The slow return to the 'Victorian Era', bible-belt style.

[Ferretherder]

http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/NEWS01/705120345

Ya gotta love them krischun kritters - don't git 'nuff of it in church, gotta drag it inta the public skool sistum.

Now, what if we made equal time for other religious observances at these particular graduation events? Hmm? Maybe these good people would make me feel foolish by saying, 'the more, the merrier', but something tells me 'not'.

Just my two cents.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. From what I've read about Victorian schools,

prayer was not a part of the curriculum for public schools. However, Sunday Schools were originally founded as a way for child workers, who had only Sunday off, had a chance to learn to read and write. They were part of the social conscience type of work that churches like the Methodist and its offshoot, the Salvation Army, worked originally. Note the point was not religious indoctrination but rather to give a measure of social justice.

The stress on dogma is, I believe, a more recent invention, and is a reaction to the globalization, where other philosophies have been introduced to the public in general.

[NashVegas]

2. There is a Stunningly Good Letter There

in response, by a poster named as "Monroe Watcher."

[Cabcere]

3. I was about to post the same thing.

Monroe Watcher's comments hit the nail on the head, IMO. :thumbsup:

[depakid]

8. That was imppressive and well written

Unfortunately, I doubt many will listen to what he's saying.

[tabasco]

21. Thanks for noting that outstanding response.

I'm glad I took the time to read it.

[Lorien]

69. Here is Monroe Watcher's response:

Jesus is hanging his head in shame at the hateful, pride-filled power0lust going on right now in his church.

"Let's show those non-believers" ...

"It's about time we stood up to" ...

Pride. Arrogance. Hatred. Envy.

It really makes me sad for the Faith that this is the best among you. What's even worse is your abject disregard for scriptures that directly contradict that which you are espousing here.

Jesus said avoid praying in public. He chided his disciples to pray in private. Later, the apostle Paul said people should "pray without ceasing" and when on to explain he meant lead a life where your life and your works *are* your prayer.

But you guys are rallying around a group of probably well meaning students, elevating them to martyrs, and crying out to bring a stop to the persecution of Christians in America. I'm not sure what's more crazy: that you think you're being Christian or that you're claiming persecution in the first place.

You guys have really landed in the best of all possible worlds, haven't you? I mean think about it. The ACLU has already said they're not going to sue unless someone complains. So you're not in any real or immediate danger. Yet you get to *react* like you are and go nuts on the 'liberals' in the media, the liberals in Washington, and you get to *define liberal* any way you'd like.

All the while, no one is bothering to challenge YOU or your right to be like you're being. No one is telling you you can't lie (about Jesus's teachings and the founding fathers -- many of whom, by the way, *weren't* Christians). Heck, we're not even chiding you for bad grammar. ("In JESUS name" isn't correct, as the quote is a possessive...thus "In Jesus' Name or "In Jesus's Name" would be correct.)

In fact, during this entire debate, I've yet to see a single one of you right about anything other than the statement you have the right to believe what you believe and no one can make you believe anything else. You're absolutely right about that.

I just wish you'd quit wrecking this community with your divisiveness, your contention, and your martyrdom.

I said earlier these kids are being made martyrs. Well, it's not by my hand. It's not at the hand of the ACLU, either. They're being made martyrs by you people for politicizing this, for elevating it to fervor, and for encouraging them to turn their worship of God into a business.

If you want to disagree with my assessment, simply look at the five days of uninterrupted coverage of this mess -- it's all been about selling tee-shirts.

Wake up and smell your bible passage, kids. You're being used by these adults 'of faith' to advance *their* agenda. Put a stop to it!

(posted because it had slipped off the main page)

[Bitwit1234]

4. Don't get me wrong

I think religion is a good idea. But if you have to wear T shirts and point to those T shirts, proclaim it daily, get up in other peoples faces yelling you are a Christian, I doubt very much if you are one.

Some one secure in his/her beliefs and actions does not have to proclaim to the world....I "am" a Christian....they practice christianity by helping the people of this country, by allowing the people of this country and the world to also practice their beliefs. Just saying.

[SheilaT]

7. I happen to think religion

is a bad idea, but I think I have some understanding of religious beliefs and religious feelings. I agree that if you have to wear T-shirts and yell at people to convince them what a good "Christian" you are, there's reason to doubt the depth and sincerity of your belief.

I have had some very good conversations with people who were formerly of a fundamentalist ilk, who have carefully explained to me that someone with that mindset feels absolutely obliged to convince others of the error of their ways and to change their beliefs. While I want to respect other belief systems, I absolutely reject anyone trying to coerce me. Talking to me, trying to persuade me, is one thing. Coercion is another. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

The interesting thing is that I can have the good, enlightening conversations only with those no longer driven to try to convert me.

[AlinPA]

12. Yes, but I'm not sure that a "school" should be teaching them that all

the animals in the world fit into a 440 x 70 foot boat and they lived so long or that the snake talked and that by gaining knowledge you are banished by God. Teaching about what Jesus taught is good for them.

[TheMightyFavog]

24. Sounds like Matthew 6:5-6

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Reverend_Smitty]

26. my all time favorite bible passage...

I wish more people would take it to heart

[treestar]

66. IA, the louder a person is about being a Christian, the more I suspect

that they are not really Christians at all and are trying to use that to promote another agenda.

[Vexatious Ape]

5. An old trick in the works here:

If you get them to believe they are victims somehow, then they will be far more militant:

"The T-shirts began as a creative way for OPHS seniors to make a statement and to stand up for their religious rights during their graduation ceremony."

Have their religious rights ever been violated--hell fucking no. But if you get this generation of kids to think that they are persecuted christians--lion bait--then you've instilled the us vs them mentality into their heads and they will be putty in the hands of people like Dobson and all those other snake-oil salesmen.

[musette_sf]

spent me some time in Ouachita Parish

it's just got too many damn loud mouth Babtists (no slur intended on any members of any Baptist church that truly follows the word of Jesus the Christ).

a person named "MonroeWatcher" has made an excellent post in the article's "Storychat" section.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. Time to start my lion suit business.

I could make a killing! :)

[flyingfysh]

9. if they want ideas from the "Victorian era"...

They should look into Darwin. Darwin is a first-class example of Victorian-era science.

[jprd]

16. Darwinism and Religion Make For Interesting Debates

Darwinism has always interested me because I like logical concepts. There are a lot of holes in Darwin's theories, but there's still an overall, logical concept. You can get into some very interesting debates discussing Darwin's theory and Religion. For instance, Darwin contends the human beings are animals, and as such we have in-bred animal instincts. Some of those instincts may be good for society while others are simply self-serving and defensive. When you get to the point of wondering what it is that makes human animals something more than just self-serving animals with instincts that cannot be controlled, you often end up discussing religious principles. Odd, isn't it?

[WindRavenX]

34. holes in Darwinian evolution you say?

Such as...?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

35. How do you know that animals don't worship something else?

In their own language.

On the contrary, Evolution has been refined and studied through genetics and biochemistry, and many subtle and fascinating phenomena have been discovered as a result.

If you say it has holes in it, you haven't read it, or haven't seen what modern science has done to it.

If you think "Holes in Darwin's theory" equals "gaps in the fossil record", it doesn't.


Guess what? When you were an embryo you had gills and a tail, which disappeared.

Furthermore, all mammals, at least all land mammals have exactly the same muscles, nerves, bones, organs and structures. They may be shaped differently, but they have the same functions.

You would know this if you had ever taken enough biology to have to dissect a cat.

And guess what? You are a mammal with the same structures as a rat. Or a cat or a dog. And some of the same motivations.

I have a bachelor's degree in biology. So go back to your reading.

[jprd]

42. More Religious Animals?

I'm amazed by all this new information about religious animals. I'd appreciate it if you could discuss some of the moral and behavioral principles exercized by these religious animals. I know that human being have fought with one another for the rights of some human beings who were being oppressed. I've never heard of other animals doing that though, have you?

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Really? Bigger "holes" than there are in the assertion that "there is a giant invisible man in the

sky who put everything here as is, 6,000 years ago-- despite the fact that every single piece of physical evidence we have says otherwise?"

So, yeah... what fucking "holes" in Darwin's Theories?

[jprd]

43. I Wasn't Supporting Creationism

You must have read my post incorrectly. It had nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a God. I merely stated that it was interesting that if man is an animal, that he's the ONLY one who often behaves in ways that ignore his basic, self-serving, animal-instinct-driven nature. For instance, I've never heard of a bunch of polar bears fighting a war against other polar bears for the rights of black bears. Know what I mean? Man may indeed be an animal like Darwin says, but he seems to be the only one capable of non-animal behavior at times.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. You didn't answer the question: What holes in Darwinian evolution? nt

[Clark2008]

47. You know -- not all Chrisitans believe the world is only 6,000

years old. I think the people who believe that are stupid - no matter what religion they are. That's a matter of ignorance, not religion.

Some of us were taught that the Bible is NOT literal and is a series of parables meant to teach us the method and motivation of God - not to be taken with a literal translation. The point of the Bible, or any other religious text, is instructional. Yes, it's very confusing, but, heck, read an instruction manual lately? They're ALL confusing as hell (no pun intended).

But, I'll give you an example: My parents and Sunday School teachers used to explain the "God created the world in seven days" thusly: we have no idea how long a "day" is to God. A day to an omnipotent being could be millions and millions of years - not 24 hours. Heck, 900 million years ago, a day was shorter - 18 hours - and a year was 481 days long. There's no indication one way or the other regarding how long a "day" was to God. The Bible uses "days" to explain the creation of the universe so that primative Man could understand the process - not give a scientific explanation.

I can believe in both God and evolution without it interferring with my astute logic, what-so-ever. I believe in a God that encourages free will: evolution, death, suffering, choices...

And I believe in the miracles of Jesus and His peaceful teachings.

God gives us a path. Whether we follow it is up to the individual.

Oh - and God is NOT invisible. Never has been. If He's invisible to you, well, you ain't lookin'. And I respect your right not to look - but, please, don't be intolerant of my beliefs because I AM looking.

Deal?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. We're talking about evolution- and the denial of such.

If you can point me to somewhere where I said "All Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old", do so and I will gladly retract. But you can't, because I never said that.

Actually, it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster who gives us a path. Well, it's more like a long, twisty noodle, but it can be considered a path. Whether you accept his obvious, self-evidentiary truth is up to you. If you don't choose to accept the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or "Bob", or our Heavenly Lady of the Evening of Discord, that's your call.

I will graciously allow you to not believe in the obvious truths I have presented to you just as you have graciously permitted me to not believe in yours. Peace.

[symbolman]

40. I once came upon, by helicopter, in the tundra of Alaska

a "Shrine" built by a Bear. A grizzly fucking bear, who tried to kill us. Now you might think it was a food cache, but it wasn't..

It was a caribou wrapped around a Tree installed in the ground (there were no trees for a couple of hundred miles, we were in the flat tundra), the bones had been broken to allow this, vines had been draped around the caribou in artistic fashion, and they weren't to be found for hundreds of miles either.

We noticed the anomaly from the sky in the chopper, saw a CIRCLE in the tundra that stuck out, the Grizz had used it's powerful claws to scrape the tundra into a PERFECT Circle (which would be like a human pulling up nailed down berber carpet with their fingers, it's that tough), and we thought that some Natives had built this Shrine as an ode to the Caribou, with Steel Rakes and other tools.. the tundra is just too thick..

While a pal and I were taking pictures of it, our vietnam vet chopper pilot zoomed off into the sky, leaving us behind, we didn't think it so funny, and wondered why he'd ditched us, maybe to fuck with our heads in the solitude of this middle of nowhere, when we noticed that the chopper was chasing and harrassing a big brown blob on the horizon, where the sun crawled for 24 hours a day.

Yep, it was A BEAR, a Meat Seeking Missle, and he was headed for US as the Chopper kept diving and trying to trip him up. The bear could care less about the biggest mosquito it had ever seen, and jammed right past the chopper, headed for us..

We decided to RUN away from the Shrine, now that we had a Grizzly being chased TOWARDS US BY a CHOPPER :)

It was for real, it wasn't just a food cache for the bear, it was something of MEANING to it, and bears are DUMB.. imagine what the SMART animals are thinking :)

It's all in my book, "The Jesus Bolt" which I'm on the verge of promoting,where I saw the underpinnings of Global Warming first hand in the wilds of Alaska during the 1970's.. There's more going on than people realize, a LOT more..

[jprd]

41. I Didn't Know That Bears Were Religious

Thanks for the information! Do these bears make rational decisions about how to behave towards other animals and other bears? I'd be very interested in any facts you have about bears standing up for the "rights of man" or the "rights of seals" for instance. I was under the impression that "some" bears are pretty mean to other bears, and "some" even kill their young.

[symbolman]

77. As a wise man once said

"Go away kid, you bother me.." I believe it was W.C.Fields.

I'd call you a fool, but that would be against the rules so I won't.

[jprd]

86. A Fool Once Told Me

that bears build religious structures! If there's a kid or a fool involved in this discussion, it's sure NOT me!

[symbolman]

101. Considering the fact that YOU were not THERE

and that I spent TWO whole summers in the Bush flying in choppers for the Dept Of Energy, Los Alamos, then I would seem to have MUCH more credibility than someone who thinks they've joined the Mickey Mouse club to play Human..

I've fought this administration for six years, and have TONS of cred and respect.

Got no more use in kicking a thread designed to boost idiotic statements by some one trying to kick their count up high enough to be taken seriously, esp when they seem to be raving.

Bye Bye now. Enjoy the worm dance.

[dave_p]

73. Excuse me?

"When you get to the point of wondering what it is that makes human animals something more than just self-serving animals with instincts that cannot be controlled, you often end up discussing religious principles. Odd, isn't it?

Many animals are "more than just self-serving": it goes with being social, as humans and countless other species are. I've never needed to explain that by reference to religious principles. Is it odd? No.

[jprd]

88. Some Examples Please?

Perhaps you could provide some examples of such animal behavior? Sure, dogs protect their masters, but that's partly do to breeding and partly do to protecting the person who provides their room and board. I've never heard of a case, for instance, where polar bears fought with other polar bears for the purpose of protecting black bears. I've never heard of a case where a dominant male animal deferred to a weaker male of his species out of respect for the personal rights of the weaker one. Maybe you know of such cases, and if so, I'd love to hear about them. You may not need to have "religious principles" to do such things, but you need to have SOME principles of "right" and "wrong"!

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Eh.

http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/7B8130ABC27055D4802570B90050ABD8

[jprd]

95. Great Examples

eh?

[dave_p]

102. Bees

It's not like you have to look that far up the evolutionary tree. Of course if you want to invoke human constructs like "rights" then it's harder. A dominant animal might easily yield part of the shared food supply to a weaker one to maintain group numbers. We've clearly done that in our evolution, and there are echoes of it in our social functioning today. Rights are a fairly novel notion, but collectivism (in the broad sense) is as old as the anthills. Our tendency to identify appropriate actions as expressions of an ethical sense rather than of instinctual empathy and natural social adaptation may itself be considered an adaptation: I'm inclined to believe it is.

[pepperbear]

10. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.....

not the t shirts, but the blatant disregard for the 1st amendment, and the hubris and arrogance.

[jprd]

11. Have You Read The First Amendment?

I think that the First Amendment to the US Constitution permits the wearing of such shirts in school or anywhere else. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think that means that American citizens cannot be restricted from exercising their religious freedom anywhere. Wouldn't we be prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion by not allowing them to wear the shirts? Maybe I'm reading it inccorectly?

[pepperbear]

13. and we have a winner! good idea treading lightly on your very

first post.

yep, read it backwards and forwards. not sure if you read the article though.

it's not the shirt (you also didn't bother to read my post either). it's the "voting to pray" part that is troubling. uh, that is pretty much illegal.

edited to add: why do you guys always misinterpet the 1st amendment (you have to be a trool to think I do't understand the difference betwen wearing a shirt and voting to pray), and the accuse the "other side" of doing the same thing? It clearly says that a religion is not to be established. ANY kind of ORGAINIZED prayer in a public school(yes even one the students vote for) is in direct violation of the first amendment.

Is that clear enough? Or did you read it incorrectly?



And if you're not a troll and you just don't comprehend, I would enroll in "Constitution 101" if I were you.

[jprd]

18. Sorry, I Was Still Hung Up On Shirts

I still think that the First Amendment would allow anyone of any religion to speak about their religion at a school graduation or anywhere else. I suppose if a religion's principles included directives to kill innocent people or be violent to others who are not part of their religion, that could be restricted. Other than something like that, though, just speaking about religion should be protected byt the First Amendment.

[pepperbear]

22. sorry still not getting it......

this is isn't about expression of faith ...this is about the MANDATE of faith. Sorry to seem aggravated, but what part of that don't you understand? These people held a vote to decide if the commencement would include a prayer. Somehow they forgot about the atheists, agnostics, Jews, etc...because they're talking about a Christian prayer. Vote or not, that student body is now held captive to what amounts to a not-so-subtle indoctrination attempt- and the principal is PROUD of it. And why? Because they've been "silenced" for too long.

Complete and utter Bullshit.

[jprd]

27. They Need To Revise Their Vote

If they wanted to vote having a prayer at commencement, I think that's fine. However, they should include a prayer for each faith represented by the graduates. That would make it truly in the spirit of the First Amendment. I understand that ok.

[kestrel91316]

14. I trust you also support equally the right of students to wear t-shirts

at graduation promoting Satanism and Santeria and Wicca and Islam and Buddhism and EVERYTHING ELSE?

Hmmm. Didn't think so.

Enjoy your stay.

[jprd]

17. You Didn't Wait for an Answer

Sure, I guess if the First Amendment reads as I believe it does, that would permit any of those other religions to wear their shirts too.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Can kids wear shirts with pot leaves, peyote buttons, or pictures of people fucking on them, too?

That's part of some folks' religion.

[jprd]

30. Odd Religions

I've heard that there are a few religions that use pot, so I guess that would be ok on a t-shirt. I'd be surprised if those religions have pot plants or peyote buttons as symbols of their religion. however. As for having a shirt with folks having sex on it, that goes a bit beyond religious expression.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. According to whom?

Not practitioners of Tantra. You should look at the outside of some of the ancient temples in India sometime.

http://www.bootsnall.com/travelstories/asia/dec00khajuraho1.shtml

Generally, in my experience, "Odd Religion" = "Not MY religion".

I happen to think Western Monotheism is incredibly "odd".

[jprd]

33. Monotheism Is Odd?

Why would you think that? It wasn't the principles of tantra or Hinduism upon which our nation was based. It was western, monotheistic religion. It may be "cute" to say that the principles of all religions deserve equal respect. It isn't very intelligent, however. "Some" multitheistic religions believe in human sacrfice. I don't think they should wear shirts that display that practice, do you?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I think if you're going to use the first amendment as a defense for SOME people to express religious

sentiments at a school function, then you HAVE to allow ALL people to express religious sentiments. No matter the religion.

That's not being "cute", that's being CONSISTENT. And since you seem incapable of grasping the concept of separation of church and state- to the extent that there is a REAL problem with the endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of ANY particular religion at a school event, then perhaps you can list PRECISELY WHICH religions do and don't deserve "respect".

Human sacrifice? What the fuck was Abraham originally ordered to do to Isaac? You don't think the Bible is full of some extremely bloody, nasty, and distasteful activities?

And why would I think western Monotheism is "odd"? Oh, I don't know, maybe because so many followers seem to honestly believe that there is a giant invisible man in the sky named Jehovah, or Jesus, or Allah, a man whose written proclamations and earthly human representatives are infallible; even when they were burning people at the stake for suggesting the Earth went around the sun, and not vice-versa.. A giant invisible man whom, with a 17 Billion Light-Year-Wide universe to "run", apparently has nothing more important to worry about than whether or not the hairless apes of planet Earth are married before they screw each other.

Yeah... I think that's "odd".

And you know what else? If this nation HAD been founded by folks with a healthy appreciation of Tantra, perhaps this place wouldn't be so lousy with uptight church lady types with nothing better to do than dictate how other consenting adults should live their lives or what they should be allowed to do with their own bodies. Which wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

[jprd]

44. I Grasp Pretty Well!

I have no problem with each citizen espousing his/her religious beliefs in any public forum! Now, I would say that it's more appropriate if ONLY the religious principles of those in attendance were being espoused. There's no sense having a tantra speaker if nobody in the intended audience practices tantra. This way, nobody in attendance is offended, you know?

Separation of Church and State is mentioned NOWHERE in our Constitution. The Constitution simply says that there can be no nationally-established religion, and that our Government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. If the majority of folks in a community want to have prayers in their schools, our Constitution virtually requires that they be allowed to do so. In such cases, members of religions that are not part of the majority should be allowed to pray in their own way as well.

If I remember correctly, and excuse me because I'm not a religious expert like you, Abraham was not required to sacrifice his son. He was told to do that, but then God excused him from actually doing it. As for which religions are worthy of respect, those would be ones whose principles are based on a brotherhood of man. Religions that call for the destruction and murder of other human beings, human beings that are not trying to harm them, are NOT worthy of respect! To me it's all about HOW you behave, NOT what God or Tree you worship.

I don't know whether there's a big man in the sky or not, and I suspect you don't know either. I don't insist that there IS, although you seem pretty sure that there ISN'T. Many of the religious founders of our nation were pretty smart folks, and most had respectable principles of personal behavior. Perhaps you could start a separate thread discussing the principles and historical accomplishments of tantra. I don't think most of us know much about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. "If a majority of folks in a community want to have prayers in their schools

our Constitution virtually requires that they be allowed to do so."

No, that is NOT what the Constitution says. The Constitution does NOT say that if a "majority" of people anywhere just fuckin' feel like it, they can deprive the minority of their constitutional rights- and mandatory prayer in schools are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said so, again, and again, and again.

I take it you don't agree with the Supreme Court?

"Free exercise of religion" doesn't mean hijacking government institutions (in this case, schools) to impose the religion or even faith-in-general of the 'majority' on citizens. Last time I checked, there wasn't a church shortage in this country.. so why does "God" NEED organized, led prayer- in PUBLIC school?

And speaking of which.. no, I don't "know" there's not an invisible man in the sky-- just like I don't "know" that there's not a giant, invisible, undetectable, odorless, colorless, 500 foot tall orangutan living on top of my house. By definition, if "he" is unprovable by physical, evidentiary means, I can't "know" that he's not there. But I *DO* know that there isn't a single, solitary shred of physical evidence corroborating the assertion. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" Ever heard that one? And in the case of "God", I also know that the folks most stridently claiming to speak for this individual in human history have been batting well-nigh close to 0 with their predictions about reality and the physical universe- on everything from the age of the Earth to whether the Sun goes around it or not. So you'll forgive me if I don't accept their assertions as, if you will, gospel truth.

As for the, um, accomplishments of Tantra... all I can suggest is that you try it, dude, and see for yourself.

[jprd]

89. You Seem Very Angry

and you are also very wrong again. If the citizens of a community wish to have prayers in their schools, and if ALL religions represented by the students in the school agree with doing that, who are YOU to deny them that wish? If there is agreement within the community and among all the students, then there is NO "minority" that is deprived of anything!

I personally think there's not much reason for having prayers in schools. However, there are a lot of reasons for teaching proper personal behavior in schools. You can say what you like about organized religions, but you cannot pretend that personal morality is unimportant. If our children are not taught such things, why should we expect decent bahavior from them when they're adults?

Your comment about the accomplishments of Tantra sounds a lot like you're attempting to PROVE the existence of God. "You can't see it, touch it, or describe what it's accomplished, you just have to have faith in it." Thanks "dude"!

[Warren DeMontague]

91. No, I suggested you *try* it. Specific physical activities, to see if you obtain any results

you like.

Or don't. I don't really care, frankly. Your responses indicate to me that you don't have the faintest clue as to what I'm talking about, and you wouldn't know Tantra from Taco Bell. So forget it.

Beyond that, it's not who *I* am to "deny" the "majority" of the "right" to group prayer in public schools. It's the Constitution, and it's a principle which has been upheld REPEATEDLY by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter if EVERY SINGLE KID and EVERY SINGLE PARENT in We-all-love-Jesus-Town, Mississippi WANTS organized Prayer in Public Schools. It's NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Get it? It's NOT. CONSTITUTIONAL.

How about an answer to the question- do you disagree with the Supreme Court of the United States on that, or not? Sounds like you do.

And it's precisely this kind of blather you're spewing about "the majority" being able to do whatever the fuck they feel like that gets into people's heads, and you invariably end up with shit like this:

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

and this:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/smalko1.htm

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

So you're right, I'm angry. I'm sick and tired of glassy-eyed religious nuts trying to turn this nation into a theocracy, when the LAST thing this planet needs is more Theocracies. I'm sick of people who can't be satisfied taking THEIR OWN KIDS to church, they need prayer in public schools so other people's kids can either be marginalized or pressured to convert. The Bedrock Principle of Separation of Church and State ("oh! oh! But wait!" ...yeah. you know what else isn't "found anywhere in the Constitution"? The Word "God". Nowhere. Not once. I suppose that was just an accidental oversight, eh?) is one of the core values that MAKES THIS NATION FREE AND GREAT, and I'm tired of big-hair televangelists, 10 Commandment monument-pushers, and tinhorn wouldbe Jesus Freaks -like that idiot in the White House- trying to poop on it.

As for "proper personal behavior"... Er, what does that have to do with Western Religion, again? (Ask Giordano Bruno) Perhaps you can explain precisely HOW proper personal behavior should be taught, in a Biblical Context, in public schools. Because it seems to me that "proper personal behavior" and religion are not always synonymous. Respect for other people? Non-violence? These are values which I think are perfectly capable of being transmitted with NO religious overtones whatsoever. In fact, sometimes it's the religious fundamentalists who are actively opposed to the transmission of those values. Is tolerance for people different than oneself an example of "proper personal behavior"? How about tolerance for gays and lesbians? Seems quite a few rather religious folks have a problem with that.

Is minding your own business an example of proper personal behavior? Seems to me, in public schools, respect for knowledge, learning, and inquiry -instead of throwing endless amounts of meaningless, interfering gibberish at the teachings of scientists like Charles Darwin who stubbornly refuse to provide some of us with the answer we demand---seems to me, in a public school, that would be a sterling example of "proper personal behavior".

But... let's hear it- lets hear about those proper personal behavior values that are only capable of being expressed in a religious context. And while you're at it, is your point that atheists and other unbelievers are incapable of having a moral code? Intrinsically immoral or otherwise morally deficient?

Oh, and by the way... welcome to DU. :hi:

[jprd]

97. Thanks

for the welcome! I appreciate that. I compared your comment about Tantra to trying to prove the existence of God because, although you seem to believe in Tantra, you didn't give examples that would explain to others why it's worth believing in. You're right that I don't know anything about it! I am NOT a glassy-eyed religious nut. I'm just a guy who tries to be logical about things, sometimes succeeding, and sometimes not.

When I try to be logical about the issue of the school prayer that we were discussing, I see it differently than you do apparently. I read our Constitution and it says that no law shall be made that will restrict the "free exercise" of religion. I understand and appreciate that there are times when SOME folks in a school might be offended by a prayer. In such cases, I can agree that a prayer may be inappropriate. If ALL students and parents in attendance had no problem with a prayer, then there is no minority to offend. I conlcude, therefore, that the folks wanting the prayer should be allowed their "free exercise" rights!

As for "personal behavior", norms can be taught with absolutely NO religious involvement. Traits such as self-control, taking responsibility for ones actions (NOT just saying that you're sorry), respect for the person and property of others, etc. These are pretty much the standards of behavior to which our founding fathers ascribed, the same founding fathers that gave us our great Constitution. The only reason I said that "personal behavior" was related to "western religion" was that up until fairly recently the source for teaching norms of "personal behavior" was mainly the Churches and Synagogues, and those norms were reinforced in schools. We can't typically involve religion in schools anymore, but we shouldn't forget the need for teaching priniples like those I mentioned above. I'm certainly NOT talking about teaching creationism or religious dogma.

I would never imply that non-believers are incapable of "moral" behavior, because I don't believe that. I just believe that having NO standards for personal behavior is a dangerous concept, don't you? Again, thanks for the welcome!

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Thanks for the clarifications.

Nevertheless, people HAVE the right to free exercise of religion; what they don't have the right to do is enlist state institutions in sponsoring it. So even in your hypothetical case of "what if everyone in a class; school; school district; state" agreed that they "want" a specific organized prayer in school (and how to determine which sample size constitutes the acceptable determining 'group' is another matter entirely) it would still be unconstitutional. That's not to say that people can't freely choose on their own to pray any damn time they feel like it- it's another right wing lie that kids "aren't allowed to pray" in schools. What isn't permissible is organized, group, school-endorsed prayer. Kids are also allowed -in many cases- to form church and prayer groups that can meet after school on school property; but the schools have to make space available for other religions, etc. Again, that's not the same thing as having organized prayer in schools, endorsed by the school, in class, on school time. Subtle difference, but significant.

As for what I believe, honestly I'm not the expert on tantra or, more specifically, tantric sex.. (Oh, I've dabbled...) however, I brought it up in response to your prior shock re: the t-shirts that anyone might consider sex to be a religious act. In my humble opinion, it is a statement on how far afield many religions have wandered from what I would consider their original mandate, namely pure celebration of life, joy, pleasure and nature, that people honestly can't grasp the notion of sex being "religious" (note, too, that "religion" doesn't always connote "god". I would consider Buddhism a religion, but most Buddhists do not believe in anything resembling the Western concept of "God") ... My thinking is that's part of the damage caused by thousands of years of control-minded religious leaders telling followers that sex is "sinful".

But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Selatius]

38. The issue is that a school prayer is being included in a public function, funded by taxpayer dollars

The issue isn't t-shirts people are wearing but the fact that there will be a prayer at all during a public school's commencement using a public stage, with a public microphone, connected to public speakers, in a public venue all paid by taxpayers, not all of whom are Christian.

That is why the ACLU is getting involved. The simple fact is the students can have a prayer, but not at commencement because the commencement is a function of a taxpayer funded public school, not a private one. Those who are Christian can pray after commencement is finished.

[jprd]

45. Aren't Most Schools Funded By Local Taxes?

I understand your point, and it's well taken. I would think, however, that if a local community's taxes are being used for their schools, the citizens of that community should have some rights when it comes to what their children are allowed to do in those schools. Don't you?

[rasputin1952]

46. Most schools are also funded by the Fed Gov't as well...

In fact, if the Feds quit funding education, there would be few if any Public Schools.

There has never been a ban on prayer at schools, only a ban on school sponsored religious events. Prayer is religious by it's very nature, and even if the students voted to have one, when it is a "safe vote" it is pretty well biased so what was the purpose except to justify the prayer in the eyes of those who pursued it?


Those who wish to have a prayer could do so at any time prior to, or after the graduation ceremony, no one is going to stop them from having the event, as long as it is not sanctioned by the school. This is a strictly political ploy, meant to garner attention, those who are pushing this know that, and are using it for their own agenda. They would be happy for the ACLU to step in, it would enhance the "persecution" myth.

[gollygee]

48. This has come up locally too

In order for the ACLU to get involved, someone at that school must have complained. We have a school in our region that has prayer at every commencement, and at other times too, but no one in the district has ever complained so the ACLU is unable to get involved.

It isn't a "majority rule" thing. If someone there doesn't feel comfortable with it and complains, it can't be done. At least that's the way courts have ruled in the past.

The T-shirts would have to be allowed unless they're considered offensive for some justifiable reason. It's possible for a T-shirt with a religious message to be offensive I suppose, but simply having a religious message wouldn't be offensive. Students have the right to individually express their religion any time they want. But they can't have a publicly led prayer. The problem is the school-sponsored nature of prayer at commencement. It's a governmental body sponsoring a religion (Christianity) at that point. But for the ACLU to get involved, someone within the district has to complain. Someone who goes to school there has to be the one to bring it to court.

[jprd]

51. Thank You!

That's all I was trying to say, but you said it better than I did.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Actually, what he was saying was that even if a majority of people WANT an organized prayer

it is unconstitutional to have one in a public school. That is directly at odds with your other post.

[jprd]

90. What If

EVERY parent and student involved with the school wanted to have a prayer? Obviously, there'd be no minority that would be deprived of anything. Would you still deny them the "free exercise" of religion?

[Warren DeMontague]

92. The Supreme Court would.

Because it's not Constitutional. Period.

[jprd]

98. Well, We Know That Constitutionality These Days

is soley dependant upon WHICH Supreme Court Justices are making the decision. When I read that Congress cannot make laws that restrict the "free exercise" of religion, it means exactly what it says. Many Justices agree with that interpretation. We may find that in a few years there will be a lot more constitutional things and unconstitutional things that we ever thought possible! Supreme Court roulette?

[Warren DeMontague]

104. So, then, you do disagree with the Supreme Court decisions prohibiting organized prayer

in public schools, endorsed by the school itself.

Just out of curiosity, any other big supreme court decisions from the past 40 years you disagree with? And which members of the Supreme Court do you find yourself agreeing with on these matters? Any names?

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Right, but as a side issue, I don't think it would be constitutional to allow t-shirts from only

SOME religions. If kids can wear Jesus T-shirts, they should be able to wear Buddha t-shirts, or Flying Spaghetti Monster T-Shirts, or Satan T-shirts, or whatever.

[Selatius]

87. If the school is prohibiting t-shirts from other religions, that's a big problem.

But as far as I know, the school hasn't gone to that length, and I don't think the school was buying the shirts for the students from what I heard.

[rasputin1952]

15. YOu have to understand that no one ever said that religious

practices could not be undertaken, but they cannot be sponsored by any group/system that has governmental authority.

Kids in my city have religious things in the school all the time, but nce they are sponsored by the school district, they are in deep stuff.

What bothers me about people like this is that they feel like they are being persecuted for a "lack of relifion" in certain circumstances...that'sd BS...for crying out loud, people can pray anywhere they want to, most people of religious persuasion do precisely that, and almost anyone who ever had to take an algebra test has certainly muttered some little missive before the test!

There are rules in many school districts that desire to keep contentious issues out the halls and classrooms, and I think this is fine.


BTW: Welcome to DU...:hi:

[donco6]

49. Not necessarily true.

While these Tshirts would probably be OK, schools are well within their rights to restrict messages on clothing if they disrupt the learning environment. See Tinker v. Des Moines for the Supreme Court case on it.

[Toots]

53. Schools are Constitutionally allowed to enforce dress codes.

You can't wear gang colors in most schools or very mini mini-skirts or a lot of things especially if they are highly controversial such as religious advertisments.

[dave_p]

19. What's wrong with this picture?

{i}"Most of the people in the United States are Christian," Wilson said. "I feel like I need to stand up for what I believe in."{/i}

No, if most of the people around you are what you claim to be, you don't need to proclaim it unless the intention is to browbeat others.

And of course that's what they'd love: "Hey boy, why ain't you wearin' a Jesus T-shirt? You one o' they ay-theists? Or a commie?"

These people don't feel under sny sort of disadvantage. they just want to promote their own religion and ostracize others'.

[rasputin1952]

20. So why are these students wearing this T-shirt under their

graduation gowns?

Seems to me like that is defeating the purpose, but why do I even really care?

These kids have been caught up in something they believe is correct...fine, but if there are people of other faiths that are offended, the very least these kids could do is show the respect that others deserve.

What would happen if someone came in from New Orleans and decided a voodoo prayer was appropriate? Seems to me, if they practiced the faith they that requires forgiveness and mercy, as well as accepting the "outcasts", they'd pretty much have to comply.These kids are bing used, and the adults should be ashamed.

[Neoma]

23. Can I have a 'In Buddha's name' T-shirt?

Just wondering.

[Reverend_Smitty]

25. I for the life of me will never understand the concept of the persecuted majority

It seems like there is a certain ilk of fundie that is not happy unless they perceive themselves to be under attack...it's like a modern form of self-flagellation. If they all want to be sufferers like Christ, they should pick up the old whip again and save us all from their incessant belly aching

[jprd]

28. It's An Easy Concept to Understand

The example of South Africa under apartheid might be appropriate. The small percentage of white population established laws and ran the nation even though the majority of citizens were black Africans. That can happen anywhere a small, elite class takes control of the machinery of Government don't you think?

[donco6]

50. Darn that separation of church and state.

If only the will of the majority were heard. :sarcasm:

[jprd]

52. I Agree

Think how the elite white minority disenfranchised and ruled the majority of black citizens in South Africa for so many years. We wouldn't want an elite minority to rule in the USA, would we? By the way, why did you indicate that you were being "Sarcastic"?

[donco6]

54. Sarcastic because the will of the majority here . . . .

. . . . would result in the installation of church doctrine in government before your next heartbeat. As you well know, I'm sure.

[jprd]

59. I Don't Think That's True

I don't think there are two formal groups of practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus that agree 100% philosophically with one another. DO you think the Methodists might take control and install their church doctrine? Maybe the Catholics? Do Orthodox or Reformed Jews have the advantage do you think? That's the crux of the "establishment of religion" clause. There isnt't ONE religious group that is a majority in the US, so I don't see what your worry is with "majority rules".

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gollygee]

55. What elite minority do you think is likely to rule in the USA?

Is there some particular situation you're thinking of?

[jprd]

56. An Elite Minority Could Be

any group that doesn't represent the will of the majority, but is able to wield enough power to dictate to the majority. This is a majority-rule nation. Majority-Rule should dictate law as long as the majority rules within the restrictions of our Constitution. You're not advocating that "some" minority group SHOULD rule are you?

[gollygee]

57. No, but I don't see any minority group ruling

you seem to see this as a threat. I'm wondering what the threat is.

[jprd]

60. No I Don't

see any particular minority as a threat in the US. I was responding to a poster who seems to think that the majority should NOT rule, that's all. He said as much. The ONLY option to "majority rules" is that SOME minority DOES rule. I made the point that it was indeed "possible" for a minority to take control of a government, whereas the other poster didn't think that was possible. Communication is difficult sometimes, isn't it? lol

[gollygee]

62. The principal of democracy is that the majority rules but

that the rights and freedoms of individuals and minority groups are maintained, and can't be taken away even if the majority wants it that way.

Unfortunately, that doesn't always seem to be the practice IMO - in regard to same-sex marriage most notably.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

71. Rick Santorum......

is that you?

I THOUGHT I'd seen that MAN-DOG thought process before!

[symbolman]

78. LOL

Hear Hear! Glad you called it..

Everyone keeps feeding the trolls lately, I think we actually feel so SORRY for them, that their Leader is such a TOTAL PUTZ :)

Your post cracked me up, thanks!

Now, where is that SHOVEL... :)

[donco6]

84. Or I suppose we could worry about man/dog love when . . .

. . . it actually happens.

Wow.

[jprd]

85. My Civil Reply

to this post simply said that there were concerns that some good and decent citizens have about same-sex marriage that should be addressed in any related legislation! If asking for a FAIR HEARING of the concerns of citizens constitutes reason for having my post deleted, then this is one SORRY excuse for "democratic debate". If THIS message is deleted too, I'll know that fairness and concern for all viewpoints is NOT part of what this board is about!

[Reverend_Smitty]

70. Wait a second, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say...

where in my post did I say that some "elite minority" should rule? I was merely pointing out that there are some people regardless of the circumstances walk around with a martyr complex. In no way was I advocating that some sort of I donno special atheist task force go around the country suppressing the religious practice of Christians. I was only pointing out that people were making an issue of persecution where there really is none. Nobody is saying that they can't wear their t-shirts or even pray, I take issue when people vote (students or not) to have it sanctioned by the school...it crosses a line IMHO, they may have a Christian majority but what about the students who don't want a school sponsored prayer at their graduation? Or the students that were too afraid to stand up and say they didn't want it out of fear from retaliation from the Christian students? Don't believe that it can happen...watch this past Friday's 20/20 and there is a perfect example of it.

Sadly, I read an article recently that students in high school right now are some of the LEAST informed citizens when it comes to the constitution so I'm not surprised that they aren't familiar with the establishment clause. Hell I'd even have no problem with it if an individual student said a prayer during one of his or her speeches...just don't have it mandated by the school.

[Jade Fox]

58. That situation is actually rare....

and very hard to maintain. The South African Apartheid government became a virtual police state in order to stay in power as long as they did.

[jprd]

64. There Have Been Many Police States

Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, apartheid South Africa, Communist Cuba, Franco's Spain, Hussein's Iraq, Taliban's Afghanistan, and many others too numerous to mention. If a minority takes control of government, institutes its own laws and legal interpretations, controls the armed forces, indoctrinates the children with appropriate propaganda, eliminates the opposition's freedom of speech and the press, and either physically or otherwise destroys the majority's ability to survive and defend itself, it's amazing how long they can stay in power.

[Jade Fox]

74. Lumping all those together is ludicrous....

South Africa under apartheid bears virtually no resemblance to post-revolutionary Cuba, etc. Your painting with a mighty broad stroke here.

My guess is you think Nancy Pelosi is going to force those minority "San Francisco" values on the entire US populace.

[treestar]

67. Sure, but Christians in the U.S. are not in that position

The history of both countries is entirely differnt.

The complaint here is to deem it "persecution" that one's religion is not the official religion of the state.

[me b zola]

96. Minority group status is not limited to mathematical minority

What is a Minority Group?

~A subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group

~Not limited to mathematical minority: example women, Blacks in South Africa, Blacks in Mississippi and South Carolina in the 1920's

~Interchangeable with subordinate group

~A group that experiences a narrowing of opportunities (success, education, wealth, etc) that is disproportionately low compared to their numbers in the society

~~~more @ link, including charactoristics of a minority group~~~

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/minor01.htm

I also noticed upthread you were ill-informed about the religious ideologies--and in some cases, lack there of--of many of our nation's founders. If you have no libraries in your area there are many good educational sights on the internets to help you with your understanding of our history and the founder's beliefs & ideologies. :hi:

[spoony]

31. A majority is a group, individuals do not usually wander around

in packs of millions of people, so an individual who is associated with a majority can be persecuted just as an individual who is associated with a minority can.

[Jade Fox]

61. It's a phenomenon that has me scratching my head too....

but I don't think it's limited to Fundamentalist Christians. I am reminded of white men who sit idly by while jokes about minorities, women, and gays are aired, but who are outraged when jokes are made at their expense.

I wonder if being in the majority doesn't bestow one with a sense of entitlement that members of other groups don't have. But the people who exhibit this entitled behavior also seem....touchy. Oversensitive. It's like there is some deep fear involved with being in the majority too. What can it be?

[Perky]

82. Really? I think it is very easy top undestand

There are actually democratic undepinnings involveed. It a majoritarian view that it should not have to bend to the will of any other belief system held by a small minority.

But that is precisely why the establishment clause exists. The framers recognized that the Pilgrims fled religious tyranny in England fosited on small sects by Canterbury and sought to protect the right of all religious sects against the domination ny something akin to the Church of England. In fact it was something pled for by leading clergy of the day.

Christians as a whole, look at a state demand for religious diversity as undercutting thier relgious and free speech rights. What they fail to consider is that that was the bargain struck by the founders. The state does not support one religion over another so it may in so doing protectg the religious and free speech rights of every religious minority., and in response they are permitted to freely worship as they see fit, privately and publicly.

The objection at is core is a belief that the right of others are more important than their own. That belief has it genesis in decades old SCOTUS decisions..

What CHristians need to understand about their own faiths is that a religion dependent upon the state for sanction and blessing and authority and to prosletyxes on its behalf is a very dead religion.

[Ferretherder]

39. I want to make one thing perfectly clear - ...

...- I have NO PROBLEM with anyone's personal religious beliefs, as long as they live their lives as they feel they should, and let me do the same. When that person feels the need to CONVERT me to THEIR way of thinking, whether it is because they feel 'sorry' for me because I'm going to hell, or they are bound by their religious beliefs to do so, or they just plain don't like living around folks who don't believe the way they do, well, we've got a problem. I also don't need someone 'ever-so-subtly' letting me know how pius(= better) they are, and how I ain't!

Ya' know, I remember something this guy said, a REAL long time ago - and people still quote this dude A LOT, these days - this guy said something like, 'and don't be like the Pharisees, who pray loudly in the streets and in the market places, for I tell you, they have their heaven, already'...something like that.

I am an ex - church goer, almost evangelical, for a little while there. I went to church almost every time the doors were opened. Suffice it to say that, I'm not doin' that thang, now. I didn't have a huge fight with anyone at the church (United Methodists); I didn't get mad at any one of the preachers we had, or any of the lay-persons there ; I didn't get laughed at for singing in the choir - nothing like that. I just went off to college for a semester or two, came back home one weekend, decided to go with my grandmother to sunday service while I was there,.....and listened to the preacher deliver a sermon about the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and all that, and decided that I couldn't reconcile that stuff with my study of Paleontology (no, didn't take it in college - was just always a HUGE fan of the subject and really into fossil-hunting).

So,....I became, by and by, an........ulp,...............uh,..........an.... ......
....... er,..... COMMUNIST! .......uh, sorry,that other 'ist' - atheist.

Really, I don't want to be like SOME ex-smokers I've known who REALLY have a problem being around ANYONE who has smoked in the last week, or so. And I swear to God, ...uh, ..sorry, again.....I mean I really and truly mean that I DON't have it in for anyone's way of gettin' through the day with your brain cells still somewhat intact. I just wish we could all mind our own business, do whatever the hell we want to do (so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) that makes us feel good about ourselves, and respect our fellow human beings for the wonderfully obtuse creatures we are.

Like this other guy said, one time : 'can't we all just get along?'.

[Geek_Girl]

63. You can always tell when the general elections are around the corner

All of the hot button Bull shit issues to start to surface and get media attention. It's a ploy to keep the sheeple voting repuke and against their own self interest.

[treestar]

65. Why do they not get that a vote does not count in this case?

It's as if they don't understand word one of the Bill of Rights.
:mad:

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. When those persectuted christians truly cannot meet

and practice their faith I'll believe them, not a second before

Tehy are far from persecuted but this false victimhood is also part of the movement, and cannot ever be adressed, that is the beauty of it

[and-justice-for-all]

93. "what if we made equal time for other religious observances "

That sounds like a plan...If we can not keep their silly dogma off our tax dollars, them we should simply say "If your going to teach babble, then you also have to imclude ALL the other religious text into the study as well." That would make them think twice before running their mouth about teaching the babble anywhere else.

[Ferretherder]

99. Actually, that sounds like a plan. After all,...

...America IS the MELTING POT of the world ( more like the Cauldron, these days ), how more appropriate could it be than to include ALL religions particular customs and observances at EVERY public event or holiday tribute. And you know what? I got the PERFECT plan as to how we can accomplish that! We get representatives from ALL the worlds religions together - at least, all the ones represented, here, in the U. S. - and get them to agree that there just isn't any PRACTICAL way to allow enough time to acknowledge EVERY particular religion's special prayers and what-not for each sporting event or supermarket opening, so we are asking them all to silently say their prayers and whatever else to their particular god(s), and any other special acknowledgments that are required by their religious doctrines are to be carried out at a remote location ( church, synagogue, mosque, somebody's house, etc. ), so as to allow for the timely observance of the ceremony at hand.

Whadda ya' think?

[and-justice-for-all]

100. All or nothing...sounds good to me.

Only becasue once the Koran is brought up as part of the 'required' time which is devoted equally among them all, the fundi pigs will change their minds and drop the issue.