Kirk Cameron Attacks Stephen Hawking

[MarchHare]

Photon, you just don't get it. Religious tolerance means shutting up and allowing representatives of the state to recite a Christian prayer over the school PA system. Asking for a moment of silence where individuals are free to pray to any God (or not pray at all) is intolerant of the poor, oppressed Christians of the Bible Belt.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just because that is the law...doesnt necessarily make it right in EVERY instance though.

So the establishment clause is ok except for school graduation ceremonies, then it's ok to go against the constitution?

Why does the state where this school is in even have a law on the books for what should be done to ensure everyone is included then?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Unfortunately your intolerance wont allow you to see that however.

Allowing everyone to have their own prayer rather than forcing everyone to participate in a state endorsed prayer of a single religion is intolerant?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Pretty obvious what his end game was...and now he is realizing the consequences...rightly or wrongly. Instead of using a little common sense he is now chastised.

Good for him i suppose.

Yeah, lesson here is never stand up to the tyranny of the majority, their might makes right and one should be quiet and bend to their will even if it breaks the law. Great lesson for kids.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really?

You advocated civil disobedience for what was in your opinion a bad law, and said this kid was just disturbing things for standing up for what he thought was a good law.

[SeeBass]

Come on Rosa Parks it is only a two minute bus ride, this is the way it has been for awhile and the majority prefer it that way, I really don't see the big deal, it is a shame that now a bunch of people hate you and you wrecked everybodies bus ride.
Maybe someday the supreme court will change it back, but for now it is a really bad law.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Tolerance is admirable, and one of the principles that I feel society is lacking the most of in this day and age. Along with compassion, tolerance is one of the most important things to me and it really is the key to real empathy and conflict resolution. If we were all a little more tolerant, world peace would be much more sustainable.

However, there are times for tolerance and there are also times for standing up for your beliefs and principles. It is your right to choose to tolerate something that infringes upon your personal rights. This student chose not to tolerate something that has been expressly ruled as an unconstitutional practice many times in the past.

Right now in this thread, you are standing up for your own religious convictions against what is seemingly a majority. What makes this situation any different from his? One of the biggest things that drive people away from Christianity and religion is the apparent hypocrisy practiced and condoned by so many.

But these guys aren't infringing on my personal rights. This is the point. It is like Zellers suing over a chocolate bar. The infringment if any is so small as to be unmeasurable or at least irrelevant.

The purpose of the separation of church and State was to put up a wall which would prevent one from controlling or manipulating the other. They seen the influence the crown in England had over the church and vice versa as unhealthy. The purpose of this wall was to prevent any marriage between one denomination and the government.

The practice of a clergyman praying at a government event doesn't betray that separation. It hasn't lead to a State church in the last 200 years and won't in the next 200 years.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cain

Pretty ridiculous man, I'm sorry.

Opening up a forced christian prayer to a moment of silence where everyone can do their own thing quietly is anything but intolerant.

I don't think you can be reasoned with at this point. You are hell bent on going the "he's making a big deal out of nothing, and getting what he deserves as an intolerant athiest" route and nobody can make you see otherwise.

Dont be sorry...im tolerant of others views. And I most certainly not suggesting that he is getting what he deserves...but he is getting what was gonna happen all along. Which is why I have repeatedly said all along, apply a little common sense to the thing...and none of this happens.

The fact that every single christian in that room would be able to still have a christian prayer and only sacrifice the ability to force everyone to go along with them pretty much renders any intolerance argument invalid. Nobody is stopping anyone from praying. They just don't want to be forced to go along with it or hear it.

He asked that it be excluded...clearly he asked for that in his letter. The moment of silence was the compromise afterwards.

And I'm sorry, but frankly the sentiment that "someone can just get up and leave if they don't like it" is perfectly fine for some cases, but you have to respect the right of someone to bring up an issue and say "hey guys, you know what? I don't really appreciate having your belief system shoved in my face daily. I am fine with what you believe in, but can we respect ALL belief systems equally instead of favoring one?" That doesn't sound intolerant at all...quite honestly it sounds the opposite.

Daily? Its ONE time at this particular ceremony...he was not forced to listen to prayers daily at school, ever. Its against the law dont you know.

And to say that the guy can just get up and leave during the prayer part...this is for a graduation. For all students. Not just the majority, all of them. This should be a celebration that everyone can enjoy, a celebration made for a group of people that accomplished something while coming from different places, different belief systems and different cultural backgrounds. They all achieved the same thing. Let them celebrate it in a way everyone can enjoy.

He has now made it nearly impossible for himself to enjoy things though...would you not agree?

As for the intolerance label..I am merely throwing it out there based on several comments in this very thread.

Racism, liar, victim, in bred hicks, the intelligent ones that will go to college (suggesting anyone who has releigious beliefs are not intelligent nor college bound)....all things said by the supposedly "enlightened" atheist group here. It amazes me actually.....and i am not a religious guy in any way!

[pepper24]

It took one of the world's smartest person to tell us that heaven is a fairytale?

[SeeBass]

[MarchHare]

He asked that it excluded...clearly he asked for that in his letter. The moment of silence was the compromise afterwards.

He specifically mentioned in his original letter (which I linked earlier) that a moment of silence is acceptable under Louisiana law. His proposal for a compromise that respected everyone's beliefs didn't come afterwards at all; it's what he wanted all along.

he was not forced to listen to paryers daily at school, ever. Its against the law dont you know.

It's also against the law to force him to listen to a prayer at his graduation ceremony.

[transplant99]

He specifically mentioned in his original letter (which I linked earlier) that a moment of silence is acceptable under Louisiana law. His proposal for compromise didn't come afterwards at all; it's what he wanted all along.

right...but then followed it up with a threat to involve the ACLU. WHich again, is his right to do so, but not very wise in my estimation.

It's also against the law to force him to listen to a prayer at his graduation ceremony.

Let me ask you this...what if during the graduation one of his classmates stood up and started praying and those that wanted to...joined in. Do you think they too are breaking the law?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Let me ask you this...what if during the graduation one of his classmates stood up and started praying and those that wanted to...joined in. Do you think they too are breaking the law?

That wouldn't make them lawbreakers, it would make them ###holes.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by transplant99

right...but then followed it up with a threat to involve the ACLU. WHich again, is his right to do so, but not very wise in my estimation.



Let me ask you this...what if during the graduation one of his classmates stood up and started praying and those that wanted to...joined in. Do you think they too are breaking the law?

I guess you guys can keep asking each other who broke what law over and over but isn't the law black or white on this?
You tell me is this against the law?

[MarchHare]

right...but then followed it up with a threat to involve the ACLU. WHich again, is his right to do so, but not very wise in my estimation.

He offered them the carrot in the form of a moment of silence compromise but showed that he'd go for the stick if the school didn't comply with the law. Nothing wrong with that. If the school chooses to abide by the US Constitution, then he has no reason to involve the ACLU.

Let me ask you this...what if during the graduation one of his classmates stood up and started praying and those that wanted to...joined in. Do you think they too are breaking the law?

IANAL, but I think it would depend entirely if it was planned/condoned by the school administration or not. If it was purely spontaneous private speech by the students, I don't think it would be unconstitutional. However, if it was done over the school's PA system and with the administration's prior knowledge, then it would be illegal as determined in the Supreme Court case Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe (linked by photon earlier in this thread).

The relevant section from that ruling:

The District argues unpersuasively that these principles are inapplicable because the policy’s messages are private student speech, not public speech. The delivery of a message such as the invocation here–on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer–is not properly characterized as “private” speech.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That wouldn't make them lawbreakers, it would make them ###holes.

yeah maybe it does...but I think you have to understand that it also a very big part of some peoples lives...particularly in the deep South where Baptists are pretty staunch in their beliefs.

I guess you guys can keep asking each other who broke what law over and over but isn't the law black or white on this?
You tell me is this against the law?

Very doubtful as it wouldn't be considered state sanctioned....unless I guess it was determined that school officials should then throw them out and didnt. Grey area at best.

But that kind of brings me full circle to my original point that I dont beleive for a second that the kid was doing this for any such reason as he claims, but moreso simply because he could. He has every right to make the choice he did and no he should not be facing the consequences for doing so that we now read about....but that is in some utopian world. The reality is that what has since happened was to be fully expected....even though its dead wrong.

[MarchHare]

you have to understand that it also a very big part of some peoples lives...particularly in the deep South where Baptists are pretty staunch in their beliefs.

And demanding a secular government free of religious influence as guaranteed by the Constitution is also a big part of some people's lives...particularly in the deep South where Baptists are pretty staunch in their beliefs.

[transplant99]

Good for them....whats your point?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But these guys aren't infringing on my personal rights. This is the point. It is like Zellers suing over a chocolate bar. The infringment if any is so small as to be unmeasurable or at least irrelevant.

What you choose to tolerate and the degree to which something is infringing or not to you, is only applicable to you and not other persons who have their own rights and personal beliefs.

Rosa Parks had to sit at the back of the bus for a few minutes. It's the same bus, it still gets her to where she needs to get. It's just a seat a few feet back right? It's just a chair to sit on that is built the same as the ones at the front right? It costs the same to take the bus for her as everyone else right? That's not a big deal is it? That's so immeasurable that it's almost irrelevant right? Maybe it means nothing to someone sitting at the front of the bus but it sure as hell meant a lot to her and all the of the people who had to experience that. If you cannot empathize with that, there is a real problem here.

You need to have the ability to empathize and adjust your position, even if you are one of the people sitting at the front of the bus. You cannot assume that something is not infringing just because it seems irrelevant from your vantage point. The issue here is not with the position of the seat just like the issue with the graduation is not the issue of having to sit down and ignore a prayer for two minutes. It's the institutionalization of a practice that is infringing on the rights of not just one person but millions of people in that country.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Come on Rosa Parks it is only a two minute bus ride, this is the way it has been for awhile and the majority prefer it that way, I really don't see the big deal, it is a shame that now a bunch of people hate you and you wrecked everybodies bus ride.
Maybe someday the supreme court will change it back, but for now it is a really bad law.

This is amazing.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good for them....whats your point?

My point is that just as you claim Christianity is important to Southern Baptists, so too is secularism important to Southern atheists. The majority does not get to trump the constitutional rights of the minority, even if allowing school prayer is considered very important to the religious people of the area.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Dont be sorry...im tolerant of others views. And I most certainly not suggesting that he is getting what he deserves...but he is getting what was gonna happen all along. Which is why I have repeatedly said all along, apply a little common sense to the thing...and none of this happens.

Just shut up and don't rock the boat and everything will be ok?

Really? That's your argument?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My point is that just as you claim Christianity is important to Southern Baptists, so too is secularism important to Southern atheists. The majority does not get to trump the constitutional rights of the minority, even if allowing school prayer is considered very important to the religious people of the area.

If the kids themselves start praying without consent from the school board/teachers whatever is considered the "government" in this case, there is nothing that is illegal about it though and no rights are being "trumped". yet, those that dont pray/believe would still be subject to it, or using a little bit of common sense, avoid by excusing themselves til its over. (See how that works?)

What I was saying is that those Baptists have every single right to pray on their own and as they wish (and believe me, they do)...its in the constitution that you seem so enamored with afterall, and again they tend to be staunch in what they do. No one can stop them either...freedom of speech etc as long as the school isnt endorsing it...right?

Again...I am in no way suggesting that anyone here did anything they were not entitled too but the results of what was done were both predictable and unnecessary. But cest lavie....the kid has to live with the decision when it all so easily could have been avoided.