to an inquiry is appropriate (or legal) either. My sons do not want to evangelize. Firstly, they are pretty shy, and secondly, I have taught them and they understand that school is not the time or the place to share the Word (UNLESS asked).

NOW, THAT is my position and premise on this subject. I do NOT advocate prayers over the PA system or any such nonesense that folks keep trying to attribute to me.

I'm not stupid, I'm....

Opinionated

 

[UG]

Opinionated;

Thank you for your clarifications. They seem, for the most part, to be expressions of reasonable attitude.

I do have a few questions:

<...I fully support the constitutional protections afforded to us as Freedom of Speech AND Religion...>

And, of Freedom from Religion?


<...I do NOT believe that schools should sponsor any religion or religious activity to include prayer...>

How about religious activity that does not include prayer? Collection of tythe's for instance (as an improbable but nonetheless illustrative example)?

<...I DO believe that we have gone too far in some of our school systems...MY son...is...not allowed to pray aloud if he so chooses...>

And atheists are not allowed to represent voters in positions of Government. Too few would vote for us. Walking a mile in our shoes leaves the same taste of intolerance in your mouths, I see.

<...If he is asked about his religion or belief system by another student, he is NOT allowed to respond with a truthful answer, that he is a Christian...>

Nor does Christian society countenance an Atheist's public affirmation of their belief system, or lack thereof. Again, welcome to our world. Equality means you have to share the inequities common to the unequal: sorta like the earliest Christians, no? How soon people forget.

<...The policy of disciplining students for communicating to their God or fellow human beings is in my opinion a direct (and illegal) restriction of their rights of free speech and religion...>

The Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State requires that not all Religious Speech be protected as Free Speech. It is the price the religious must pay to ensure equal consideration of all religious speach free from institutionalized, Governmental preference.

<...neither [d]o I think silencing someones truthful answer to an inquiry is appropriate (or legal) either...>

Truth being subjective, then, by your own words, you have no problem with the teaching of Evolution in science class in public school?

<...I do NOT advocate prayers over the PA system or any such nonesense ...>

Then, you are a reasonable man with whom I am in agreement on this point. I am, therefore, being reasonable, too.

 

[Opinionated]

<< And, of Freedom from Religion? >>



To the extent that one has the right to choose NO religion as their religion yes. BUT, to say that I believe there should be &quot;religion-free zones&quot; no. THAT would restrict both my freedom of religion and expression. Just because someone finds my speech offensive or intrusive does NOT mean I should have to give up my right to express myself.

After all, I find LOTS of things very intrusive and offensive.... like white-supremacist BS, anti-semetism, satanist, rappers calling women bitches and whores, and lots of other things, AND I wish they'd shut up. BUT I don't have a right to MAKE them shut up, and neither does the law.



<< How about religious activity that does not include prayer? Collection of tythe's for instance (as an improbable but nonetheless illustrative example)? >>



Come on dude.... you needn't go through every little possibility.... No state sponsored religion, OK. But neither shall the state restrict the people's right to express such beliefs.



<< And atheists are not allowed to represent voters in positions of Government. Too few would vote for us. Walking a mile in our shoes leaves the same taste of intolerance in your mouths, I see. >>



??? What do you mean Athiests are not allowed to represent voters in position of Government? Run, dude.... Id rather vote for an Athiest who had god morals and values than an avowed Christian who spent his time catting around and making back-room deals. I wouldn't vote for a psycho, anything goes type no matter his religious beliefs though.....

But frankly, Athiest holding office has nothing to do with freedom of religion or speech.



<< Nor does Christian society countenance an Atheist's public affirmation of their belief system, or lack thereof. Again, welcome to our world. Equality means you have to share the inequities common to the unequal: sorta like the earliest Christians, no? How soon people forget. >>



That's just drivel and mis-direction. First, I disagree with your assertion that we have a Christian society. Second, that's the most inane definition of equality I've ever seen. And third, I see much more tolerance given to any religion to include Atheism in public institutions OTHER than Christianity....



<< The Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State requires that not all Religious Speech be protected as Free Speech. It is the price the religious must pay to ensure equal consideration of all religious speach free from institutionalized, Governmental preference. >>



Where in the Constitution does it say; &quot;Dude, you know you have Freedom of Religion as long as your religion doesn't offend or make ANYONE uncomfortable.&quot; My sons are NOT part of the &quot;Government&quot; therefore their speech is not of or on behalf of the Government, thus their speech cannot possibly be considered to be the Government showing preference for one religion over any other.



<< Truth being subjective, then, by your own words, you have no problem with the teaching of Evolution in science class in public school? >>



There you go again attributing things to me that I simply DID NOT SAY. I NEVER said the truth was subjective. My son is a Christian. If somone asked him, &quot;Dude, what is your religion?&quot;, he would have the choice of responding with a truthful answer: &quot;I am a Christian.&quot; and get punished, or &quot;I believe the Martians colonized us as a food source.&quot; (or any other answer) which would be a lie.

But, now that you mention it.... NO, I do NOT mind having the THEORY of Evolution taught in the public schools. I think the theory has flaws, but it also has some valid points as well. And besides, I have no problem at all reconciling Evolution and Christianity.... geez, that's an elementary task.



<< Then, you are a reasonable man with whom I am in agreement on this point. I am, therefore, being reasonable, too. >>



Thank you for the compliment. I TRY to be as reasonable as I can. Sometimes I fail.
I suspect that we could find a great deal of common ground on many topics. I wish everyone would try to do the same, rather than searching for conflict in their disagreements. I do enjoy arguing though, since I am always....

Opinionated

 

[UG]

Opinionated;

<...I suspect that we could find a great deal of common ground on many topics. ... I do enjoy arguing...>

Well, there you go. So do I.

RE: <... NO religion as their religion...>

Non-sequitor. Non-belief=Belief. In a twisted, round-about way, perhaps. Sure. Why not? Whatever.

<... &quot;religion-free zones&quot; no....>

Separation of Church and State requires them/it.

<...THAT would restrict both my freedom of religion and expression...>

In certain circumstances, yes; I'm sure, as a reasonable person, you appreciate precisely in which ways that must be so.

<...Just because someone finds my speech offensive or intrusive does NOT mean I should have to give up my right to express myself...>

I agree. EXCEPT, religious speech has additional Constitutional restrictions that make it different in some ways from all other forms of speech. History is replete with examples of why this must be so.

<...I find LOTS of things very intrusive and offensive.... like white-supremacist BS, anti-semetism, satanist, rappers calling women bitches and whores, and lots of other things, AND I wish they'd shut up. BUT I don't have a right to MAKE them shut up, and neither does the law...>

Proof-positive that the Constitution exists to protect minority speech in the face of majority speech; majority, popular, speech needs no protection.

<...Come on dude...you needn't go through every little possibility..>

So, we should be unconcerned about what the multivarious definitions of &quot;is&quot; might be, and how they might be used to distort the facts?

<...What do you mean Athiests are not allowed to represent voters in position of Government?..>

Name me ONE athiest in an elected position. I'm not talking Agnostic.

<...Athiest holding office has nothing to do with freedom of religion or speech...>

Just ONE.

<...I disagree with your assertion that we have a Christian society...>

You disagree that our society is in control of Christians?

Name me an Atheist President. A Jewish President. A Muslim President. A Buddhist. A Hindii. A Wiccan. A Hari Krishnan. A Secular Humanist. A Shinto. A Jehovah's Witness. A Mormon. A Martian...

<... I see much more tolerance given to any religion to include Atheism in public institutions OTHER than Christianity...>

Top Dog doesn't need the Constitution's protection, by Constitutional definition.

<...Where in the Constitution does it say; &quot;Dude, you know you have Freedom of Religion as long as your religion doesn't offend or make ANYONE uncomfortable.&quot;...>

The Constitution equalizes the Top Dog and the Lessor Dogs in many a way certainly uncomfortable to the Top Dog, and assuredly reassuring to all the others.

That U.S. Christians feel discomfort tells me the Constitution is working, as it should, on behalf of us non-Christians: we need its equalizing interventions.

<...I NEVER said the truth was subjective...>

You should, because it is. The Constitution exists because of that fact; it exists especially to make the comment that religious fact is not only subjective, but relative. Therein lies the importance of protecting all religious, or non-religious, truths from preferential prejudice.

<...&quot;I believe the Martians colonized us as a food source.&quot;...>

In my mind, it's just as likely a scenario as your's. Either way, we get consumed.

Well, you will.

 

[UG]

^

Well?

 

[UG]

For the sake of being invitingly controversial, trying to get Opinionated to respond to his own thread; and, at risk of being construed as intending an insult:

Obviously, Christians are in control; yet, many Christians believe they are loosing control. The issue here is: Control.

Oh, but this has nothing to do with the Constitution, does it?

I mean, what does the Constitution have to say about Christians wanting to control non-Christians?

The State refuses to participate!

 

[Opinionated]

<< Separation of Church and State requires them/it. >>



We simply disagree.



<< In certain circumstances, yes; I'm sure, as a reasonable person, you appreciate precisely in which ways that must be so. >>



I am reasonable, thank you. But I do not recognize that it &quot;must be so&quot;, especially in the instances I described.




<< I agree. EXCEPT, religious speech has additional Constitutional restrictions that make it different in some ways from all other forms of speech. >>



We simply disagree, again.



<< Proof-positive that the Constitution exists to protect minority speech in the face of majority speech; majority, popular, speech needs no protection. >>



Where did you get THAT. Everyone is entitled to the same protections no matter whether they happen to find themselves in the minority OR majority. That simply doesn't make sense. Under this philosophy, since majority speech needs no protection, a minority group of militant anti-whatevers could ride into town and suppress the speech of the majority whatevers.



<< Top Dog doesn't need the Constitution's protection, by Constitutional definition. >>



Where did you learn about the Constitution? For the most part, the Constitution was designed to protect us ALL from the Government. And with respect to power to exert will over another party, the Government is the &quot;Top Dog&quot;.

I wish people would wake up and realize that the Government uses all this divisiveness between groups to keep us off balance while it slowly usurps more and more of our freedoms.

Opinionated

PS - If it takes me a while to get around to responding, please don't post those &quot;Well?&quot; posts, like I'm trying to dodge a question. Sometimes I simply don't have the time to get around to it. And hey, maybe sometimes I just don't feel a question is worthy of my time to make a response. And sometimes, I just get bored.... OK? Thanks.

 

[Opinionated]

Red,

Then it looks like we pretty much agree. Like I said, I don't think we shoulod have kids evangelizing in the schools, but neither should they have to say &quot;No Comment&quot; when they're asked what they believe.

UG,

Control? Come on. That IS insulting.

Opinionated