Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
It's not the courts job to prevent someone feeling bad. There's far too many whiners out there for that.
|
Actually it is.
Isn't that the point of fighting discrimination? Isn't "feeling bad" the consequence of being discriminated against or treated unfairly? Do you think Rosa Parks "felt bad" being forced to sit at the back of the bus? It was a catalyst that revealed the actual social inequity even if the singular event and personal feelings of the person involved seem insignificant and those in the ruling majority felt that "separate but equal" did not cause any significant harm.
"Feeling bad" is only an individual symptom of systematic institutionalized discrimination or unfair treatment. "Feeling bad" is what tells you that you are not receiving the treatment from others that you desire. If that coincides with treatment that is actually unlawful, then you have a right to your civil liberties and for the courts to defend your rights.
I've said over and over again, the principle is not whether or not he "feels bad" as you are focusing on his individual harm. The principle and what people debating here is his right to challenge the school prayer and that he has every right to do so and it is in fact, an advocacy of a much greater number of people than this one individual.
I am interested in your Christian Bill of Rights. Honestly, I am. What have you come up with?
I think "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" Matthew 7:12 and "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself" Leviticus 19:34 would apply to this case.
Instead you address him over and over derogatorily as "Atheist Boy". If you want people to respect Christian principles and practices, you should respect their principles and practices as well, even if they are atheists. Similarly, you should treat them as if they were your own. Instead, the response to him from his peers and family has been anger, threats of violence, and him being ostracized and you have insulted him as only being a whiny person trying to cause a stir.
If at an event that was extremely important to you, like a graduation ceremony, the sanctioned message of the ceremony was pro-actively atheist and even insulting of your religion. Would you rather just have to sit down and shut up for 2 minutes and tolerate it with no other choice? Or would you rather you had the option (even if you did not choose to exercise it!) and ability to seek redress legally from the courts as is your right to? Why is this any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I am willing to repect another person's religion. I'm not willing to participate in it. See the difference.
I fully support atheist boy's right not to bow down to my God or even close his eyes.
|
And so "atheist boy" was not willing to participate in this event. Do you understand there is
no difference here? For you, the threshold of participation may be bowing down. For him, the threshold of participation is sitting there and condoning it passively and what is legally his right to oppose. That is the beauty of living in a free society. You have that choice. If you lived in a Muslim society, refusing to participate would mark you out for criminal prosecution and violence. Holding yourself to one standard and others to a separate standard is not Christian in principle and this hypocrisy is one of the reasons religion is seem over and over again in a bad light. You feel that it is just a bad law. You don't respect his position and so people are not respecting yours in this thread. There's the Biblical principle in action.