You will notice that this separation of church and State was intended to protect churches and individuals from interference by the government. It was never intended to silent religious expression but, rather up hold it.
"Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor"
-Danbury Baptists
Jefferson's assurance that this barrier is not meant to be broken by goverment is not relevant to the current resistance to aggressive theism.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
And its a simple answer...its what the large majority believe. Its not what I believe, its not what you believe, but we are in the minority at this point in this situation. however, if its what the community wants and what the community is invested in, and no one is being hurt by it...then by all means they shoudl be allowed to proceed as they see fit.
It doesn't matter if it's what the majority want. Certain sections of the US Constitution were written specifically to prevent the majority from democratically voting for laws that would infringe on the rights of minority members.
But knowuing you hold yourself as the "tolerant" one, I expect that you will keep harping on the same point...so carry on.
Read what I freaking said.
Praying is not illegal, nor should it be. A school administration enforcing prayer on a student body is illegal. There's a big difference between the two, and if you continue to fail to see the distinction, then I can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.
Praying is not illegal....in fact the constitution protects the right to do so...you should read it sometime, its a great document.
What you are attempting to say is a Supreme Court ruling that states...
What I am saying is that nothing that this school does when it comes to praying to a god that this already kid doesnt believe in, will change a thing in his life. Nothing. Period.
So he is doing no more than stirring up a hornets nest of crap that had no other ending than to come back and sting him right in the nose.
Was he within his rights to do so? Of course he was. Was it worth it and did it accomplish anything? Nope.
I'm guessing you would have been there making a similar argument that it really wasn't a big deal to force blacks to drink from a separate water fountain. No harm done right? Anyone thinking that it was, was "doing no more than stirring up a hornets nest of crap".
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Questionable decisions are what kids do best. And any projection of "suspicious" reasoning is itself suspicious IMO. No one knows the whole context.
Kids can be cruel at the best of times even without ammunition. I know I got a LOT of harassment and abuse (some physical) because of my religious beliefs in high school.
Most noise? Kid writes a letter asking the school comply with the law is more noise than kid getting death threats, booted from family, etc?
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
It doesn't matter if it's what the majority want. Certain sections of the US Constitution were written specifically to prevent the majority from democratically voting for laws that would infringe on the rights of minority members.
I could say you are illogical for not believing I have an invisible dragon in my garage too. The question is is it in fact illogical?
Irrational comparison. When as many people believe in your invisible dragon in your garage as the amount of people that believe in God in the world, with all the history involved then you could call me illogical.
The Following User Says Thank You to flames85 For This Useful Post:
And its a simple answer...its what the large majority believe. Its not what I believe, its not what you believe, but we are in the minority at this point in this situation. however, if its what the community wants and what the community is invested in, and no one is being hurt by it...then by all means they shoudl be allowed to proceed as they see fit.
You're joking right? Majority rules? And if the majority wants to subjugate people of one skin colour, or one sex, they should be allowed to proceed as they see fit?
Who decides whether "no one is being hurt by it"? The majority?
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
I'm guessing you would have been there making a similar argument that it really wasn't a big deal to force blacks to drink from a separate water fountain. No harm done right? Anyone thinking that it was, was "doing no more than stirring up a hornets nest of crap".
Wow.
Yes...racism where people were physically harmed and prevented from doing what they wish and the ability of those who believe in god to hold their heads in prayer and affect NO one else...are almost exactly the same thing.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
You're joking right? Majority rules? And if the majority wants to subjugate people of one skin colour, or one sex, they should be allowed to proceed as they see fit?
Who decides whether "no one is being hurt by it"? The majority?
Some people get it...some dont.
You show me how you can be harmed by someone else praying to an entity you dont believe exists...I will engage you in debate...but as of now? Not a chance. Stupid is stupid.
It's about stopping a public institution from enforcing prayer on an entire student body, which the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional and illegal. It's not about stopping anyone from privately praying in their homes or churches or even in a voluntary school Christianity club.
Atheists committing crimes is not the same as crimes being committed in the name of atheism.
I assert that "God wants me to kill this person" is a historically relevant sentiment and there is no comparable sentiment among atheists.
Well if thats what you meant then you didn't understand my original comment. I said there are radical atheists and radical christians. Just because nothing exists to an atheist kinda defeats the comparison. Like what is an atheist going to say 'i'm killing in the name of nothing?' The point of my original post was to clarify that you cannot brush all christians with the same brush just because one is nuts.
Again I will ask you, (who claims to be the tolerant one), what rights are being infringed upon when someone bows their head and prays.
None, but that's not the issue we're discussing.
Until you can grasp the distinction between private prayer by individuals and government-enforced prayer on a group of citizens, further conversation with you is pointless.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
It's about not having a prayer be delivered as part of the graduation ceremonies.
Sure it is.
No idea what else it is about actually.
This kid is preventing the rest of his classmates from being part of a prayer that occurs at graduation based on his "stressing" because of it.....pretty straight forward.
Irrational comparison. When as many people believe in your invisible dragon in your garage as the amount of people that believe in God in the world, with all the history involved then you could call me illogical.
There was a time when far more people believed in some other god or gods than you do. Are you implying the existence of gods changes depending on how many people believe or do not believe in them?
I've already posted this, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. How many people think something has nothing to do with the validity of the claim.
It is a perfectly valid comparison. But substitute any other God which has a large # of people believing in it for the invisible dragon if you wish, the point remains unchanged: belief in something only because it hasn't been proven to not exist isn't reasonable. All the lack of proof of nonexistence does is allow for belief to be possible.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
None, but that's not the issue we're discussing.
Until you can grasp the distinction between private prayer by individuals and government-enforced prayer on a group of citizens, further conversation with you is pointless.
Good..then disengage me.
No one is harmed by prayer...but we cant have prayer because someone claims it harms them.
The goofiness of such a claim stands on its own merits.
You show me how you can be harmed by someone else praying to an entity you dont believe exists...I will engage you in debate...but as of now? Not a chance. Stupid is stupid.
What if not everyone at the school believes in the same faith? It's not only about an atheist being harmed. I know if I was at that school I sure wouldn't want to be listening to a christian prayer in a public school.
