 ouyangwulong says: That people would be so transparently discriminatory is honestly surprising to me, although it shouldn't be. There is no right to force non-Christians to recite Christian prayers in American public schools. There is no right to put God in the plege. Just like I have no right to force Christians to leave offerings before the statues of the Buddha. But don't get me wrong. This isn't about Christianity. Christianity no where condones this abhorrent and intolerant behavior. This is about the power of discrimination, and it is an addictive social phenomenon. These people would do the exact same thing with another religion. Christianity was just the most convenient vehicle for their hatred at the time. Apparently we still need to change a lot about our society before we can live with our neighbors in peace. Prayer, any prayer, does not belong in public school. I was an atheist, when I was in high school, and even though I was not forced to stand and say the prayer, it marked me. I was targeted with harassment by students and teachers alike. I was not allowed to join the National Honor Society, even though I had more recommendations by faculty than any other student had ever received in the society's history. I was also targeted for beatings by other students. All this, simply for not standing for the prayer and pledge. There's more but I won't go into that. I just firmly believe prayer is for church, KEEP IT THERE! Not in our public schools. People have a strange idea of what tolerance and intolerance is. Apparently if one wants to pray that Jesus is Lord and Savior that is called vicious intolerance. But if one wants to forcibly shut the prayer offerer up, that is called tolerance. Simply put, the schools should not be in the business of offering religion or religious opinion. If you want to pray, fine, do it on your own time. Live and let live. Simply put, the schools should not be in the business of offering religion or religious opinion. If you want to pray, fine, do it on your own time. Live and let live.How is it live and let live for you to order other people not to pray because you don't like it? Your attitude is just as inflexible and intolerant as the religion you want to suppress! I did not say that people are not free to exercise their religion. We are talking about the school here, the institution. Two different things. And what happens when my religious convictions clash with that of the schools, should I bow down to them. Thats why there is the clause separating state from religion. Both can co-exist when one is not used to impose the other. Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.- Anon Sounds like a deal. uh, yanceducat, there seems to have been some misunderstanding about this case. It is not a question of whether or not one is allowed to pray to God, or whatever. Anyone can pray anyway they want whenever they want, with one important exception: Teachers who play an instructive role in the lives of students at public schools cannot and should not publicly lead prayers that teach those who accept Jesus will be saved and all others are damned. This was the issue in question, because the school was leading exclusively Christian prayers on occasions such as graduation. Especially since graduation speeches are specifically didactic, advising graduating seniors on how to live their lives, a spee... Scenario: Yanceducat, I'm a Buddhist. So every day I light candles and burn incense, and leave an offering of water and flowers before a statue of the Buddha, representing my devotion to the principles of enlightenment, purification, and generosity. I am also a teacher. What if I taught in a classroom your child attended? What if they asked me why? And then i told them because there was no god and no heaven or hell, but that after we die we are born again as humans, and that by making offerings and prayers in the name of the Buddha, we can stop people from suffering. Wouldn't you want to stop my from praying in front of your child? Wouldn't I have crossed a line, as a public teacher, by i... I did not say that people are not free to exercise their religion.Yes you did.You said that you are offended by someones prayer and that you approve of force of law to shut the person up. We are talking about the school here, the institution. Two different things.What 2 different things? In any case, it is not about school or church; it is about people who want to silence a view by force of law simply because they are emotionally afraid of that view, and claim their fear should trump the other persons freedom. Very few religions have the tenant that their followers must impose their religion on others. This is almost always invented by petty demagogues and other mechanisms of unjust authority.Judaism is exactly what you say most religions are not. It was founded on the literal murder of people so that land could be claimed for its religion, of, by and for its religious tenets. Exactly as is happening today to the Palestinians and if Judaism did not exist the land stealing and murder would not be happening today. Judaism has also exercised its force of law upon its own members up and including murdering them if they broke the rules and still does so today. And aren't you shocked by the venom that the community had for the Jewish family that dared object? No. I would be shocked if they weren't extremely hostile. In no world are people who use force of law to impose their hostility toward a particular religion going to find themselves loved. Teachers who play an instructive role in the lives of students at public schools cannot and should not publicly lead prayers that teach those who accept Jesus will be saved and all others are damned. This was the issue in question, because the school was leading exclusively Christian prayers on occasions such as graduation.Graduation is not teaching in a classroom. Graduation is a religious exercise. It is an entirely unnecessary event but it serves as a social molding and bonding event. It transcends school and the purposes of school as a learning facts and skills institution. Christian prayers cannot hurt non Christians unless the non Christian is personally insecure about ... Would you think it was just fine if I, outside the classroom but in a molding ceremony, indoctrinated your child to believe in making offerings and praying before a statue of a Buddha? Would you think it was just fine if I, outside the classroom but in a molding ceremony, indoctrinated your child to believe in making offerings and praying before a statue of a Buddha?What is you definition of indoctrinated and exactly what are the circumstances that the child is 'held' under? But you are missing a big point. In a way you are denying the rights of the child by demanding that the child be the exclusive property of the parents for brainwashing purposes. That works both ways because it could be that the parent is preventing the exposure of a child to a bad religion but equally it prevents the child held prisoner in a bad religion from hearing a better religion, An example of predjudice in the society that leads to shootings in the universities An example of predjudice in the society that leads to shootings in the universitiesWhat is? You see I believe in the answer speech with speech concept. We have never had a culture that did that. In the final analysis, even people who say those words, "answer speech with more speech" always end up resorting to force because force is a way of cheating where you can win in a court system backed up by the barrel of a gun what power and influence you could not obtain by the freedom of all views openly shared. Once religion had all the power and they did it to the 'heathen' now the atheists, haters of religion, and some less powerful religious sects want to do the same thing to whatever religion they are crusading against. Where did people get a right not to be offended? Banning prayer from schools has done vastly more harm to society as a whole than prayer has ever caused. The world is NOT a better place since prayer has been forced out. The question of whether Jesus is the only way is a true or false question. I don't think it's true. I don't think the very idea is fair. I don't even think Jesus was a good person because he seemed to support the concept of Hell which is an evil idea and in my opinion, the most evil idea ever dreamed up. The God of the Bible as illustrated in both the old and new versions, is evil in my opinion. That said, I could be wrong and the Christian could be right or it could b... I'm not into religion anymore. One thing that put me off religions is that noone actually follows the tenets of their religion. People claiming religion also claim theirs is the only way. Not to mention the horrendous way extremists behave. Actually, I will say that you may have a good point in the idea of exposure to a market place of ideas. However, surely you can concede that in America's current social climate religions would not be treated equally. I would lose my job if I taught my Buddhist faith in an American public school. So if religions aren't given equal footing, that is necessarily discrimination. That's why the legal precedent is to not give any religion representation in the public educational system. The thing is, I do support a religion subject in school, especially now when mis-understandings are rife. However, surely you can concede that in America's current social climate religions would not be treated equally.Good point and a real point. Never has there be a social climate where all views can publicly have equal and just sharing in the dialog. The dominant one will always exert some degree of 'unfair' time and attention control. This is not really bad however. It only becomes bad when the power is used to suppress its competitors completely. Then it becomes an evil. Think of it this way. I favor law and order. I want people who commit crimes arrested and dealt with. Too, I believe in my right to free speech. So when I find myself in a room of people, and this has happen... there seems to have been some misunderstanding about this case. It isOuyangwulong, You make an important point and distinction here. Thank you for making it. Most people are not tolerant, they just have different targets. @ouyangwulong By the way, I am having a sense of liking and admiration toward you because you are showing qualities of honesty, fairness, and thoughtfulness. Just thought that would be nice to mention.  Yes you did.You said that you are offended by someones prayer and that you approve of force of law to shut the person up.Excuse me? But where and when did I say such a thing? What 2 different things? In any case, it is not about school or church; it is about people who want to silence a view by force of law simply because they are emotionally afraid of that view, and claim their fear should trump the other persons freedom.I see no one making that claim. The article points to actual harassment, not imagine fear. This is a real problem. The problem is that the school should not be in the business of promoting religion, ANY religion. Thats what Sunday school is ... Teachers who play an instructive role in the lives of students at public schools cannot and should not publicly lead prayers that teach those who accept Jesus will be saved and all others are damned.More correctly, teachers in public schools should not lead public prayers at all. It is that simple. I know this from experience, as my sixth-grade teacher was dismissed for doing just that. Graduation is a religious exercise.That's a novel idea, but pure poppy-cock. Princeton wordnet defines religion as: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; Graduation may be a quasi-religious exercise in the same way as not stepping on crack assures your mother's back won't be broken, but it is in no way a genuine religious exercise. The power that controls the destinies of those graduating, as far as the school is concerned, is the force of the education completed which the ceremony marks; an education which is wholly man-made. It is an entirely unnecessary event but it serves as a social molding and bonding event. [/quot... The article points to actual harassment, not imagine fear.Of course there ended up being actual harassment. What do you expect to happen to someone who goes out of their way to spit upon and suppress another's beliefs? But when its the INSTITUTION, one that should not by Constitutional imperative be enforcing a religious view, I have to stand up and disagree... Having a prayer at a graduation ceremony, saying a prayer at the start of a school board meeting, is not enforcing a religious view. Nor is thanking Joe Helpful for his great service enforcing everyone to like or buy Joe's products. It is simply sharing a view that one remains free to accept at face value or not. Why are you afraid to hear that view? Spitting upon someone else's believes? How about standing up for ones own. Are you on the side of bullies or justice? So basically your attitude is shut up and put up. Not exactly what I would call brave. No spitting here, just stating that not everybody shares the same believes and they can not be force to do so. I don't see how you can condone such acts. And those two things can be, if done in a official manner and capacity. The school puts their signature on such things. I am not afraid of anything. I just don't want it rammed down my throat. Are you afraid that these things loose their value if they are not officially condone? Let's say that it is a diverse class. What if a member of the Church of Google wants to see a ceremonial search conducted, too, as recognition of the all knowledgeable God Google. Would you sit still for that? Would you be afraid to hear that view? When the Church of the Spaghetti Monster requests time for their view to be heard, will you make time for them, too? When the native Americans request time for a drum ceremony, will there be time for that? Where will the line be drawn, and by whom? You can't brush these views under the rug just because they are minority views, or because you don't believe them. They don't believe in your "God Daddy In The Sky", either, but must afford respect for... More correctly, teachers in public schools should not lead public prayers at all. It is that simple. I know this from experience, as my sixth-grade teacher was dismissed for doing just that.I am not advocating for teachers leading prayers in classrooms, although it would be far from the end of the world if they did. The article does not reference leading such teacher classroom prayers as being the issue. However the statement "More correctly, teachers in public schools should not lead public prayers at all. It is that simple." sounds like an over the top abridgment of the teachers rights although I'm not sure what the sentence means. Does it mean that the teacher would lose... The limitation is, of course, during the function of their professional capacity. As to a PTA meeting or a school board meeting, those are official (or at least quasi-official in the case of the PTA) school functions, and as such should be prayer free, yes. There is no resentment or power struggle involved. It is about obeying the law of the land. That's a novel idea, but pure poppy-cock. Princeton wordnet defines religion as:
I had already thought of this; in a sense you are correct and in a sense you are not. Any activity can be made to be ... You can't brush these views under the rug just because they are minority views, or because you don't believe them. They don't believe in your "God Daddy In The Sky", either, but must afford respect for his praise in a public setting because YOU think it is OK for that voice to sing. Bullshit.I can't ? Says who? Did someone (God?) write in stone that all viewpoints deserve equal time, or no viewpoint will be allowed? Is that what you would say when creationist's wanted their hour in the classroom? You would say that it would be better to teach no science at all because that is the only way to be fair? Truth is not about being fair. Nor is absolute fairness at all times and ... Spitting upon someone else's believes? How about standing up for ones own.What an ironical remark! "Standing up for one's own." I love it. Of course I knew it all of the time but here is the admission that the Constitutional blather is just a front for a weaker religion finding away to undermine a stronger one. Indeed! Are you on the side of bullies or justice? So basically your attitude is shut up and put up.People who wish to say a prayer have become bullies? And you wish to use force of law to shut people you don't agree with but you object to your own having to shut up or put up with? Tolerate, no, not you! Discussion Pop. I am not afraid of anything. I just don't want it rammed down my throat. Are you afraid that these things loose their value if they are not officially condone?Of course you are afraid of something. And you just said what it is. When the Christian symbols are allowed in public unashamed, they have a power you are afraid of. Thus you need to force their expression out of common public acceptance as much as possible. You are like a homophobe who says I'm not afraid of homosexuals. But I won't have them displaying their affection in public. Makes it look like being homosexual is natural. Let them conduct their affairs in their private bedrooms only. Mind you, I'm not afraid of a... Pure opinion with no factual basis to support it. Opinion is great, just remember that it is just that.Of course one could respond that your statement is only an opinion. However, you tell me exactly how much harm prayer in schools has caused? Can you tell me one case where some students prayed and then went on a murder rampage solely because they prayed in their schoolroom that day? Where you could prove that if only there had been no school prayer that day, all would have been well. And if school prayer is so dangerous we should ban church prayer as well. Of course. As a counter to your claim that mine is only an opinion I would point out that the attempts to suppress Chr... If Christianity was really being "suppressed", we'd see churches being closed down, restrictions on the publication and sale of bibles and things like that. What we have here is a matter of debating the correct context for religious expression. In church, at home, in a parochial school, it's fine - that's where it belongs. Private and parochial schools exist for a purpose - to provide an alternative to secular education. Parents who want their children to receive their religious indoctrination at school should simply avoid the public schools. I find it odd that so many people who complain about government interference in their lives still expect the state to conduct religious activities... If Christianity was really being "suppressed", we'd see churches being closed down, restrictions on the publication and sale of bibles and things like that. What we have here is a matter of debating the correct context for religious expression. In church, at home, in a parochial school, it's fine - that's where it belongs.The flaw in 'if it were really being suppressed ' is that it assumes that the process of suppression is finished and further efforts to force your opinion 'of where it belongs' to smaller and smaller space will not occur. This is a false assumption. How do you get the power to decide where it belongs? Few children have the maturity to question the validity of what their teachers tell them; even fewer have the temerity to question what they're told. Those who do are ostracized, bullied and otherwise persecuted - these days, possibly even medicated into docility.Given that this is true, why should even parents be allowed to discuss such matters? |
View the Top Clips from February 28, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
