Kirk Cameron Attacks Stephen Hawking

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

It is only your interpretation and opinion that the kid was just being a miscreant or an anarchist. Regardless of his motivations, his principle is correct. And no, he SHOULD be facing the consequences of doing what he did. We all need to face the consequences of our actions and show that we are responsible for what we say and show that we understand the repercussions of the things that we do. The fact that there is so much opposition to his criticism of the event shows that there is a bigger underlying issue here because the majority do not recognize his rights and not even considering that they themselves may be doing something unlawful.

I don't think anybody is under any illusions that once he complained, everybody would have said: "oh no dear boy, I'm so sorry we hurt your feelings" and acquiesced to his demands and banned all future school prayers tied to a specific denominational religion. The issue here is not if it was expected or not. The result was completely predictable which only illustrates the institutionalization of this practice.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Photon nobody stands up for a law. Laws are restrictive at best if not down right punitive. You either bend to the law or resist it if you believe it to be unjustified.

What this kid did was invoke a law to restrict his peer's actions. That is ok if his peer's actions would somehow hurt him. I don't believe they would have; Nor do I believe that their actions would have cause discernable damage to that wall of separation between church and State. The core of my argument is that if no harm can be shown by some clergy saying a short prayer at graduation then the law is without merit and unjustifiably punitive.

I don't know if you've ever been to a southern style prayer meeting but, this young atheist could be in for a shock. I once stepped into one conducted by a group from North Carolina(sp). They don't pray in turn. They all pray at once and loudly. It is quite a shock if your not prepared.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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?)

No, if the students start praying on their own, others would not be "subject to it" as each person has a right to exercise his own freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you are sitting at a restaurant and someone across from you starts praying, they are not infringing your rights. If you take offense to that, it is you yourself that is infringing on their rights.

However, if the institution sanctions the ceremony to be lead in prayer by a religious leader of one religious denomination, and the state allows it to continue, they are in fact sanctioning something that has already been previously ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the separation of church and state has failed in this case.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

No, if the students start praying on their own, others would not be "subject to it" as each person has a right to exercise his own freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you are sitting at a restaurant and someone across from you starts, praying, they are not infringing your rights. If you take offense to that, it is you yourself that is infringing on their rights.

However, if the institution sanctions the ceremony to be lead in prayer by a religious leader of one religious denomination, and the state allows it to continue, they are in fact sanctioning something that has already been previously ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the separation of church and state has failed in this case.

pretty much what i said.

But if someone starts up beside you, how can you claim you are not subjected to it? That makes no sense.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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?)

Nobody in this thread is complaining about over-hearing religious people engaged in prayer. It's not the fact that Damon would be subjected to hearing religious speech that is his complaint. The issue is that public prayer cannot come from a representative of the government. You have failed in this thread, time and again, to understand the reasoning behind his complaint. No reasonable person is offended by the mere idea of prayer or even hearing other people audibly praying in public. The complaint is that it would be unconstitutional for a public school to explicitly or implicitly endorse a religious belief by reciting an incantation at a graduation ceremony.

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?

Did I ever post in this thread (or anywhere else) that religious people don't have the right to free speech and freedom of religion?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Photon nobody stands up for a law. Laws are restrictive at best if not down right punitive. You either bend to the law or resist it if you believe it to be unjustified.

What this kid did was invoke a law to restrict his peer's actions. That is ok if his peer's actions would somehow hurt him. I don't believe they would have; Nor do I believe that their actions would have cause discernable damage to that wall of separation between church and State. The core of my argument is that if no harm can be shown by some clergy saying a short prayer at graduation then the law is without merit and unjustifiably punitive.

I don't know if you've ever been to a southern style prayer meeting but, this young atheist could be in for a shock. I once stepped into one conducted by a group from North Carolina(sp). They don't pray in turn. They all pray at once and loudly. It is quite a shock if your not prepared.

Photon's been at the pulpit before, I don't think it would be a shock to him. I've been at various prayer meetings myself and even I was uncomfortable at my own highschool graduation or other school events lead in prayer.

The core of your argument is that you personally feel that there is no harm to him and that it is insignificant. That's fine, but the fact is that how you personally feel is irrelevant because you are not this person and it is not your rights that are being infringed. You are not a fair judge or arbiter of what is harmful or not to this person. Furthermore, the issue is not about immediate harm or suffering and the appropriate redress. The issue is the constitutional principle of freedom of religion.

If this happened to you in reverse, say you lived in a Muslim country and were subjected to kneeling in the direction of mecca, closing your eyes in accordance with local custom in some school or professional ceremony as part of your job... I have to ask you. Would you feel uncomfortable? I think you would tolerate it and simply pray yourself in quiet and that is admirable. But not all people will tolerate it. Some people will want to stand up for their rights on principle. Isn't that one of the founding messages of Christianity? That you must stand on principle and faith and suffer through persecution even if you are preaching something that goes against the tide of society?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

pretty much what i said.

But if someone starts up beside you, how can you claim you are not subjected to it? That makes no sense.

1. Private citizens engaging in audible prayer in a public space = NO PROBLEM

2. Agents of the government including a religious prayer during the graduation ceremony of a public school = UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Neither the atheist student nor anybody in this thread is complaining about (1), so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stephen Hawkins can't even see the sky without help. I'm not suprised he can't envision heaven.

That might be the worst thing you could post and really makes me question your humanity and your adherence to your religion.

Religion can do a lot of good - but that doesn't mean everyone who believes in a religion is good as can be evidenced by your post.

Edit: So this is what it is like to be late to the party.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But if someone starts up beside you, how can you claim you are not subjected to it? That makes no sense.

Words in the english language often have more than one meaning.

Dictionary meaning #1: open or exposed to

Dictionary meaning #2: being under domination, control, or influence. Being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience.

The first one is being exposed to someone praying beside you and overhearing it. That has nothing to do with this. The legal issue is the second definition. Being subject is being subjugated under an authority and their influence. Group prayer is being enforced and sanctioned by an authority. Therefore you are subject to that prayer and the religion it expouses.

[Reggie Dunlop]

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.

Well, not very many 17-year-olds have a legal team on retainer. Of course contacting the ACLU would be the smart thing to do. That's what they're there for.

[Hack&Lube]

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.

Why is it not wise? Contacting the ACLU is brilliant. Carrying out a constitutional complaint, seeking redress, and getting legal representation for it is brilliant for a 17 year old. Something tells me that every college he applies to will see that on his application and see he has dared to do something most 17 year olds would not and that he has carried out what he said he would do in an intelligent and logical manner. Standing up for his own civil liberties and seeking professional recourse is one more reason why he would probably get into a better college than many of his peers (aside from the fact that it seems some of them don't know the rules of English grammar, according to the Facebook group).

Higher level colleges in the U.S. love this stuff on applications. They don't admit based on SAT scores alone but evidence of personal accomplishments and determination.

[MarchHare]

A Christian pastor in Damon Fowler's Louisiana town wrote an op-ed to the local newspaper calling out the hateful townspeople for acting in a very non-Christian manner.

http://www.bastropenterprise.com/opi...-at-graduation

We often experience shock when circumstances do not align with our viewpoint. One student’s threat removes a Christian prayer from the graduation ceremony and a whirlwind of controversy is stirred. Am I surprised such a thing has taken place in our community? No, but what does surprise me is the response of many Christians. Many are outraged to the point of anger, threats, and retaliation.

[...]

If one professing atheist can stir an entire city to action, think about what impact a large Christian community can have on this city. Anger, threats, and retaliation are not the answer to this crisis – the answer is love, loving others like Jesus loves us.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Photon nobody stands up for a law. Laws are restrictive at best if not down right punitive. You either bend to the law or resist it if you believe it to be unjustified.

We just saw someone who did. Lots of people stand up for laws. Don't project your responses onto everyone else.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What this kid did was invoke a law to restrict his peer's actions. That is ok if his peer's actions would somehow hurt him. I don't believe they would have; Nor do I believe that their actions would have cause discernable damage to that wall of separation between church and State.

At this point the courts disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The core of my argument is that if no harm can be shown by some clergy saying a short prayer at graduation then the law is without merit and unjustifiably punitive.

At this point the courts disagree with you.

If you don't like it, go get the law changed.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't know if you've ever been to a southern style prayer meeting but, this young atheist could be in for a shock. I once stepped into one conducted by a group from North Carolina(sp). They don't pray in turn. They all pray at once and loudly. It is quite a shock if your not prepared.

That's the kind of service I am more used to.

What's that got to do with anything?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nobody in this thread is complaining about over-hearing religious people engaged in prayer. It's not the fact that Damon would be subjected to hearing religious speech that is his complaint. The issue is that public prayer cannot come from a representative of the government. You have failed in this thread, time and again, to understand the reasoning behind his complaint. No reasonable person is offended by the mere idea of prayer or even hearing other people audibly praying in public. The complaint is that it would be unconstitutional for a public school to explicitly or implicitly endorse a religious belief by reciting an incantation at a graduation ceremony.

From his letter/posting explaining things.

My reasoning behind it is that it's emotionally stressing on anyone who isn't Christian

Either we disagree on what he means when he says this or you didnt read things the same way I did.

Did I ever post in this thread (or anywhere else) that religious people don't have the right to free speech and freedom of religion?

No...did I say you did? Im pointing out that he would be "exposed" to praying (since someone wants to play semantics with the word subject to) one way or the other and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

I just think this kid made a very poor choice in doing what he did. Only he knows if it will all be worth it when all is said and done and I hope it all works out for him. A little common sense and a little compromise and none of this has to happen though...not sure that is even debateable..

You and others see it differently which is fine and I respect that. I doubt many respect at all what I am saying however which is quite obvious with many of the claims made in this very thread.

Why is it not wise? Contacting the ACLU is brilliant. Carrying out a constitutional complaint, seeking redress, and getting legal representation for it is brilliant for a 17 year old. Something tells me that every college he applies to will see that on his application and see he has dared to do something most 17 year olds would not and that he has carried out what he said he would do in an intelligent and logical manner. Standing up for his own civil liberties and seeking professional recourse is one more reason why he would probably get into a better college than many of his peers (aside from the fact that it seems some of them don't know the rules of English grammar, according to the Facebook group).

Higher level colleges in the U.S. love this stuff on applications. They don't admit based on SAT scores alone but evidence of personal accomplishments and determination

Perhaps....but perhaps not. Depends on the school and the admissions people I would guess. Thats even if he is going to college...not sure I read that anywhere one way or the other.

One thing is certain he certainly has gotten the attention of the organized atheist movement and that alone could lead to big things for him.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A Christian pastor in Damon Fowler's Louisiana town wrote an op-ed to the local newspaper calling out the hateful townspeople for acting in a very non-Christian manner.

http://www.bastropenterprise.com/opi...-at-graduation

Good for him....perhaps they arent all inbred hicks afterall?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One thing is certain he certainly has gotten the attention of the organized atheist movement and that alone could lead to big things for him.

The Illuminati are going to set him up for life! And he gets a cool robe too.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Photon's been at the pulpit before, I don't think it would be a shock to him. I've been at various prayer meetings myself and even I was uncomfortable at my own highschool graduation or other school events lead in prayer.

The core of your argument is that you personally feel that there is no harm to him and that it is insignificant. That's fine, but the fact is that how you personally feel is irrelevant because you are not this person and it is not your rights that are being infringed. You are not a fair judge of what is harmful or not to this person. Furthermore, the issue is not about immediate harm or suffering and the appropriate redress. The issue is the constitutional principle of freedom of religion.

If this happened to you in reverse, say you lived in a Muslim country and were subjected to kneeling and closing your eyes in accordance with local custom in some school or professional ceremony as part of your job... I have to ask you. Would you feel uncomfortable? I think you would tolerate it and simply pray yourself in quiet and that is admirable. But not all people will tolerate it. Some people will want to stand up for their rights on principle. Isn't that one of the founding messages of Christianity? That you must stand on principle and faith and suffer through persecution even if you are preaching something that goes against the tide of society?

It's more than a feeling; It is a fact that atheist boy would not be harmed by a member of the clergy praying publically at his graduation. If he feels bad inside then so be it. It's not the courts job to prevent someone feeling bad. There's far too many whiners out there for that.

Concerning me going to a Muslim country: It's not going to happen if I am expected to bow my head or kneel to their God. Respecting their open expression of religion I've got no problem with. Now do you think atheist boy could match my tolerence?

Concerning the founding principles of Christianity I don't think they include standing up for your rights. Christianity wasn't a political movement even though some hoped to make it such. It did hold God's authority to be above governments. It also embraced soul liberty which meant one must come unto God of their own free will. I could be wrong on that. I just can't see the link.

In my personal study I've been trying to identify a "christian bill of rights" in scriptures. I've only got a short list so far.

[MarchHare]

Im pointing out that he would be "exposed" to praying (since someone wants to play semantics with the word subject to) one way or the other and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Simple yes or no question for you:

Do you think there's a difference between being "exposed" to religious speech by overhearing private individuals praying near you versus being "exposed" to religious speech when a representative of the government delivers a prayer at the graduation ceremony of your public school?

A little common sense and a little compromise and none of this has to happen though...not sure that is even debateable..

Damon proposed a common-sense compromise right from the start (moment of silence instead of public Christian prayer). What do you think he should have done? Sat silently while the school administration violated his constitutional rights because hey, it's only two minutes of his life, big deal, right? That's not a compromise. That's rolling over and taking it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Concerning me going to a Muslim country: It's not going to happen if I am expected to bow my head or kneel to their God. Respecting their open expression of religion I've got no problem with. Now do you think atheist boy could match my tolerence?

So why should athiest boy be expected to respect your Christian God if you're not going to respect Muslim God?

Also, unless you're also 17 years old, chest thumping your own "tolerance" against his makes you look kind of pathetic.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The Illuminati are going to set him up for life! And he gets a cool robe too.

Dude...the Illuminati is so yesterday......now its the Bohemian Grove group. Check em out!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...ve_exposed.htm