Good for him....perhaps they arent all inbred hicks afterall?
Dammit, I said I was done arguing with you.
But can you please stop taking one person's comment and using that as the debating point against the rest of us who also think its ridiculous.
By the way on Damon's facebook page there is LOTS of religious folks posting messages of support. Just read one by a Christian youth leadership Councillor who said this town is acting very non Christ like.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
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?
Personally? No, not one bit as I listen nor believe in either one. And believe me I am exposed to this stuff often living where I live.
Quote:
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.
Yes he certainly is in better shape now than had he just listened for a couple minutes to something he already didnt believe in.....you sure have a point there.
Good for him....perhaps they arent all inbred hicks afterall?
I've never used derogatory terms like "inbred hicks" to describe Christians in this thread. I've been nothing but respectful and have only demanded that they in turn be respectful of others who don't share their faith.
Having a moment of silence where believers are free to pray and non-believers aren't subjected to enforced prayer by the government is a reasonable compromise that should satisfy everyone. So why is one side (hint: not mine) rejecting it as being "intolerant"?
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Dammit, I said I was done arguing with you.
But can you please stop taking one person's comment and using that as the debating point against the rest of us who also think its ridiculous.
By the way on Damon's facebook page there is LOTS of religious folks posting messages of support. Just read one by a Christian youth leadership Councillor who said this town is acting very non Christ like.
Why would you think that was directed at anyone but the person who made the claim to begin with? I understand you didnt say it......dont worry.
And good for those showing support...great to see and hopefully this kid isnt forced out of town. Hopefully his mother comes around as well.
We just saw someone who did. Lots of people stand up for laws. Don't project your responses onto everyone else.
At this point the courts disagree with you.
At this point the courts disagree with you.
If you don't like it, go get the law changed.
Wow! You don't seem to be adding much in your response. I think we all understood what a slight majority of the supreme court says. Its been posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's the kind of service I am more used to.
What's that got to do with anything?
Well if this kid truely feels bad inside when he hears one clergyman pray I would think hearing a few hundred folks shouting out their prayers might be a little more intrusive to him. I bet it will last longer then the one guy too.
Personally? No, not one bit as I listen nor believe in either one. And believe me I am exposed to this stuff often living where I live.
Well, fair enough then. Since you fail to grasp the nuance between the two situations and don't understand why the atheists are opposed to the latter but have no problem with the former, it's clear now why you think Damon should have just shut up and took it.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I've never used derogatory terms like "inbred hicks" to describe Christians in this thread. I've been nothing but respectful and have only demanded that they in turn be respectful of others who don't share their faith.
Having a moment of silence where believers are free to pray and non-believers aren't subjected to enforced prayer by the government is a reasonable compromise that should satisfy everyone. So why is one side (hint: not mine) rejecting it as being "intolerant"?
I never said you did!!LOL...holy smokes you guys are sensitive. (yes i realize i quoted your post but that was directed at GTF or whatever it is)
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Well, fair enough then. Since you fail to grasp the nuance between the two situations and don't understand why the atheists are opposed to the latter but have no problem with the former, it's clear now why you think Damon should have just shut up and took it.
Yes...I am using common sense. As anyone can if they so choose.
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.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-20-2011 at 04:59 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Yes he certainly is in better shape now than had he just listened for a couple minutes to something he already didnt believe in.....you sure have a point there.
It's pretty clear you disagree with him based on your feeling that he's making an issue out of something that he should perceive as minor and easily overlooked. Thing is, you're not him, and so your opinion on how he should feel is completely irrelevant, and condescending to boot.
We understand your "point" completely: one should bend to authority and not make waves unless you, transplant99, personally approve the cause in question. If you could make up a short list of appropriate causes that I could usefully spend time supporting, that would be ever so helpful. Thanks.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Wow! You don't seem to be adding much in your response.
What is there to add? You want the law changed and things to work based on what you want. The courts have decided the way things are is based on the constitution and is fair for everyone.
I believe both the golden rule AND the silver rule apply; that for an activity that's purpose is to celebrate everyone involved that everyone should be considered and represented in a positive way.
While you may disagree that a state endorsed sectarian prayer in a secular setting does some harm, it at least can (and has been) argued either way and decisions made based for given reasons, you cannot argue that removing the sectarian prayer and replacing it with a moment of silence does any harm (because if you do, then you are also arguing that a state endorsed sectarian prayer does harm, harm to other religions who are having their right to a representative prayer removed/excluded).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I think we all understood what a slight majority of the supreme court says. Its been posted.
Poisoning the well? If it wasn't a slight majority, say it was unanimous, would that mean you would be fully behind the law?
You'd have to work pretty hard to convince me of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Well if this kid truely feels bad inside when he hears one clergyman pray I would think hearing a few hundred folks shouting out their prayers might be a little more intrusive to him. I bet it will last longer then the one guy too.
Misses the point entirely, but I suspect you know that did it intentionally to further denigrate the kid. Gold star.
__________________ 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 jammies
It's pretty clear you disagree with him based on your feeling that he's making an issue out of something that he should perceive as minor and easily overlooked. Thing is, you're not him, and so your opinion on how he should feel is completely irrelevant, and condescending to boot.
We understand your "point" completely: one should bend to authority and not make waves unless you, transplant99, personally approve the cause in question. If you could make up a short list of appropriate causes that I could usefully spend time supporting, that would be ever so helpful. Thanks.
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.
Even the golden rule has its loopholes.
I'm not sure one could come up with an actual Christian Bill of Rights, since the whole setup is totalitarian in nature... there are no rights, only privileges granted if you are lucky enough to happen not to commit a thought crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Damon posted this to say it was what inspired him to send his email to his superintendant.
Ah now the truth comes out; teenage boys will do anything to impress a girl, he totally likes her!
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
