[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Are you seriously claiming that christian homophobes never cite the bible when they attempt to justify their opinions?

No Troll, that's not what I've said or am trying to say at all.

Are you trying to say advocates of "gay rights" aren't simply trying to antagonize Christians?

This page is an example of atheists using gay rights to antagonize Christians:
numerous indictments against Christianity

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I more than accept that people just think it's yucky. *I* think it's yucky. However, there are many things that many people think to be yucky that we don't try to legislate away (smoking comes to mind).

Really? Smoking comes to mind as something we're not trying to legislate away because others think it's yucky? Where the heck have you been?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where the heck have you been?

Somewhere that smoking, while taxed and location restricted, is still allowed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Founders DID intend to prevent the government from enforcing any religion on the citizens of states or the nation. The first clause of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let's not ignore the second part - your free exercise may not interfere with MY free exercise, including to be free OF religion if I so choose.

No one is forcing you to engage in religious practices when you see someone expressing their own. That's a bogus argument. Again, you can't restrain someone from their rights just because you don't agree with how they practice them and you might have to be exposed to them doing so.

The Supreme Court has held many times that schools and school functions are special in that they have the opportunity to indoctrinate young people.

A graduation, participated by mostly adults (most graduates are 18 years old), where individuals participating chose to express their religious beliefs can't really be seen as anything other than an individual practicing his first amendment rights, rationally. There are no laws against individuals attempting to indoctrinate others, and in fact it would seem that this is protected behavior.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Case in point: prayer in schools. SCOTUS held that requiring children to participate in any type of prayer harmed children who did not practice the religion being supported by whatever prayer the school decided to do.

The key words here are "requiring" and "practice."

That isn't being debated here, really.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not necessarily. When laws that require interpretation are craft by intelligent people, they are often intended to be adaptable to the times.

For the most part, the founders intended for the standards they set in place to survive the ages, unless there was a need found to change them via a Constitutional amendment. They left a lot of stuff out purposefully because they wanted individual states to have the power to regulate important issues. They built in adaptability into the system that did not require the judicial system to change the intent or meaning of the laws already on the books. Their way was to allow the representatives of the people to make the changes necessary to adapt, as we fought a major war in order to ensure that we were being ruled by the people, and not a small minority of the elite.

The only reason for courts to legislate is to revoke the power of the people and the freedom they have to rule themselves. Not exactly a principle our founders had much in common with, but one that the minority on the far left seems to cherish and push.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I disagree. A court's job is to uphold the law. And since congress can't make a law concerning this, it's no business of a court's.

EXACTLY. Unless it's the government (or a representative of the government) requiring some kind of participation, or outlawing participation, the courts really have no power to rule.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the most part, the founders intended for the standards they set in place to survive the ages,

... according to your interpretation of their intent. That's what you want to believe. Given the nature of these men and what they were fighting against, I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

[BadKosh]

What harm? Enlightenment?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

... according to your interpretation of their intent.

According to a factual investigation of what the laws allowed that were on the books back when the Constitution was written. We've went over this already. You can't interpret an intent for something to be illegal to be strictly regulated that existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution, when those same lawmakers allowed those things to be regulated at the time on a state level. Doing so no longer is an act of interpretation, but rather reinterpretation, or in other words legislating, which is unconstitutional.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No Troll, that's not what I've said or am trying to say at all.

Are you trying to say advocates of "gay rights" aren't simply trying to antagonize Christians?

Actually I'm sure that gay people only exist to antagonise or "test the faith" of christians.

Anyway I must apologise on behalf of all atheists (since we're all in one big club that meets once a week to read from our manifesto and plot our next organised christian antagonisation movements): We didn't realise we weren't allowed to use the most unjust and unjustifiable christian beliefs to mock, belittle and question christianity and its other plainly ridiculous beliefs.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The key words here are "requiring" and "practice."

That isn't being debated here, really.

The original point of the thread was indeed a school requiring attendees of a school function to participate in and/or have to put up with the rather vocal practice of a particular faith. That was where this discussion came from, despite the hyperbole and derailing side discussions.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Actually I'm sure that gay people only exist to antagonise or "test the faith" of christians.

Anyway I must apologise on behalf of all atheists (since we're all in one big club that meets once a week to read from our manifesto and plot our next organised christian antagonisation movements): We didn't realise we weren't allowed to use the most unjust and unjustifiable christian beliefs to mock, belittle and question christianity and its other plainly ridiculous beliefs.

You are free to act as bigoted as you like. It's a free country.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The original point of the thread was indeed a school requiring attendees of a school function to participate in and/or have to put up with the rather vocal practice of a particular faith.

The "and/or" in your premise is the crux of why you are getting it wrong.

There is a huge difference between being forced to participate in something, and having to "put up with" something. You can not consider them the same. We do not have to join in when someone practices their first amendment rights. However, as long as what they are doing is not illegal in and of itself, or represents a pressing danger to the health and well being of others, we DO have to "put up with" it. That's the very reason our Constitutional rights where submitted by the founders.

No one was forcing the attendees who heard the personal religious expression in question , who where mostly all of adult age, to join in on the expression. They were just having to "put up with" it. There are are no constitutional protections from having to be exposed to the first amendment practices of others. NONE. That's why even the most horrid of people and opinions get to be aired freely, and things like KKK parades get to take place. The protections where put into place to ensure that even unpopular opinions or beliefs can be expressed without fear of any reprisal from the government. The government can't make a move on it legally, according to the Constitution. I understand that not everyone likes that aspect of the Constitution, but those who do not either need to learn to accept it or take action to amend it.

[ghporter]

And again I point out that allowing a formal prayer at a school function, even if the school does not conduct the prayer, implies that the school endorses either the particular religion practiced, or that the school endorses religion in general (as opposed to remaining entirely secular). And the "put up with" part applies to the adults attending, not the students who earned the ceremony as much as the valedictorian did, though her suit and the court's rulings on it implied that it belonged entirely to her.

Schools have a very special standing in this discussion. Allowing ANY formalized religious practice implies to the students that some particular religious practice is expected, endorsed, and "the norm". Considering the particularly impressionable character of schoolchildren (even, perhaps particularly high school students), this is an intolerable intruson into the personal religious beliefs of each individual student and his or her family. It has the effect of indoctrinating all students in a particular model of religious practice that may or may not fit the child's family practices. This was the crux of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s that "banned" prayer in schools. It did not, in fact, ban prayer. Instead, it banned schools from requiring any prayer or prayer-like practice. No court has held that private prayer was prohibited, only that any school organized religious activity (or to a lesser extent school sanctioned religious activity).

I do not want any school intruding on my own religious practices, including how I raise my child. Intestinally, here in San Antonio my son was well insulated from school-organized religious activities. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that here in Central Texas we have a unique mixture of Catholicism, a variety of Protestant denominations, a healthy Jewish community, and a growing South Asian population that practices a number of different major religions from Islam, to Hinduism to I don't know what else. But that would imply at least a pragmatic recognition that avoiding problems in this area is as simple as keeping school entirely secular. Not so just a bit west of here, where Medina Valley high school students come from a very much narrower population demographic, with a majority Catholic population and a strong minority of Protestants and almost no non-Christian groups. How can a school that "allows" organized prayer not endorse the religious background of the prayer involved? Medina Valley not only didn't try in this case, but has a long history of endorsing religion in school, a fact that has been overwhelmed by the chatter and circus-like atmosphere around the graduation in question.

Is religion an important part of that community? It looks like it. But as strong as religion is in that community, why does religion also need support in the schools?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one was forcing the attendees who heard the personal religious expression in question , who where mostly all of adult age, to join in on the expression.

You're right.
However, the peer pressure element being employed here as a result of the academic context is huge.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And again I point out that allowing a formal prayer at a school function, even if the school does not conduct the prayer, implies that the school endorses either the particular religion practiced, or that the school endorses religion in general (as opposed to remaining entirely secular).

I thought we were talking about a student offering on his own, a religious expression (prayer or other), during his speech? If we are talking about a school official planning a prayer and asking someone to pray - say a member of the clergy, as part of the official program, I can accept your position as reasonable. You can argue that based on the letter of the law, it would be a representative of government forwarding a particular faith as part of a government ceremony.

For instance, I attended a grade school graduation last week. It was held in a local church sanctuary as the school auditorium was undergoing renovation and maintenance. There was also as prayer offered by a parent to open the proceedings and God was very vaguely mentioned in some song they sung (apparently a popular country tune on the radio). This ceremony was put together by the parents and the PTA (neither government funded) so I'm guessing this is how they "got away" with it, though the teachers and principal did participate.

People of various faiths attended, and based on personal curiosity, I spoke with a few of the non-christian student's parents. None had a problem. One guy told me that if he'd decided to move to India he'd assume that he'd be likely be surrounded by Hindus expressing their faith, and wouldn't have a problem with that either as long as he or his children where not forced to actually participate in Hindu prayers or teachings. "When in Rome..." he said.

I agree, and I believe that principle was what the founders where relying on as well, given that they encouraged and allowed all sorts of non-denominational religious expression in an official government capacity. That's why I think that even general religious expressions allowed by Governmen do not violate the spirit of the Constitution as the founders intended either, though I accept the argument that they do as reasonable and debatable. However, I still can't see anything with either the letter or spirit of the law which would allow government to deny an individual his first amendment rights regardless of where he was, or the circumstances he was in, unless doing so resulted in some kind of potential danger to others.

I do not want any school intruding on my own religious practices, including how I raise my child.

Again..big difference between forced participation required by administrators and individual expression offered by individuals. You simply can't do anything about the latter as our founders expressly prohibited it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

IOne guy told me that if he'd decided to move to India he'd assume that he'd be likely be surrounded by Hindus expressing their faith, and wouldn't have a problem with that either as long as he or his children where not forced to actually participate in Hindu prayers or teachings. "When in Rome..." he said.

'Tis a shame that your founders never envisioned the exponential growth in donkeyorifices in the late 20th century, and that said donkeyorifices can't be more like this guy you mention.

[Chongo]

It's one thing for the courts to restrict government entities from requiring one to participate in a religious activity if that was what was actually happening. School administrators have taken it a step further. They disallow any Christian expression. All one has to do is run a search and you will find incidents of students being suspended for reading bibles at lunch, wearing t-shirts, wearing rosary beads, etc.

The parents of the child that filed the suit in the OP would have cardiac arrest if their child attended my 5th grade (1972@Madison #2) Christmas show. We had a live manger scene while "O Holy Night" was sang.

[Doofy]

YouTube - ‪WE ARE BUILDING A RELIGION - OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER‬‏

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

YouTube - ‪WE ARE BUILDING A RELIGION - OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER‬‏

Too bad he's an atheist.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Too bad he's an atheist.

Kinda the point. Atheism is a religion.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Kinda the point. Atheism is a religion.

Sigh...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Sigh...

"Sigh" your arse! If it's not a religion, why is everyone so fecking militant about it?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

"Sigh" your arse! If it's not a religion, why is everyone so fecking militant about it?

Who's being militant about it? The issue at hand in this thread has nothing to do with atheism, except tangentially. Atheists happen to be among the people who feel strongly about Christianity being stripped of its privileged status in American society, but we are not the only ones (there are plenty of Christians who agree, even).

Similarly, if being 'militant' about something (a word which I think is used extremely inappropriately in this context) is all it takes to make that thing a religion, then 'religion', as a concept, has become so meaningless as to not be worth discussion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Similarly, if being 'militant' about something (a word which I think is used extremely inappropriately in this context) is all it takes to make that thing a religion, then 'religion', as a concept, has become so meaningless as to not be worth discussion.

Now you're getting it!

You realise I'm just taking the piss 'coz I'm bored, right?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Now you're getting it!

You realise I'm just taking the piss 'coz I'm bored, right?

Sure. But at the same time you're taking the piss on an issue that I happen to care about and think needs more exposure.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Sure. But at the same time you're taking the piss on an issue that I happen to care about and think needs more exposure.

So you're getting militant about it then?

How much more exposure do you think it needs? There's people thousands of miles away taking the piss out of it! I think the only way you could expose this more is to write your demands in Klingon.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So you're getting militant about it then?

If voicing an opinion counts as being militant, then sure.

I'm certainly confrontational about it, but I would hardly call myself militant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If voicing an opinion counts as being militant, then sure.

I'm certainly confrontational about it, but I would hardly call myself militant.

mil•i•tant
adjective
typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

mil•i•tant
adjective
typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.

Ah, but I don't 'typically favor' such methods (and certainly not extreme or violent ones!). I would much rather live and let live. The problem is that if you do so without taking pains to hide the fact that you're an atheist (which I refuse to do) confrontation inevitably results due to some asshole who's offended by your very existence (not talking about anyone here).

I'm not going to back down and go along, and I'm not going to pretend to be something I'm not, but I'm not going to run away from a fight when someone else instigates it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are free to act as bigoted as you like. It's a free country.

I don't think you understand the word. Just because I question your beliefs doesn't mean I'm intolerant of you or those who share them.

This is in danger of turning into several slanging matches.

The point is that if a government official leads a prayer in a school or other public or government building or institution, they are treading on pretty thin ice. Regardless of who or what they are praying to. If they announce that there will be a few moments silence or personal contemplation and people wish to pray quietly there is no legal problem with that. If a student or guest wishes to thank a god or gods then again that is personal expression as they do not represent the government or its views. It would also be fine if they left any prayer until the very end and simply allowed those who wished to leave without praying to do so quietly before they started.

If a teacher or school administrator starts leading a prayer in the middle of a ceremony and members of the audience are expected to sit through it because there is more ceremony to come afterwards then this is technically not allowed as far as I can interpret. Personally I have sat through many such prayers without complaining or campaigning about it but I certainly would have preferred not to have had to do so.
Kids who want to read a bible during their lunchbreaks should be legally allowed to do so though I would be inclined to worry about them for other reasons.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

'religion', as a concept, has become so meaningless as to not be worth discussion.

Awesome! And it only took 6 pages!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Awesome! And it only took 6 pages!

And makes so much more sense in context!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're talking like the FOTLU didn't state (sometime between 1881 and 1886) something like "a struggle is going on in the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed...a struggle between capital and labor, which must grow in intensity from year to year"?

Ahh yes... the purveyor of the above statement and co-founder of FOTLU; Samuel Gompers.

Ol' "American-made" Gompers was born and raised in London and came to the US in 1863. By 1873 he had begun working with a company that he claims changed his life. The company was David Hirsch & Company, a union shop operated by a German socialist and chock full of German socialist cigar-makers that made such an impression on him that he would learn to speak German and claimed of them; "men of keener mentality and wider thought than any I had met before". (enter obligatory self-loathing) His problem with the socialist agenda? That it had become too politically activist, having abandoned the militant economic program of Marx.

Born and raised in Europe, philosophy and worldview nurtured by Europeans, complete with the self-loathing prevalent among their admirers, and the beginning of absolute contempt for capitalism founded on the principles of a German philosopher.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Somewhere that smoking, while taxed and location restricted, is still allowed.

Make no mistake - it's being legislated away.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The first clause of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let's not ignore the second part - your free exercise may not interfere with MY free exercise, including to be free OF religion if I so choose. .

Your logic is nonlinear.
It doesn't say "your free exercise may not interfere with my free exercise of".... but even if it did which would be fine "to be free OF religion" is not an exercise... of anything. If someone doesn't want to take part in a religious activity there is nothing forcing them to. That doesn't mean they should have the right to not hear someone else pray or talk about god or whatever. Think how far I could take this. I hate hearing people talk about sports; it greatly offends me and reminds me of the still primitive proto religion tribal nature of humans; does that mean I have a right to demand they not talk about it when Im around.

The original amendment's purpose was to prevent people from being persecuted / hung by the church like they were in Europe. Atheists weren't taken into account because atheism wasn't a widely held belief back then... And our forefathers didn't foresee a future of liberals so spoiled and bored they would complain about irreparable harm and anxiety from hearing someone else pray. Most people have or should have bigger problems to worry about.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't think you understand the word. Just because I question your beliefs doesn't mean I'm intolerant of you or those who share them.

You aren't questioning my beliefs. You are questioning me about the possible beliefs of others, while stereotyping me as having the same beliefs as them without a single mention by me in regards to similar beliefs.

I don't think YOU know what the word means.

You do this often. You consistently try to interject opposition to religious beliefs in debates where religion is not mentioned. Others have mentioned this as well. This is a clear sign that you are engaging in irrational behavior in regards to the subject, and your impulse to stereotype makes it clear what's going on here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Your logic is nonlinear.
It doesn't say "your free exercise may not interfere with my free exercise of".... but even if it did which would be fine "to be free OF religion" is not an exercise... of anything. If someone doesn't want to take part in a religious activity there is nothing forcing them to. That doesn't mean they should have the right to not hear someone else pray or talk about god or whatever. Think how far I could take this. I hate hearing people talk about sports; it greatly offends me and reminds me of the still primitive proto religion tribal nature of humans; does that mean I have a right to demand they not talk about it when Im around.

The original amendment's purpose was to prevent people from being persecuted / hung by the church like they were in Europe. Atheists weren't taken into account because atheism wasn't a widely held belief back then... And our forefathers didn't foresee a future of liberals so spoiled and bored they would complain about irreparable harm and anxiety from hearing someone else pray. Most people have or should have bigger problems to worry about.

History and human society are nonlinear...

In order for anyone's free exercise to be protected, everyone must have the freedom to be free OF other people's religion. That part is indeed what the founders were interested in, whether they envisioned atheism or not. Our forefathers did not envision a lot of things, but by building a less specific but broadly based set of rules, they built a system that enco urges maximum freedom while at the same time allowing the people to shape specifics.

I would not call a family complaining that the schools provided by public money forcing religious beliefs they don't agree with on their children "whining". To me, that is a major concern, because public money is also MY money, and it is managed by a government agency-which is prohibited from "establishing" or otherwise promoting any particular religion. Court decisions over the years have supported "keep YOUR religion out of MY kids' education," whatever that religion is. Schools enforcing any particular religious belief in any way is a form of religious discrimination against a minority group, whatever that smaller group's beliefs are.

[Doofy]

One of you fatties needs to make a religion which regards the US government as the only true god, with the IRS and judicial services as manifestations of that god.
Then the rest of you can declare freedom from religion, as per your Constitution Manifesto.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

One of you fatties needs to make a religion which regards the US government as the only true god, with the IRS and judicial services as manifestations of that god.
Then the rest of you can declare freedom from religion, as per your Constitution Manifesto.

You mean like the government is in the U. K?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You mean like the government is in the U. K?

I'm sure there was a point besides inane nationalism under all that blubber. I just can't work out what it was.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In order for anyone's free exercise to be protected, everyone must have the freedom to be free OF other people's religion.

No, it doesn't, and you've yet to forward a compelling argument as to why this should be the case, or that the founders intended to shield people from things they seemed to freely allow. The difference between participation and tolerance has already been explained to you as well. We have a right to participate in that which is protected. We have no right to keep others from participating in a way that just requires the tolerance of others. Otherwise, we have no real right to that thing.

For instance, the KKK has the right to march and have a parade on government property if others are afforded the same right. They have the right to do this, but have no right to force others to participate and I have no right to complain that my rights were violated because my free exercise has not been protected due to my not liking the expression of rights in question.

"Rights" are secured for not only the things we don't have a problem with that others might choose to do, but also things we find objectionable and don't like. It doesn't just go one way and never has.

Court decisions over the years have supported "keep YOUR religion out of MY kids' education," whatever that religion is.

Again, we aren't talking about that here, I don't think. I believe this debate is about allowing individuals who are asked to speak to do so without abridging their Constitutional rights.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, we aren't talking about that here, I don't think. I believe this debate is about allowing individuals who are asked to speak to do so without abridging their Constitutional rights.

I'm pretty sure there's been only one or two people (no longer participating) who have expressed a problem with that. The debate has drifted due to lack of opponents.

[Chongo]

I wonder if this judge would allow JFK to give his inaugural speech.

The two "offending" passages

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.

Lincoln would also be in trouble for the Gettysburg address

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I wonder if this judge would allow JFK to give his inaugural speech.

The two "offending" passages

Lincoln would also be in trouble for the Gettysburg address

That's called pandering. Do you think the sleazy behaviour of politicians belongs in schools? Fnck that stupidity.

[Kerrigan]

It is unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting the exercise of religion. How can there be a law prohibiting prayers?

[subego]

By having the law apply only to prayers mandated by a government institution.

[Waragainstsleep]

Oops

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For instance, the KKK has the right to march and have a parade on government property if others are afforded the same right. They have the right to do this, but have no right to force others to participate and I have no right to complain that my rights were violated because my free exercise has not been protected due to my not liking the expression of rights in question.

So if the grand dragon was also a school principle you'd have no problem with him leading those present at a graduation ceremony in chanting racist slurs and hatred?